Teams

CCC-Hoffman

2024 · 25 NEGTA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall

13 players · average NTRP 3.67 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2024-12-20Won 10
W#3 DoublesJodi Nevels / Kim Reeves vs Melissa Drake / Ginger Jakins6-2, 6-3
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 · 25 NEGTA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NEGTA/April Crowe8035519259
2Hog Mountain-Bart62281227313
3Longwood-Connolly44202049422
4CCC-Hoffman26142655418
5Sterling-Martin0833774487

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 3.40 estimated across 8 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.

3.56
Gail Chester
usually #4 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.53
Jennifer Loggins
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.52
Amanda Watkins
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #4 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.43
Rena Millwood
usually #1 Doubles 70%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.39
Paula Hoffman
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published
3.30
Kim Reeves
usually #3 Doubles 82%, also #4 Doubles 18% · published
3.28
Jodi Nevels
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Gail Greene
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Pamela Jackson
published
Leslie White
published
Lindsey McCamy
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published
Shawn Shields
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
Susan Smithson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · 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.

Jennifer Loggins + Paula Hoffman2346% gamesnot enough data
Gail Chester + Jennifer Loggins123 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Loggins + Kim Reeves213 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Loggins + Lindsey McCamy123 matchesnot enough data
Susan Smithson + Paula Hoffman123 matchesnot enough data
Paula Hoffman + Rena Millwood123 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.

4
Gail Chester
2W–8L career · 7 lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
3.56
Jennifer Loggins
56W–27L career · 15 lines in 2025
<1%41%59%
3.53
3.5
Amanda Watkins
19W–15L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%45%55%
3.52
Rena Millwood
9W–21L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.43
Paula Hoffman
10W–22L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.39
Kim Reeves
30W–39L career · 11 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.30
Jodi Nevels
4W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%1%99%
3.28
3.5
Gail Greene
1W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Jackson
4W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%5%95%
3.22
Leslie White
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Lindsey McCamy
32W–18L career · 13 lines in 2025
not enough data
Shawn Shields
3W–4L career · 7 lines in 2025
not enough data
Susan Smithson
3W–10L career · 4 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.