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 rankings
- Thread starter Collegetennisrules
- Start date
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
Cracked Racquets Town Hall on ITA rankings tonight at 8pm-can be watched on Zoom or youtube or interested fans can wait for replay https://www.crackedracquets.com/collegetennisranks-town-hall-event/
ITA has a response to rankings questions at https://www.wearecollegetennis.com/...n-on-the-2021-division-i-oracle-ita-rankings/ Basically it says that ITA will send NCAA a computer ranking list and coaches'poll and let NCAA decide how to seed teams. However, ITA is only sending computer ranking for singles and dubs. Does anyone know who the 12 coaches are who do the rankings for the coaches poll?
There has been pushback on the rankings on twitter with posts sent to Tim Russell @ITA_Tennis and @ITACEO. Cannon Kingsley (23-0, beat #5 Vale 4,2 in Nov UTR pro series, only #117) sent a tweet and Tim responded. Other fans, former players and coaches responded in support, but Tim has not replied to them. I will say the ITA with a small staff is usually more responsive than other tennis organizations like USTA. Below is some of the commentary primarily on the singles/dubs issue for ITA rankings. Hopefully between players, coaches, ITA, and NCAA, a more fair solution can be found:
@JaredHiltzik ( former ATP pro and top Illinois player) Apr 14 LOL these are comical... Cannon Kingsley is 23-0 and ranked 117, Kovacevic is ranked 431 ATP and ITA ranking is 86 Face with tears of joy
@CannonKingsley 23h Impressive work. The ITA’s job is to be the governing body of college tennis and you can not complete the simple task of ranking players without a computer doing it for you. By next week not 1 big ten player will be ranked. Hats off, too good @ITA_Tennis
ITACEO Replying to @CannonKingsley, please suggest how you would suggest dealing with this situation @bigten decision compared to @SEC decision.
@hkingsley 39m to @ITACEO Tim, Big 10 Football and Ohio State Football were as disadvantaged by Covid as Big 10 tennis players, and they found a way to make it right, giving Ohio an opportunity to compete all the way to the Championship. By hurting Big 10 tennis w these rankings, you hurt all of tennis.
tweet to Tim from coach of D1 Women's MM team
Or, I don't know figure something out that makes sense! An undefeated Big Ten player at #1/#2 position cannot & is not the 117th best player in the country! Common sense has to prevail at some point, it's like not having a "National Coaches Poll" that only has 12 voters...same gripe that there are virtually no Mid Majors represented in the rankings despite significantly better records. You have teams that don't even play together regularly or have losing records in your top 90 dubs ranking. That is straight up embarrassing!!
Ironically a lot of MAC teams are ranked higher than mid level Big 10 teams this year-Western Michigan, Northern Illinois and Ball State are computer ranked/recently ranked in 46-54 range vs #4 Big10 Northwestern at 49 and #5Big10 Minnesota at 55., If the Big10 had allowed each team to play a few regional nonconference teams or if Big10 held a compass draw conference tournament like PAC-12 (of course PAC-12 has only 8 teams playing vs Big10s 12 teams) with teams guaranteed at least 3 matches, more Big10 teams would have the chance to play NCAAs. Maybe Big10 could have play-in matches at conference, and then have top 8 do compass draw to guarantee 3 matches. I assume OSU and Michigan will get a bump from coaches poll vs computer ranking so maybe one other team besides Illinois will be a top 16 seed, and Northwestern would get in NCAAs with coach poll (with Minnesota a possible long shot in coach poll).
ITA has a response to rankings questions at https://www.wearecollegetennis.com/...n-on-the-2021-division-i-oracle-ita-rankings/ Basically it says that ITA will send NCAA a computer ranking list and coaches'poll and let NCAA decide how to seed teams. However, ITA is only sending computer ranking for singles and dubs. Does anyone know who the 12 coaches are who do the rankings for the coaches poll?
There has been pushback on the rankings on twitter with posts sent to Tim Russell @ITA_Tennis and @ITACEO. Cannon Kingsley (23-0, beat #5 Vale 4,2 in Nov UTR pro series, only #117) sent a tweet and Tim responded. Other fans, former players and coaches responded in support, but Tim has not replied to them. I will say the ITA with a small staff is usually more responsive than other tennis organizations like USTA. Below is some of the commentary primarily on the singles/dubs issue for ITA rankings. Hopefully between players, coaches, ITA, and NCAA, a more fair solution can be found:
@JaredHiltzik ( former ATP pro and top Illinois player) Apr 14 LOL these are comical... Cannon Kingsley is 23-0 and ranked 117, Kovacevic is ranked 431 ATP and ITA ranking is 86 Face with tears of joy
@CannonKingsley 23h Impressive work. The ITA’s job is to be the governing body of college tennis and you can not complete the simple task of ranking players without a computer doing it for you. By next week not 1 big ten player will be ranked. Hats off, too good @ITA_Tennis
ITACEO Replying to @CannonKingsley, please suggest how you would suggest dealing with this situation @bigten decision compared to @SEC decision.
@hkingsley 39m to @ITACEO Tim, Big 10 Football and Ohio State Football were as disadvantaged by Covid as Big 10 tennis players, and they found a way to make it right, giving Ohio an opportunity to compete all the way to the Championship. By hurting Big 10 tennis w these rankings, you hurt all of tennis.
tweet to Tim from coach of D1 Women's MM team
Or, I don't know figure something out that makes sense! An undefeated Big Ten player at #1/#2 position cannot & is not the 117th best player in the country! Common sense has to prevail at some point, it's like not having a "National Coaches Poll" that only has 12 voters...same gripe that there are virtually no Mid Majors represented in the rankings despite significantly better records. You have teams that don't even play together regularly or have losing records in your top 90 dubs ranking. That is straight up embarrassing!!
Ironically a lot of MAC teams are ranked higher than mid level Big 10 teams this year-Western Michigan, Northern Illinois and Ball State are computer ranked/recently ranked in 46-54 range vs #4 Big10 Northwestern at 49 and #5Big10 Minnesota at 55., If the Big10 had allowed each team to play a few regional nonconference teams or if Big10 held a compass draw conference tournament like PAC-12 (of course PAC-12 has only 8 teams playing vs Big10s 12 teams) with teams guaranteed at least 3 matches, more Big10 teams would have the chance to play NCAAs. Maybe Big10 could have play-in matches at conference, and then have top 8 do compass draw to guarantee 3 matches. I assume OSU and Michigan will get a bump from coaches poll vs computer ranking so maybe one other team besides Illinois will be a top 16 seed, and Northwestern would get in NCAAs with coach poll (with Minnesota a possible long shot in coach poll).
Collegetennisrules
Rookie
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.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
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.
That said, the ITA must have known the rankings would be an issue once some conferences switched to conference only play. It may be hard for the ITA to get the coaches on committees to agree on the best solution-the SEC and Big12 are probably happy with the status quo. Printing two different lists of rankings is a start for teams but that does not address singles and dubs issue.
The ranking issue will affect future years too as the kickoff teams for January 2022 will be based (unless changed) on final 2021 computer rankings.
The good news is the issue is getting traction, and solutions may be proposed that satisfy ITA, NCAA, coaches, players, and fans. However, they only have a few more weeks to figure out.
Clemson_tennis
Legend
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.
I remember griping about the SEC back in the day all the time, ie every SEC upset created another top 20 team but the teams that were upset didn’t fall - now that I’m associated with UF I have to say the ITA is doing a fantastic job, very fair and balanced, many people say they’re the best rankings they’ve ever seen
jerryjones1960
Rookie
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.
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.
rastapasta
New User
I wouldn't consider their decision as something "punishable" given it was for safety reasons during a global pandemic. Changing the system towards the latter half of the season is a tough decision to make, but I don't think anybody would dispute the broken state of the current rankings and I don't think shafting entire conferences to preserve formula integrity is the right call. Generally-speaking, I'm most upset with the ITA's reactionary handling of the situation as this could have been anticipated before the season started.
One idea for a system I think could be acceptable is to give each conference a number of designated spots based off the number of individual players meeting the ITA tournament ranking threshold from preseason rankings. Then, the top ranking players from each respective conference would represent those spots. Seeding for the final tournament could just be done by UTR. Happy to spitball some ideas with whoever on this.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
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
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
grnmtgrl
New User
I don't know why Oregon women aren't ranked higher (higher than Washington at least) considering they've beaten both Stanford and USC 4-3 and 5-2 respectively. All of their regular doubles teams have a large winning percentage. They're 3-4 against nationally ranked teams compared to Washington's 1-7. Their schedule strengths aren't *that* different. I guess the losses to Washington and WSU did them in...?
edit: at least the coaches poll puts them higher, but the computerized rankings do not.
edit: at least the coaches poll puts them higher, but the computerized rankings do not.
Tennis Sam
Rookie
I've always been a huge fan of Massey's ratings:
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.
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.
Liam Grennon
Professional
Zeke Clark also seems a bit high at 13...
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.
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.
Last edited:
jerryjones1960
Rookie
The rankings are the rankings and nothing should change when it comes to NCAA selection. It's tough for Kova and Kingsley and McNally and the Michigan kids and its not their fault. The Big 10 made awful scheduling decisions. Surely the Big 10 feels its unsafe to play NCAA's with 32 teams and individuals if it was unsafe to play an out of conference schedule right? Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too.
Tennis Sam
Rookie
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.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Yoohoo,, tournament draw coming out tomorrow. Stanford to host 1st 2 round.. GO CARD
Tennis Sam
Rookie
Currently 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?
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?
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
pac 12 will send 20+ players. We have the best division in history of tennis
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
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
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
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.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
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
Tennis Sam
Rookie
I will be really impressed if Stanford hosts a regional as a 2 seed.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Doesn't #1 and #2 seeds usually get the host site though ?
Tennis Sam
Rookie
Just the sixteen 1 seeds. USC will probably be the only host on the west coast.
jerryjones1960
Rookie
That's crazy, why would Ohio State ever host, they are ranked 35, they might be a 3 seed not a host.
jerryjones1960
Rookie
Also crazy, why would the Big 10 get 8 players in the individual tournament if they have none ranked in the top 64? And if they do add a Big 10 player or two who is going to tell the players who are ranked high enough to make the tourney and have worked for this all year they are not in, and what would be the reason as to why they wouldn't be in?
Tennis Sam
Rookie
... 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.
just give them UGA’s spot, the dawgs are a glorified 4.5 team
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.
NCAA Men's Lineup Submissions
jerryjones1960
Rookie
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.
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.
CincyIllinifan
Rookie
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.
A better discussion would be trying to explain to the Ohio St players why they’re currently ranked 28, and why they’re ranked below teams like Alabama with their 14 wins, of which 7 of those wins were as a result of scheduling incredibly easy doubleheaders against powerhouses Samford, North Alabama, Chattanooga, and Tennessee Tech. So tell me, how does a team with 7 actual wins end up ranked 22nd in the country?
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 was obviously an unusual year, as indicated by the NCAA committee. Unfortunately, they didn’t follow their own recommendations. The pandemic was worse in the fall and winter, and to penalize teams/conferences for being prudent/safe in their scheduling is just wrong.
the_wigsphere
New User
At 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.)
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
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 10-14
Tennis Sam
Rookie
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.
CincyIllinifan
Rookie
The Big 10 received minimal consideration due to a ranking system that was extremely skewed due to the current pandemic - the ITA even acknowledged the rankings were unreliable - did you not read it? The Big 10 teams were hosed this year - the four teams that made it would have made it any year, but this year they were ranked/seeded much worse than expected. If you can’t see that, then I don’t know what to tell you. Also, you’re comparing Auburn, who had a 7-15 record to Michigan or Northwestern? Come on.
Collegetennisrules
Rookie
This is why I started this thread about the rankings a while back. The ITA didn't get ahead of this and thus you have a mess again. Job well done by the CEO and team.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
i support 39% going to SEC
Another 60% should go to Duke
And final spot should go to Stanford’s worst player, which usually seems to be whoever they play at #1
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Pac 12 should get at least 6-9 players in , best division in tennis
Tennis Sam
Rookie
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.
Last edited:
Tennis Sam
Rookie
If 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).
Kind of shocked Blaise is an alternate. Even at the 4 his 29-0 record impresses me more than Andrade's 22-7.
Kind of shocked Blaise is an alternate. Even at the 4 his 29-0 record impresses me more than Andrade's 22-7.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
agreed
Here are the top 16 of the selections by UTR- 9 players are on both lists
Kingsley beat Duarte Vale 4,2 in late October in UTR open with college players and a week later Kova beat Kingsley 4,2 at a Future. Galarneau and Kovacevic have won Challenger matches( and Blumberg in past years). By not adjusting seeding there are only a couple seeded Americans which means ITA/NCAA have almost guaranteed there will not be a US Open WC for a college player because the odds are against an American winning. Now if Blumberg, Kingsley, and Kovacevic were top 16 seeds as they deserve by merit even if not by the computer rankings, there would be several more chances. ITA/USTA keep saying they want to grow both US and College tennis but they cant even influence NCAA to adjusts seeds to include Americans with challenger points who play 1 for a top 16 teams. it took 20 names to get the top 16 by UTR that were also on the selection list-some guys were on Ivy teams that didnt play this year. I am not saying they should be seeded because they are Americans, but that several of the highest rated D1 Americans via ATP/UTR ranking were missed by the computer rankings-those players probably would have played All American and the fall individual Nov tourney if it had been held in the fall. At least the list was adjusted so that all the below are on the selection list but it more should have been seeded too.
| 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 |
Last edited:
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
All 5 of these guys won't break top 200 in the ATP tour. This is just ridiculous how these rankings come about.
1) Liam Draxl - SEC
2) Daniel Rodrigues - SEC
3) Hady Habib - SEC
4) Valentin Vacherot - SEC
5) Duarte Vale - SEC
Tennis Sam
Rookie
Listened to the latest Great Shot podcast with Gruskin and Tim Russell (ITA CEO). Overall it was pretty good. Grateful we have a post season at all. Things have been pretty normal this spring (we're all here arguing about this stuff). I also agree it's bad to make changes as a knee jerk reaction to any circumstances. But one big point of disagreement for me is that the ITA seems to cover themselves by saying "We are not the NCAA, they do their own thing", and then the NCAA covers their decisions by saying, "These are the metrics provided to us. If we depart from them, we will look subjective." I think everyone already thinks they are subjective, so why not make a little better attempt to get this right?
For the most part I think that the best players did get in the draw. Zeke Clark and August Holmgren got in as auto-qualifiers, but both would have deserved at-large bids IMO. Kingsley, Montsi, Kova, and McNalley all got at-large bids, and the NCAA had to use some metric other than the ITA's rankings for those four guys. If I had to pick nits I probably would have put Pac-12's Geller and Nanda straight into the draw as well as Big West's Joseph Guillan and WCC's Sean Hill. As it stands these guys are all on the alternate list, so the committee at least recognized their worth.
But seeding straight off the ITA lists this year as @jcgatennismom suggests seems like a huge mistake. On the bright side I guess we'll get some really interesting first and second round matches.
For the most part I think that the best players did get in the draw. Zeke Clark and August Holmgren got in as auto-qualifiers, but both would have deserved at-large bids IMO. Kingsley, Montsi, Kova, and McNalley all got at-large bids, and the NCAA had to use some metric other than the ITA's rankings for those four guys. If I had to pick nits I probably would have put Pac-12's Geller and Nanda straight into the draw as well as Big West's Joseph Guillan and WCC's Sean Hill. As it stands these guys are all on the alternate list, so the committee at least recognized their worth.
But seeding straight off the ITA lists this year as @jcgatennismom suggests seems like a huge mistake. On the bright side I guess we'll get some really interesting first and second round matches.
Last edited:
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.
UF isn’t scared, come on down to the Florida heat and bring it, Illini
bobleenov1963
Hall of Fame
It will be another disappointing year for my alma mater Ohio State.
Similar threads
