The Points-Per-Round Double-Edged Sword

Yesterday, I revisited the competitive framework that once defined junior tennis in Texas. It was a system that relied heavily on performance-based ratings. Today, I am pivoting toward examining the current methodology that underpins the USTA’s current unified seven-tier system for both adults and juniors. While this saga is leading up to why I have come to believe the Points Per Round (PPR) system within a single unified framework is fundamentally flawed, this post examines and acknowledges that PPR has been genuinely helpful in some cases. There are some aspects of player motivation that PPR gets exactly right.

The single most effective feature of a PPR system is its ability to incentivize participation. Players never lose ranking points or slip in the standings for playing an excessive number of events. In PPR, there is no risk of a “bad loss” torpedoing a player’s ranking. It encourages people to participate in more tournaments, which is undeniably a good thing in a struggling ecosystem and for an organization striving to build participation.

In contrast, as described in yesterday’s post, the performance-based rating system that used to be in place in Texas had a serious downside. Once players locked in their endorsements to the National tournaments, something achieved through their performance-based position in the rankings and satisfying the minimum requirements for tournament play, they stopped. Texas Sectionals was the first tournament in June. After that, the players who had earned National endorsements stopped playing locally to avoid the risk of losing their spots in the upcoming National tournaments. As a result, the top-ranked players in the Section simply disappeared from tournaments in the Section.

That had a ripple effect. Players on the bubble, those just outside the endorsement cutoff, also stayed home. With the top-ranked players absent, the opportunity to achieve the quality wins that would boost a player’s rating evaporated. The risk-reward equation simply didn’t work in their favor and that effect cascaded even further down. During the months when kids should have been playing the most tennis, Texas tournament participation actually thinned out. PPR eliminated that problem. Because players accumulate rather than protect points, there’s no downside to showing up and playing.

However, the tiered system I grew up in also had elements of PPR. That was reflected in how players “Champed Up.” One method was to win the non-Championship division of a Major Zone. That was a tough way to do it and thus highly prestigious. The other path was via ZATs. (Zone Area Tournaments, I think.) Those events awarded advancement and promotional opportunities based on how deep players went in tournaments, as well as draw size. There was also a cumulative point element. I remember that aspect well, because that was the avenue through which Champed Up. I also recall a case where one player, having already secured enough cumulative points to qualify, intentionally lost a match to help a friend achieve the same goal. It was an early education in competitive integrity.

Later, Texas introduced a three-tier system with Super-Champ, Champ, and ZAT levels. That change came after my time, but I observed it with interest. In that system, the two lower tiers operated with independent PPR ecosystems. Players advanced by hitting point thresholds within their own tier—no crossover or shared rankings. That separation mattered. When players moved from one tier to the next level, their absence created more opportunity for the players remaining rather than less. That is a. key point we will visit tomorrow.

To close out today, the Texas Section was compelled to abandon its well-established and effective Junior tournament system when the USTA implemented the unified national seven-tier framework that is currently in effect. A similar initiative was also imposed in Adult tennis. Now, essentially the same PPR-based system is in place for both juniors and adults. While both ecosystems share some of the same negative ramifications, I think it is actually easier to see on the junior side. At the time, junior tennis in Texas was thriving while adult tennis was clearly already struggling.

Tomorrow, I’ll run through my thoughts on what broke when that unified system was put into place—and why a single cumulative PPR rankings method for everyone might sound good in principle but isn’t working in reality.