Scott Gerber is not a name that will ring a bell with most of you, but what he does--providing statistical analysis of trends in junior tennis, specifically in the state of Ohio and the Midwest section--should give him a much higher profile than he has.
He recently sent me a report on the restrictions that states in the Midwest place on high school tennis players regarding USTA/ITF play, and it is a comprehensive and well-researched piece that uncovers the startling fact (for those who don't live there, of course) that Ohio prohibits all such play during the high school tennis season. I'm sure there was a good reason for this, but I can't fathom what it is from today's perspective. I am posting Gerber's chart here for those interested, but it is his history of the points-per-round system leading up to his plea for changing Ohio's rule that has the most relevance for all juniors in the U.S. Gerber writes:
In approximately 2004, the USTA moved to a points per round system for ranking players for national tournaments. This system was based on the ranking used by the pros. Players get “points” for each round in a tournament they win. Important tournaments yield far more points for each win than the smaller, typically local tournaments. Gaining enough points allows players to get into other important tournaments and obtain good seeds. Getting good wins in important tournaments is very important if a junior wants an opportunity to play college tennis.
Prior to the points per round system, a “head-to-head” process was used. A simplified example is as follows: if Player “A” beats “B” and “B” beats “C”, then “A” is better than “C”. Under points per round, if “A” beats “B” in a small tournament in Ohio but “B” travels to Chicago and beats “C” in a high level tournament, “B” could be viewed as much, much better than “A”.
The points per round system works reasonably well for professional tennis because it encourages players to participate in tournaments. Fans want to see the best players so they are more likely to purchase tickets to watch them play. The organizers are happy, the fans are happy, and the players have to deal with it. Professional tennis also has ways of dealing with the good, popular players who may not have enough points to play in a specific tournament because they do not have enough points due to an injury, etc. Unfortunately, a win over Roger Federer in this system does not yield any more points than beating the worst player on the tour (but it may help a player earn more money from a sponsor). Of course, in the pros, you also get more prize money as you win more rounds.
Unfortunately for junior tennis, their points per round system was ill-conceived and poorly implemented. It is safe to say that the goal of professional players is to play professional tennis. The goals for juniors are far more numerous. Many juniors (ages 10-18) and their parents still care about doing well in elementary, junior high, and high school; playing other sports (especially the non-high school students); and just being a kid. Kids are also more prone to suspend tennis during family emergencies, family illnesses, or other family priorities. Many kids also encounter injuries as they rapidly grow while playing a demanding sport. To make matters even more difficult for kids, juniors lose their points when they move up to a new age group (at intervals of 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 years). (The points “roll off” for both pros and juniors after 12 months.) This means that many juniors play more than one “age group” so that they can “hit the ground running” when they age out of their current age group.
To make matters even more confusing, time-consuming, and expensive for juniors and their parents, there are also USTA District (i.e. Ohio Valley, Northwest Ohio, Northeast Ohio), Sectional (i.e. Midwest, Florida, Texas), and National points. (Think of this as three different currencies that cannot be exchanged for each other.) Most players try to play a combination of the three while the best players focus simply on Sectional and National tournaments. Initially, the USTA Midwest Section (which includes Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and parts of Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia) refrained from using points per round system for the Midwest Section. This was a wise approach because of the geography of the Midwest (i.e. numerous states with different high school rules, large geographic area, many large population centers, and great big lakes and a traffic nightmare (Chicago) to prevent easy travel throughout the Section). Eventually the Midwest succumbed to the USTA National organization in 2005 and implemented a point system for the Midwest.
Those who defend the points per round system do think it has encouraged more play, although they often concede that it has led to more expensive travel as well. There isn't a perfect system--all systems are compromises-- but I preferred the head-to-head method that serves as the basis for The Tennis Recruiting Network's rankings.
He recently sent me a report on the restrictions that states in the Midwest place on high school tennis players regarding USTA/ITF play, and it is a comprehensive and well-researched piece that uncovers the startling fact (for those who don't live there, of course) that Ohio prohibits all such play during the high school tennis season. I'm sure there was a good reason for this, but I can't fathom what it is from today's perspective. I am posting Gerber's chart here for those interested, but it is his history of the points-per-round system leading up to his plea for changing Ohio's rule that has the most relevance for all juniors in the U.S. Gerber writes:
In approximately 2004, the USTA moved to a points per round system for ranking players for national tournaments. This system was based on the ranking used by the pros. Players get “points” for each round in a tournament they win. Important tournaments yield far more points for each win than the smaller, typically local tournaments. Gaining enough points allows players to get into other important tournaments and obtain good seeds. Getting good wins in important tournaments is very important if a junior wants an opportunity to play college tennis.
Prior to the points per round system, a “head-to-head” process was used. A simplified example is as follows: if Player “A” beats “B” and “B” beats “C”, then “A” is better than “C”. Under points per round, if “A” beats “B” in a small tournament in Ohio but “B” travels to Chicago and beats “C” in a high level tournament, “B” could be viewed as much, much better than “A”.
The points per round system works reasonably well for professional tennis because it encourages players to participate in tournaments. Fans want to see the best players so they are more likely to purchase tickets to watch them play. The organizers are happy, the fans are happy, and the players have to deal with it. Professional tennis also has ways of dealing with the good, popular players who may not have enough points to play in a specific tournament because they do not have enough points due to an injury, etc. Unfortunately, a win over Roger Federer in this system does not yield any more points than beating the worst player on the tour (but it may help a player earn more money from a sponsor). Of course, in the pros, you also get more prize money as you win more rounds.
Unfortunately for junior tennis, their points per round system was ill-conceived and poorly implemented. It is safe to say that the goal of professional players is to play professional tennis. The goals for juniors are far more numerous. Many juniors (ages 10-18) and their parents still care about doing well in elementary, junior high, and high school; playing other sports (especially the non-high school students); and just being a kid. Kids are also more prone to suspend tennis during family emergencies, family illnesses, or other family priorities. Many kids also encounter injuries as they rapidly grow while playing a demanding sport. To make matters even more difficult for kids, juniors lose their points when they move up to a new age group (at intervals of 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 years). (The points “roll off” for both pros and juniors after 12 months.) This means that many juniors play more than one “age group” so that they can “hit the ground running” when they age out of their current age group.
To make matters even more confusing, time-consuming, and expensive for juniors and their parents, there are also USTA District (i.e. Ohio Valley, Northwest Ohio, Northeast Ohio), Sectional (i.e. Midwest, Florida, Texas), and National points. (Think of this as three different currencies that cannot be exchanged for each other.) Most players try to play a combination of the three while the best players focus simply on Sectional and National tournaments. Initially, the USTA Midwest Section (which includes Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and parts of Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia) refrained from using points per round system for the Midwest Section. This was a wise approach because of the geography of the Midwest (i.e. numerous states with different high school rules, large geographic area, many large population centers, and great big lakes and a traffic nightmare (Chicago) to prevent easy travel throughout the Section). Eventually the Midwest succumbed to the USTA National organization in 2005 and implemented a point system for the Midwest.
Those who defend the points per round system do think it has encouraged more play, although they often concede that it has led to more expensive travel as well. There isn't a perfect system--all systems are compromises-- but I preferred the head-to-head method that serves as the basis for The Tennis Recruiting Network's rankings.
Tags:
Post Title
→A Short History of the Points Per Round System
Post URL
→https://dancing-with-the-stars-2011.blogspot.com/2008/09/short-history-of-points-per-round.html
Visit dancing-with-the-stars-2011 for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
