Within USTA Texas, it is becoming increasingly common for Leagues at the District level to impose restrictions on players who advance to the Championship playoffs. I personally know of instances where players have been suspended for running afoul of these rules. Yesterday we examined Regulations at the USTA National and Sectional Level that would be in effect if a player advances to the National Championships for more than one team in the same division. Some of the emerging district rules for the same situation are draconian when compared to the National and Sectional regulations.
During a lengthy rain delay at USTA Texas 55+ Sectionals, a captain from the Houston area alerted me to fallout from a District rule recently made within the Houston Tennis Association (HTA) and the North Houston (NoHo) leagues. In 2020, I posted a summary of the relationship between HTA and NoHo in “The Curious Case of the Missing NoHo.” Essentially HTA and NOHO are the same Community Tennis Association that operates as two overlapping districts.
In 2022, HTA/NOHO published new rules associated with multiple leagues that progress to the same Championship. Those rules contain the following provision:
If a player participates in either the Houston Citywide Championships or the NoHo Playoffs and their team wins, they may not participate in any other local league playoff for that league type and Age Group. This rule applies if the teams are the same NTRP levels. Winning a local league championship constitutes a team declaration for the Texas Sectional Championships.
Multiple Leagues Progressing to the Same Championship, 4.03(e)(2)
Yesterday we discussed that the USTA National League Regulations indicate that the Section may require players who advance to more than one Championship to choose which team he or she will represent. Additionally, that post also disclosed that the Texas Section has not actually imposed any restriction or requirement for such a declaration.
In the absence of that guidance, many local CTAs have imposed similar requirements to the one implemented in HTA/NoHo. Though the authority to impose those restrictions is not specifically delegated by the Section office in Texas, the continued emergence of these rules implies tacit approval.
This year the Women’s 4.5 40+ NoHo league had three teams which competed in a double round robin with no playoffs. In other words, the winning team from that league advanced directly to Sectionals. According to the captain from that winning team, the HTA/NoHo district determined that any player on that team that had played 2 matches once the team advanced would be ineligible for playoffs for their HTA teams.
In fact, once that captain’s team clinched the NoHo championship, she had players refuse to play a second match as they did not wish to become ineligible for playoffs for their HTA teams. That captain went from having a very strong team to barely having enough eligible players to compete.
In an ironic twist of fate, her players that elected to prioritize play for their HTA teams did not advance to Sectionals with those teams. If that NoHo league would have had a playoff, then they would have been free to play twice to earn NoHo Sectional eligibility and still play in the playoffs for their HTA team. In that case they still could have played Sectionals with the NoHo team once that team was eliminated.
The authority that is delegated from USTA National to the local Sections (and that possibly flows down to the District level) is intended to provide latitude to “encourage and foster” participation at the local level. The salient question that should be considered is if these local district rules comply with that spirit and intent.
For the captain in this situation, she was questioning whether it was worth captaining teams in NoHo in the future if her roster was continually going to be decimated by that rule. Less captains means less teams will form and that directly translates into fewer opportunities for participation at the individual level.
This and similar rules implemented at the local level have been rationalized as creating opportunities for some players to participate by excluding others. The thinking in HTA/NoHo was likely along the lines that restricting the players that can compete in playoffs creates opportunities for other players to compete. What happened to this particular team was likely not anticipated.
From my perspective, it is a pretty shortsighted argument that preventing a subset of players from participating creates opportunities for others. Fostering and encouraging participation should maximize the number of players that are engaged in tennis. Period.
The fact that these local rules have emerged is an indictment of the culture of USTA League tennis. The punitive language of grievances, disqualifications, and suspension points dominates the Regulations. In that environment, the emergence of rules restricting play was probably inevitable.
To end on a very happy note, the NoHo women’s 4.5 team with the decimated roster still managed to win the Texas 40+ Sectionals last weekend. I guess sometimes having a small cohesive team can be an advantage. Congratulations, ladies!
- Multiple Leagues Progressing to the Same Championship, Houston Tennis Association, document dated December 2021, downloaded June 10, 2022.
