Collegetennisrules
Rookie
The Div 1 ITA rankings are the biggest mess I have ever seen. Almost laughable. What is the ITA CEO doing about this?
ITA is not responsible for dropped tennis programs-that is the responsibility of athletic departments. The ITA does advocate on behalf of college tennis and nonrevenue programs with articles to the media, webinars, etc. The ITA has a small budget Of $2,4MM and a staff of 14 to coordinate fall tournaments and spring duals for 1700 colleges in multiple divisions, maintain the computer software that handles the results and rankings, promote college tennis to ADs/media, run coach education programs, create website and newsletter content, determine rules for college tennis, deal with officials, coordinate summer programs (circuits) outside college season, liaison with other groups like USTA, ITF,UTR, etc. I think the organization does a lot with limited resources.Great summary. This is an embarrassment and the CEO and entire ITA staff should get on this asap. They are making a mockery of college tennis. Under their "leadership" we have an a record number of programs dropped and now this.
I don’t like how the ITA seems to be throwing up their hands and acting as if they can do nothing to change it. Or even punishing the Big Ten. “Choices have consequences”. It creates a crazy imbalance as well. There’s no way that the SEC should be dominating the rankings to the magnitude that they are right now.
The ITA isn't doing anything about the ranking because they shouldn't. There is a simple formula for the rankings and its fair for everyone to follow. It's not the ITA's fault that the Big 10 and the Pac 12 chose to not play in the fall and limit their schedules, its the fault of the conferences and now the teams and players have to face the consequences. Teams and players should be rewarded for playing a full season, it was easily doable as shown in the fall and easily doable this spring.
The Pac 12 made a good move by making its conference tournament a compass draw, perhaps the Big 10 should do the same. As for the individual ranking nothing much can and should be done. You just can't take out a kid from NCAA's thats ranked 60 because someone behind them has a higher UTR or is supposed to be better, you have to earn your way in, and if you conference or school prevented you from doing that the kid should consider transferring to schools and conferences that won't do that.
Zeke Clark also seems a bit high at 13...I've always been a huge fan of Massey's ratings:
Massey Ratings - College Tennis Men Singles Ratings
Computer ratings and rankings for CTMS (College Tennis Men Singles), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.www.masseyratings.com
Definitely different from the ITA lists with Kova and Kingsley at #1 and #2 (as opposed to #118 and #129 in the ITA's). I'm not sure I would agree with Blaise at #6 when he plays at the 4 (probably no wins in the top 50), but a 29-0 record is nothing to shake a stick at.
Alex Gruskin of Cracked Racquets just posted on twitter this announcement related to rankings and NCAA selections:
The NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Tennis Committees have announced that they will deviate from their standard practices to select this year’s fields for the team and individual NCAA Championships:
“Due to very limited fall competition in singles and doubles and limited numbers of non-conference matches played this year, the ITA has acknowledged, and the tennis committee has agreed, that the statistical value of the ITA computer ranking is not reliable on a national level. These rankings dovetail with the committee’s selection criteria and are based on win/loss record, strength of schedule, common opponents, significant wins and significant losses. While the rankings may be less accurate
the tennis committee recognizes that the individual data points themselves are still important elements in the evaluative process. As a result, and in concurrence with the NCAA Division I Competition Oversight Committee, the tennis committee will use the following to assist with its goal of selecting the most qualified student-athletes for the NCAA championships:
1. Use the same foundational criteria (head-to-head, win/loss record, strength of schedule, common opponents, significant wins, and eligibility and availability of student-athletes); however, be able to identify those teams (and individuals) who might be adversely impacted by the lack of non-conference scheduling, and therefore under ranked, and place them within a recommended range and evaluate them individually against the other teams (or individuals) within that range to ensure they are placed in the appropriate position within the bracket
2. Continue to use the ITA computer rankings but weight the rankings less than in a traditional year
3. Monitor conferences through committee members
4. Review conference ranking of teams, singles and doubles players provided by each conference
5. Review past brackets for informational purposes. The committee continues to work toward the goal of selecting the best teams and individuals to participate in the championships while providing those individuals with memorable championships experiences...
The announcement goes on to say: “We appreciate your patience and understanding as we navigate these uncharted waters and wish you continued good health, safety and competitive success in the balance of the regular season”
I wonder if the committee is the same group of coaches that do the coaches poll. Impact: big10, PAC12 move up, SEC and to some degree BIG12 move down-not as much impact on ACC except for teams in the 40s on computer ranking-some might not get in. I wonder how many hours it will take committee to agree on rankings or more importantly who is 1 vs 2 vs 3 seed
It's tough for Kova and Kingsley and McNally and the Michigan kids and its not their fault.
The rankings are the rankings and nothing should change when it comes to NCAA selection.
It's a little bit their fault isn't it? If Ohio State and Michigan has done their jobs as hosts kickoff weekend they would have made the indoors and brought a lot more points home to their conference. I think that's why all the Big Ten teams and players suffered under the ITA rankings because they couldn't get any points playing conference opponents.
Couldn't agree more here. Even if there is a solution everyone would agree on it should've been known well in advance of the selections. The way it stands it's going to be hard to convince anyone it was fair if they deviate from the published rankings.
I feel bad for the kids left out because these guys will get special consideration.
pac 12 will send 20+ players. We have the best division in history of tennisCurrently Zeke Clark is the highest ranked Big Ten player at #83. I'm not sure what the impact of the conference tournaments was this week, but not sure how they could've picked up many points playing each other.
So how many Big Ten players make the NCAA singles event? I'll set the over/under at 5.5.
Do either Styler or Fenty (Michigan) or Forman (Northwestern) make it in?
Here is the NCAA tennis tournament committee link http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1TENNIS Notice Assoc AD Penner from OSU is on the committee, Asst AD from Univ of Texas, the other 10 from MMs-including head women's coach from Univ of So Florida from the strong AAC conference. I would assume Big 10 would get at least 7 singles players. Nobody from SEC but one from Southern MissCurrently Zeke Clark is the highest ranked Big Ten player at #83. I'm not sure what the impact of the conference tournaments was this week, but not sure how they could've picked up many points playing each other.
So how many Big Ten players make the NCAA singles event? I'll set the over/under at 5.5.
Do either Styler or Fenty (Michigan) or Forman (Northwestern) make it in?
Stanford will only be 2 seed this year. USC will be the only #1 seed from PAC12. Big 10 will have Illinois and OSU for 1 seeds. SEC will have TN, FL, Texas A&M, GA, SC + one more-KY or Miss, probably KY, ACC-VA, NC, Wake, Big 12- Baylor, Texas, TCU and then UCF from AAC.pac 12 will send 20+ players. We have the best division in history of tennis
Stanford will only be 2 seed this year. USC will be the only #1 seed from PAC12. Big 10 will have Illinois and OSU for 1 seeds. SEC will have TN, FL, Texas A&M, GA, SC + one more-KY or Miss, probably KY, ACC-VA, NC, Wake, Big 12- Baylor, Texas, TCU and then UCF from AAC.
That's ok, as long as we host the 1st 2 rounds. it will be enough momentum to blow everyone away after that into the final. Go Card
I will be really impressed if Stanford hosts a regional as a 2 seed.
Doesn't #1 and #2 seeds usually get the host site though ?
Stanford will only be 2 seed this year. USC will be the only #1 seed from PAC12. Big 10 will have Illinois and OSU for 1 seeds. SEC will have TN, FL, Texas A&M, GA, SC + one more-KY or Miss, probably KY, ACC-VA, NC, Wake, Big 12- Baylor, Texas, TCU and then UCF from AAC.
Here is the NCAA tennis tournament committee link http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1TENNIS Notice Assoc AD Penner from OSU is on the committee, Asst AD from Univ of Texas, the other 10 from MMs-including head women's coach from Univ of So Florida from the strong AAC conference. I would assume Big 10 would get at least 7 singles players. Nobody from SEC but one from Southern Miss
Now I think the NCAA/ITA will figure out a fair number of singles/dubs per conference and then let the conferences decide who to send. I compared the current computer singles ratings, the 3/20 singles ratings, and the May 2019 singles ratings to see how many there were per conference. I have estimated the minimum per conference based on an average of the 3. Usually under the MMs, San Diego and Santa Barbara had players. This year other schools like Wichita State had a ranked player. I put aac as its own category separate from mm. I have typed the numbers in columns; i hope they post that way. The big takeway is there is no way SEC should have 30 players-somewhere between 16-20. Some of the ranked players on ITA list just have 50/50 win ratios while players like Cannon Kingsley are undefeated (27-0 and not in top 64).
4/28 3/20 5/19 Min?
aac 6 3 3 3-4
acc 15 9 12 12
big 10 0 8 10 8 kova, montsi, mcnally, Kingsley, fenty, zeke. styler + 1 more Forman?
big 12 7 8 10 8
pac 12 5 13 10 8
sec 30 13 16 16-20
mm 1 4 4 3
ivy 0 2 2
TTW did not align my columns but I bolded the minimums. If you look at 5/19, 4 of the 5 P5s had similar #s of singles player with SEC significantly more but still it was 25% of total players, not almost 50% like the computer rankings-that just wont stand
That's crazy, why would Ohio State ever host, they are ranked 35, they might be a 3 seed not a host.
... and this comes at the expense of SEC teams hosting. It's a double-edged sword. Special consideration for some means others getting the short end of the stick.
Alexis Galarneau is listed #1 on the NCAA lineup submission for NCSU. He was allowed to be absent a little bit to play pro tournaments, but he did not turn pro yet.I'm guessing Galarneau turned pro recently as I would expected him or Kova to be the top ranked college player. UTR also has college rankings which will include the non-college matches. That would help Kova's ratings who has played a lot of ATP events including some challenger events this spring.
Just think of Brooksby had not turned pro in January. He has been in 4 challenger finals this spring and won 3. He is now ranked #166 in the ATP rankings and #80 in the world in the UTR ratings.
I can just see the conversation now between the Auburn and SMU coaches and their kids:
players: Hey coach, why did Northwestern get in over us, they are ranked 69 we are 20 spots higher then them
coach: Well they had to only play in conference because Covid was much more dangerous in the North so the Big 10 wouldn't allow them to play a full schedule
players: Isn't their only good win over Duke?
coach: Yes thats right
players: Isn't Duke in the ACC, so wasn't that out of conference?
coach: Well, yes you're right, guess they did play out of conference.
players: but we thought the Big 10 said it was too dangerous to play our of conference?
coach: Well, yes, but they only played kick of and national indoors.
players: So will the NCAA tournament only be Big 10 teams and in conference
coach: No
players: So was it more dangerous in January? February? Or now? Os is it just not dangerous since its the NCAA tourney?
coach: Well I don't really know.......you guys make some good points, now I'm upset.
I apologize to Alabama fans - I was just using their team as an example, scheduling cake doubleheader’s happens to be a fairly standard tactic - especially for a lot of SEC teams.
This year-pandemic rules-teams did not have to have .5 win percentage. For D1 matches, Arkansas was 10-14, Miami 8-10, OKla State 9-11, and Oklahoma 10-14At least the ITA changed the rules a couple years ago that essentially got rid of triple- and -- heaven forbid -- quadruple-headers for teams scrambling to get to a .500 win percentage. (I think the rule is only the first two dual matches of the day count toward ITA ranking, so there's no point in playing more matches than that in a given day.)
Let me guess - you’re an SEC fan, right?
I would think the argument would be an easy one - I would tell them that if they played Northwestern, they would probably lose.
So why doesn't Northwestern's coach just tell his players they'll probably lose to UCLA or Texas, and then stay home so that SMU can go instead? SMU's a lot closer to Austin than Northwestern.
I'm really glad someone stuck up for SMU and Auburn. It seems like most of the people doing the complaining online are Big Ten fans (and they're complaining about seeding for crying out loud). The Big Ten conference was the only conference to get special consideration this year. Illinois is hosting instead of Arizona. Michigan and Northwestern were accepted instead of SMU and Auburn. There are players on these other teams that won't get another shot at making the tournament, and I'm quite sure the coaches and staff of these teams are out some bonus money by not making the big dance.
Under the circumstances feeling a little bad for the players staying home is warranted in my opinion. It's hard to feel bad about the teams that made it in.
NCAA singles in: https://www.wearecollegetennis.com/...onships-singles-doubles-selections-announced/
At least Big 10 got 5 - Zeke, Kova, Montsi for Illinois, McNally and Kingsley for OSU, NO Styler or Fenty from Mich but they didnt have big wins except Styler beating McNally but since McNally beat Kova, I guess McNally got last spot. Zeke got in as he was the highest ranked on ITA list for big10 even tho he plays lower in the lineup but he deserves it for pure grit and pulling out the Illini win vs OSU
PAC 12 only got 4 players including Keegan Smith who I assume is very doubtful. However the first alternate Ponwith is from Arizona so PaC12 should stay at 4.
Overall this list isnt terrible except that SEC got 39% of picks. However, how this list is seeded is more important. I hope the seeding committee looks at first weekend results before finalizing brackets.
Would be really ironic if Fenty or Styler knock off #1 Draxl this weekend and they arent even in tourney.
However, how this list is seeded is more important. I hope the seeding committee looks at first weekend results before finalizing brackets.
agreedIf I was seeding god, I would have seeded Kova (Illinois), Kingsley (Ohio State), Cukierman (USC), Blumberg (UNC), Galarneau (NS State), and Keegan (if he were playing).
Alexis Galarneau | NC State | ACC | 1 |
Aleksandar Kovacevic | Illinois | big10 | 2 |
Carl Söderlund | Virginia | ACC | 3 |
Daniel Cukierman | Southern California | pac12 | 4 |
Keegan Smith | UCLA | pac12 | 5 |
Liam Draxl | Kentucky | SEC | 7 |
Henri Squire | Wake Forest | ACC | 8 |
Matias Soto | Baylor | big12 | 9 |
Daniel Rodrigues | South Carolina | SEC | 11 |
Valentin Vacherot | Texas A&M | SEC | 12 |
Gabriel Decamps | UCF | aac | 14 |
Hady Habib | Texas A&M | SEC | 16 |
William Blumberg | North Carolina | ACC | 17 |
Cannon Kingsley | Ohio State | big10 | 18 |
Sam Riffice | Florida | SEC | 19 |
Johannus Monday | Tennessee | SEC | 20 |
Seeds are in:
1) Liam Draxl - SEC
2) Daniel Rodrigues - SEC
3) Hady Habib - SEC
4) Valentin Vacherot - SEC
5) Duarte Vale - SEC
6) Sam Riffice - SEC
7) Carl Söderlund - ACC
8) Johannus Monday - SEC
9) Gabriel Decamps - AAC
9) Alastair Gray - Big 12
9) Adam Walton - SEC
9) Matias Soto - Big 12
9) Henri Squire - ACC
9) Gabriel Diallo - SEC
9) Trent Bryde - SEC
9) Luc Fomba - Big 12
SEC has 10 of the 16 seeded players (7 of the top 8). Big 12 has 3. ACC has 2. American Athletic has 1.
OK. People might have a case to make that this seems a little off.
It seems like most of the people doing the complaining online are Big Ten fans (and they're complaining about seeding for crying out loud). The Big Ten conference was the only conference to get special consideration this year.
Badly underseeded teams just don't hurt those teams that deserved higher spots like Illinois and Ohio St, but also the schools that have to play them. Doubt Wake Forest is pleased having to play the Buckeyes in order to advance. Or Florida getting Illinois in the round of 16 instead of the actual 16th team.
Agree with your later comment that seems like the ITA and NCAA are just pointing fingers instead of doing the right thing in a one-off season.
Badly underseeded teams just don't hurt those teams that deserved higher spots like Illinois and Ohio St, but also the schools that have to play them. Doubt Wake Forest is pleased having to play the Buckeyes in order to advance. Or Florida getting Illinois in the round of 16 instead of the actual 16th team.
Agree with your later comment that seems like the ITA and NCAA are just pointing fingers instead of doing the right thing in a one-off season.