This is just some editorializing I did after the Chickering match, with a suggestion that would make sandbagging less advantageous...

If I ruled the World (here's what I'd change about ALTA tennis):

This was the key match of the Fall 1994 season. It was week 5, and we were tied for first place with a team from Chickering. The opposing captain faced a serious problem: his line-up wasn't as deep as he would like for this critical match. He had four quality teams, but the #5 spot was a serious problem.

In a tough situation, he came up with an extraordinary solution: play two alternates at the #1 spot. (One of the players was in his first ALTA match, the other was in his second match after a 6-0 6-0 loss one other week.) The sacrificial lambs, good soldiers all the way, submitted themselves to a 6-0 6-0 slaughter for the greater good of the team. Their nobility was rewarded when the 2s, 4s, and 5s came through, and Chickering won the point count 3-2. When the season ended with both teams tied for first, Chickering got the bag tags.

Now, some of you may be saying, "Wait a second, isn't this is a transparent violation of the 'sandbag' rule?" Oh, you must be referring to rule III E, one of the rules printed in bold type: "'Sandbagging', scheduling stronger pairs below weaker pairs, is prohibited." Yeah, the rule is in there, but here's the really interesting part -- the rule is unenforceable. There's too much imprecision in the rule, too many ways around it. Maybe the captain got some bad information, and his new stars turned out to be a couple of tyros. Maybe they had a horrendous day. Maybe they were hung over. So, for the benefit of any of you who are thinking of becoming an ALTA captain someday, take note: ALTA rule III E doesn't really exist. Don't let that bold type scare you.

Let me add that this is not a condemnation of the Chickering captain for his finesse at the #1 spot. Faced with the prospect of losing a crucial match, he gambled that even a blatant violation of rule III E could not be enforced. He was right. Oh sure, putting two beginners at the #1 spot is quite unsportsmanlike, but let's be honest here: This is competition. The quest is for match points and silver plates. Sportsmanship is admirable, but winning is better. Anyone who doubts that statement need only check the back of Net News, with its point counts duly recorded and its photographs of elated players clutching their victory plates. (Ever seen a picture in Net News of someone proudly displaying a Sportsmanship bag tag?)

Yes, I suppose exercising the loophole has its risks. Risk #1 is looking like a jerk to the other team, but I suppose anyone who would arrange such an obvious sandbag isn't worried about appearances. Risk #2 is how the participants in the sandbag, both the losers and the winners, feel. I heard from my ALTA co-ordinator that season that one of the Chickering players who played on the #1 spot that day quit the team after the match -- I guess being a sacrificial lamb wasn't his idea of a great time. As for the winners, you might think our #1s for the Chickering match would be feeling pretty good about their 6-0 6-0 blow-out, but, in fact, both were furious and called the match "a joke". I can understand their reactions. None of us paid our ALTA dues so we could beat up a couple of weakies.

* * * * * *

So what should be done about the loophole? Let me suggest a rule change. I know ALTA is strongly resistant the rule changes, the philosophy being, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." OK, maybe it ain't broke, but perhaps it can be fine-tuned a bit. Mention this idea to the ALTA playing public and see what they think.

The logic behind this proposal is, if the sandbag rule can't be enforced, then make sandbagging less advantageous. To accomplish this, vary the number of points awarded for a win at each position. One possible system is: give 6 points for a win at the #1 spot, 5 points for the #2 spot, 4 for the #3 spot, 3 for the #4 spot, and 2 for the #5 spot. With proportionately more points given for wins at the higher positions, captains would think twice before moving their best players down to the lower ranks. There may still be an occasional sandbag, but the sandbaggers would be conceding 30% of the available points for that day. Conceding that many points every week would probably knock a team out of the playoffs, so it is unlikely a team would ever succeed in sandbagging its way to a championship. (Under the current system, sandbagging your way to the City Championship can be done and has been done -- don't kid yourself into thinking it isn't the percentage play in many situations.)

There are other advantages to adopting a 6-5-4-3-2 weighting scheme to score matches. I can think of three other benefits:

1. Under the current rules, whenever a team forfeits a position due to a player not showing for a match, all lower positions are forfeited as well. This rule prevents teams from forfeiting a high spot when they do not have a full line-up, but it is harsh and overly punitive. In addition, it can lead to wasted weeks -- the players scheduled to play the lower positions may show up only to find there is no match to play, even though all four players for a forfeited position are at the match site. And, it can lead to unfair advantages: a team that picks up extra points merely because one opposing player was unable to show up in time has acquired a significant advantage over the other teams with playoff chances.

   With the weighting scheme acting as an equalizer for each position, ALTA could eliminate the current rule on forfeiting lower positions whenever a given position is not played. So, if a player fails to show for a match, only that position is recorded as a loss; similarly, if a captain is unable to field a full line-up in a given week, he could choose the position he wants to forfeit. (Of course, the captain would have to factor in the potential losses: the higher the forfeiting position is, the more points being conceded for that week.)

2. Under the current rules, the #1s and #2s usually play first, followed, in order, by the #3s, #4s, and #5s. This is done because of the harsh penalty just mentioned: if a team is unable to play one position due to a player not showing, all matches under that position are forfeited as well. So, despite the fact that playing the #5s and #4s first, followed, in order, by the #3s, #2s, and #1s, would be the most natural order for a match and would certainly make the matches more interesting, this match order is almost never seen. Instead, teams play the top positions first out of concern that an early match may be played and won, yet will still be recorded as a loss if, in a later match, a player at a higher position does not show.

   Of course, if the rule on forfeiting lower positions can be eliminated, then there is no longer a compelling reason to play the top positions first. The #4s and #5s could play first, resulting in more spectator interest for the later matches.

3. Another rule that could be eliminated if a 6-5-4-3-2 scheme is adopted would be the player movement rules; i.e. an individual can move up to two positions from the position last played, while a team can move at most one position (with a special case for apparent "sandbags"). With a point weighting system in effect, it really wouldn't matter if, for example, a player jumped from the #1 spot to the #5 spot in consecutive weeks, since the weighting factor of the position would again be the equalizer. Personally, I don't think there is any real problem with the current player movement rules, but my general feeling is, if a rule is not necessary, it may be well be eliminated.

A final comment on this point system: with a 6-5-4-3-2 point scheme, a team that wins the #1 and #2 spots and loses the other three would get 11 points to the other team's 9 points. The fact that the team "won" the overall match but lost more individual matches may be unappealing to some, but keep in mind the points, not the overall match results, are the basis for determining the winners at the end of the season. With an 11-9 split, the 2 points gained by the winning team would amount to a small advantage. If the two teams ended the season in a tie, tie-break advantage could still be given to the team that won more individual matches in head-to-head competition (though, under this point system, ties at season's end would surely be a rarity).