It is time for the USTA to move into the 21st Century.

During my 29-year Federal Aviation Administration career I never issued a complaint about their staffing, administrative, technical, or managerial policies without including a recommended solution. In retrospect and now somewhat surprisingly, four of my major recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration bureaucracy were nevertheless adopted during my career; one at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, one for the entire FAA Western Pacific Region that was adopted by other FAA Regions, and two at FAA HQ in Washington DC. Actually, all four of them eventually had FAA wide implications.

Due to the fact that the USTA has indicated that the first step(s) in any grievance is to submit the grievance to the league coordinators, I submitted multiple grievances to our Columbia Tennis League Coordinator, Susan Turner over the past five years. This year she finally admitted that she has no clue who makes Appeals to upgrades and Self-rating approvals, the criteria they use, nor the rationale for the decisions. If League Coordinators and State Representatives have no idea of who these decision makers are and which decision makers have oversight over them, who does? Does the Board of Directors of the USTA have ANY idea of which USTA decision makers have been approving bogus and repetitive Appeals to upgrades and Approved Self-Ratings for years, if not decades?

The following are my relatively simple fixes:

1. Please alter your “Self-Rating” policy to limit self-ratings to only those players that have played fewer than 10 sanctioned USTA matches during the previous two years. Otherwise, current USTA match histories, and the resulting USTA algorithm should not only match the Tennisrecord.com algorithm calculated to 1/10,000 of a point, each algorithm and the resulting USTA NTRP will clearly reflect the accurate current NTRP of the player 99% of the time.

2. Please alter your “Appealed-Rating” approvals to no more than a single appeal to prevent an upgrade only once during the previous five years and waive or remove age considerations entirely. No doubt, after each decade passes, tennis players drop in skill level and mobility. However, if the player has played at least 10 USTA matches within his or her proper flights within the previous five years, the resulting Dynamic Rating, at least within the tennisrecord.com website and possibly even the USTA algorithm calculations, quite accurately reflect that player’s skill level, regardless of age.

3. Have your algorithm track 100% of every sanctioned USTA match all year, regardless of the flight or tournament, as long as it is an Official USTA sanctioned and approved match. Have your IT experts publish the final tabulation of ALL USTA player’s final annual Dynamic Rating each December just before Christmas. Players that end up with a 3.0000+, 4.0000+, 5.0000+, 6.0000+, 7.0000+ are upgraded by January 1st of the following year without exception except for items 1 and 2.

These guidelines need not apply to professional US Open, Olympic, and international qualifiers where you have different guidelines for the pros…until they get reach an age where they are no longer are competitive in professional tennis. When that happens, items 1-3 apply to them too.

Please consider that properly programmed algorithms don’t lie; only people do for questionable and challengeable motivations.

In the interest of promoting fair play and sportsmanlike conduct within the United States Tennis Association, I would appreciate a written response to this fall’s version of my now seasonal grievances that I may share with ALL USTA players that I am attempting to represent with this letter.

Please peruse my website at www.rightturnbook.com as well as my resume and training history.

Michael Wayne Templeton

The following is a compilation of 10 grievances (two per year) I have submitted to the USTA over the past 5 years. Below, specific players that were listed in my formal USTA grievances now have their names replaced with a ______. I gave the USTA dozens of examples over the past 5 years. If USTA decision making is fair, balanced and legitimate 99% of the time, why do they hide their own end of year USTA Dynamic Ratings (calculated to 100th of a point by a severely outdated algorithm) with results comparable to the Tennisrecord.com algorithm results calculated to 1/10,000 of a point? Then certain USTA officials, that also remain hidden, unidentified and unaccountable, overrule their own algorithms granting Annual recurring Appeals to upgrades and entirely inappropriate Self-Ratings. These reckless policies spoil the USTA stated intent to promote the spirit of fair play throughout every NTRP level within the entire USTA. Instead, they don't even come close...

? USTA hides their NTRP algorithm results after 100th of a point round off.

? USTA updates their published NTRPs once per year in December.

? USTA hides their Appeals to upgrades, so we don’t know who Appealed, why they were allowed to Appeal, and how often they have Appealed over the previous 10 years of active USTA play.

? The USTA also regularly allows players to Self-Rate that have played in as many as 50 USTA matches or MORE over the previous five years!

? When the USTA approves an Appeal preventing upgrade, or a Self-rating that is obviously incorrect, the ONLY way we have a clue that an unidentified USTA official overruled your own algorithm is by entering the Tennisrecord.com website and searching for the player with the EXACT name and spelling as listed in the USTA membership.

? However, we can’t see multiple USTA Appeals or repeated Self-ratings over the previous 10 years because the USTA hides that information. unless Appeals or Self-ratings are concurrent

? One year I did the math for two of our midlands South Carolina leagues; the Columbia Tennis League and the Lexington Area Tennis Association League. A little over 16% of the players were mis-rated in each league but that number is VERY misleading.

? Appealed players and improperly approved Self rated players regularly register for multiple USTA league flights and tournament brackets in multiple age groups well BELOW their actual ages. For example, some 65+ players regularly register for 18+ and 40+ flights. Many of those same players also register for multiple flights at the higher NTRP level they SHOULD be playing at.

? Each and every year since 2019, (the year I returned to USTA tennis after a 7-year hiatus), I have documented that an average of *1280 Columbia Tennis League and Lexington Area Tennis Association and tournament players have either Appealed their upgrades or Self rated themselves improperly.

? *USTA officials are reminded that each and every match played by the usual suspects in both leagues and all tournaments MUST be included. However, rest assured these annual abuses are NOT state, regional, or local issues, They are systemic to the USTA.

? The combination of all these players being blatantly mis-rated, spoil the well(s) as much as 50% of the time each year, NOT 16% of the time each year!

? Within the Midlands of South Carolina, multiple clubs are guilty of these practices. However, one club in particular has elevated Professional Sandbagging (more commonly described as cheating, into an art form. The Windermere Club located in Blythewood SC.

? Windermere teams and players are obvious examples because at least 12 of the Columbia Tennis League teams I have either captained or co-captained over the past 5 years have faced Windermere’s annual sandbaggers twice in every CTL flight they haunt and twice again in every LATA flight they also choose to haunt.

? At least 200 of the players I personally represent locally know that their nickname is now “Sandbagger Manor” and has been for at least the past three years! Then the regular USTA tournament players I represent in my twice annual USTA grievances also face the same annual sandbaggers in multiple USTA tournaments each year when their USTA NTRPs DO NOT match their Tennisrecord.com Dynamic Ratings calculated to 1/10,000 of a point!

? Those glaring mismatches inform those of us who know how to read numbers what their respective USTA NTRPs should be, and the brackets they should be restricted from playing within.

? The USTA does not publish who makes Appeal and Self rating approval decisions and how their conclusions are drawn. There is an old saying that numbers don’t lie, and liars don’t figure.

? Consider the motivations for playing against players that are far younger than they are and/or in league flights or tournament brackets at the actual NTRP level they should be competing against.

? These semi-clever players no doubt know that they will not be anywhere nearly as successful as they are every year beating up on accurately rated players.

? However, the repetition of these practices clearly reveals that though they no doubt KNOW they will NOT actually win as many matches as they do while beating up on lower rated players, they nevertheless benefit from the common practice of playing higher rated USTA NTRP players and against much younger players.

? Through playing against real competition in much younger age flights and as well as higher NTRPs, it helps make it oh-so-much easier to out-play, out-last and defeat almost all properly rated league and tournament players they face at their opponents’ correct NTRP levels.

? As I attempt to recruit players for teams I either captain or co-captain each year, I am sometimes rebuffed by this argument: Most seasoned USTA players already KNOW that the flights they qualify for are routinely populated by professional sandbaggers.

? Understandably, some players take a measure of offense at being defeated 6/1 and 6/0 in straight sets, especially if a loved one or a friend comes out to cheer them on.

? Family and occasional friend observers are usually clueless about WHY their father, mother, sister, brother or best friend lost to another singles player or doubles players 6/1 and 6/0. Most of them have no earthly idea and it is useless to explain it to them. It just sounds like a lame excuse for losing.

? However, seasoned USTA players are generally well aware that these probabilities are well defined and hypothesized in your own NTRP descriptors within USTA Tennis Link.

? Those descriptors at every NTRP level clearly document the odds of an accurately rated lower level USTA NTRP player defeating a player either accurately rated at a higher USTA NTRP level or one that is obviously inaccurately rated. Those odds? Somewhere between slim and none; especially if, in doubles, two pro sandbaggers pair as they often do at Sandbagger Manor.

? If the USTA’s algorithm calculations are anywhere nearly as accurate as those of Tennisrecord.com, then why don’t algorithm officials at USTA HQ simply publish them in December of every year just as Tennisrecord.com does?

? I have consulted with literally hundreds of USTA players about these NTRP abuses. Perennial Appeals to upgrades and Self rating sandbaggers are NOT fooling the overwhelming number of experienced USTA players.

? The only people they perennially fool are inattentive, easily manipulated, dazed, confused, inept or dare I say corrupt and bribed USTA officials. If these possible explanations are NOT accurate as we are relatively certain some USTA officials will assert, then PLEASE inform us of the USTA policies, procedures and practices that warrant ANY USTA player competing in ANY USTA sanctioned league match or tournament match at an incorrect NTRP level!!

? These practices should have been permanently shelved even before data-based technology entered the 21st century, much less the reality that they are STILL being practiced today.

? Tennisrecord.com publishes the results of their algorithm calculated to 1/10,000 of a point!

? Tennisrecord.com updates and publishes the results of their extraordinarily accurate algorithm every two weeks.

? Tennisrecord.com publishes the Appeals for all the world to see the first time by annotating their Tennisrecord.com names with a scarlet letter “A” next to those players’ names throughout the following year after a benevolent USTA official granted their Appeal.

? Over the previous five years, through research, I have calculated and proven that many USTA players in and around the state Capitol of Columbia, South Carolina and throughout the Midlands have registered Appeals over multiple years.

? In addition to repetitive Appeals to prevent upgrades, Tennisrecord.com programmers also wisely consider most Self-ratings to be fraudulent.

? Tennisrecord.com publishes the results of any USTA match that the USTA “counts” with a lone exception. Their Leadership Team wisely considers that the results of any USTA match involving a Self-rated player to be fraudulent and NOT calculated in their algorithm.

? When USTA officials not only overrule the calculations of its own algorithm, AND the Tennisrecord.com algorithm calculated to 1/10,000 of a point, Tennisrecord.com administrators RESET that players Dynamic Rating in January of the following year.

? There is almost 2000 League Players annually in the Columbia Tennis League and another 2000 in the Lexington Area Tennis Association, but a significant number of players play in both leagues. That means that professional sandbaggers are able to cheat twice as often playing in both leagues and all tournaments.

? But… that’s not all. For example, the Windermere tennis and racket club, playing out of Blythewood South Carolina, has fielded as many as 30% of their players in some flights that have either Appealed their respective upgrades or Self-rated themselves improperly.

? Let’s use one of Windermere’s perennial professional sandbaggers, _____________ as an example. Look him up at Tennisrecord.com. Between 11/14/23 and 8/29/24, he played on 11 different teams, five of them at the 3.5 level and six at the 3.0 level.

? Despite almost playing half his matches at the 3.5 level, he ended up with a 29 / 23 record over those 10 months. Another example is from the preceding year. Despite being well over 68 in 2023, _________ played 5 matches in an18+ flight that year. Then in Jan. of 2024, after ________ Appealed upgrade was inexplicably carried over again, Tennisrecord.com algorithm experts reset his Dynamic Rating to 3.0100!

? The Tennisrecord.com leadership and IT teams are obviously in the development and analyzation of algorithms business and are obviously experts at it. I know this based on 36.5 years of training and experience in electronics and Automation, but it isn’t rocket science.

? Their leadership and IT teams no doubt know that when mere mortal USTA players see 3.0100, 4.0100, 5.0100, or 6.0100 etc. numbers in their Tennisrecord.com January resets, we know that those numbers are no longer accurate.

? However, your League Coordinators have been misled to believe that 3.0100, 4.0100, 5.0100, and 6.0100 Tennisrecord.com Dynamic Ratings posted for ANY USTA player within the Tennisrercord.com website proves that Tennisrecord.com Dynamic ratings are also rounded off and not accurate.

? No, it means that “Whoops, they did it again! It means that TennisRecord.com IT experts know YOUR human decision makers have overruled your own algorithm again.

? Based on these intentional resets of those Dynamic Ratings within Tennisrecord.com, those of us that know how to read and interpret numbers have been tipped off that, in order to discover their numerically correct Dynamic Ratings, we must return to the last USTA match they played the previous year.

? Let’s use my semi-favorite example, annual professional sandbagger _______ again. _____ is not only an expert at annual repetitive duplicity, he also either captains or co-captains most of the Windermere teams he plays on.

? For example, within the 2024 Mixed 40+ 3.0 flight _______ co-captained again this past year, he also managed to recruit or coerce not one, not two, not three, but FOUR other USTA 3.0 NTRP players (besides himself of course) that entered 2024 with Tennisrecord.com Dynamic Ratings above 3.0000.

? Result? Their team was undefeated in all team matches within their flight and once again, qualified for the South Carolina State Championships.

? Even though all USTA NTRPs are represented as being relatively equal within their respective NTRP levels, how is it that _____ team managed to “win” 8 team matches in a row and lose 0 with sometimes lopsided wins?

? I urge USTA officials to simply enter the Tennisrecord.com website, pull up _____ 2024 mixed team and look at the individual match results of any doubles pair on his team where one or both players ended 2023 with a Dynamic Rating over 3.0000.

? Several of the match results were lopsided wipe outs, especially if not one but TWO professional sandbaggers were paired as doubles partners on the same court by ______.

? *As all regular USTA league and tournament players must know by now, the USTA does NOT “count” each and every USTA sanctioned and approved league or tournament match each year. The USTA inexplicably chooses to waive certain flights and brackets from being calculated within their own algorithm(s).

? Tennisrecord.com leadership and IT personnel are well aware of this of course, so any match the USTA ignores in its own calculations are also waived in their algorithm’s Dynamic Rating calculations.

? That is, they will be until or unless the USTA is somehow convinced to calculate the results of ALL league flights and tournament brackets as some of us are advocating.

? This is exactly why teams like Windermere have multiple Championship banners hanging on their court fences. Teams loaded with players rated with numerically correct NTRPs rarely go to state championships, let alone regional championships and beyond.

Please peruse my resume and my training history. Besides having extensive knowledge in digital logics and data-based administration, I am a trained facilitator. I’m not making all this up!

I know how to fix these perennial NTRP abuses. It is actually quite easy to fix using the USTA algorithm(s) you already have. I am willing to travel to USTA HQ on my own dime and facilitate a Problem Solving Workgroup as I have many times over within the Federal Aviation Administration.

? My recommendations are attached in a Microsoft Word Document.