Teams

Howard/PC/Foothills

2026 Foothills Spring 40 & Over League · Men 3.0

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-05-03vs Qualifier TeamWon 20
W#1 DoublesJason Howard / Jason Harris vs William Roork / Clarke Hobson6-0, 6-4
W#2 DoublesTim Wood / Matt Everley vs Marc Setzer / Eloy ROY6-4, 6-3
2026-04-25vs Qualifier TeamWon 21
W#1 DoublesBradley Connor / Eric Geyer vs Neil Burkhead / William Roork2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJonathan Hata / Roger May vs Perry Pao / Kevin Woods3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJASON WINFIELD / Roger Irvin vs Timothy Gannon / Clarke Hobson0-6, 5-7
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 standings1 teams · Men 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Howard/PC/Foothills1031430

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 2.80 estimated across 11 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.

3.06
Jason Harris
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.97
Duncan McMillan
published 3
2.97
Jonathan Hata
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Tim Wood
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Roger Irvin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.84
Jason Howard
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.81
Bradley Connor
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.80
Matt Everley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.64
Eric Geyer
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.56
JASON WINFIELD
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.42
Roger May
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Terry Collins
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.

Duncan McMillan + Bradley Connor7352% games+8.0% vs expected
Matt Everley + Jason Howard224 matchesnot enough data
Duncan McMillan + Jason Harris213 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.

Jason Harris
21W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%33%67%
3.06
3
Duncan McMillan
13W–9L career · no lines in 2026
<1%58%42%
2.97
Jonathan Hata
7W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%59%41%
2.97
Tim Wood
7W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%77%23%
2.90
Roger Irvin
1W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%87%12%
2.85
Jason Howard
10W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%88%12%
2.84
3
Bradley Connor
12W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
1%92%8%
2.81
Matt Everley
11W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
1%93%6%
2.80
3
Eric Geyer
3W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
13%86%<1%
2.64
3
JASON WINFIELD
2W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
33%67%<1%
2.56
Roger May
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
72%28%<1%
2.42
Terry Collins
2W–3L 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.