What You Told Us: Results of the Summer Program Survey

Thank you. That’s the first thing that needs saying.

Over three weeks in late June and early July, 107 of you filled out our Summer Program Survey — and 53 took the extra time to write out detailed comments about what worked, what didn’t, and what you’d like to see next. That’s a remarkable response rate for a volunteer-run association, and it gives us something we didn’t have before: a clear picture of who’s playing our programs and what they actually want.

Here’s what we learned.

Who answered

The survey drew a heavily intermediate crowd. Three-quarters of respondents placed themselves somewhere in the 3.0 to 3.5 range — including 24 people who chose “in between 3.0 and 3.5,” which tells us something on its own about how hard self-rating can be.

Just 8 respondents identified as 2.5 or beginner, and 18 as 4.0 or above. Our programming is being shaped, and used, primarily by intermediate players — but the smaller groups at both ends had some of the strongest opinions, and we’ll get to those.

Leagues, not just ladders

Asked which format interests them most, 91% wanted leagues — 49 chose leagues outright and 41 chose “both.” Only 9 people picked ladders alone.

The program types people are hungriest for:

• High intermediate round robin — 42%
• Mixed paddles in — 40%
• Intermediate open play round robin — 33%
• Ladder — 28%
• Queens Court — 24%
• Advanced 4.0+ round robin — 17%
• Partner ladder / partner round robin — 16% each
• Beginner programming — 6%

On what they want to play: mixed doubles (78%) and gender doubles (77%) run neck and neck. Singles interest is minimal at 8%. A few of you asked for singles leagues in the comments — there just isn’t the volume yet to build one.

Monday nights and morning coffee

Days were clearer than we expected. Monday is the runaway winner at 84%, followed by Wednesday (72%), Friday (67%), Thursday (62%) and Tuesday (59%). Saturday trails at 37%.

Time slots split almost evenly between two very different constituencies:

• 5:30–7:30 p.m. — 52%
• 8:30–10:30 a.m. — 52%
• 10:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. — 43%
• 7:30–9:30 p.m. — 26%

That morning/early-evening split matters. Several working members made the point directly — one wrote simply that having the evening options is great. Meanwhile the 7:30 p.m. start drew consistent grumbles about being too late. A few of you floated a mid-afternoon slot around 3 or 4 p.m. as an untapped middle ground.

Semi-competitive is the sweet spot

Asked how competitive they want programs to be, half of you chose “semi-competitive.” Thirty said competitive, 23 said casual. That’s the balance point our program design should be aiming for — real games that count, without turning every night into a tournament.

Related: 44 of you said no to recorded scores, 32 had no preference, and 28 said yes. Score-keeping is not the draw most players are looking for. As one respondent noted with good humour, plenty of people who answered “no” really meant “don’t care” — a fair critique of our answer options, and one we’ll fix next time.

Why people show up

The reasons for joining were overwhelmingly, well, human:

• Social — 79%
• Fitness — 75%
• Improving skills — 73%
• Competition — 49%

Competition is real for about half of you. Community is the reason for nearly everyone.

Two clear logistics answers

Program length: 6 to 8 weeks, decisively. Fifty chose 8 weeks, 42 chose 6, and only 13 wanted 4.

Cost: 82% said cost is not a factor in signing up. That’s useful to know — but it also means roughly one in five of you said it is, and one thoughtful comment asked us to think about members who’d love to play but can’t manage even a modest fee plus equipment. Worth a conversation with the city.

And the headline number: of those who played last session and answered the question, 66 said yes to signing up again and only 5 said no. Whatever needs fixing, the core of what we’re doing is landing.

The thing you told us most often

We can’t summarize the written comments without leading with this one, because roughly a dozen separate responses raised it independently: players signing up for levels they don’t belong in.

The frustration ran in both directions. Advanced players described high intermediate and 4.0+ round robins diluted to the point of not being worth attending — two said plainly that they may not register again for that reason. Beginners and lower intermediates described the flip side: games where one player serves eleven straight points and nobody else touches the ball.

Nobody framed this as anyone’s bad faith. One respondent made the sharpest version of the point: a 70-year-old who plays legitimately at 4.0 within their age group isn’t the same 4.0 as a mobile 25-year-old, and self-rating can’t capture that. Several of you asked for some form of evaluation or rating day for the many players who don’t have a DUPR number.

This is the hardest problem on the list and the one we most need to solve. It won’t be solved by asking people to rate themselves more honestly. It needs structure. We’re taking it on.

Drop-in flexibility

The second-most-common theme: not everyone can commit to a fixed weekly slot for eight weeks in the summer. Holidays, cottages, shift work, appointments. Several members told us they’d happily pay in but need something that doesn’t punish missed weeks — and one member said, pointedly, that a membership with no drop-in option feels like no benefit at all.

Related suggestions that came up more than once:

• Posted “suggested paddles-in” times at Bonnerworth, free and informal, so players know when to show up for a good game
• Paddle-box systems for winners / non-winners instead of round robin sheets, since people rarely stay the full two hours
• Clearer signage marking which courts are PPA programming during a session
• More welcome for players outside paid programs — one member found the courts “cliquey” and hard to break into

No-shows and group sizes

Several program coordinators and participants flagged the same operational headache: registered players not showing up. One estimated 25–35% absence in their group, forcing organizers to invite non-paying players just to fill two courts. The suggested fixes were consistent — publish substitution rules before programs start, and remove chronic no-shows when there’s a waiting list. Others asked us to reconsider caps: 10 was too few for some groups, 12 or 16 the preferred minimum.

What you’d like added

• Skills & drills sessions — the most-requested new format, ideally an hour of drilling followed by an hour of applied play
• A one-off DUPR rating day
• Competitive team play, MLP-style — described by one participant as simply so fun
• A “novice” tier for players between beginner and intermediate, who currently have nowhere obvious to land
• Clearer explanation of Queens Court — the format is popular but not everyone knows what it is
• A lower age floor on the 70+ program to grow participation

And the part we’ll be quoting for a while

Amid all the constructive criticism, the most consistent theme in the comments was gratitude for the volunteers. Program coordinators were named again and again. Members wrote about coaches turning up unannounced to help newcomers, about easy registration and self-entered scores, about leaders who made a two-hour round robin feel organized and welcoming.

One member who played in two leagues this summer wrote that it was a great way to meet people, play at her level, and have fun outdoors — and thanked the coordinators of both.

Another put it this way: you are appreciated more than you know.

What happens next

Here’s what we’re taking from this:

1. Levels need real structure. Self-rating alone isn’t working. We’re exploring evaluation options and firmer level enforcement.
2. Build a drop-in option. Flexible, low-commitment play for members who can’t lock in eight weeks.
3. Set substitution and attendance rules up front, and revisit minimum and maximum group sizes.
4. Protect the two peak windows — Monday through Friday, mornings and 5:30 p.m. — and reconsider the 7:30 p.m. start.
5. Pilot skills & drills, plus a DUPR rating day.
6. Communicate better and earlier. Word of mouth arrived after the deadline for too many of you.

Thank you again to everyone who responded. This is how a member-run association is supposed to work.

Questions or something we missed? Reach out to any PPA director — we’d like to hear it.