So far this weekend, as I have written about Points-Per-Round ratings systems, we’ve sidestepped the obvious elephant in the room: the emergence of UTR as a publicly visible ratings system. It’s impossible to ignore that the visibility of UTR likely influenced the USTA’s decision-making when creating the current tournament framework. I’m aware of that context, but for now I’m trying to stay laser-focused on how the USTA’s own system functions today. We’ll circle back to UTR soon as it deserves its own examination in an era when data visibility and transparency are reshaping tennis competition.
In the USTA’s current unified seven-tier structure, selection into the highest-level events (Level 1s) is primarily driven by cumulative Points Per Round (PPR) rankings. The higher your total number of points, the more access you gain. Crucially, the number of ranking points awarded increases with each successive tournament level. The USTA’s intended outcome is clear: the players with the most accumulated points rise to the top and earn automatic acceptance into the most prestigious events.
The problem is that this design creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Players who gain access to the top-level tournaments earn a disproportionately large number of ranking points for every win at those events. Those inflated point totals then secure their entry into future high-level events, where they can rack up even more points. Meanwhile, players who start outside that top tier find it nearly impossible to break in. They can’t earn enough points playing in lower-level tournaments to compete with the cumulative totals of the players above them who have access to higher point events.
The UTR/WTN public ratings visibility elephant in the room makes it even worse. I previously touched on that issue in “Tennis Ratings Management: Junior Edition.” Many of the players who show up consistently in Level 1 events aren’t necessarily better than their peers—they’re simply the ones who already get to play Level 1 events. The path is effectively closed to anyone who starts outside the system or has a slow climb up the ranks.
There’s another unfortunate side effect. Players who already have access to Level 1 events are naturally incentivized to concentrate their efforts there, since those tournaments offer the richest point returns. That means they are often absent from local and Sectional events. Instead of a unified system where the best players must engage with competitive play from up-and-comers, the system creates stratification. The strongest players become siloed at the top, and those outside that tier lose opportunities not only for the growth that can come from competing with much better players, but they are also denied the opportunity to achieve the “good wins” that can improve their performance ratings. It undercuts player development and diminishes the pipeline.
That breakdown is currently even more pronounced in the adult age-group divisions, but for slightly different reasons. The highest-performing players in senior adult tennis are largely focused on Intersectionals and International team selection. The kicker is that the USTA doesn’t even use PPR rankings to determine who gets those spots. Instead, they use performance-based metrics like quality wins and head-to-head matchups. That’s a tacit admission that the rankings don’t mean much. These elite players have figured it out. They don’t need to grind through local tournaments or chase ranking points. They only need to make their way to the big events where they can face the kind of competition that differentiates performance.
As a result, local age-group tournaments are suffering. Participation is essentially nonexistent, especially in the lower-tier events. Why play a Level 5 tournament when it does nothing to help you reach the top, and none of the best players are even there? Even in areas where PPR still technically matters, such as the NTRP National Championships or special events like the Texas Masters, many draws are failing to fill. The system was built around the idea of a chase, but that only works if there’s something worth chasing.
It will be a couple of weeks before I get back to this topic, and that’s probably a good thing. Next weekend is the first in August, thus I will be spending that time on “The Happiness Project.” I think that will be a nice intermission. When this thread resumes, I have a lot of potential themes to pursue. One is examining what happens when publicly visible ratings systems, like UTR and WTN, are in the mix. I also have some “tyranny of the calendar”-based ideas to explore in conjunction with this.
As one final note, Friday’s post has already generated a couple of interesting comments with two completely different takes. I sincerely love that. Understanding and addressing the systemic issues must necessarily involve debate and challenging conversations.
You state “The highest-performing players in senior adult tennis are largely focused on Intersectionals and International team selection. The kicker is that the USTA doesn’t even use PPR rankings to determine who gets those spots. Instead, they use performance-based metrics like quality wins and head-to-head matchups. That’s a tacit admission that the rankings don’t mean much…They don’t need to grind through local tournaments or chase ranking points. They only need to make their way to the big events where they can face the kind of competition that differentiates performance…As a result, local age-group tournaments are suffering. Participation is essentially nonexistent, especially in the lower-tier events.”
I agree the top age group players are focused on Level 1 and 2 events, Intersectionals, and International Team participation. I agree that one reason they play these events is because there are very few high quality local age group events. Why are there so few players in local events? In my opinion, many reasons.
(1) The vast majority of tennis players prefer level based competition, not aged based competition. This is one major reason USTA League play is so popular. It’s no fun to get beat 6-1. 6-1, but it also isn’t much fun to win 6-1, 6-1 against a player whose level of play is not high. Some players will chase points that way, but not the very best players. The best players want to compete against the best players. You see the best players in Level 1 and 2 events. This is because there just aren’t enough high level age group players at the local level, especially in women’s events, to make participation in local tournaments worth the effort, so they go to the national events. And at those national events is where you get the most important award in age group tennis, a gold ball. And best of all the criteria for qualifying is minimal – be a certain age and have the economic ability to travel to the destination and stay there for several days. There is no requirement that you play at any skill level to enter a Level 1 or Level 2 event. None.
(2) The USTA has not for years (and probably decades) had a consistent marketing program to attract age group participation. You can’t grow participation in age group events if players don’t know about the events.
(3) The pool of players who play age group events in national Level 1 and 2 tournaments is small compared to the pool of players who play in League and NTRP events. I would suggest that national age group events were designed to attract the best players and crown a national champion. You might think of it as level based competition for the highest level players in various age groups. In general you would find those high level players in larger metropolitan areas and in places around the country where the length of time you can play during the year is high, places like Florida, Texas, and California.
(4) The USTA in “Friend at Court” requires that there only be one national championship for each age division. Currently there are four Level 1 national championships for each age group and many Level 2 events. Why play a local tournament when you can go to a nice place, stay at a nice hotel, place at a nice club and get some great swag by participating in a national Level 1 or 2 event? The expansion of Level 1 events over what is required by the USTA has certainly cannibalized the local tournaments. How many national League and NTRP tournaments are there in the various skill/age levels? One. And you have skill and performance requirements in order to compete in the various League and NTRP divisions.
I believe that the Points per Round approach really doesn’t mean much in determining seeding for tournaments, and in aggregate the approach is not a good measure in adult age group tennis of the best players given the evolution of national Level 1 and 2 adult tournaments.
The top players in the various age groups deserve a forum or two to compete against other top players. That is level based competition at the highest level. I question whether these top players need four national tournaments when other players with admittedly less skill (to date) can only participate in one national championship annually, and have to meet some challenging qualification criteria (winning local and sectional events) in order to even be considered for the national tournament.
I’m not sure that lack of access to Level 1s is an issue in senior tennis. Draw sizes are so small that practically anyone who is eligible and enters is guaranteed a spot in the draw. The question really becomes why aren’t more people entering senior tennis events? Is it financial? Is it location? Calendar? Pickleball and padel? I think the USTA needs to try to understand why people are staying home.
One of the downsides to PPR rankings is the point chasers. There are a few players who travel across the country racking up points in Level 2, 3, and 4 events who can’t actually come close to competing for a gold ball in Level 1 events. This is why the USTA selection process for international competition is more nuanced and not strictly rankings based (to the USTAs credit – this is how it should be).