Teams

RCW The Triple Threat (Hoffmaster)

2026 Central Penn Tri-Level League · Womens Non Advancing Tri Level (2.5-3.0-3.5)

14 players · average NTRP 2.83 / CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA

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 standings7 teams · Womens Non Advancing Tri Level (2.5-3.0-3.5)
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1RCW Racquettes - Scull000000
2Bent Creek - Triple the Trouble (Pasic)000000
3Hempfield - No Faults Given (Culp)000000
4Hempfield Sweet Spotters (Culp)000000
5RCW The Triple Threat (Hoffmaster)000000
6Wisehaven - Lamond000000
7Lanc CC -Zechman / Filling000000

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 2.55 estimated across 9 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.

3.25
Jurry Smith
published 3.5
2.98
Susan Rebert
published
2.85
Pam Hoffmaster
published
2.78
Sandra Crespo
published 3
2.75
Brandi Manna
published 3
2.31
Laura Begin
published
Agnes Johnson
published 2.5
Diane Thomas
published 2.5
2.24
Deb Seitz
published 2.5
1.90
Pamela Abreu
published
1.87
Marsha Doom
published
Felice Moody
published
Melissa Kreider
published
Rachel Frey
published
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.

3.5
Jurry Smith
105W–100L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25
Susan Rebert
116W–143L career · no lines in 2026
55%45%<1%
2.98
Pam Hoffmaster
17W–27L career · no lines in 2026
86%14%<1%
2.85
3
Sandra Crespo
213W–264L career · no lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.78
3
Brandi Manna
12W–14L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%4%
2.75
Laura Begin
0W–7L career · no lines in 2026
0%92%8%
2.31
2.5
Agnes Johnson
0W–2L career · type S · no lines in 2026
not enough data
2.5
Diane Thomas
2W–9L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
2.5
Deb Seitz
1W–3L career · type S · no lines in 2026
0%97%3%
2.24
Pamela Abreu
0W–3L career · no lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.90
Marsha Doom
3W–6L career · no lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.87
Felice Moody
102W–55L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Melissa Kreider
0W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Rachel Frey
0W–2L career · no lines in 2026
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.