Seeding points are the sum of your best 4 tournaments, calculated by the following algorithm.
If a player has played 4+ current events (2018-2019), only events from that time frame are used. Older events are used until players have played at least 4 current events.
Tournament levels have a Base Value per team (see table below).
Each tournament is given a Total Point Value by taking the level's Base Value × the number of teams playing.
Ex: a 12-team A tournament would be worth 720 points (60 base × 12 teams).
Team base values are halved for extra teams in bigger divisions (more than 12).
Ex: a 15-team A tournament would be worth 810 points (60 base × 12 teams + 30 half base × 3 teams).
This is meant to give players credit for doing well in bigger divisions while not over-inflating ratings and limiting partnership options too much/too soon, now that some divisions regularly have 16-18 teams.
Players earn a percentage of a tournament's Total Point Value depending on where they finish (see table below).
Ex: 3rd in a 12-team A tournament would earn you 576 points (720 × 80%).
If you finish in the bottom 3rd of a tournament, you only earn 50% of the above calculation.
Ex: a 9th place finish in a 12-team A would earn you 144 points (720 × 40% × 50%).
|Level||Base Value||Team Cap|
Rating points are calculated the same as seeding points, but if you haven't played four events, yet, then your average points per tournament played will be used to estimate your total rating points (players marked with an *).
This estimate assumes you would earn at least 67% of the average of your previous events in future events. Discounting estimated points helps prevent one reasonably strong finish in a player's first event from potentially over inflating their rating.
Ex: say you've played two tournaments, earning 400 points in one & 600 in the other. You would have 1670 Rating Points (400 + 600 = 1000; 1000/2 = 500 avg. per tournament × 67% = 335 points per estimated tournament; (400 + 600) earned points + (335 + 335) estimated points).
Team Rating Point Caps
AA & lower tournaments have Team Rating Point Caps (see table above). This is a guideline for the maximum Rating Points you and your partner (combined) should have to play at each level.
Ex: If you have 2000 Rating Points, and you want to play in a BB tournament, your partner should probably have about 1000 points or less (since the BB Team Rating Cap is 3000 points).
Team Rating Point Caps will adjust over time as more players & events are added to the system, making it more refined.
Team Cap Exceptions
Occaisonally, some exceptions will be made, depending on the makeup of the team & the strength of the field. If a player/team can make a strong case that their rating is inflated, we'll consider letting them break the cap a little.
That being said, it works the other way, too. Just because a player might technically qualify for a certain level, that doesn't mean they should knowingly sandbag a division, even if they "don't have any points." Maybe they haven't played a points tournament before, or maybe their points are from before they were as good as they are now. Whatever the reason, don't be that player.
Assumptions & Logic
Players want to play — especially at a fun, competitive level relative to their own skill.
Players need a better, more definitive interpretation of what each level means, & where they truly fit.
Austin's scene has grown enough to need a variety of levels, so players don't get stuck at the top of a certain level without having a path to advance (ie. the transistion from BB to Open can be difficult, which leads to an over-inflated field at the rest of the lower levels—making it more difficult for everyone to level up).
Points should work across all levels (especially with how many players are somewhere between levels and able to play up or down a little, depending on their partner).
A team combines to determine a rating level. Not an individual (within reason).
Bigger tournaments with more teams &/or at a higher level are worth more points, due to more competition.
Players should be encouraged to play up if they want the experience at a higher level, without worrying about earning an inflated rating that would exclude them from continuing to play at their current level.
Finishing in the bottom third of a tournament generally means a player didn't have much success on the court (usually not having won more than 1 game/match). But, if they did beat/finish ahead of another team, the points should reflect that.
The more tournaments a player plays, the more accurate their rating should become (without getting inflated).
Seeding should be earned over time, but Ratings should strive to become relevant as quickly as possible (& continue to get more accurate over time).
Rating Points are guidelines. That means a player shouldn't sandbag just because they might fit within the point cap on a technicality.
New players who aren't in the system yet should be able to easily compare themselves to other players already in the system and get a better idea of where they fit/what their own rating should be.
Coed tournaments are different & should not apply to the rating system. The overall strength of field in coed tournaments tends to have a much greater variance than Men's or Women's tournaments at a given level. Courtesy rules, whether written or unwritten, contribute to making it a different game as well.
Very few, if any players have dropped a full skill level since we started in 2015. Therefore, we're using all of our Men's & Women's tournaments in order to have the best data possible. Eventually, this will change to having points expire after a couple years, as we continue to run more events & have enough relevant, current data for the ratings to stay valid.
Admittedly, the rating system is currently missing several players who belong at or near the top of the charts. We've run more BB's & A's than anything else, so the data reflects that. The system will continue to get more accurate over time as more players play in the variety of levels we host.