My recent posts on the rules surrounding the common practice of “double dipping” in USTA League play generated an interesting comment. As I broke down some of the rules gyrations within USTA Texas that have resulted from the Section’s election to allow its players to compete on multiple USTA League Teams, I received an interesting comment from a friend in Intermountain. To paraphrase, she indicated that the whole concept was foreign to her and that she wasn’t aware of any players in her local league who played on multiple teams. It is the perfect opportunity to look at how another Section handles the authority to allow players to double dip.
To briefly recap, my post “The USTA Encourages Double Dipping” described the National regulations that allow players to compete on multiple teams and delegates some decision-making down to the Sections. That post was followed up by “Double Dipping at the USTA Sectional Level,” which described how USTA Texas accepted the delegated authority, declared that double dipping is allowed within the Section, and further delegated the authority to allow players to double dip down to the local level.
This post breaks down how Intermountain responded to that same delegated authority from USTA National.
As an editorial aside, I am not a big fan of how the Intermountain League Regulations are structured. For example, in the only copies of the Intermountain League Regulations I could find, the first and only section in the document starts the numbering with 11. Rather than an homage to Spinal Tap, it is a pretty good indication that the Intermountain League Regulations are an excerpt from a more broadly scoped document. I see other structural issues, many of which likely stem from the complications of making local changes in a document that likely requires a lengthy review and approval process.
To illustrate one of the side effects of the decision to include the League Operating Procedures within a unified Intermountain Regulations document, the acronym “ITA” is used without expansion here, as the term was likely disambiguated in one of the earlier sections. In this case, ITA presumably stands for Intermountain Tennis Association, as evidenced by limited use of that acronym for Intermountain events within the USTA. The usage here does not refer to the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, the most familiar ITA in tennis. It can be confusing out of context.
In fact, it was kind of difficult to locate an authoritative copy of the Intermountain League Regulations at all. I eventually settled on a “2025” version reached by following a couple of links that originated from the USTA Colorado District League page. Ironically, the Colorado resource page is very well structured, even without the beneficial comparison to the Intermountain public-facing web presence.
In any case, Intermountain Regulation 11.A.3.a explicitly delegates authority to make decisions for a fairly long list of items down to the District level. That part of the Intermountain League Operating Procedures contains some awkward wording that is probably supposed to convey that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is also where the ITA (Intermountain) acronym first appears in the document. The 11th item in the list explicitly delegates the authority to allow double dipping to the District level.
As per regulation 1.00 in the USTA League Tennis National Regulations, the ITA delegates authority to Districts in certain matters including, but not limited to:
USTA Intermountain League Regulations, 11.A.3.a.11
- Authorize participation in more than one NTRP level within an Age Group in the same local league during the same season.
That sends us to the rulebook for the Colorado District since Denver is where the player who left the comment that sparked this inquiry is from.
A player may play on only one (1) team within Colorado in all leagues that use Straight NTRP Levels.
USTA Colorado, Regulation 2.00A
This brings us to an abrupt and inescapable conclusion. The reason players compete for only one team in Colorado is because the District has imposed a one-team cap. In other words, Colorado explicitly prohibits double dipping. It’s a stark contrast when compared to my local area in Texas.
The glorious thing about this exercise is that Intermountain and Colorado both have rules that don’t exist within USTA Texas. Some of those are potential best practices that I think all Sections should consider. Other rules in these documents provide fascinating glimpses into the cultural differences between the Sections. I’m still deciding how hard to pull on those threads right now.
- 2025 League Section Regulations, USTA Intermountain Section, dated 2/14/2024.
- Colorado District League Regulations, USTA Colorado District, v.2024-1.6
I enjoy your articles, Theresa!
I have played (and captained) USTA leagues in Colorado for about 12 years. I wish they did allow “double dipping” in women’s and men’s leagues. I think we should petition for this since it is allowed in other sections! Most “neighboring” levels play on different days of the week. I wonder if it would make it easier to move up, which I am finding extremely difficult as a 3.0 player. Last year I played up at 3.5, and I find the competition at 3.5 to be much more fun (and I’m doing pretty well but still didn’t move up). The ability to play up 1 level is nice, but it is limited. A team must have 75% of players at level, which allows 1-3 per team, depending on team size of course. Teams can apply for a waiver if not at 75%, but there has to be a “good reason” for it.
Double dipping is allowed in mixed leagues (actually all “combined” NTRP leagues – so 55+, 65+) in CO. For mixed, it’s a bit odd since matches for all levels are played on Sundays – there are 2 different times. You can play in 2 different levels as long as they play at different times on Sundays. In 18+ and 40+ mixed, 6.0, 8.0 and 10.0 play at noon, 7.0 and 9.0 play at 3pm. For example, I played both 6.0 and 7.0 mixed last season and will again this year.
“ITA” mixed starts after USTA 40+ mixed, and is odd “combined” NTRP levels, so 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, etc. You can play 2 levels in that also. Interestingly, this is the only instance of “ITA” in all the league names, at least for the Denver metro area I play in. I’ve been under the impression that ITA only applies to this mixed league.
My best friend plays in Denver and is NTRP rated a 2.5. Some of her teammates from last year did not get bumped but decided to play up to 3.0 this year. They are prohibited on playing on a 2.5 team now because of the “one team” rule. So weird! In Raleigh (plus the surrounding areas of Cary and Durham) we can play at level, one level up, 18+, 40+, 55+, 65+, etc. Someone in their 70s could hypothetically play on 12 teams if they wanted!