Last year, I wrote a 21-part series about a rule imposed at the Tom Fey National Tri-Level Invitational Championships that negatively impacted some players from the Texas Section. I thought those posts that thoroughly explored the regulatory authority, rules, and the USTA’s punitive framework had exhausted future topics associated with that particular event for a while. Unfortunately, I was wrong. As this year’s National Championship got underway last weekend out in San Diego, my phone blew up with messages from players aggrieved over yet another questionable and seemingly arbitrary rule imposed at this year’s event.
So here we go again. I tried to dispense with this new episode in a single post. Unfortunately, as the messages and screenshots rolled in, I realized this saga dovetails nicely into a theme I was planning on writing about later this month anyway. It is one of those situations that peels off in layers a little bit like an onion. Today, I am focusing specifically on the experience from the captain and player perspective that emerged last weekend. Next Wednesday we will roll back the clock with another undocumented new rule that was also added this year, which adds a bit more nuance to this episode. Fun times.
The USTA Texas team advancing to the Women’s “High” Tri-Level National Championship only had one 2024 NTRP 5.0 rated player travel to the event due to a last minute work commitment. Consequently, they needed one of the 4.5 players on their roster to “play up” to field that line. At the captain’s meeting, the tournament administrators indicated that players playing up required pre-authorization, presumably by the tournament committee. The Texas team’s captain submitted a list of the possible players she might use on that line, but she was told that only one of her players was approved. In essence, the tournament administration essentially dictated the doubles pairing for the 5.0 line throughout their event.
The “Can they do that?” question is fairly easy to answer. The Tom Fey National Tri-Level Invitational Championships is a National Invitational Event rather than USTA League. I have found that this is a source of great confusion to players because while the event isn’t beholden to USTA League National Regulations, they can freely pick and choose rules from that resource. Also, USTA National sends a representative to the event every year, but that person has no sway or authority over any decisions made by local administration. In essence, the tournament can impose any rule it wants to outside of National oversight.
While Tri-Level and other National Invitational events have a lot of latitude to make their own rules, most players operate under the assumption that those deviations will be documented, communicated in advance, and make logical sense. The root of last year’s fiasco at Tri-Level was a new rule implemented on Championship Sunday that was ambiguous and not communicated to all players. Unfortunately, those lessons were apparently not learned from that episode, because the new rule imposed this year is not well documented either. To put a fine point on it, while the tournament can impose any rule it wants to, it comes with a fundamental responsibility to communicate the rules to the captains and teams before enforcing them. More on that next Wednesday.
The rationale provided by the tournament director to the captain negatively impacted by this decision emphasized that Tri-Level was intended to provide level-based play. That is a noble and reasonable objective that no one would quibble with. However, it also ignores the facts behind the decision. While the Texas Team at the event only had one player available who was 5.0 under last year’s ratings, they had two others who were promoted to 5.0 for this year. However, the tournament director arbitrarily decided that only one of those two players was eligible to play the 5.0 line. That’s nuts. Unfortunately, it was not the current 5.0 player that the team had planned on using on that line.
For future events, it would be perfectly reasonable to impose a rule that if a team is forced to have a player play up, it has to be a promoted player if one is on the roster. While the tournament indicated that the particular player’s selection was due to NTRP performance information, that means the decision was made on non-public data. Additionally, they might have used the current dynamic data which adds another wrinkle.
If the Texas team did not have any recently promoted players on the roster, the tournament administration would have presumably selected only one of the current 4.5s to play up as well. That puts a lot of faith in the accuracy of the NTRP algorithm, and also makes a bad assumption or belief that the numeric ratings of players translate directly into which combination of partnerships will also be better.
In fact, I think there is a pretty good example of that flawed logic reflected in the decision of which player was “authorized” over the other. In selecting player “A” over player “K,” the tournament committee just revealed that A’s dynamic rating is the higher of the two. For doubles, I personally consider player K to actually be the stronger player. It is something I have direct insight into since I have played both head-to-head in doubles within the past year. However, I also think that player “A” is the better singles player. Anyone making an order of strength decision on NTRP rating has to understand that it isn’t exclusive to doubles.
Arbitrarily selecting only one player as eligible ignores the complex dynamics of doubles partnerships. It could force a team to play two lefties together, or two players who have a strong preference for the same receiving court. Additionally, sometimes playing styles don’t mesh well together. Occasionally certain people can’t play well on the same side of the net because they don’t get along. In essence, the tournament administration’s choice to determine the “best” player strictly off non-public ratings data is likely not to be the strongest doubles partnership.
In the case of the Texas Team, I believed their preferred partnership would have resulted in the strongest line they could have put forward at 5.0. In essence, the Tri-Level administration’s decision forces them to go down a weaker path. However, there is a more subtle disadvantage because the Texas Team also practiced their anticipated partnerships before the event. Had they known that the tournament could potentially impose other combinations, they would have likely built that knowledge into their preparations. It can be argued that the tournament’s decision negatively impacts the Texas team across both lines.
One of the justifications provided to the team negatively impacted by this decision is that the tournament has to consider “player experience,” which is a slippery slope. In particular, the appearance of stacking was cited as an overarching principle that drove this particular decision. I hate stacking as much as the next person, and have a very recent blog post that speaks directly to the competitive inequities it can create.
However, it is also important to remember that player experience is a two-way street. I don’t think other teams at Tri-Level would bat an eye if either of the current 5.0’s played on that line. However, this decision created a bad experience for the Texas players who were not allowed to put out what they believed to be their best lineup at the event. I am starting to regard administrative claims of “player experience” as a thinly veiled justification of a bad decision. Creating a bad experience for some players while competitively benefitting others is just icky.
At the Tom Fey National Tri-Level Invitational Championships, I think it is quite reasonable to speculate on what Tom Fey would have done in this situation. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to meet him before he died, but I have talked to some people who knew him. The culture of local authority exhibited at this event is consistent with how Tom Fey conceptualized and ran this event. He was always clear with players and captains that he was operating outside the authority of USTA National oversight. However, he was also known for making fair and equitable decisions. I don’t think this particular scenario would have occurred under his leadership.
Next Wednesday, we will roll back the clock together to examine this episode as a case study in how rules are made and flowed out to impacted stakeholders. I also have a couple of additional posts adjacent to this topic coming in the near future. The first is something that happened at Texas Tri-Level Sectionals this year, which is another useful examination of player experience. I also recognize a need to write a post that outlines the process and procedures for protesting decisions made at USTA League National Championships and their shadowy USTA National Invitational cousins. That last one is for my convenience in anticipation of the next time my phone blows up with questions from players who are having a similar “player experience” at those events.
As long as players compete at the National Tri-Level Invitational Championships and other National Invitational events, they should be aware that the tournament administration may create arbitrary and capricious rules that disadvantage them or negatively impact their player experience. Based on the past couple of years, new rules are likely to emerge on short notice. Players and captains alike should also be aware that nothing can be done to change that or get relief from USTA National. The bottom line is that if you don’t like playing events that can deviate from the USTA League National Regulations without warning or logical justification, National Invitational events probably aren’t for you.
