Teams that should prepare for a big ranking fall

[TopDawg]

Where are the Aggies looking?
Also are you going to release the full rankings???

10th - would have been 8th had they played and beaten Tulsa today. The 1st set of rankings count your 4 best wins - so far Texas A&M only has 3.

I still have to add some more in so probably tomorrow I'll put post 1-25. If GoneSouth has his done he can post his - I'm sure ours will be similar.

 

[epaige]

UNC dropping because they can't actually get a big win

What about Stanford?

 

[TopDawg]

What about Stanford?

They'll be right around 35 - give or take a spot.

 

[Golden_state_of_mind]

where will the Cal Bears be?

 

[Deacon Drive]

Do the computer rankings not account for margin of victory? My impression is that they simply consider win/loss, but I was hoping to confirm that.

 

[TopDawg]

Do the computer rankings not account for margin of victory? My impression is that they simply consider win/loss, but I was hoping to confirm that.

Just wins/losses with bonus for road wins. Margin of victory not considered at all.

 

[TopDawg]

where will the Cal Bears be?

Right around 18 - would have been 14 had they beat Stanford.

 

[Golden_state_of_mind]

Right around 18 - would have been 14 had they beat Stanford.

that does not seem correct for some reason

 

[Clemson_tennis]

UNC only has one top 30 win - that doesn't get you very far in a ranking system that it primarily influenced by who you beat

Maybe the scheduling a bit too ambitious?

 

[Kirijax]

Please expand the rankings to the Top 250 so Miami will be ranked.

 

[chris-swede]

Maybe the scheduling a bit too ambitious?

schedule is very tough, but lost both Illinois and Texa with 3-4...
2 matches vs Oklahoma...is not the thing you want to have

ACC tennis should give them enough solid wins to get into Top12 in my eyes..for Top10..hmm..the big wins are missing. :shock:

 

[GoneSouth]

Here's my top 25. Keep in mind that I sometimes have teams off by a spot or two, although I'm not sure why because theoretically everyone is using the same formula.

1 USC
2 Oklahoma
3 Illinois
4 Duke
5 Baylor
6 Texas
7 Georgia
8 Ohio State
9 Texas A&M
10 Ole Miss
11 Virginia
12 Wake Forest
13 Columbia
14 Notre Dame
15 TCU
16 Vanderbilt
17 Florida
18 California
19 North Carolina
20 Northwestern
21 UCLA
22 Harvard
23 Princeton
24 USF
25 Oklahoma State

 

[GoneSouth]

Maybe the scheduling a bit too ambitious?

I would actually say UNC's non-conference schedule a mix between too ambitious and not ambitious enough. Outside of their kickoff weekend matches against Virginia Tech and Oregon (that they had no control over), they scheduled two top 10 teams on the road in Oklahoma and Texas, and then assuming they planned on making it to Indoors, counted on having another three top 16 or so teams on the schedule.

Then, bizarrely, they wasted three playing dates on doubleheaders against six scrub teams while playing nobody in the 15-30 range of the rankings.

The secret to the rankings is to rack up as many wins as you can against teams ranked 15-30 and then take a few shots at top 10 teams in hopes that you can win one of those. At the end of the season, the rankings are counting your nine best wins, so having six or seven wins over teams ranked 15-30 is going to be worth a lot more than having one Top 10 win and only two or three 15-30 wins.

On those doubleheader dates, UNC should have tried to schedule one decent team that it would beat for the first match and then you can play the scrub in the second match. They didn't, and as a result they have used up a lot of their dates and only have three ranked wins to show for it.

Contrast this with Wake Forest which has played four matches against teams ranked 15-35, won all of them, and is now significantly ahead of Carolina in the rankings. With similar schedules left (Wake actually has more opportunities for good non-conference wins in TCU and Texas while UNC has only Minnesota of note left), it's going to be hard for UNC to pass Wake even if they beat them head-to-head, assuming both teams have similar results against the other teams.

 

[TopDawg]

Here's my top 25. Keep in mind that I sometimes have teams off by a spot or two, although I'm not sure why because theoretically everyone is using the same formula.

6 Texas
7 Georgia
9 Texas A&M
10 Ole Miss
16 Vanderbilt
17 Florida
23 Princeton
24 USF

I have everything the same except the below.

6. Georgia - 62.86
7. Texas - 62.62
9. Ole Miss - 53.42
10. Texas A&M - 53.41
16. Florida - 40.25*
17. Vanderbilt - 39.75
23. South Florida - 31.34
24. Princeton - 30.92

Florida has an * because Troy is its 4th best win and it's tough to gauge where they'd be ranked if at all. If Troy is ranked 105 or better Florida would be 15th and TCU 16th.

 

[chris-swede]

I would actually say UNC's non-conference schedule a mix between too ambitious and not ambitious enough. Outside of their kickoff weekend matches against Virginia Tech and Oregon (that they had no control over), they scheduled two top 10 teams on the road in Oklahoma and Texas, and then assuming they planned on making it to Indoors, counted on having another three top 16 or so teams on the schedule.

Then, bizarrely, they wasted three playing dates on doubleheaders against six scrub teams while playing nobody in the 15-30 range of the rankings.

The secret to the rankings is to rack up as many wins as you can against teams ranked 15-30 and then take a few shots at top 10 teams in hopes that you can win one of those. At the end of the season, the rankings are counting your nine best wins, so having six or seven wins over teams ranked 15-30 is going to be worth a lot more than having one Top 10 win and only two or three 15-30 wins.

On those doubleheader dates, UNC should have tried to schedule one decent team that it would beat for the first match and then you can play the scrub in the second match. They didn't, and as a result they have used up a lot of their dates and only have three ranked wins to show for it.

Contrast this with Wake Forest which has played four matches against teams ranked 15-35, won all of them, and is now significantly ahead of Carolina in the rankings. With similar schedules left (Wake actually has more opportunities for good non-conference wins in TCU and Texas while UNC has only Minnesota of note left), it's going to be hard for UNC to pass Wake even if they beat them head-to-head, assuming both teams have similar results against the other teams.

crazy but all right , i understand the value of every win vs 15-30 teams.

having unc 7 places behind Wake Forst, (and even Columbia behind Wake Forest). as Wake not looked to great so far, but their only 2 losses are vs Top4 teams (which not really hurt anyone for the rankings)

 

[Deacon Drive]

GoneSouth and TopDawg, thanks for providing this info - it's very interesting. Could either of you briefly describe how you tabulate these rankings? Do you keep Excel spreadsheets of all the results and then plug that info into a formula?

 

[chris-swede]

Here's my top 25. Keep in mind that I sometimes have teams off by a spot or two, although I'm not sure why because theoretically everyone is using the same formula.

1 USC
2 Oklahoma
3 Illinois
4 Duke
5 Baylor
6 Texas
7 Georgia
8 Ohio State
9 Texas A&M
10 Ole Miss
11 Virginia
12 Wake Forest
13 Columbia
14 Notre Dame
15 TCU
16 Vanderbilt
17 Florida
18 California
19 North Carolina
20 Northwestern
21 UCLA
22 Harvard
23 Princeton
24 USF
25 Oklahoma State

Pac12 behind USC will really get problems to push their rankings
Columbia could ve reached their ceiling, but it really helps to have a good harvard and princeton team there
Big10 could get problems, but OSU and Illinois are allways scheduling tough teams
5 times ACC in it, will help all ACC-Teams
the Big12 is all-in-there, only TTech missing out
SEC, to see UGA only on 7 after making semis of Indoors is weird A&M Top10 after missing Indoors also, but they beat Oklahoma, a win no one else has, SEC still five ranked teams in it.

 

[TopDawg]

GoneSouth and TopDawg, thanks for providing this info - it's very interesting. Could either of you briefly describe how you tabulate these rankings? Do you keep Excel spreadsheets of all the results and then plug that info into a formula?

Here was my post from last year that explains it - I use a Google doc spreadsheet.

 

[Deacon Drive]

Here was my post from last year that explains it - I use a Google doc spreadsheet.

Perfect - thanks!

 

[GoneSouth]

On the topic of Wake, I will say that they have the potential to drop big next ranking period if they don't beat Texas because three of their ranked wins (Tennessee, South Carolina and Clemson) are all heading in the wrong direction fast.

There will probably be significant movement for a lot of teams on the second run of computer rankings but then things should start to settle in.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

The secret to the rankings is to rack up as many wins as you can against teams ranked 15-30 and then take a few shots at top 10 teams in hopes that you can win one of those. At the end of the season, the rankings are counting your nine best wins, so having six or seven wins over teams ranked 15-30 is going to be worth a lot more than having one Top 10 win and only two or three 15-30 wins.

s.

I wonder how many coaches truly understand how the rankings work. I know for a fact that the coaches I knew did not know. You can tell some teams schedule shrewdly while others schedule stupidly. Stanford has been scheduling stupidly for a few years and it has cost them a good ranking.

 

[justinmadison]

Thanks for the post describing the ranking system. Does anyone calculate all 125 teams and post the resulting rankings? For teams further down the list you really need all 125 teams to accurately calculate their score.

When you run the calculation do you look at the opponents ranking as of the date the match was played or their current ranking?

 

[TopDawg]

Thanks for the post describing the ranking system. Does anyone calculate all 125 teams and post the resulting rankings? For teams further down the list you really need all 125 teams to accurately calculate their score.

When you run the calculation do you look at the opponents ranking as of the date the match was played or their current ranking?

You look at the current rankings to do the calculation. A few years back the ITA used to have 75-125 available though they stopped publishing those. I've not seen anybody else that's been able to accurately do those - too much guess work.

 

[chris-swede]

I wonder how many coaches truly understand how the rankings work. I know for a fact that the coaches I knew did not know. You can tell some teams schedule shrewdly while others schedule stupidly. Stanford has been scheduling stupidly for a few years and it has cost them a good ranking.

i have the feeling the most of them do not understand it. They schedule for travel reasons, for nearby-opponents, for practice, and also for friendship or for opponents they play every year.
Ole Miss for example, doubleheader today vs Jackson State...this is nonsense for the rankings....jackson state maybe unranked..worth 4 points twice...ole miss should get to 10 better wins this season...so both matches are just worthless...:shock:

 

[GoneSouth]

i have the feeling the most of them do not understand it. They schedule for travel reasons, for nearby-opponents, for practice, and also for friendship or for opponents they play every year.
Ole Miss for example, doubleheader today vs Jackson State...this is nonsense for the rankings....jackson state maybe unranked..worth 4 points twice...ole miss should get to 10 better wins this season...so both matches are just worthless...:shock:

These matches are scheduled for a completely different reason, which is that the NCAA put in a rule a few years ago that teams must have at least a .500 record to be eligible for the NCAA Tournament.

Last year, Alabama missed out on the tournament because of this rule, despite being ranked in the 30s.

 

[deacbb]

ACC
4. Duke
11. UVA
12. Wake
14. Notre Dame
19. UNC
26. FSU
27. NCSU
35. VTech
38. Louisville

Everyone in the ACC is going to play each other, and with 9 teams in the current top 40, all of them are going to have chances to improve their ranking. UVA is much better than 11. I think UNC is much better than 19. I think Duke at 4 is too high. The schedule just needs to get going. I actually think Wake at 12-15 is pretty accurate. Their match with Duke was very close. Oklahoma beat them 5-2, but it could just as easily been 4-3 or 7-0. I can only speak for Wake's schedule but starting this Sunday, they play at Texas, and TCU and UVA at home all within a 7 day span, so it won't be long before we can all better rate these teams.

 

[jaggy]

Indiana at 36 which is better than I ever expected this season.

 

[TopDawg]

Here's my top 25. Keep in mind that I sometimes have teams off by a spot or two, although I'm not sure why because theoretically everyone is using the same formula.

I figured out where I messed mine up - I carried over my sheet from last year but didn't make adjustments on the points below 35th and since there was a tie for 35th in the last rankings all my point totals below 35 were off by 1.

Only 2 that I keep missing on are Texas and Texas A&M. Did you get the point totals right on those? If so let me know what I'm putting down wrong.

Texas is 63.83 - I keep getting 62.62

Wins - 263
#8 North Carolina - 82
#11 Columbia - 75
#27 Penn State - 55
#31 Florida State - 51

Loss - 4.2
#9 Ohio State - .2

Texas A&M is 54.20 - I keep getting 53.18 - they only have 4 wins with 1 loss so I'm not sure where my miss is.

Wins - 234
#37 San Diego - 45
#9 Ohio State - 79
#1 Oklahoma - 106
Incarnate Word - 4

Losses - 4.4
#18 TCU - .4

 

[Jmcalister]

UVA at 11 is a joke, ACC looking really strong this year

 

[chris-swede]

UVA at 11 is a joke, ACC looking really strong this year

Unc 19 also..uva clear top5 Team but they not played a lot matches?

 

[chris-swede]

Indiana at 36 which is better than I ever expected this season.

I ve feeling they will drop over season but i do not know yet how they fare vs Rest of big10? Do u ve an opinion Jaggy?

 

[GoneSouth]

I figured out where I messed mine up - I carried over my sheet from last year but didn't make adjustments on the points below 35th and since there was a tie for 35th in the last rankings all my point totals below 35 were off by 1.

Only 2 that I keep missing on are Texas and Texas A&M. Did you get the point totals right on those? If so let me know what I'm putting down wrong.

Texas is 63.83 - I keep getting 62.62

Wins - 263
#8 North Carolina - 82
#11 Columbia - 75
#27 Penn State - 55
#31 Florida State - 51

Loss - 4.2
#9 Ohio State - .2

Texas A&M is 54.20 - I keep getting 53.18 - they only have 4 wins with 1 loss so I'm not sure where my miss is.

Wins - 234
#37 San Diego - 45
#9 Ohio State - 79
#1 Oklahoma - 106
Incarnate Word - 4

Losses - 4.4
#18 TCU - .4

For Texas, that Florida State win is incorrectly entered as a road win in the system so that's the problem. I pull my results from the ITA site which is why I had it wrong too.

Texas A&M has the same issue, San Diego is listed as a road win in the ITA system

 

[Hmmmmm]

For Texas, that Florida State win is incorrectly entered as a road win in the system so that's the problem. I pull my results from the ITA site which is why I had it wrong too.

Texas A&M has the same issue, San Diego is listed as a road win in the ITA system

It's the ITA! They are an error based organization

 

[TopDawg]

For Texas, that Florida State win is incorrectly entered as a road win in the system so that's the problem. I pull my results from the ITA site which is why I had it wrong too.

Texas A&M has the same issue, San Diego is listed as a road win in the ITA system

Well that would do it - spent a good hour thinking we'll maybe it was this or maybe it was that. Question is how long will it take them to fix the mistake - if at all. Oh well at least that gives me some peace of mind knowing I had at least those 2 right.

 

[chris-swede]

Good work guys! Haha maybe they ll never fix it at all...

 

[TopDawg]

Good work guys! Haha maybe they ll never fix it at all...

I emailed the guy in charge of those and he updated the 2 entries so they'll be reflected in next week's rankings. In this instance it wasn't the ITAs fault because the teams themselves are the ones that enter them in. I guess both Texas and aTm are trying to get a little competitive advantage. What's that saying - if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

 

[Gracelhink]

Well that would do it - spent a good hour thinking we'll maybe it was this or maybe it was that. Question is how long will it take them to fix the mistake - if at all. Oh well at least that gives me some peace of mind knowing I had at least those 2 right.

Moderator of the college tennis blog made a difference when they challenged the Buckeye home win streak totals,
The osu asst a. d. changed the number and noted the error they had made on the OSU official tennis website.
Professional publications offer immediate public apology, retraction, admission of mistake.
maybe too much to ask?

 

[TopDawg]

Moderator of the college tennis blog made a difference when they challenged the Buckeye home win streak totals,
The osu asst a. d. changed the number and noted the error they had made on the OSU official tennis website.
Professional publications offer immediate public apology, retraction, admission of mistake.
maybe too much to ask?

That's one fine guy that runs that blog

Kind of an embarrassing situation for them - the comment in the Notre Dame recap admitting the mistake was enough for me.

 

[TopDawg]

Drake also boned out of a road win over Louisville - didn't get the bonus because it shows as being played at Drake. Drake should be 28th instead of 29th. How deep does this worm hole go?

 

[CaliDawg]

I emailed the guy in charge of those and he updated the 2 entries so they'll be reflected in next week's rankings. In this instance it wasn't the ITAs fault because the teams themselves are the ones that enter them in. I guess both Texas and aTm are trying to get a little competitive advantage. What's that saying - if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

Wonder how many times this has happened in the past where no one caught on...

 

[chris-swede]

i feel YOU all should really run the ITA...you find the errors ...you have the knowledge...!!!
poor ita..and good work guys !

 

[chris-swede]

UGA on 7, compared to Illini on 3 and Duke on 4...
Vanderbilt on 16..wow that could really help the SEC, as it has not too much top ranked teams, Auburn at 28, LSU 31,South Carolina 34, could provide some help also

Ttech should be better as 32, but they will need to beat on of their conference foes....
Stanford 37, is too low, but scheduling...
Penn State 39, nice ranking for a ITA Indoor team..
Denver at 40 i feel is too high for them
Clemson 46 is a start for something, a run to the ncaas, needing some wins in ACC, but it is a start
MSU at 41 is too high right now...

Vols? UK? both not ranked? ah okay Vols #56, Gtech who lost to Vols also not ranked? Okay 5 wins vs unranked teams, and three 3-4 losses to Auburn, UGA and Vols (tough times sometimes these rankings....close losses are worthless for it..) problem for Gtech is if they not win 1 or better 2 of their better ACC matches..they could stay out of Top50 all season..

i know it is the first ranking.

 

[ClarkC]

Hey, that means Vanderbilt is almost as good as Virginia!

 

[chris-swede]

Hey, that means Vanderbilt is almost as good as Virginia!

What i am wondering..has uva so Bad nonconference schedule??

 

[10isplayer]

I'd be interested to hear what people think about this set of rankings. Not exactly sure how they're calculated

http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=ctm&sub=NCAA I

 

[ClarkC]

What i am wondering..has uva so Bad nonconference schedule??

UVa coach does not want to use up his limited number of schedule dates on playing ridiculous scoring format indoor matches in January. He wants to schedule outdoor matches played with normal scoring format and get ready for the NCAA outdoor championships. It has cost UVa two years in a row in terms of preparedness for the indoors, which has also cost them in early season rankings, with few matches having been played.

When the tyrants at the ITA give up their ridiculous schemes to *******ize the game every year, things will return to normal. Coach Boland is trying to give players a chance to develop for the ATP tour, even if that is a long shot for many. He is not trying to play QuickStart tennis or whatever the ITA calls their format these days.

 

[chris-swede]

I ve feeling they will drop over season but i do not know yet how they fare vs Rest of big10? Do u ve an opinion Jaggy?

my feelings are not too bad....:-?:???:

 

[chris-swede]

I'd be interested to hear what people think about this set of rankings. Not exactly sure how they're calculated

http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=ctm&sub=NCAA I

they never include TCU as a Big12 team..since years....

otherwise it is good comparison to the ITA rankings, sometimes Massey looks better (have UVA on 3 for example)

 

[chris-swede]

TCU Horned Frogs
Amon G. Carter Stadium | Fort Worth, TX

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ctm2015ctm2014ctm2013ctm2012ctm2011ctm2010ctm2009 Previous MoreAll SportsSimulate SeasonAll SeasonsHead-to-HeadMapTransitive Path


ctm2015 | NCAA | NCAA I | D1 Independent

 

[GoneSouth]

UVa coach does not want to use up his limited number of schedule dates on playing ridiculous scoring format indoor matches in January. He wants to schedule outdoor matches played with normal scoring format and get ready for the NCAA outdoor championships. It has cost UVa two years in a row in terms of preparedness for the indoors, which has also cost them in early season rankings, with few matches having been played.

When the tyrants at the ITA give up their ridiculous schemes to *******ize the game every year, things will return to normal. Coach Boland is trying to give players a chance to develop for the ATP tour, even if that is a long shot for many. He is not trying to play QuickStart tennis or whatever the ITA calls their format these days.

Not sure I buy this as there was no indication until two weeks ago that the shortened format would not be the format used at the NCAA championships. The schedule was made well before that

The idea that he would rather play outdoor matches than indoor matches is possible though.