Women's Tennis: NCAA First and Second Rounds - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Women's Tennis: NCAA First and Second Rounds (/thread-15997.html)

---

RE: Women's Tennis: NCAA First and Second Rounds - ColoradoTree - 05-14-2018

Following up on the UTR Power 6 (the sum of the 6 singles players' UTRs on each team), it struck me that in looking at the various teams left, we are in the toughest corner of the draw when it comes to UTR.

For example, in our quarter of the draw, you have the #1, #3, #6, and #10.

In Vandy's quarter, you have #5, #17, #22, and #29

In Duke's quarter, you have #4, #7, #12, and #23.

In Georgia Tech's quarter, you get the closest to ours, at #2, #8, #9, and #13.  

If we end up winning this thing, then we sure will have earned it.

---

RE: Women's Tennis: NCAA First and Second Rounds - BostonCard - 05-14-2018

Thanks for this ColoradoTree.

I agree that some sort of test of how well UTR works in practice in predicting the outcome of matches.  It seems like this is a problem tailor made for an Elo approach (which UTR doesn't seem to be, but may use some aspects of).  From the wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Tennis_Rating  

Quote:In contrast, designing draws or flights with UTR consistently produces many more matches between athletes of roughly equal ability. Two players whose UTRs fall within 1.0 of each other will have a competitive match two to three times as often as those with ratings more than 1.0 apart. Furthermore, research has shown that when players' UTRs differ by more than 1.0 point, the lower-rated athlete will upset his or her higher-rated opponent only 3 percent of the time.

BC

---

RE: Women's Tennis: NCAA First and Second Rounds - StanfordMatt - 05-14-2018

At least they don’t have to deal with Haley Carter this year! It seemed like she was never going to graduate.

---