Voluntary Consolation

Voluntary consolation is a variation of the First Match Loser’s Consolation (FMLC) draw. In that format players that lose their first match have the option of signing up to participate in a back draw. Doing so is not required. When the USTA unveiled the 7 tier unified national tournament system, the voluntary consolation draw was explicitly included as an option at every tier of competition. Today’s post outlines the case for why the format arguably shouldn’t be used.

I am aware that the voluntary consolation format enjoys some advocacy from the adult playing community. The National Senior Men’s Tennis Association (NSMTA) once lobbied hard for it. Their reasoning for that can be seen on a message forum operated by the association in a thread that originated in 2020. In fact, the expectation of the NSMTA at that time was that the voluntary consolation was going to become mandatory for all Level 1 and 2 Senior Adult tournaments.

Voluntary consolation is a great example of how important it is to fully understand a problem before launching into solutions. In the 2020 NSMTA discussion forums, it is clear that the “problem” that voluntary consolation was perceived to solve was excessive player withdrawals from consolation brackets. That problem is actually a symptom of a much larger issue.

If the problem is framed out as “too many players withdrawing from the back draw” then voluntary consolation makes perfect sense. In fact, voluntary consolation pretty much eliminates the need for any player to withdraw unless something happens after back draw play begins. However, that is not the problem that the USTA and the larger ecosystem should be trying to solve.

The actual problem is low participation in the back draw. Framing it out that way makes it possible to take a broader perspective and identify the root causes why back draw participation is low. There are multiple contributing factors to the current situation.

• Ranking Points. Voluntary consolation is a rare draw format that requires a points per round approach. Ranking points earned in a voluntary consolation back draw can only be described as negligible. (Show me a player participating in a back draw solely for ranking points and I will show you a player who fundamentally doesn’t understand the system.)
• Level of Competition. With the exception of “bad draw” outliers, the top players in a tournament will usually not lose their first match. Even when that does occur, a strong player may survey the rest of the field and arrive at the conclusion that the quality of play in the back draw doesn’t justify the continued investment of time. (This effect is particularly exacerbated in junior play where UTR matters greatly for college recruiting. In that case, players are literally risking a “bad loss” with no opportunity for a win that improves their rating.)
• Opportunity to Play Matches. If there is low participation in the back draw, then players who entered a tournament seeking competitive match play eventually bow out if the number of matches available drops below their “worthwhile” threshold.
• Cultural Acceptance. Somewhere along the way, dropping out of back draws at tournaments became acceptable. Under some circumstances it is even regarded as smart. It is not cool to drop out of a back draw. In the past the USTA has tried punitive measures to prevent players from doing that. That is a sordid tale reserved for another day.

The salient question is this: If voluntary consolation is implemented, what impact does it have against the root causes of low back draw participation.

• Ranking Points. Voluntary consolation and the points per round system reduces the ranking point opportunities even lower than the standard FMLC format. For players driven by ranking points, voluntary consolation makes a bad situation even worse by removing points from walkovers.
• Level of Competition. The top players no longer have to make a decision to opt out of the draw format. There is no cogent argument that it would encourage more players to play on the basis of strong competition. It makes the situation worse.
• Opportunity to Play Matches. There is an edge case where voluntary consolation might help because players don’t have to wait around for withdrawals and byes to sift through the draw. However, voluntary consolation reduces the number of players in the back draw to start with. That ultimately translates into fewer matches.
• Cultural Acceptance. Voluntary consolation not only makes opting out of the back draw culturally acceptable, it sanctions it as an official part of the tournament in that draw format. That just changes the title of this particular root cause issue.

Voluntary consolation does not solve the problem of low back draw participation in tennis. In fact, if widely implemented it would further degrade the situation.

The good news is that there is something that the USTA could do immediately that could dramatically improve the situation. That solution is already well-codified in the USTA tournament ranking system policy as well as within the tournament software.

That is our topic for tomorrow.

1. USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, as of February 2022, viewed May 13, 2022.
2. USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations, Amended December 2020, viewed May 13, 2022.
3. NEW Forum Topic: USTA 2021 Tournament Changes – Voluntary Consolations, National Men’s Senior Tennis Association Discussion Forum Introduction, viewed May 13, 2022.
4. Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2022