Teams

BC -LLW(2ndPlace)-MiraCosta/TeresaCampbell

2025 Adult 55 & Over - Beach Cities · BC Women - 9.0

16 players · average NTRP 4.61 / SO.CALIFORNIA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →

Flight standings for BC Women - 9.0 have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 4.21 estimated across 15 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

4.66
Jennifer Beindorf
published
4.50
Diana Angell
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 5
4.49
Darcy Simon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 5
4.38
Karen Hankinson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.33
Margaret Procter
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.31
Jennifer Uyeda
published
4.17
Diana Decardenas
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.14
Tammy Bayne
published
4.09
Claudia Vine
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.08
Roselle Paskus
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.08
Karen Beard
published
4.06
Masako Mizuno
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.05
Jennie Speciale
published
4.00
Suzanne Cumbo
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.73
Teresa Campbell
published
Julie Juliani
published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Teresa Campbell + Darcy Simon6058% games+15.8% vs expected
Teresa Campbell + Diana Angell4252% games+9.6% vs expected
Karen Hankinson + Margaret Procter9365% games+3.5% vs expected
Karen Hankinson + Diana Decardenas241158% games+3.0% vs expected
Karen Hankinson + Darcy Simon10655% games+1.3% vs expected
Darcy Simon + Margaret Procter18757% games−0.1% vs expected
Claudia Vine + Suzanne Cumbo637946% games−3.1% vs expected
Diana Decardenas + Darcy Simon213 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

Jennifer Beindorf
15W–7L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%<1%
4.66
5
Diana Angell
96W–52L career · 3 lines in 2025
49%51%<1%
4.50
5
Darcy Simon
96W–61L career · 3 lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
4.49
4.5
Karen Hankinson
131W–70L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%82%18%
4.38
4.5
Margaret Procter
52W–28L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%90%10%
4.33
Jennifer Uyeda
3W–9L career · no lines in 2025
93%7%<1%
4.31
4.5
Diana Decardenas
104W–28L career · 4 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
4.17
Tammy Bayne
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
14%85%<1%
4.14
4.5
Claudia Vine
157W–138L career · 2 lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
4.09
4.5
Roselle Paskus
101W–105L career · 4 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
4.08
Karen Beard
2W–2L career · no lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
4.08
4.5
Masako Mizuno
71W–68L career · 4 lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
4.06
Jennie Speciale
3W–13L career · no lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
4.05
4.5
Suzanne Cumbo
105W–148L career · 2 lines in 2025
50%50%<1%
4.00
Teresa Campbell
6W–8L career · no lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.73
Julie Juliani
4W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.