Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
you mean they actually made the tournament ??It will be another disappointing year for my alma mater Ohio State.
you mean they actually made the tournament ??It will be another disappointing year for my alma mater Ohio State.
you mean they actually made the tournament ??
UF isn’t scared, come on down to the Florida heat and bring it, Illini
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.
@jdlive and @Tennis Sam The problems with these rankings dont just affect May NCAAs.
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.
This has a major impact on next year as well. Another reason the ITA should do a better job.All excellent points. I didn't consider the longer term impacts at all.
To come to the defense of the ITA and NCAA here (I know I am waffling a lot on this topic), it'd be nice to flesh out a process that could be followed that was fair and everyone bought into. What I don't want is the "smoke-filled room" with individuals picking and choosing winners and losers (even ones that I trust like Alex, Matt, and Chris). It's easy for me to say what I'd do if I was in charge, but I pay no price for being wrong. And you'll notice I don't often say which players and teams that should be left when I point out the ones I'd choose.
So what do you do about selections? You can let in Michigan and Northwestern. Both teams are clearly worthy, and I actually do think both teams are better than SMU and Auburn. But if you keep Auburn out because Michigan has a higher Massey rating or Power 6, doesn't Auburn have a gripe when compared to other teams: "our Massey rank is #43, and our Power 6 is a 76.39. Arkansas' Massey rank is #61, and their Power 6 is a 75.27." Also those metrics are very hard to pin down whereas the ITA points system can easily be understood. CollegeTennisRanks can tell you exactly what's going to happen if you schedule a match with a known team. Maybe accepting teams based on the ITA rankings is the best, most even-handed way of doing things even knowing that there will be some problems with the outcome.
What about seeding? I tend to agree with @jcgatennismom on this front. Once the field is selected, the best 16 players and teams should be the seeds. But "best" is also subjective, and similar problems to selecting the field arise. This year Illinois got seeded instead of Arizona even though they had a lower ITA ranking, and again I think they are the better team (I put them in my top 6). But so is Ohio State, and arguably Michigan is too. And as @Nostradamus will point out, Stanford still has the fourth highest Power 6. Do you kick out Ole Miss, Kentucky, and South Carolina as hosts for these reasons? If not, why not?
I think maybe the biggest problem in the lead up to selections was the press release put out by the NCAA. It added confusion, not clarity. They and the ITA should have made it very clear early on: "we know this is an unusual year, but we're going to stick with the well-established rules. Plan accordingly." If the Big Ten chooses to not play any out-of-conference matches (or even any matches out of their East/West divisions) and this hurts them in the ITA rankings, they should bear the brunt of the consequences.
If anyone reading this topic can come up with suggestions for a better process (not just teams they wanted to see selected or changes to the seeding), I'd love to discuss it. At this point I'm not sure UTR or Massey are the answer. They may in fact just complicate things and make the process more subjective. If they are to be used, it should be very clear how they are used. I personally recommend sticking with non-proprietary metrics that can be independently verified by third parties like CollegeTennisRanks does with the ITA rankings.
Any ideas?
Your handling of grammar is a solid proof you are a Standford graduate....All 5 of these guys won't break top 200 in the ATP tour. [...]
LOL,,, Grammar,, your grandmar..?? you can't spellYour handling of grammar is a solid proof you are a Standford graduate....
you clearly got the joke.......LOL,,, Grammar,, your grandmar..?? you can't spell
Yes I'm a SEC fan and to say that 69th ranked Northwestern would probably beat Auburn outdoors on a hot day seems like a full matter of opinion, I would think Auburn would enjoy that match up.
Here's my problem with it, no one told the Big 10 they couldn't play out of conference. The "safety" aspect of it silly. How come they could play kick off weekend and national indoors but not singles out of conference matches? Is it safer for Penn State to travel to Nebraska or for Indiana to play Louisville? And no of course its safe to play out of conference?
It's not the fault of the kids or coaches but it is the fault of the administrators and presidents. In life your decisions have consequences, the Big 10 solely on their own decided to schedule this way and now they should deal with the consequences........I feel bad for Auburn SMU and Tulsa, they play a full schedule under the guidance of the ITA rankings which never changed and got penalized for it.
I really don’t know what to say. Do you honestly think Northwestern is the 69th best team in the country? Do you honestly feel bad for Auburn, who finished 7-15? The conference you support has 11 of their 14 teams in the tournament, and are hosting 7 of the 16 sites. 10 of the 16 singles seeds, and 7 of the top 8 are from the SEC. Given these incredible advantages, I would expect the SEC to do extremely well in this tournament.
In a normal year Auburn would not have played in tourney anyway with a way < .5 record. Their best player Tyler Stice does get to play in NCAA singles, and Auburn has one team in dubs too so Auburn was not entirely ignored by NCAA. I hope Tyler does well in singles; he was a fun player to watch in the juniors-at team events (Southern Jr Cup), he knew how to work the crowd.I also would expect the SEC to do quite well. And no, I don't feel bad for Auburn at all, I do feel bad for kids and coaches at Auburn who played a full schedule, 22 matches, vs Northwestern, who by the way played 20 matches. Based on a computer formula which doesn't take opinion into account one team is ranked 47 and another is ranked 69. Seems pretty logical which team should get to play in the NCAA's.
yeah but we’ve already outlined how the formula is very flawed this year that created an SEC logjam. The large gaps in rankings between auburn and northwestern would not be nearly as large ordinarily. and 22 vs 20 matches isn’t really that much difference in terms of full schedule. |
All excellent points. I didn't consider the longer term impacts at all.
To come to the defense of the ITA and NCAA here (I know I am waffling a lot on this topic), it'd be nice to flesh out a process that could be followed that was fair and everyone bought into. What I don't want is the "smoke-filled room" with individuals picking and choosing winners and losers (even ones that I trust like Alex, Matt, and Chris). It's easy for me to say what I'd do if I was in charge, but I pay no price for being wrong. And you'll notice I don't often say which players and teams that should be left when I point out the ones I'd choose.
So what do you do about selections? You can let in Michigan and Northwestern. Both teams are clearly worthy, and I actually do think both teams are better than SMU and Auburn. But if you keep Auburn out because Michigan has a higher Massey rating or Power 6, doesn't Auburn have a gripe when compared to other teams: "our Massey rank is #43, and our Power 6 is a 76.39. Arkansas' Massey rank is #61, and their Power 6 is a 75.27." Also those metrics are very hard to pin down whereas the ITA points system can easily be understood. CollegeTennisRanks can tell you exactly what's going to happen if you schedule a match with a known team. Maybe accepting teams based on the ITA rankings is the best, most even-handed way of doing things even knowing that there will be some problems with the outcome.
What about seeding? I tend to agree with @jcgatennismom on this front. Once the field is selected, the best 16 players and teams should be the seeds. But "best" is also subjective, and similar problems to selecting the field arise. This year Illinois got seeded instead of Arizona even though they had a lower ITA ranking, and again I think they are the better team (I put them in my top 6). But so is Ohio State, and arguably Michigan is too. And as @Nostradamus will point out, Stanford still has the fourth highest Power 6. Do you kick out Ole Miss, Kentucky, and South Carolina as hosts for these reasons? If not, why not?
I think maybe the biggest problem in the lead up to selections was the press release put out by the NCAA. It added confusion, not clarity. They and the ITA should have made it very clear early on: "we know this is an unusual year, but we're going to stick with the well-established rules. Plan accordingly." If the Big Ten chooses to not play any out-of-conference matches (or even any matches out of their East/West divisions) and this hurts them in the ITA rankings, they should bear the brunt of the consequences.
If anyone reading this topic can come up with suggestions for a better process (not just teams they wanted to see selected or changes to the seeding), I'd love to discuss it. At this point I'm not sure UTR or Massey are the answer. They may in fact just complicate things and make the process more subjective. If they are to be used, it should be very clear how they are used. I personally recommend sticking with non-proprietary metrics that can be independently verified by third parties like CollegeTennisRanks does with the ITA rankings.
Any ideas?
I really don’t know what to say. Do you honestly think Northwestern is the 69th best team in the country? Do you honestly feel bad for Auburn, who finished 7-15? The conference you support has 11 of their 14 teams in the tournament, and are hosting 7 of the 16 sites. 10 of the 16 singles seeds, and 7 of the top 8 are from the SEC. Given these incredible advantages, I would expect the SEC to do extremely well in this tournament.
As you so accurately said SEC dominating the NCAA's with half the teams left. Solid battle by Illinois vs my Gators, decent chance they would have won a point if the match played out........sorry just a different level.
I think the Illini would have had more than a decent chance of winning at least one match, considering the three unfinished matches all appeared on serve in the 3rd
Haddy Habib just beat a former top 40 player who is now 300, I guess he can hang with the 200'sAll 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