Hi,

I think one way to deal with this situation is that the minimum rating only applies when two of the top three players' rating exceed the norm.

Take U2100 (U6300) as an example, if your top 3 players are 2300, 2150, 1950, then you are eligible to play in U2100. if your top 3 players are 2300, 2050, 1700, then you are still eligible, as only one player exceeds 2100.

The minimum rating requirement is there to prevent having two +250 players and one -500 player to qualify for the division.

Homa

henry kwong <henry_kwong@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,

 

I have some problems with the new division scheme with the minimum and maximum rating criteria as stated.  Our team, PATTC3, came in second in the U-2200 division last season.   According to the new division scheme, I think all but one of our players in our existing team do not pass the minimum rating test of 2100 for the 6600 division and the combined rating of our top 3 players exceeds 5700 also.  Hence, our team will be forced to compete only in the Open division because the Open division does not have minimum or maximum rating requirements.

 

I believe before this division scheme is adopted, all the teams played in the last season should be examined to see how far reaching the impact is and whether all (or most) teams agree or have issues with the division scheme.

 

Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

- Henry -

----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Boot <mboot45@yahoo. com.sg>
To: battf@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:46:06 AM
Subject: [battf] Team League Meeting at Walnut Creek

Members of the BATTF Committee met during the Joola Extravaganza at
1:00 pm, on Saturday, August 4, 2007, at the Tice Valley Community
Gym's classroom. The two-hour meeting featured lively and sometimes
passionate discussion of several topics related to the coming Team
League season.

Attendees: Michael Boot, Mario D'Ortenzio, Stefan Feth, Mark
Johnson, Barry Or, Robert Palgon, and Jerry Sun. NATT's Tom Nguyen
participated as often as he could considering his tournament duties.

Topics and Decisions:

Format-
The question concerned whether to stay with the Olympic format, or
to alter it by extending matches to, e.g., a best-of-nine. The idea
was to get more players to get in more matches, thereby making the
playing day more worthwhile, especially for those traveling to or
from outermost club locations. Decision: Stay with the Olympic
format, and retain the practice of playing all five matches though
the outcome of the tie is determined earlier.

Rationale: a) The Olympic format is used worldwide in team table
tennis, and a goal of US team table tennis should be to unified with
the international system; and b) extending the ties probably will
negatively impact the club members' use of tables because more time
and more tables will be taken up by the Team League.
Administratively and managerially, an extended format would prove
undesirable and unworkable for most clubs.

Scheduling-
Another way for players to get more matches is to play more than one
tie on a given day, mainly for those teams traveling to or from a
distant location. Decision: Adopt such a scheduling method, while
carefully coordinating with all clubs concerned, and using scenarios
such as:

a) Two visiting teams go to a host (H) site. Use 3 tables to
complete 3 ties within the allotted time. As an example, Team A
plays H, Team A plays Team B, and Team B plays H. If two of the
teams has six players, two ties can be played simultaneously, saving
time and table space.

b) Team A can visit two host teams in one day. This could be an
attractive option especially if the team comes from distant clubs.
The two hosting should be relatively close geographically. One could
host Team A in the morning, the other after lunch. Preferably the
second tie should not occur at night; after driving a distance for
the first tie, then playing two ties at different locations, players
may be overly tired to make a long night drive.

Scenario A would work better for some teams, and scenario b for
others.

Decision: Reno teams will come to us.
Rationale: It is much more cost-effective for us.

Decision: Each player of a visiting team shall pay the host club's
use fee.
Rationale: It is one way that clubs can benefit from hosting Team
League ties.

Representation-
European team table tennis has decided to allow a player to
represent only one club, even if that player is a member of more
than one club.

Decision: We will adopt this practice. When competing in Team League
ties, a player shall represent only one club team for the season.
Rationale: It keeps us in synch with international practice.

Ratings-
Last season NATT had some computer glitches that prevented the
implementation of its plan to separate USATT tournament ratings and
Team League ratings. NATT believes it has a better handle on it this
time.

To determine the Team League rating:

1. If a player has a USATT tournament rating and is new to the Team
League, that rating is applied as the basis (start-up rating) in the
Team League.

2. If a player does not have a USATT rating, but has a singles
league rating, that rating is used in Team League as well.

3. A player who has both, and who played in Team League last season,
that player retains the Team League rating with which he ended the
season.

4. An unrated player must be evaluated objectively. A gentlemen's
agreement may not be sufficient. What is needed is a reliable
mechanism by which the rating may be determined, and solve the
question of just who will determine it. A related question is
whether NATT will or should assess a ratings fee.

Once a Team League rating is in place, it will be kept separate from
the USATT tournament rating, and vice-versa, so one rating will have
no effect on the other.

Registration and Beginning of Season-
NATT will soon decide on the registration period. The plan is for it
to begin as early as October and to end in either November or
December, and for the season to begin in January.

Stefan suggested that the registration period end in January so that
players may use the ratings valid as of the end of the US Nationals
in late December. The ratings should be updated by early January.
Then, players must register by the end of January (and schedules
must be drafted) so that competition begins at the start of
February. The season would end in June, with regional playoffs, so
that the national Team League Finals may be held on time during the
US Open in July. This shift in the season's calendar makes it easier
for East Coast teams to complete their seasons in time for the US
Open, since there would be fewer delays due to severe weather.

In my view, the later registration deadline would give us more time
to plan, schedule, advertise, acquire sponsors, and free up energy
many of us will use up on other upcoming tournaments and special
events such as the World Junior Championships. In addition, it gives
us time to schedule the whole season in a more relaxed way, as we
must carefully navigate around sanctioned tournaments in the spring;
the Golden State Open is one example. We and NATT still have to mull
over the pros and cons and arrive at a workable decision.

We will need to bring team reps together in one meeting to discuss
the schedule before posting it.

Entry fee: No increase. New teams pay $149.00; teams still intact
from last season pay $99.00. Players split the amount. The money
goes to NATT. In our region, each existing team still pays to BATTF
the $50.00 difference in order to cover the costs of t-shirts,
printing, and awards.

Clubs that have expressed interest in forming Team League teams:
Santa Cruz, Stanford, Tri-Valley (Pleasanton) and Top Spin (Santa
Clara). I will coordinate for both Concord and Pleasanton.

Mark Johnson proposed dividing the BATTF into northern and southern
sections. Another suggestion was an East-West split. As the League
grows in future years, this may be something to work on.

Divisions-
This one topic probably evinced the most discussion. The divisions
used last season were: 1000, 1500, 1900, 2200, and Open.

Mario proposed a different scheme that is said to work in other
areas of the US, and may be worth a try here. The divisions here
are: 3000, 4500, 5700, 6600, and Open. The numbers reflect the sum
of the ratings of the top three players on the team. Maximum and
minimum rating levels are applied to each division. That is, for
example, within the 3000 division, the top-rated player's rating
maxes at 1250; the lowest-rated player's rating minimizes at 750.
There can be an overlap of 50 points between the divisions.

3000 max 1250 min 750
4500 max 1750 min 1200
5700 max 2150 min 1700
6600 max 2350 min 2100
Open max 0 min 0

Part of the rationale is that it tends to be more fair and
eliminates sandbagging.

Note that this can work over the course of the season. BUT - for the
purposes of the Finals at the US Open, the ratings divisions used
last season are what all teams must go by. That is according to NATT.

NATT and Stefan like the scheme; I invite Mario to explain it all in
more detail for all of us.

T-Shirts and Awards-
Decision: The region will handle both.
Rationale: a) We are collecting money from players in order to cover
the costs; b) We are in a better position to decide on designs; and
c) We cannot rely on either USATT or NATT to do it for us or to
subsidize it.

T-Shirts: What most agreed on was that shirts should show the Team
League emblem on the front, and the club name and the player name on
the back.

Awards: Medals may be preferred over trophies; they are smaller,
simpler, and less expensive. Gold, silver, and bronze are most
appropriate, connected to a ribbon. The top two finishers in each
division could get both medals and team trophies/cups.

Club Benefits-
In what ways do clubs benefit from having teams and hosting ties?

a) Each visiting player pays the host club's use fee, so there is
added income.
b) If clubs obtain a media sponsor, other sponsors will follow suit,
and can help promote both the club, its Team, and the Team League
generally.
c) A club markets itself and the Team League using the club's
website to post information, announce upcoming ties, show the Team
League logo, enable users to find out when the club is hosting, and
to post its team's results and standing relative to the rest of the
League. More hits mean more club exposure. A link to NATT's Team
League site enables easy access to further information.
d) The club and the Team League can be represented at such events as
the US Open, US Nationals, World Junior Championships (Stanford),
International Children's Games (San Francisco July 2008), and at any
tournaments in the area. Arrange to have a vendor booth, prepare
flyers, etc. Arrange for presentations on the main court, and/or
have a separate event featuring the top 3 players in each division.
e) The club's name will be printed in player's t-shirts, so all
spectators can see the club affiliation. The can ask the player or
go to the Internet to find out more about the club.
f) With proper advertising and exposure, club membership can grow.
As it grows, so does participation in coaching programs and overall
income. At least people can have a way of asking about coaching and
play. The club can take pride in helping grow the sport.
g) On a regular basis, and more prominently, written coverage of
Team League events mut be prepared and sent to USATT Magazine. The
focus can be on results, a player, club, etc. Writers and
photographers can be designated by the club and/or by BATTF.
h) USATT and NATT can put more of a priority on publicizing Team
League activity on their websites.

I think that about covers everything. Again, Mario, please make
clearer the idea of the new divisions. Personally, I believe the
prior set-up is much more straightforward.

Best Regards,

Michael Boot
Concord/Tri- Valley TTCs

---

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.