One person suggested:

[1] Stop self rated sandbagging.  Let all self rated folks sign up for free. After 5 matches or so they can pay their $21 and get computer rated. If their rating comes out above their self rating, they need to play from then on at the higher level. To play above local playoffs they need a computer rating.  Downside: It may scare people off from joining USTA, if they can't be

guaranteed to play in districts.

[2] Stop people from sandbagging a season/appealling to get yet another chance at Nationals.  Have a National rule that you get one shot at Nationals at each level. If you've been there for 4.0 before, you don't get to go again.  Someone else gets a shot.  Downside: Captains may not know whose been to Nationals already.  Lots of folks feel they should get to play at Nationals over and over

at a level until they win.

[3] Too many people winning at a level, then appealling, then winning at a level again, and again, and again.  Two options: Only allow one appeal every two years. Only grant appeals if they have not had a winning season at the level they are appealling to get into.  Downside: There are quite a few folks that truely believe the computer is messed up and they should not be bumped.

[4] Have a Captains Trophy Nationals that rewards captains that put out the most evenly matched teams. A 3-2 match with all courts going to third sets would get 15 points for the both captains. The captain with the most points at the end of the season gets to take her team to Nationals.

Another person suggested:

[5] No self-rated players allowed in post-season play.

[6] Any player who wins 5 or more matches at Districts and beyond is automatically bumped up at the end of the year.

[7] No rating appeals of any kind (no NTRP appeals, no medical appeals).

[8] No more multiple-team playing allowed (e.g., play 3.5 and 4.0, but not two different 4.0 teams).  If players could play on only _one_ 4.0 team, would all the top-of-level 4.0 players play on one team, knowing they'll have to split playing time with each other? My guess is NO. The big shots want to strut their stuff and can't if they're not in the lineup.

To this point 8, there was a comment:

Why?  On one hand, it will probably mean less league revenues for those who play at the same level in 3-4 playing areas, everyone playing the odds that one of the ringer teams will move forward.  On the other hand, it could also mean more chance for the "normal" players to see the post-season.  The flip side is that I know some people (not ringers) who like to play at the same level in multiple (adjacent) playing areas just so they can get more playing time, usually with a different set of friends -- this one seems in the spirit of the game.

Also, people play one level but are good enough to play the next level up, should remember what the "three strikes" thing is about.  I've also wondered if it is more often the case that honest players playing leagues and /or tournaments are the ones getting snagged by the "three strikes".  While the ones that know how to "work the system" walk away scot free.

And a counter:

The current system encourages enterprising captains to sign up as many ringers as possible. However, if a player could only play on one 4.0 team, would 30 ringers all band together on one team if forced to make this choice:

Choice #1: Join a SuperTeam, but most likely only play 2-3 matches all season (the captain needs to get in 2 matches for everyone, so no one gets to play much)

Choice #2: Join a different team, and be a coddled superstar, playing every match

My hunch is that Choice #2 would prevail in a landslide. Those 30 players would each want more playing time and would therefore play on other teams instead of banding together on one team just to ride the pine.

Another issue with the current system is that when a "star" player goes 23-0 on 4 different teams, then abandons 3 of those teams come playoff time, those 3 other teams he abandoned may be taking a playoff spot they don't really deserve, thereby knocking out a team who deserves that spot. The main benefit in this current system is that the strongest players get more league play. It's like Bonds playing for the Giants in a day game, then DH'ing for the A's at night just to get in some extra BP.

If someone wants more league play, play up. If he wants still more, play tournaments.

Another person chimed in with these additional suggestions:

[9] Must play four or more matches during regular season to qualify for post-season play.  (Or make it a percentage. Some flights will play eight matches in a season, thus four of those might be a lot. But, 4 out of twelve matches seems reasonable. So, 25% minimum of the teams total matches to qualify for post season?)?  Reasoning: more matches allows opportunity for strikes.

[10] TWO strikes and you’re UP – Option for self AND computer rated players.  Example: You receive a warning from USTA that you have reached 2 strikes:

a. You can stay at level –  And risk a third strike, thus messing up the team’s win/loss record and likely ending their playoff chances, due to retroactive win reversals.  But no longer qualify for post-season play

b. Or, you can choose to receive a free upgrade to the new level at any point after the notification.

[11] Regarding Strikes

a. Retires (at any point in the match) may not count as a strike.

b. A strike is not valid if it comes from beating a player with an at-level losing record. (computer error / poor benchmark player).