I know and understand the reasons why we have the 3rd set tiebreaker. But the last two matches we played the tie breakers came down to horrible calls that determined the outcome of the matches. I think because of the tie breaker people are more stressed about winning because of the movement of flights whereas USTA it doesn't directly mean as much. A tie breaker does not reflect the match as a whole and personally I don't think it should be worth only one point. The point system needs to reflect the whole uncertainty that is now happening. 3 and 2 would be much better than 4-1.
The Board did briefly discuss this at the last meeting. However, at this point no change is being recommended. At the top of this FAQ page we have copied the procedure for requesting reviews of our rules and/or procedures. If you would like to recommend a change in points awarded, then you are welcome to write up a complete recommendation along with information on how it would benefit the league as a whole. It is preferable to gather support for your recommendation from other teams so that we know the recommendation has widespread support. The issue with changing from the current 4-1 point allocation to 3-2 is that it does not really reward the team winning the match very much. With just 1 point separating the winner and the loser of the match, results in each flight could be incredibly close, with potentially many more ties in total points at the end of the season. Teams get 1 point for winning a set whether they win 6-0 or 7-6. The thinking of the Board is that the winning team's points should still be considerably higher than the team that loses. Even though the team may have won in a tiebreak. However, we will gladly review any recommendations that come in per the procedure detailed above and in our Rules.
7 person(s) had a similar situation.