The ITA needs to change its rankings system. Especially regarding singles/doubles.
Although I thought about the team rankings, I will try to focus on the singles rankings for now and I want to hear other people's opinions.
The problem:
We have many players playing no.3-4 for top 10-20 teams that never get a chance of competing in the NCAA Individual tournament. Many players have a great season, but sometimes do not get a chance of playing other ranked players or do not finish their matches against those players. Many players have a 1 or 2 wins in the Fall and carry over those wins to the Spring and keep hanging in the rankings because of those wins although they lose matches while playing 5-6. Although those players deserve to play the NCAA tournament, they are left out and not fairly rewarded for their efforts.
Solution:
First of all - categorize conferences. From strongest to weakest. At the beginning and end of each year the conferences are categorized by individual ranking of the teams.
In the Fall - categorize tournaments by strength. For example, G1-G5. Points would be awarded for advancements in those tournaments. How to categorize? All-Americans and National Fall Championship would be G1s. G2- regional tournaments. G3-tournaments with certain number of schools from Power5. G4-G5 determined by the strength of the draw. (Details can be discussed later).
In the Spring -
Points for singles/doubles rankings are awarded based on the position you play for the team and based on the conference!!.
For my examples I will use SEC match and Big10 match, Georgia vs. LSU in SEC, Ohio State vs. Minnesota in Big10.
SEC is ranked #1 conference, BIG 10 is ranked #4 conference
Points for winning a singles match:
SEC
1. 20
2. 15
3. 12.5
4. 10
5. 8
6. 6
Big 10
1. 15
2. 12
3. 10
4. 8
5. 6
6. 4
***(These are random numbers, not based on any calculation)
Usually, if a player plays No.2 in Big10 and has 8 wins, he is most certainly a ranked player. While a player who plays SEC #4 and has 10 wins, is most likely not a ranked player. ***(Obviously assuming that a player did not carryover his ranking from the Fall). Although that SEC #4 player might be as good or even better than a BIG10 #2 player, he/she is not rewarded the same. Considering the strength of the conferences and the players that SEC players play against on #4 we can't forget about those players and not reward them. Now in this model, a player who plays #4 and wins 10 matches in SEC play would get 100 points. While, BIG10 would get 96 points for 8 wins. In this system, what counts more is the number of wins and position you play in what conference. And not who you beat.
***(I am choosing SEC for illustration purposes only, although it could be ACC or other)
You might think this could hurt lower conferences. However, if you schedule a non-conference match, Georgia vs. Ohio State. The match would count as if you are playing in the higher conference (SEC conference). That being said, this is an advantage for smaller teams to be more fired up, while the better teams still have the same incentive as if they would play within the conference.
Singles rankings would involve 150 players. NCAA tournament selections would still work by the same principle. There would be an automatic bid for the best player of a smaller conference if there is a such inside of top 125.
***The point distribution would obviously need a math expert to make everything fair and square, but I am just wondering what do you guys think about this proposal.
Please let me know what you think about this! I am ready to hear some possible solutions and thoughts.
Although I thought about the team rankings, I will try to focus on the singles rankings for now and I want to hear other people's opinions.
The problem:
We have many players playing no.3-4 for top 10-20 teams that never get a chance of competing in the NCAA Individual tournament. Many players have a great season, but sometimes do not get a chance of playing other ranked players or do not finish their matches against those players. Many players have a 1 or 2 wins in the Fall and carry over those wins to the Spring and keep hanging in the rankings because of those wins although they lose matches while playing 5-6. Although those players deserve to play the NCAA tournament, they are left out and not fairly rewarded for their efforts.
Solution:
First of all - categorize conferences. From strongest to weakest. At the beginning and end of each year the conferences are categorized by individual ranking of the teams.
In the Fall - categorize tournaments by strength. For example, G1-G5. Points would be awarded for advancements in those tournaments. How to categorize? All-Americans and National Fall Championship would be G1s. G2- regional tournaments. G3-tournaments with certain number of schools from Power5. G4-G5 determined by the strength of the draw. (Details can be discussed later).
In the Spring -
Points for singles/doubles rankings are awarded based on the position you play for the team and based on the conference!!.
For my examples I will use SEC match and Big10 match, Georgia vs. LSU in SEC, Ohio State vs. Minnesota in Big10.
SEC is ranked #1 conference, BIG 10 is ranked #4 conference
Points for winning a singles match:
SEC
1. 20
2. 15
3. 12.5
4. 10
5. 8
6. 6
Big 10
1. 15
2. 12
3. 10
4. 8
5. 6
6. 4
***(These are random numbers, not based on any calculation)
Usually, if a player plays No.2 in Big10 and has 8 wins, he is most certainly a ranked player. While a player who plays SEC #4 and has 10 wins, is most likely not a ranked player. ***(Obviously assuming that a player did not carryover his ranking from the Fall). Although that SEC #4 player might be as good or even better than a BIG10 #2 player, he/she is not rewarded the same. Considering the strength of the conferences and the players that SEC players play against on #4 we can't forget about those players and not reward them. Now in this model, a player who plays #4 and wins 10 matches in SEC play would get 100 points. While, BIG10 would get 96 points for 8 wins. In this system, what counts more is the number of wins and position you play in what conference. And not who you beat.
***(I am choosing SEC for illustration purposes only, although it could be ACC or other)
You might think this could hurt lower conferences. However, if you schedule a non-conference match, Georgia vs. Ohio State. The match would count as if you are playing in the higher conference (SEC conference). That being said, this is an advantage for smaller teams to be more fired up, while the better teams still have the same incentive as if they would play within the conference.
Singles rankings would involve 150 players. NCAA tournament selections would still work by the same principle. There would be an automatic bid for the best player of a smaller conference if there is a such inside of top 125.
***The point distribution would obviously need a math expert to make everything fair and square, but I am just wondering what do you guys think about this proposal.
Please let me know what you think about this! I am ready to hear some possible solutions and thoughts.