Section/National Adult/Senior Competition Discussion
Sunday, Sep. 6 2009, 7:30am
Grand Hyatt Hotel, New York
Attendee’s:
- Ms. Carol Wood Mid Atl
- Mr Ken Robinson N. Cal
- Ms. Annette Buck S. Cal
- Ms. Sheila Banks PNW
- Ms. Theresa Bowen Nat Staff
- Ms. Kathy Langer Comm chair/Texas
- Ms. Susan Habeeb Southern
- Ms. Megan Gooden Mid States
- Ms. Sue Ann Stuntz Mid States
- Mr. Steve Hayden Midwest
- Mr. Steve Duffel Southern
- Ms. Stefanie
- Mr. Frank Kelly Texas
- Ms. Lynn Lozano Intermountain
- Ms. Dina Ingersole Eastern
- Ms. Diane Ansay Midwest
1. PPR – Are Sections using PPR for District/Section rankings? How does the new national point structure impact Section play?
- Most sections use PPR for section ranking and Sections have had a mixed reviews on the impact of this method of ranking.
- Mid Atlantic: does not use PPR for section rankings…used the STAR ranking system (head-to-head)
o Feels that PPR discourages players to play section tournaments
o All section tournaments are open to other sections
o Four section tournaments have prize money
- S. Cal: uses PPR for section rankings
o Believes that the PPR ranking method has a negative effect on local tournaments
o Tournaments have also been impacted due to the increase of league plan
o All section tournaments are open to other sections
o Ten section tournaments have prize money
- Pacific NW: uses PPR for section rankings
o Second year for PPR rankings…seemed pleased at this point
o All section tournaments are open to other sections
o Most section tournaments have prize money
- N. Cal: does not use PPR for section rankings…uses the STAR ranking system
o Initially started with the PPR ranking system however found the STAR system more accurate. Went back to the STAR system in 2008.
- Mid States: uses PPR for section rankings
o Moving to new tournament formats such as one-day formats to encourage play for those players that don’t have time for weekend events. Gives 20 points/round for tournament wins towards ranking.
- Texas: uses PPR for section rankings
o Incorporates best six tournament results into section ranking.
o With the STAR method of rankings, some players stopped playing the second half of the year when they had early success.
- Midwest: uses PPR for section rankings
o Has seen a significant increase in tournament play due to the PPR ranking method.
o Only a few tournaments have prize money
o All section tournaments are open to other sections expect one…initiated (in 2008) a section closed end-of-year tournament for all age brackets.
o Have very few section/district NTRP tournaments
2. How are Sections encouraging bids for Cat I National Championships and Cat II USTA tournaments? Are there sites and tournament directors you would recommend for future events?
- Mid Atlantic: is moving a Cat II to another venue
- Midwest: there is pressure to market our Cat IIs to the out-of-state section players…finding this a bit difficult to do. Prize monies and sponsors do help.
- S. Cal: recommends making a poster that national would develop and make, of all Cat II tournaments to be placed at each Cat I tournament site. List tournaments, locations, dates, age groups, etc. E-mails to tournament players would help.
- Midwest: USTA limits e-mail blasts…sections depend upon their own developed e-mail list of tournament players
- Mid Atlantic: Need to offer ‘perks’ and have a good tournament location to attract players
- Mid States: Some of the older players still dependent upon mailings
3. Other topics
- Consider raising the points of districts/sections to promote more play…the lowering of points has impacted district play the most and has limited those interested in national competition to play section events.
Steve Hayden/National Committee member/Midwest Section representative