Teams

Bulnes-Salina

Adult 18 & Over Mixed Tri-Level · 7.0-9.0 Mixed Tri-Level

16 players · average NTRP 4.00 / KANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-11-17vs TCC/Lobatos-TopekaWon 10
W#1 Mixed DoublesRafael Bulnes / Rebecca Pavot vs Rachel Seitz / Santiago Rendon7-5, 6-2
2024-10-27vs Wegner-CrestviewWon 10
W#1 Mixed DoublesRafael Bulnes / Rebecca Pavot vs Sandy Wegner / Matt Becker6-1, 6-2
2024-10-27vs Wegner-CrestviewWon 10
W#1 Mixed DoublesRebecca Pavot / Rafael Bulnes vs Mary Askren / Matt Becker3-6, 6-3, 1-0
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings5 teams · 7.0-9.0 Mixed Tri-Level
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Bulnes-Salina8221921228
2Wegner-Crestview64151535287
3Solovey/Loomis-Genesis45121534255
4Eccles-Topeka46141635270
5TCC/Lobatos-Topeka27101737278

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.62 estimated across 10 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.

4.24
Rebecca Pavot
usually #1 Mixed Doubles 100% · published
3.91
Amy Mathew
published 4
3.80
Jeremy Nelson
published
3.75
Sarah Craig
published
3.68
Bianca Bulnes
published 4
3.65
Scott Ritter
published
3.63
Karen Speaks
published
3.40
Peter Gassie
published
3.20
MJ Sharp
published
2.97
Megan Salas
published
Jill Ahlers
published
MacKenzie Morris
published
Michael Ethridge
published
Miles Cusick
published
Rafael Bulnes
published
Terry Neal
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.

Scott Ritter + Karen Speaks9557% gamesnot enough data
Scott Ritter + Rebecca Pavot404 matchesnot enough data
Rafael Bulnes + MacKenzie Morris303 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.

Rebecca Pavot
32W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%95%2%
4.24
4
Amy Mathew
89W–121L career · no lines in 2025
<1%76%24%
3.91
Jeremy Nelson
16W–11L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.80
Sarah Craig
69W–44L career · no lines in 2025
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Bianca Bulnes
59W–17L career · no lines in 2025
9%91%1%
3.68
Scott Ritter
104W–49L career · no lines in 2025
13%87%<1%
3.65
Karen Speaks
134W–94L career · no lines in 2025
15%84%<1%
3.63
Peter Gassie
15W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
3.40
MJ Sharp
63W–27L career · no lines in 2025
6%93%1%
3.20
Megan Salas
55W–30L career · no lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
2.97
Jill Ahlers
40W–39L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
MacKenzie Morris
5W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Michael Ethridge
0W–6L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Miles Cusick
20W–11L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Rafael Bulnes
9W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Terry Neal
22W–38L 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.