Potential ITA Proposal - Line-ups

[Coach]

Here is something hat might be worth discussion!!This is somthing that has been suggested by one of the D3 coaches

DIVISION III TENNIS LINEUP REGULATIONS

Problem:
Unfair lineups are created when coaches do not play their singles players and doubles teams in order of ability. Switching players to create favorable match ups or putting a lesser player at the top of the lineup, which pushes everyone else down, are two of the most frequently noted problems.

Problem Causes:
(1) Lack of universal agreement among coaches on the basis for placing players in order of ability.
(2) Coaches who keep players out of proper order because of team dynamic considerations. 
(3) Coaches who think that a switch in order to produce a favorable match up is a legal strategy.
(4) Coaches who believe they need to be proactive in countering inappropriate lineups by opponents.

Problem Solution: Possible ITA Lineup Rules for Division III
(1) Winning percentage is the only basis for determining lineup order.  A coach can move a singles player or doubles team up only if their winning percentage is better than the player or team they are replacing. 
(2) A coach is required to move a team or player up one position if their winning percentage is 20% greater than the player or team above them.  In the case of a #1 player who has won 70% of his matches and a #2 player who has won 89% of his matches a switch is possible but not required.
(3) Changes in the lineup starting on March 15 may occur only at half-month intervals- March 15, April 1, April 15, and May 1.   Only a one-position move up or down is permitted at each date.
(4) The winning percentage for a newly formed doubles team is calculated by averaging the winning percentage of the two individual doubles players.  After they have played together for a month, then their winning percentage as a team determines their order.
(5) When a player returns to the lineup after an absence the coach may place him in the lineup at the same position he held before the absence, or at a lower position, depending on the situation.
(6) Coaches are required to inform their next opponents of any lineup order changes two days in advance.  These would be the first matches after March 15, April 1, April 15, and May 1.  However, last minute deletions from the lineup because of sickness, injury, or conflicts are always possible.
(7) There are no penalties for noncompliance.  There are no enforcement committees.  Division III coaches will encourage each other to follow the lineup guidelines.  Compliance depends on the ethical behavior of coaches who agree they will set their lineups according to winning percentage. 

Solution Benefits:
(1) The solution identifies winning percentage as the only ethical basis for lineup order.  Many coaches, players, and parents do not know this.  The solution creates ethical transparency.  Now everyone can identify and protest unethical behavior from an objective standard.
(2) Coaches are sometimes reluctant to make lineup switches because of personal considerations.  Perhaps they do not want to put a freshman ahead of a senior; or perhaps they do not want to show lack of confidence in a player who is struggling.  Under this system coaches are required to make changes when twenty percent differences in winning percentages dictate switches.
(3) The solution provides incentive to every player who is having a good season and who thinks he deserves to play higher.  For example, the undefeated freshman star that the coach placed at #6 at the beginning of the season will move up if his teammates are not producing similar records.
(4) In the final analysis the solution depends on the integrity of the coaches and players.  Division III is fortunate to have so many high integrity individuals.  This solution will help us keep it that way.

[jameybaxter]

All I had to see was point #7.  This has NO teeth to it.  This is nothing other than a suggestion.  The current ITA rules do the same thing, only without the guideline, as they set a date by which teh lineups are to be "set".

Ok, say for instance, you are "the freshman" mentioned above.  You in a good conference, but one that struggles at the bottom of lineups.  On March date, after 5 matches the lineup is this:
1) Sr Stud 3-2
2) Jr Stud 4-1
3) Backboard 5-0
4) Flashy Guy 3-2
5) Soph 5-0
6) "The Freshman" 5-0
So, does #4 become #6?  Or does 4-5 switch and screw the #6 guy?  In 3 weeks the results happen the same again by position.  Flashy has 30% more wins than Soph, and "The Freshman" is STILL undefeated.  Does he still stay at number 6 and 4-5 switch again?
Do the results "reset" every eval period?
What about the guy "#7 guy" that subs in the lineup and wins 2 matches.  What if #5 loses 3/5 matches in 2 weeks? Now #7 is better than #5, even though he just subbed in for #6?
This system is FLAWED. 
 
I do think that something needs to be done, but I'm certain this isn't it.  Maybe there needs to be some sort of system that takes the coaches' "average" lineups and sets them after a certain time.
For instance:
In a 10 week period the line up was:
1) Sr Stud           90% #1
2) Jr Stud            90% #2
3) Backboard        50% #3 50% #4
4) Flashy Guy       50% #4 50% #3
5) Soph               80% #5
6) "The Freshman" 80% at #6
In this system, you create a "locked" lineup where you base the players movement based upon where they have played all year.  In this example #4 and #3 could be interchangable, but all others are locked into place.  Each coach would have the others' lineups after a certain date.  If a different lineup is entered into results, there would be a flag that would pop up and the ITA and conference would be notified.  If an infraction occurred, then the match is forfeited and all matches played would be recorded as 6-0, 6-0 official losses.  How is that for a penalty for cheating?

[NorthernPride]

The problem with stacking or cheating is that there is no way to possibly regulate it. I agree with Jamey that Coaches solution is flawed. However, the "locked lineup" scenario is also flawed. Say that the freshman was not ready for college life and partied way to much in the fall (since the fall is only individuals and not "team"). He is placed at #6, but when he realizes the intesity of the team atmosphere, he stops partying and focuses on tennis. By the time April comes around, with the quality players around him and the amount of tennis played in dual matches, it is very possible that he is much better, especially in deep teams.  He is now consistently better than the #3, 4, and 5 players, but since he is on a good team, these players arent loosing that many matches anyways. If they are locked in then wouldn't that be "stacking" since your playing a "better" player later in the lineup? The reverse is that if you do move him up to his rightful position, then other people would think it would be stacking. The worse part is that if they then played a really good team, and the freshman got beat at the #3 spot (because the guy was better and would have taken anybody they put at 3), they are really going to get accused of cheating.

With high quality tennis, anybody can win on any day. Also, players can get hot for a week or month and they can also perform badly for a week or a month. Since nobody is there watching practice except for the coaches and other players, it should really be the coaches decision. Hopefully the coaches have good morals and are prepared to do their job correctly.

When playing against the teams that do decide to "cheat", the players just have to go out and do their job, win the match. You can not get unfocused because you think player X is playing higher than he should. Everybody has thier own style of play and could be on an off day, or having the match of his/her life.

[jpjohnsonmc]

I would say you tell the Freshman not to party or he'll screw up his chances in the Spring.  I think as long as the standards are there and people know what they are they'll try to meet them.   If anything, this makes players accountable year round and will most likely improve their game.

I agree regarding players being hot, etc.  It's hard to lock someone in when they're in a slump.  I think it's too complex right now to regulate.

However, I do think that by the time conference tourneys and the national tourney rolls around and it really matters, coaches have determined talent and the lineups should get locked at that point...barring an injury.  This would be much easier to regulate as it is submitted to the conference before the conference tourney and it keeps coaches from stacking against one team b/c they'll struggle when they hit nationals.

[jameybaxter]

It would have to be done far enough out that the results could normalize and you would be looking at a significant sample size.

For example, I played literally ALL OVER the lineup in 3 years.  Not to brag, but I had flashy strokes and a lot of pop.  I looked believable at #1, I would just look outmatched.  I was a top doubles player in my conference, so I was believable.  However, I hardly played singles, and it was due to a ongoing battle with a shoulder injury that lasted for years.  My freshman year we stacked like crazy.  There was no penalty for it so we did it.  There was no penalty so EVERY coach did it, especially in the competitive Gulf South Conference.  I played a match at #1 and played a guy that I KNEW was the team's #5 player. 

There will always be cheating in college tennis.  From lineups to line calls, it will ALWAYS be there.  It just needs to be more difficult. 

[jameybaxter]

Otherwise, why not have a date where by coaches have a "locked lineup" of their choosing.  The players could be moved up or down no more than one spot after that date, barring a medically documented injury, or player disciplinary action.  It would also be EASY to have this online somewhere.  if a red flag comes up, the ITA and/or conference investigates.

[d3tennis]

There are things to like about this proposal and things to dislike. I think that winning percentage should play more of a role in determining line-ups. I also think that the current protest system is flawed b/c it makes decisions after the match. I think it would be better to have a system that allows you to protest before hand in order to make sure the match is played with fair line-ups. This would require some type of line-up submission before you play a match. Its more likely this could be done at the conference level. When it comes to the NCAAs you must submit your line-up prior to the tournament already and its upto the coaches to protest or not protest before hand. You would be taking that and putting it into the regular season.

Jamey the current rules say that you can only move a player one spot unless they have been removed from the line-up for more than 3 weeks due to injury. Also you are not allowed to move someone in your line-up for disciplinary action unless it is moving them totally out of your line-up.

What I don't like about this system is that it forces you to make changes with disregard to who you play. If you play a really tough schedule and your team has great depth but not that strong of a #1 or #2, then those guys are going to have poor records opposed to your other guys who will have good records. You would be forced to change them despite the fact that your #1 and #2 are better than everyone else on your team. The same thing applies when you play teams that are not that strong, your 3-6 will have easy wins, while most teams (no matter how bad they are) have a good #1 and more than likely a good #2.

I do think that this would be good to use as a guide for protests, if the winning percentage is moved up to 40% or maybe 50%. This way a guy who is 5-5 at #1, would only be forced to change if the #2 is 10-0 and someone protests the line-up and the conference/ITA feels a change is warranted. But it does not force you to change if no one protests.

Truthfully there is not perfect system to stop stacking. No matter what you put in place there will always be ways around it. I do think the protest system needs to be addressed for the regular season.

[tennisscout]

just curious, what prompted all this?  a specific match?

[Coach]

This was one of the talking points at the coaches meeting during the men's NCAA championships in Maine this past May. This proposal is a product of that discussion.

[rajiv123]

Otherwise, why not have a date where by coaches have a "locked lineup" of their choosing.  The players could be moved up or down no more than one spot after that date, barring a medically documented injury, or player disciplinary action.  It would also be EASY to have this online somewhere.  if a red flag comes up, the ITA and/or conference investigates.



SMART LIPO
Werbe Blogger

[karim]

One of the fundamental challenges in coalition military operations lies in that the networks employed by the coalition members are heterogeneous. In addition, each organization needs to enforce certain administrative and operational policies when they interact over the network owned and operated by other organizations. Thus, without careful planning and coordination, U.S. troops cannot communicate with UK troops or leverage the communication infrastructure operated by UK troops in the same region. In this project, our main focus is to improve the interoperability of heterogeneous tactical wireless networks and sensor infrastructure of multiple coalition partners in both data delivery and control plane operations.

Mazda RX8 Parts