If you were to stack...asking for a friend

[fireForehand]

Better at the top, middle or at the bottom of the lineup? If I had to guess it’s easier to get away switching a 5/6 players with a 3/4? The 1s and 2s are pretty obvious.

That being said what about if the 2 is really better than the 1? What if it’s a senior vs freshman scenario but freshman is playing better by the time NCAAs start.

One thing you cannot call stacking is if the 2 players get on a winning streak


Open for discussion...asking for a friend, joking aside just want to hear people’s thoughts.
Not sure what colleges are doing these days and what they can get away with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fabresque]

Colleges get away with a lot... we played a team that put their 3 at 5 (he still lost lol) and a team who played their 2 at 6. We won both matches convincingly so we didn’t care in the end but teams get away with a lot because swapping from 3/4-6 usually doesn’t get noticed, and UTR isn’t reliable when it comes to lineups. 1 and 2 are dead giveaways so teams wouldn’t do that. Easier in doubles because certain teams may play better together than others.

 

[travlerajm]

When U of Georgia came to Seattle for the team NCAA indoor championships, they had John Isner play #2 singles. Hard to hide a 6’10” ace machine.

 

[mikej]

I mean, best would be throwing 1 and shifting your 1-5 down to 2-6, strategically, but yeah you cannot really get away with this

So more often a team will do a 5 —> 3 type shift allowing them to increase their chances on the bottom three courts, without being so blatant

I also think teams pretty frequently can get away with switching 1 <—> 2, in situations where they’re possibly overmatched in both courts straight up, but might be able to get a split of top courts by playing their best guy at 2

 

[Deleted member 766172]

This is why college tennis will never be as hilarious as high school tennis. It was very obvious when we would stack in high school, yet no one had the courage to call us out on it. I mean, I've only seen it twice, and we only pulled it off the second time (did not get called out on it the first time, but we didn't successfully pull it off, long story), but it was still hilarious. We came close to beating the best team in our district (we sucked) when they split their team in half to face two of us lesser teams at once. Oh man, they were sweating.

 

[Fabresque]

I mean, best would be throwing 1 and shifting your 1-5 down to 2-6, strategically, but yeah you cannot really get away with this

So more often a team will do a 5 —> 3 type shift allowing them to increase their chances on the bottom three courts, without being so blatant

I also think teams pretty frequently can get away with switching 1 <—> 2, in situations where they’re possibly overmatched in both courts straight up, but might be able to get a split of top courts by playing their best guy at 2

Qft, I’ve seen the 1-2 switch a bunch. A lot of the times it doesn’t get noticed because the skill levels are pretty close, but even if it does the excuses are ENDLESS. “2’s playing better so we switched them, 1’s struggling with injury, seniority”, I mean it’s endless.

 

[ClarkC]

Colleges get away with a lot... we played a team that put their 3 at 5 (he still lost lol) and a team who played their 2 at 6. We won both matches convincingly so we didn’t care in the end but teams get away with a lot because swapping from 3/4-6 usually doesn’t get noticed, and UTR isn’t reliable when it comes to lineups. 1 and 2 are dead giveaways so teams wouldn’t do that. Easier in doubles because certain teams may play better together than others.

Explain how moving your 3rd best player to #5 helps your chances of winning a dual match. Two players have to move up, decreasing their chances of winning, while only one improves his chances of winning.

 

[Fabresque]

Explain how moving your 3rd best player to #5 helps your chances of winning a dual match. Two players have to move up, decreasing their chances of winning, while only one improves his chances of winning.

Team A plays Team B. Team A leads 2-1 after doubles (assuming this doesn't follow D1 format)
Team A has huge advantages on 1 and 2 singles, easy wins. Team B has better depth, they're better on courts 3-6. Team A takes their 3 and puts him at 5. 4 and 5 move up to 3 and 4, now with seemingly no chance of winning, but the 3, who's now at 5, has an exponentially improved chance of winning. 6 stays the same. So now, instead of it being about a 70% chance (give or take) of losing the duel 4-5, they now are probably going to escape with a 5-4 win, thanks to moving the 3 down to 5. Certain situations call for certain changes, not every team is the same.

 

[andfor]

Explain how moving your 3rd best player to #5 helps your chances of winning a dual match. Two players have to move up, decreasing their chances of winning, while only one improves his chances of winning.

If your 3rd and 4th best players are at 5 and 6, or if you thought your 6 player was a lock to win anyway it would work. When I was playing college tennis back in the stone age, my junior year we moved me from 4 to 2. Our then 3 and 4 players won more matches. I actually won more matches at 2 playing without pressure to win.

I've watched current teams where from my view their 5 and 6 may indeed be better than 3 and 4 and 2 may have been better than 1. In today's college tennis the line up is supposed to be set at the beginning of the year. Once the season starts moving a player more than 1 spot up or down is about as much as can change. I believe the NCAA may even have rules around line up changes.

 

[mikej]

In today's college tennis the line up is supposed to be set at the beginning of the year. Once the season starts moving a player more than 1 spot up or down is about as much as can change.

Simply not true. Andrade shifted down from 2 to 5 over the course of UF’s semifinal season a year ago.

 

[andfor]

Simply not true. Andrade shifted down from 2 to 5 over the course of UF’s semifinal season a year ago.

A player can shift up or down more than 1 spot but has to be over a course of matches. Bet he didn’t play 2 one match then 5 the next.

My statement was a generalization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikej]

My statement was a generalization.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An incorrect one, as I pointed out.

 

[andfor]

An incorrect one, as I pointed out.

And Andrade did not move from 2 to 5 in one match that you conveniently did not clarify to make your false point. He likely moved down one match at time. I don't even have to look up his record to know that. Your simpleton attempt to be a smarta** is embarrassing.

 

[mikej]

And Andrade did not move from 2 to 5 in one match that you conveniently did not clarify to make your false point. He likely moved down one match at time. I don't even have to look up his record to know that. Your simpleton attempt to be a smarta** is embarrassing.

You didn’t say anything about one match in your initial claim that I corrected. Lineups are in no way set at the beginning of the year as you initially claimed. Players can move from near the top of the lineup to near the bottom of the lineup as the year progress. Case in point: Andrade. No biggie, everyone makes an unsubstantiated false claim from time to time.

 

[andfor]

You didn’t say anything about one match in your initial claim that I corrected. Lineups are in no way set at the beginning of the year as you initially claimed. Players can move from near the top of the lineup to near the bottom of the lineup as the year progress. Case in point: Andrade. No biggie, everyone makes an unsubstantiated false claim from time to time.

When you’re in a hole stop digging. Players can’t skip lines when moving “from near the top of the line up to near the bottom of the line up as the year progresses”. When the first dual is played in the spring that sets the line up. Show us Andrede’s progression from 2 to 5 to prove your weak example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikej]

When the first dual is played in the spring that sets the line up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, still false. It was worth another shot, though, I guess...maybe if you click your heels as you type it the third time, the NCAA will adopt such a rule next season.

 

[andfor]

Yeah, still false. It was worth another shot, though, I guess...maybe if you click your heels as you type it the third time, the NCAA will adopt such a rule next season.

Enjoy living in your little it’s allowable to move your 2 player to 5 in one day Disney Land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lefty Spin]

Hello everyone, some conferences have rules on stacking. A few years ago, Illinois was accused of stacking against Wisconsin and had to forfeit a point. Also, I thought the teams had to release their line-up prior to the NCAA tournament. Essentially, it would be difficult to move your two player to the five spot. I think a one-spot variance is allowed.

 

[mikej]

Hello everyone, some conferences have rules on stacking. A few years ago, Illinois was accused of stacking against Wisconsin and had to forfeit a point. Also, I thought the teams had to release their line-up prior to the NCAA tournament. Essentially, it would be difficult to move your two player to the five spot. I think a one-spot variance is allowed.

Correct, lineups are submitted at the beginning of the NCAA tournament, locking in that order of players for the tournament (barring any successful appeals from other teams). Totally different than claiming lineups are set at the start of the season, which they aren’t. I’m not sure what you mean be a “one-spot variance” being allowed in relation to your preceding comments about the NCAA lineups - no variance is allowed during the tournament. You can sit a player and move everyone below up a spot. But you cannot swap any lines, even just one up or down.

 

[andfor]

Correct, lineups are submitted at the beginning of the NCAA tournament, locking in that order of players for the tournament (barring any successful appeals from other teams). Totally different than claiming lineups are set at the start of the season, which they aren’t. I’m not sure what you mean be a “one-spot variance” being allowed in relation to your preceding comments about the NCAA lineups - no variance is allowed during the tournament. You can sit a player and move everyone below up a spot. But you cannot swap any lines, even just one up or down.

Here's the rules. Ref. E. 4. It's clear that when you play your first dual in the spring, movement in the lineup is limited to 1 position.

ITA_Rulebook_2019_20_FINAL_r2 single pages.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[mikej]

Here's the rules. Ref. E. 4. It's clear that when you play your first dual in the spring, movement in the lineup is limited to 1 position.

ITA_Rulebook_2019_20_FINAL_r2 single pages.pdf

drive.google.com

your above comment is at best unclear and i'd say incorrect for the same reason your original post (quoted immediately below) is incorrect, that you lazily leave off the critical phrase "per match" or "from one dual match to the next"

"In today's college tennis the line up is supposed to be set at the beginning of the year. Once the season starts moving a player more than 1 spot up or down is about as much as can change."

yes, we understand the same rules, and you clarified your point in some later points...all good, i probably should have left well enough alone but your original claim simply wasn't correct as typed and the argument had already left the station

credit to the ITA for including the critical phrase that you originally omitted (and again omitted today):
In back-to-back dual matches (two consecutive dual matches), the team line-up
(as played) may be changed as long as the line-up stays in order
of ability. A player or doubles team may be moved one line-up
position from the previous match.

 

[andfor]

your above comment is at best unclear and i'd say incorrect for the same reason your original post (quoted immediately below) is incorrect, that you lazily leave off the critical phrase "per match" or "from one dual match to the next"

"In today's college tennis the line up is supposed to be set at the beginning of the year. Once the season starts moving a player more than 1 spot up or down is about as much as can change."

yes, we understand the same rules, and you clarified your point in some later points...all good, i probably should have left well enough alone but your original claim simply wasn't correct as typed and the argument had already left the station

credit to the ITA for including the critical phrase that you originally omitted (and again omitted today):
In back-to-back dual matches (two consecutive dual matches), the team line-up
(as played) may be changed as long as the line-up stays in order
of ability. A player or doubles team may be moved one line-up
position from the previous match.

You started this knowing what I meant, then proceeded to pick pepper from flyshit. Your example proves that when you conveniently left out of your example the player who moved from 2 to 5 "only moved one spot each match" over the course of the season. All of which I'm sure you knew.

 

[JLyon]

most conferences require teams turn in line-ups the week of conference matches and protests or changes handled at that point, but plenty of moving 1up or down during the season.

 

[mikej]

You started this knowing what I meant, then proceeded to pick pepper from flyshit. Your example proves that when you conveniently left out of your example the player who moved from 2 to 5 "only moved one spot each match" over the course of the season. All of which I'm sure you knew.

Legitimately thought you were claiming in your first post that players could only move one spot (no qualifiers such as per match) after the dual season started and ‘set’ the lineup, since, well, that’s how you said it with no qualifiers re: time course. I responded “Andrade shifted down from 2 to 5 over the course of UF’s semifinal season” because, well, I know how to use English words to clarify a time course. Over the course of the season is pretty clear to my 5 year old.

Then you moved the goalposts in your follow-up posts.

Admittedly I’m no better at dropping an argument than you, however, maybe even worse

Thus we have given everyone a nice reminder of how forums are the worst when there’s no ongoing subject matter to discuss.

Your ITA rules pdf was a nice contribution, however, learned a few things flipping through that, so I’ll end with that compliment.

 

[andfor]

Legitimately thought you were claiming in your first post that players could only move one spot (no qualifiers such as per match) after the dual season started and ‘set’ the lineup, since, well, that’s how you said it with no qualifiers re: time course. I responded “Andrade shifted down from 2 to 5 over the course of UF’s semifinal season” because, well, I know how to use English words to clarify a time course. Over the course of the season is pretty clear to my 5 year old.

Then you moved the goalposts in your follow-up posts.

Admittedly I’m no better at dropping an argument than you, however, maybe even worse

Thus we have given everyone a nice reminder of how forums are the worst when there’s no ongoing subject matter to discuss.

Your ITA rules pdf was a nice contribution, however, learned a few things flipping through that, so I’ll end with that compliment.

You clearly have command of English literary prose according to you and your 5 year old. Congrats on that. Critical thinking needs some work though. LOL

You are correct this debate was birthed from boredom while being cooped up.

I hope you have a sense of humor. I'll end too by graciously thanking you for the compliment.