The criteria for being nominated for, and then possibly awarded, D.F.O. 3.0 Player of the Year, D.F.O. Doubles Team of the Year, and D.F.O. 3.0 Captain of the Year are, per D.F.O. rules that are completely arbitrary and made up, and are as simple as steps 1-10:
The Awards
1) The 3.0er of the Year
2) The Singles Player of the Year
3) The Doubles Player of the Year
4) The Doubles Team of the Year
5) The Captain of the Year
6) The Special 3.0er of the Year
The Awards Description
1) The 3.0er of the Year
1A) Typically given to the 3.0er with the most wins over the calendar year
1B) Typically given to the 3.0er with wins in all three phases - league, tournament, and playoff play
2) The Singles Player of the Year
2A) Typically given to the 3.0er with the most singles wins over the calendar year
2B) Doubles wins are not counted
2C) League, playoff, and tournament wins are all counted, in that order of preference
2D) An individual with head-to-head victories over a player with more overall singles wins may be given a voting edge
3) The Doubles Player of the Year
3A) Typically given to the 3.0er with the most doubles wins over the calendar year
3B) Singles wins are not counted
3C) League, playoff, and tournament wins are all counted, in that order of preference
3D) An individual with head-to-head victories over a player with more overall doubles wins may be given a voting edge
4) The Doubles Team of the Year
4A) Typically given to the doubles team with the most tag-team wins over the calendar year
4B) Wins with another partner are not counted
4C) League, playoff, and tournament wins are all counted, in that order of preference
4D) An team with head-to-head victories over another team with more overall doubles wins may be given a voting edge
5) The Special 3.0er of the Year
5A) Typically given to a 3.0er whose performance during the calendar year was so fantastic it simply cannot be ignored
5B) The award may be given to a player, a doubles team, or a Captain
5C) The award is not automatic; that is, it is not given out every year
5D) Examples of winning the award include, but are not limited, to the following:
5D.1) Contributions to the 3.0 game
5D.2) Historical first-time feats
5D.3) Comeback stories
5D.4) Other really cool stuff we can't fathom at this point
Nomination Rules
1) The player must be a 3.0 player during the season AND for more than one season (see note 1, below)
2) The player must have won a team USTA/MIDWEST Ohio State Championships Championship or have entered a tournament to be nominated (see note 2)
3) League, playoff, and tournament play is not required to be nominated, but all three facets will be considered in the voting process (see note 3)
4) Play at the 3.0 level will be given more weight and precedence than play at any other level (see note 4)
5) Play at the 3.5 level and above will not be considered (see note 5)
7) In fact, success with Criteria #5 probably hurts a nominee's chances more than it helps nominee's chances (see note 7)
8) A player's longevity in the 3.0 level will be taken into account and will act as a possible tie-breaker against younger, possibly newer and less experience 3.0ers (see note 8)
9) Singles events are counted for singles players; doubles events for doubles players ... which means there will be both a SINGLES and DOUBLES team of the year depending on number of players and number of events! However, a player's success in one category will not be considered for voting in another category (see note 9)
10) Major tournaments, hereby known as Majors*, will be given precedence in voting over minor tournaments, hereby known as Minors (see note 10)
11) The individuals/teams which meet the above criteria will be then placed in categories of the following to simplify (or complicate) the voting:
11A.1) Most league wins
11A.2) Most tournament wins
11A.3) Most playoff wins
11A.4) Most overall wins
Awarding Rules
1) The voting process is, at the end of the day, completely arbitrary.
2) Votes will be tallied from captains, fans, and the D.F.O. Voting Panel.
3) The D.F.O. Voting Panel, however, will have final say, or vote, over any and all voting matters. Democracy in action!
4) While the voting process is, at the end of the day, completely arbitrary, some themes do exist as to who will be awarded the greatest pretend tennis award this organization awards.
4A) Wins.
4A.1) Singles wins for the Player of the Year are of primary import.
4A.2) Doubles wins, as a tandmen, are of primary import for the Doubles Team of the Year.
4A.3) Overall team wins are of primary import for Captain of the Year.
4A.4) For Player and Doubles Team of the The Year, league, tournament, and playoff wins are all counted.
4A.5) All wins are equal in the eyes of the Voting Panel!
4A.6) However, some wins are considered even MORE equal to other wins. The Voting Panel is finicky that way.
4A.6.1) In general, league wins, then playoff wins, then tournament wins are considered significant in that particular order.
4A.7) A player who wins league, tournament, and playoff matches super-duper impresses the Voting Panel.
4A.8) A tournament championship and/or a Midwest Ohio State Championships Championship also super-duper impresses the Voting Panel.
4A.9) Any player that has the most 3.0 wins is going to be almost impossible to ignore, especially if those wins have come in all three phases of 3.0 play. That's pretty rock solid.
4A.9.1) Exceptions to 4A.9 include, but are not limited to, tournament or team championships (like 2009's Keith Moeller becoming the first ever to win both a single and a doubles tournament in the same season!), head-to-head tennis battles (like Towpath teammates Matt Birkbeck and John Ragner in 2015!), and history making events and/or wins (like Chuck Bishop's two tournament titles in 2007!). Or really, really cool stories (like the heart- warming 2016 Brother's Caldera story!).
4A.10) But basically, yeah, overall wins is kind of a big, big deal as far as the Voting Panel is concerned.
5) If an idividual or team has wins in all three phases - league, tournament, and playoff - and has the most overall wins, well, boy howdy, that's an even bigger big deal!
Nomination Notes
NOTE 1: Duh. I mean, it's in the title of the silly award.
But the "one season" rule is a bit more complicated. Though, not really. Simply put, "One-and-Done" players are deemed ineligible for this most coveted of all coveted awards. That's what you get for being too good! And as the USTA typically assigns it's NTRP rating for the next season in December, this gives us at the DFO plenty of time to consider who is who and mostly, and all-importantly, who is too good for us!
Though, we admit, disqualifying people for being too good too soon seems ... harsh. And seems to be anti-improvement and hard word, but as we at DFO often say, "this award isn't about the best tennis player, it's about the best 3.0 tennis player"! And if you're so good that you are only a 3.0 for one year, well, are you really a 3.0er? Hmmmm??
NOTE 2: This is possibly the most controversial rule of all the DFO Player of the Year nomination rules for it immediately excludes a large number of potential Player of the Year nominees who have enjoyed fantastic league seasons but, for whatever reason, did not win an USTA/MIDWEST Ohio State Championships Championship or play in any tournaments during the year. So, is this rule fair? Does this rule allow all worthy nominees to be considered? The answer is simple.
No! Not even close!
But come on, have you ever tried to look up EVERY 3.0 player who played USTA league play in the state of Ohio? Or tried to navigate all the Flight, Section, Regional, etc., championship teams in an effort to somehow narrow down possible worthy nominees? Because we have, and it's a rabbit hole of data and stat investigation that will slowly drive you and your spouse - but mostly your spouse - insane. So, for the sake of time and the sake of brevity and the sake of our marriages, this rule was instituted to provide some framework for the most prestigious made-up award the DFO has to offer.
However, to try to broaden potential nominees, this rule was actually loosened from the initial, and much more stringent, rule. That is, the initial rule mandated that a player, to be considered, had to be a finalist in a tournament, either the Championship or Consolation final, to be considered for Player of the Year; and initially, there was no consideration for league play at all. However, the new, and friendler rule, states that a player must only enter a tournament to be considered for Player of the Year and/or be a member of a Ohio State Championship Team! So think of it this way - if you at least enter a tournament and default because you didn't show up, you're up for possible nomination. THE SYSTEM WORKS! Sorta.
Anyway, we at the DFO appreciate the never-give-up attitude of the 3.0 world, a world that is often told to, well, give up. But, thanks to most events having a consolation round, there are often opportunities for the 3.0 tennis warriors to prove their status versus their peers once again, and let's be honest, the consolation rounds are probably the most legit 3.0 competition that exists. As such, Consolation finals, as well as Consolation Championships, will be super considered during voting.
NOTE 3: Tournament and League play? And playoff play?? What an endurance machine these people are!
Again, this may be the most controversial rule of all, which is why we tried to hide this rule so it's hidden and no one actually reads it. That is, league play, where most people play and where typically the best players play, which by definition is probably where the best players in the 3.0 world actually are, is NOT the SOLE factor when considering or determining the DFO 3.0 Player of the Year. Which begs the question - "how come?" Well, for one, league play simply doesn't require the time commitment of a tournament, which can take up to four days to complete, so, clearly, tournament play is a true* sign of a player's commitment to 3.0 greatness. Further, tournament play often requires multiple long-distance drive times, and that's another sign of not just commitment to one's 3.0 craft but also commitment to pay for gas and being away from your loved ones for long periods of time (or their ability to put up with you being away, depending on how you look at it). Thirdly, the physical grind of multiple days of. tennis and potential long cramped car rides really shows the physical makeup of someone, and league play, played once a week, simply does not show the true mental and physical GRIND that tournament play exhibits. Moreover, tournament play is incredibly way easier to track than league play, and trying to track every single 3.0 league play player in all of Northeast Ohio, well, that's just ... too much (even for us). Finally, it's a tournament. With a trophy! That's gotta count for something, eh?!
Which begs a further question - which is rated higher by the Voting Panel? League play? Playoff play? Tournament play? Well, each has its own strengths. And weaknesses! League play, for example, has the biggest field of players and the biggest opportunity for play. But it also has, in general, the biggest wild card in terms of strength of field, where you have lifelong 3.0ers intermixed with one-and-done 3.0ers. Tournament play, on the other hand, has the smallest field but the most dedicated field. And while it has some players who are playing up, it often has more that are one-and-done as well. Meaning, in the minds of some, tournament play > than league play. But what of playoff play? Playoffs, where the best of the best ply their trade for 3.0 glory, shows who is truly the best, but the more success you have in playoffs, the more likely you are closer to 3.5 than 3.0, so is success here a true testament to a players 3.0 quality? Or his tennis quality? WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
So, while all three facets, league, tournament, and playoff play are taken into consideration, like the Colonel's secret blend of spices, we here at DFO won't divulge WHICH facet we take into greater consideration!
NOTE 4: A 3.5 or 4.0 tournament win, while impressive, isn't a 3.0 win, ergo, it's like it never happened. In fact, it could actually count AGAINST the nominee as it brings into question how legitimate their 3.0 status ever actually was. Hmmmm??
NOTE 5: Seriously, who do you think you are?
NOTE 6: Just driving home the point.
NOTE 7: Indeed, if a player has success at a level above 3.0, the question must be asked - are they a legit 3.0? Sure, it's easy to say "well, that player played up, and that should be commended, because they challenged themselves and their game." And it's easy to say "why do you want to stay in the 3.0 level all your life, what's the point of that?" All very true, yes. But you know what? This award is for 3.0 players, and while we commend your ability to play up and play up successfully, we're getting tired of your attitude, so we're moving on.
NOTE 8: As the 3.0 level is often the entry level for low level rec league tennis, and the U.S.T.A. rating system pretty much puts everyone at that level to begin, it is not uncommon for new players who are actually probably 3.5's to begin as 3.0's and then sweep through the season, racking up accolade after accolade against more, ahem, veteran 3.0 players. Let us be quick to point out there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and these players should be commended for working their way to the 3.5 level or above after but one season at the 3.0 level. However, when it comes to voting for the DFO 3.0 Player of the Year Award, a more, ahem, "seasoned" 3.0 player will enjoy the benefit of the doubt versus a "one-and-done" 3.0 player. Let that be a lesson to you! (Though we aren't sure what that lesson exactly is)
NOTE 9: Two awards! WHAT AN HONOR FOR ALL INVOLVED! However, some players are singles specialists and some are doubles, which is totally commendable, especially at the 3.0 level where it's almost impossible to host more than one 3.0 tournament a season, either because of lack of people or, well, lack of interest. Thus, while being able to play BOTH singles and doubles is commended, they will be treated as separate awards. Because, why not have more than one award that no one probably cares about?
NOTE 10: What makes a tournament considered a"Major*" or a "Minor" tournament? Mostly this very special and unique criteria - longevity. And existence. So two criteria, I guess. A Major* tournament has existed for longer than two or three seasons. In fact, the Akron Open, Paramount Winter Championships, and Paramount Fall Championships, are - or were - considered Majors* because they've all been around, relatively consistently, for more than a decade. A "Minor" is a tournament that either no longer exists OR has recently emerged on the scene but simply doesn't have the longevity of the aforementioned three big grand daddies of them all (and by "grandaddies" we're talking about some events that are almost teenage years, like 15 or 16 years old, so...). So the Midwest Independence Open would be an example of a current Minor.
As we will begin with the year 2000 tomorrow, you’ll have to be patient and wait it out, because you never know! (Though you probably do, Mr. 3.5!)
I'll admit I haven't even read all the fine print in this Tax Code-like magna carta, but it's looking like you've written rules to totally exclude me from any chance at an award. I guess I'll just go pout in my trophy room and polish the hardware I've won this year.
Love it!!! I’ve literally waited months, hell, over a YEAR for the results to tumble in! Also, any thought AT ALL to a DFO HoF?! Keep up the good* work!