ITA Rankings System

ITA Singles/Doubles Rankings

  • Need change

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Good as it is

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .

xbr

Rookie
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.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
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.

Just thoughts here, not arguing for any position. My goal for College tennis would be to support the student athlete. So in other words do whats best to allow the athlete to compete, grow in the game, and grow after the game. Not interested in making it this money making college sport, or good for TV, or faster. It should prepare those that want to try their hand at the pro tour to do so, and those that can't to just be good students and play representing the school. I do like a mix of team and individual events, but to me tennis is predominantly and individual sport, not a team sport. So I am more in favor of allowing the athletes to learn to compete at a high level. I am not worried about how they tally points, but more concerned about how they establish opportunities to play. With that said, here would be some of my challenges to think about the issue of rankings and the current system:

Wouldn't a better approach for the Individual NCAA tournament be to base participation on tournament play rather than team play? So a ranking on tournament play? This would enable those that may not have chances to perform (playing in positions other than 1 or 2) try and get there and have a chance to compete. An example of this would be Ohio State, they have a player Kyle Sielig who is ranked 30th, but plays in the 5/6 spot. he got that ranking by doing well in individual tournaments, but will never get his ranking any higher because all he plays is other teams bottom lineup guys. He could probably compete in the tournament, but won't have that chance?

Maybe there should be conference individual tournaments as qualifiers? Maybe there is a team season winner, and then a conference individual tournament to decide who goes? So, the SEC has a season winner, and then the individual tournament allows everyone to give it a shot? Seems redundant to have a team tournament after a team season.

Maybe it makes no sense to give rankings to players based on team performance? When you consider the number one player on any team plays what essentially is a "finals" match in every team match (meaning the other teams number one player), the number one player could be a very good player but never win; which isn't fair from a rankings perspective right? Or vice versa a player at 5 or 6 could look like a hero every week because they are playing a first round match guy, so maybe appear better then they are?

Maybe separating the NCAA individual tournament to correspond to the tournament season would work? Maybe not even having an NCAA tournament since the ITA runs one in the fall on its own? Should there be a better coordination between NCAA events and ITA events? How is it operating the way it is, how do booth these organizations coordinate with each other?

How about a tournament schedule rather then a team schedule? Let players earn points for their team, but have the chance to play individually? Some really love and associate with team events over the individual tournaments so you would get arguments for both especially on here. But I would be more in favor of having a mix of events all year, leading to an individual tournament.


Based on what you are saying, if we keep the same system:
-I would not be in favor of rating conferences as part of rankings. its bad enough that its an arms race, this would pretty much spell the end for college tennis outside of the 5 major conferences
-Tournament strength is similar to the Pro tennis approach of points. This would encourage players to pick and choose their tournaments. I think there can be a small tier, but the idea should be to get players to participate.
-Spring points, when it comes to the individual tournament I almost don't want to give any points for team events, but given that it stays the same I would probably keep it the same for rankings. For the individual tournaments I think since the NCAA runs it, they should determine an approach and not have it dictated by the ITA, or just give it to the ITA to make it their tournament, and only sponsor it. Which is pretty much what happens now.
 

jcgatennismom

Hall of Fame
The priority of spring tennis is obviously the team. It would benefit individual players to play out all matches, but the match ends once one team earns its 4 points. There are probably many players who were close to beating a ranked player but did not get to finish the match. I think Xbr's scheme is too complicated. Could there be a qualifier for the NCAA singles-reserving 8 spots into the singles tournament? Possibly invitees could be players with ATP ranking under 1000, guys with ITA rankings 65-96, winners/finalists of fall regionals who are not direct acceptances, maybe 2 WCs from each Power conference and Ivys, a few regional WCs from midmajors, guys with UTRs 14+ but not on list, etc. A committee could come up with selection criteria for Qualifier. Have a 64 draw Quali on a weekend, players play 3 matches, and the 8 are selected. Maybe some of the WCs could go to the guys who were about to beat a top 50 ranked player but didnt get to finish. The biggest problem would be where to fit in the Quali weekend between NCAA teams, school finals, etc. There are a few talented MM dubs or singles too-I think of Schorsch/Emhardt of Valparaiso who had a high dubs ranking in fall-went deep in Nat Indoors but ranking fell in spring simply because they didnt have chance to play Power teams. However, their ranking stayed high enough to qualify for NCAA dubs in May, they won a couple matches, lost a close one to UGA I think in quarters, and then Schorsch went off on the Tour and within 6 months had a ATP 900 ranking.

Xbr and Nacho are right that there are many talented players at the bottom of the lineup of the top Power teams. Looking at UGA, there is very little difference in UTR between players 2-5 and their best freshman recruit for 18/19: Walker Duncan (14.05), Emil Reinberg (14.0), Jan Z (13.94), Ponwith (13.92) and 18/19 recruit Trent Bryde (13.9). Loeb is just slightly behind at 13.79. Basically on paper these guys are even, but one will play 2 and another play 5. Most of the UGA guys have rankings from fall (think 5 do) but some will fall out of the top 64 rankings this spring.

There is some merit to xbr suggestions, but NCAA/ITA is really about team. If the college guys want to prove they are great tennis players, they need to go out this summer and win some matches in MDs of Futures-that's the real test. Do it this year while they still can. If NCAA/ITA can fit in a Quali in future years without taking the scholar out of the scholar athlete between finals and NCAAs, that's great too. However, the ITA has a lot on its plate without recreating the NCAAs singles championship including how all the 2019 changes to Pro Tour will affect college tennis.

Another option is make the NCAA singles a round of 108 or 120 with top 8 or 16 seeds getting byes for 1-2 rounds. At least there are the fall singles championships so most talented players will get to play in fall if not spring. There are obviously more openings at the fall events since some top collegians are out playing Futures. Winning matches at All American MD, Indian Wells, and NCAA college championships does earn collegians points on the USTA National 500 list which is used to select players into Future Qualis after players with ATP points are selected. However, USTA PD has been too busy to update their list since October (supposed to be quarterly with new ones out in Dec and March); hopefully they can find time to update it and give credit to college players for their wins before registration deadlines for June Futures. Reaching the R16 at the All American (40 pts) is more points on that list than reaching the final round of Qualifying at a $50K Challenger (30)

http://www.playerdevelopment.usta.com/Top500/
 

ClarkC

Hall of Fame
There is no need to categorize tournaments in an individual ranking system. You get ranking points based on the quality of the opponent you beat. Can you imagine beating a top player but not getting much credit because it was only a smaller fall tournament? Or having top players retire or withdraw from a tournament, giving you an easier path through the draw, so you get big points for advancing to a certain round without beating anyone?

All of this relates to why the points-per-round USTA rankings are not given much attention by college coaches, while head to head rankings like TRN and UTR are what they care about.
 

xbr

Rookie
There is no need to categorize tournaments in an individual ranking system. You get ranking points based on the quality of the opponent you beat. Can you imagine beating a top player but not getting much credit because it was only a smaller fall tournament? Or having top players retire or withdraw from a tournament, giving you an easier path through the draw, so you get big points for advancing to a certain round without beating anyone?

All of this relates to why the points-per-round USTA rankings are not given much attention by college coaches, while head to head rankings like TRN and UTR are what they care about.
Interesting thoughts... At the end of the day, ITF, ATP, TennisEurope and many other organization give points based on advancements in tournaments.
To me, honestly, the Fall tournaments are not that big of an issue. The bigger issue is the Spring. Where a player like Kyle Seelig is most likely to miss out on the NCAA if he loses 4-5 more matches in the season to unranked players. While with the system of rewarding him for every single win that he has while playing 5-6, he would still be able to make the tournament and make something special individually.
 

xbr

Rookie
Just thoughts here, not arguing for any position. My goal for College tennis would be to support the student athlete. So in other words do whats best to allow the athlete to compete, grow in the game, and grow after the game. Not interested in making it this money making college sport, or good for TV, or faster. It should prepare those that want to try their hand at the pro tour to do so, and those that can't to just be good students and play representing the school. I do like a mix of team and individual events, but to me tennis is predominantly and individual sport, not a team sport. So I am more in favor of allowing the athletes to learn to compete at a high level. I am not worried about how they tally points, but more concerned about how they establish opportunities to play. With that said, here would be some of my challenges to think about the issue of rankings and the current system:

Wouldn't a better approach for the Individual NCAA tournament be to base participation on tournament play rather than team play? So a ranking on tournament play? This would enable those that may not have chances to perform (playing in positions other than 1 or 2) try and get there and have a chance to compete. An example of this would be Ohio State, they have a player Kyle Sielig who is ranked 30th, but plays in the 5/6 spot. he got that ranking by doing well in individual tournaments, but will never get his ranking any higher because all he plays is other teams bottom lineup guys. He could probably compete in the tournament, but won't have that chance?

Maybe there should be conference individual tournaments as qualifiers? Maybe there is a team season winner, and then a conference individual tournament to decide who goes? So, the SEC has a season winner, and then the individual tournament allows everyone to give it a shot? Seems redundant to have a team tournament after a team season.

Maybe it makes no sense to give rankings to players based on team performance? When you consider the number one player on any team plays what essentially is a "finals" match in every team match (meaning the other teams number one player), the number one player could be a very good player but never win; which isn't fair from a rankings perspective right? Or vice versa a player at 5 or 6 could look like a hero every week because they are playing a first round match guy, so maybe appear better then they are?

Maybe separating the NCAA individual tournament to correspond to the tournament season would work? Maybe not even having an NCAA tournament since the ITA runs one in the fall on its own? Should there be a better coordination between NCAA events and ITA events? How is it operating the way it is, how do booth these organizations coordinate with each other?

How about a tournament schedule rather then a team schedule? Let players earn points for their team, but have the chance to play individually? Some really love and associate with team events over the individual tournaments so you would get arguments for both especially on here. But I would be more in favor of having a mix of events all year, leading to an individual tournament.


Based on what you are saying, if we keep the same system:
-I would not be in favor of rating conferences as part of rankings. its bad enough that its an arms race, this would pretty much spell the end for college tennis outside of the 5 major conferences
-Tournament strength is similar to the Pro tennis approach of points. This would encourage players to pick and choose their tournaments. I think there can be a small tier, but the idea should be to get players to participate.
-Spring points, when it comes to the individual tournament I almost don't want to give any points for team events, but given that it stays the same I would probably keep it the same for rankings. For the individual tournaments I think since the NCAA runs it, they should determine an approach and not have it dictated by the ITA, or just give it to the ITA to make it their tournament, and only sponsor it. Which is pretty much what happens now.

Well, at the end of the day, some conferences are stronger and some are weaker. That will not make any difference in a way what players chose what school. Already those teams do not have that many great players and that will not change or make it worse.
Exactly. Tournaments tiers. With a precise mathematical formula. A player winning G4 could get more points than a player playing Quarters of G2 if you see what I am saying. So, those best lower-level players will still get a chance to progress up the rankings.

I like to hear your thoughts. However, do you agree with me that it is sad that Valentin Vacherot, Kyle Seelig, Bar Botzer and many other players who deserve to play the individual tournament, most likely will not because they are not playing high enough in the lineup. Although, their Fall results should put them in. I think that just makes it unfair. Meaning, only top 1-2 maybe 3 players can make the tournament.
 

xbr

Rookie
The priority of spring tennis is obviously the team. It would benefit individual players to play out all matches, but the match ends once one team earns its 4 points. There are probably many players who were close to beating a ranked player but did not get to finish the match. I think Xbr's scheme is too complicated. Could there be a qualifier for the NCAA singles-reserving 8 spots into the singles tournament? Possibly invitees could be players with ATP ranking under 1000, guys with ITA rankings 65-96, winners/finalists of fall regionals who are not direct acceptances, maybe 2 WCs from each Power conference and Ivys, a few regional WCs from midmajors, guys with UTRs 14+ but not on list, etc. A committee could come up with selection criteria for Qualifier. Have a 64 draw Quali on a weekend, players play 3 matches, and the 8 are selected. Maybe some of the WCs could go to the guys who were about to beat a top 50 ranked player but didnt get to finish. The biggest problem would be where to fit in the Quali weekend between NCAA teams, school finals, etc. There are a few talented MM dubs or singles too-I think of Schorsch/Emhardt of Valparaiso who had a high dubs ranking in fall-went deep in Nat Indoors but ranking fell in spring simply because they didnt have chance to play Power teams. However, their ranking stayed high enough to qualify for NCAA dubs in May, they won a couple matches, lost a close one to UGA I think in quarters, and then Schorsch went off on the Tour and within 6 months had a ATP 900 ranking.

Xbr and Nacho are right that there are many talented players at the bottom of the lineup of the top Power teams. Looking at UGA, there is very little difference in UTR between players 2-5 and their best freshman recruit for 18/19: Walker Duncan (14.05), Emil Reinberg (14.0), Jan Z (13.94), Ponwith (13.92) and 18/19 recruit Trent Bryde (13.9). Loeb is just slightly behind at 13.79. Basically on paper these guys are even, but one will play 2 and another play 5. Most of the UGA guys have rankings from fall (think 5 do) but some will fall out of the top 64 rankings this spring.

There is some merit to xbr suggestions, but NCAA/ITA is really about team. If the college guys want to prove they are great tennis players, they need to go out this summer and win some matches in MDs of Futures-that's the real test. Do it this year while they still can. If NCAA/ITA can fit in a Quali in future years without taking the scholar out of the scholar athlete between finals and NCAAs, that's great too. However, the ITA has a lot on its plate without recreating the NCAAs singles championship including how all the 2019 changes to Pro Tour will affect college tennis.

Another option is make the NCAA singles a round of 108 or 120 with top 8 or 16 seeds getting byes for 1-2 rounds. At least there are the fall singles championships so most talented players will get to play in fall if not spring. There are obviously more openings at the fall events since some top collegians are out playing Futures. Winning matches at All American MD, Indian Wells, and NCAA college championships does earn collegians points on the USTA National 500 list which is used to select players into Future Qualis after players with ATP points are selected. However, USTA PD has been too busy to update their list since October (supposed to be quarterly with new ones out in Dec and March); hopefully they can find time to update it and give credit to college players for their wins before registration deadlines for June Futures. Reaching the R16 at the All American (40 pts) is more points on that list than reaching the final round of Qualifying at a $50K Challenger (30)

http://www.playerdevelopment.usta.com/Top500/
I think it is almost impossible to add another big tournament to the schedule.

I like the idea of expanding the draw. Perhaps there can be WC and special coaches' selection of players that deserve to be in the tournament yet they would not be in the first place.
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Well, at the end of the day, some conferences are stronger and some are weaker. That will not make any difference in a way what players chose what school. Already those teams do not have that many great players and that will not change or make it worse.
Exactly. Tournaments tiers. With a precise mathematical formula. A player winning G4 could get more points than a player playing Quarters of G2 if you see what I am saying. So, those best lower-level players will still get a chance to progress up the rankings.

Yes, some are stronger, some are weaker. I am not in favor of parity in college tennis, but I am also not in favor of trying to designate this aspect because there are good conferences with crappy teams. Boston College (or Miami these days) is not a better team to me then Georgia State, Tulane, Memphis, Furman, Old Dominon, Rice, or Pepperdine. I could name others. I would hate to reward them because they are in the ACC. Its all relative to how they match up, not sure the conference has much to do with it necessarily or can be a factor.

I like to hear your thoughts. However, do you agree with me that it is sad that Valentin Vacherot, Kyle Seelig, Bar Botzer and many other players who deserve to play the individual tournament, most likely will not because they are not playing high enough in the lineup. Although, their Fall results should put them in. I think that just makes it unfair. Meaning, only top 1-2 maybe 3 players can make the tournament.

Just throwing out some different thoughts to the question. As I said in disclosure: I might be one of the few that sees more reward for the tennis athlete in tournament play rather than team dual match (I like dual matches, but they have been stripped down and are not good for proving rankings). But I am a small minority, and the ITA really wants the dual match to be a thing. I also hate No-Ad and ten point breakers as a means to give ranking to people, but thats been over-discussed. Its also worth saying that most players don't care about rankings, it is more something the people that follow the sport look at. They just want the chance to compete, and they like the rivalries. Rankings have very little meaning except for those that want to compete in the individual tournament.

With that said, yes, I think it is unfair that a player sits on the bench or at the 4-5-6 position without a chance to compete (or even worse plays only 1 set doubles and no singles). A 6 guy is like playing a first round match every week, a 1 guy is basically playing the finals. Its two completely different perspectives of playing and measuring of talent....Its important to win all positions in a dual match, but it gets lost in the end which is which except for the 1 spot. If I could change one thing about college tennis its that I like the idea that maybe the individual tournament be on a different date then the team tournament, and that there is a conference tournament qualifying instead of a team conference tournament. Winner of the dual match season is the winner... Its similar to how college golf works, and I think college golf is a good measure for how tennis should operate. You then will see unlikely people rise to the occasion, gain confidence and improve against whats become a field of mostly international low level pros (oops I brought it up). I think you would have more Bloomberg's out there competing and becoming unlikely stars. College Golf also breeds pro players, because they bloom and learn to compete, instead of being smothered by a team format and abbreviated scoring system. If you look at the top 100 pros on the ATP, there are hardly any college players...less then 10. Used to be 70% of the players when it was a tournament based formula in college.

Just my thoughts since you asked
 
Last edited:

Tennis Sam

Rookie
I actually think what they have now is pretty good. By the end of the season the rankings are decent. The ITA point system is pretty easy to understand and you can calculate how many points your going to get if you win ahead of time. Agree that it's not fair to the people lower in the line-up, but does that really matter? The NCAA championship is trying to crown a school, not a player. The best players for a team (should) play at the top of the line-up, and if you're not 1 or 2 then you probably won't get a chance. I'm cool with that. I don't particularly want to see 5 guys from one school in the draw even if they're the top 5 players in college tennis. Two is plenty. With respect to expanding the draw, it's the NCAA's and it's all about 64. The best players in the nation make it in.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Interesting thoughts... At the end of the day, ITF, ATP, TennisEurope and many other organization give points based on advancements in tournaments.
To me, honestly, the Fall tournaments are not that big of an issue. The bigger issue is the Spring. Where a player like Kyle Seelig is most likely to miss out on the NCAA if he loses 4-5 more matches in the season to unranked players. While with the system of rewarding him for every single win that he has while playing 5-6, he would still be able to make the tournament and make something special individually.

while you make some valid points, if a given player loses 5 matches to unranked opponents he has really no business playing in individual NCAA year-end championships
 

xbr

Rookie
while you make some valid points, if a given player loses 5 matches to unranked opponents he has really no business playing in individual NCAA year-end championships
What if that unranked player is a great player that took off in Fall and played pro tournaments?
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
What if that unranked player is a great player that took off in Fall and played pro tournaments?
if a 'great' player happens to be unranked because he has not played in any ITA sanctioned tournaments during Fall he will surely continue to be great in the Spring. And he quickly will become ranked player. ITA rankings are recalculated every time they are released so if a player A lost to player B on Feb 1, and player B was unranked on Feb 1, and player B becomes a ranked player comes April (and he will since he is 'a great player', right?), that Feb 1 loss for Player A will become a loss against a ranked player. All works just fine.
 

xbr

Rookie
if a 'great' player happens to be unranked because he has not played in any ITA sanctioned tournaments during Fall he will surely continue to be great in the Spring. And he quickly will become ranked player. ITA rankings are recalculated every time they are released so if a player A lost to player B on Feb 1, and player B was unranked on Feb 1, and player B becomes a ranked player comes April (and he will since he is 'a great player', right?), that Feb 1 loss for Player A will become a loss against a ranked player. All works just fine.
That works all just fine unless that player is playing 5 and will not get that many opportunities. It’s all about chances to get ranked.
 

ClarkC

Hall of Fame
The bigger issue is the Spring. Where a player like Kyle Seelig is most likely to miss out on the NCAA if he loses 4-5 more matches in the season to unranked players. While with the system of rewarding him for every single win that he has while playing 5-6, he would still be able to make the tournament and make something special individually.

If he plays in the bottom half of the lineup and loses 4-5 more matches this spring to unranked players, why would he deserve to be in the NCAA tournament (reserved for only 64 players nationwide), and why should anyone outside of Ohio State care?
 

xbr

Rookie
Well okay let's talk about players who play sometimes 2-3 and don't get enough chances to play ranked players?
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Well okay let's talk about players who play sometimes 2-3 and don't get enough chances to play ranked players?
as you can see you are shifting the goal post with your anti-ITA-ranking arguments. Sure, you can _always_ find a case or two where a given player may have been at a disadvantage. But so far you have not really identified such reasons. A player on team in a strong conference (which is your use case, right?), playing #2 or #3 singles will surely play enough ranked players to have a chance to prove himself.

Just for the sake of it I've just checked last years rankings. The #100 ranked player was a Florida dude playing in fact #5 singles. He had a chance to play both ranked and unranked players. He had a good record but he lost few matches to unranked players - and as a result his ranking was what it was: #100. Last year players ranked just outside #70 still qualified for the individual tournament. The ranking difference between #100 and #70 was like 2 points. Had that #100 ranked player _not_ lost those few matches to unranked opponents he would have probably made it. Still looks as it all works as it should.
 

Seattle5

New User
On the flip side the rankings also are in favor of players that simply win Matches in which fall. Doesn't really matter if against highly ranked opponent or not. If players don't finish matches and are losing - it doesn't count against them either. So coaches they protect rankings. Several players low in lineups have fall ranking and just have wins over lower ranked players but get the win....and don't finish many matches they are losing etc. There are a few teams that have players playing lower in the lineup bc the players on their teams that are now in season playing higher on the lineup - bc they are stronger players - played pro tourneys in the fall...so they had no ranking starting spring season. Then players that take loses to them - it appears as a "bad loss" - which it isn't. So there are always going to be issues coming from every angle. It is what it is.
 

ClarkC

Hall of Fame
On the flip side the rankings also are in favor of players that simply win Matches in which fall. Doesn't really matter if against highly ranked opponent or not.

Explain how a player gets great benefit from winning matches in the fall (or, for that matter, in the spring) even if the opponent is not highly rated. Have you studied the computer formula used for ITA rankings?
 
Top