The CardBoard
Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - 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 Final vs. Oklahoma State (/thread-12065.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - zedcom - 05-24-2016

Should have jumped directly to page 5 rather then starting on page 1 of this thread....would have saved myself a few heartbeats, not to mention the hyperventilation. Great commentary by ColoradoTree and others. Big thanks! What a rush! Stanford Tough!

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - fullmetal - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 03:19 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:I'm sure this will shock nobody, but while the C.apital One Cup standings take NCAA championship results into account for most sport scoring, they make an exception for tennis, where it's the final ITA rankings.

I think I may need to switch credit cards in protest... ::)

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - terry - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 02:46 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:[quote author=Nan3cy link=topic=15092.msg163537#msg163537 date=1464126318]

And practically all of the championships of the fourth-place school are in a single sport (wrestling, I believe).

34 of the 51 in wrestling, per, uh, Wikipedia.  ;)
[/quote]

And 10 of them are in men's golf, so 44 of Okla State's 51 championships are in just two sports.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - ColoradoTree - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 03:23 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=15092.msg163546#msg163546 date=1464128362]
I'm sure this will shock nobody, but while the C.apital One Cup standings take NCAA championship results into account for most sport scoring, they make an exception for tennis, where it's the final ITA rankings.  (They do this for some other sports, too. Until someone tells me otherwise, I'll assume it's a plot to ensure Stanford can't win.)

Thus, while we'll get max points for the Director's Cup out of this, it's by no means clear that we'll get the #1 spot in the ITA rankings.  (We might, though.  In the second-to-last ITA rankings in 2013, Stanford Women's Tennis was ranked 12th.  After winning the title, they vaulted all the way to 1st.  Plus, we've beaten the top 2 teams in the past month in C.al and Florida, so I'd say we've got a good argument.)

In single elimination bracketed tournaments with a clear winner, I can't imagine how ITA can be credible if it ranks any other team ahead of Stanford. In the pre-college football playoff world (and esp. the pre-BCS world), I could see having a split between perceived and actual national champions. Stanford won the trophy, and it's the only team left standing. How in the world does that not equate to number one?
[/quote]

I agree with you, especially in this situation where Stanford caught fire once Zhao came back, beat the top 2 teams in the country (and beat Florida twice), knocked off 3 Top 10 teams in the tournament and beat a team in the final that beat 3 Top 5 teams.  I think everyone at the ITA and NCAA realized Stanford was way better than its ranking, but also had to account for its overall record, which included time with Zhao out and everyone playing a spot up. 

*Looks up how ITA calculates team rankings*

OK, so it's not voters but a total computer thing, at least after a certain point in the season.  (Early in the season, voters determine how teams are ranked, and then later in the season, it's all computers.)  You get a certain number of points for beating the #1 team, the #2 team, etc., and you get penalized for losses.  Also, the ITA must have anticipated your critique, 2006alum, because the rankings manual states that "[t]he NCAA team champion automatically goes to No. 1 in final ranking."  So, uh, nice job, ITA.  Way to not be dumb.  I WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION. 

Since the ITA guarantees the team champion the top spot in the rankings but lets points determine the remaining pecking order, that actually seems like a pretty good system that takes into account overall team strength and results. 

C.apital One Cup is still crap, though.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - Robbie - 05-24-2016

(05-24-2016, 02:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:For those not able to watch the clinching point, here it is in its entirety.  It is even better with sound.  You will understand why we were all holding our breaths watching it live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm5gvPtg2C8&

The equivalent match-clinching point for men's tennis was won by someone I've known since he was a little boy. (Son of a friend.) The match was 4-1, so not quite the drama, but it's still nice. (UVa won, for those keeping score at home.)

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - Viking_Guy - 05-24-2016

Speaking as a player, I LOVED Davidson's approach on the final point - the multitude of deep slices, giving her opponent less to work with for a big top-spin shot, and basically wait for her to make a mistake.  One thing I noticed about Stanford and other teams is that they tended toward impatience at points - going for a big swinging volley or some other low-probability shot when they had the advantage, and often hammering it into the tape.

One of my fondest memories of playing was a ladder match on my high school team.  I was playing against a guy who was a big hitter, and he was taking it to me, up 5-1 in a one-set challenge.  So I decided to hit every baseline shot as a high topspin lob, forcing him to play deep and slowly; I even did it with some short balls that I could've easily turned into approach shots.  He completely fell apart, and I eventually won 6 straight games and the set 7-5.  Afterward, he complained to our coach about my tactic.  The coach took one look at him, and simply said, "Who won?"

VG


Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - oldalum - 05-25-2016

(05-24-2016, 10:25 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Speaking as a player, I LOVED Davidson's approach on the final point - the multitude of deep slices, giving her opponent less to work with for a big top-spin shot, and basically wait for her to make a mistake.

I totally agree. Instead of feeding balls right into your opponent's wheelhouse, make them do what they are less comfortable doing. The OK St. player did not take advantage of Davidson's short balls or soft slices to hit aggressive winners, so why not hit shots you can be more consistent with than your opponent and wait for the error. Excellent strategy. I do not think, as others seem to suggest, that this was timid tennis or poor tennis. She clearly had this strategy and it worked.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - BobK - 05-25-2016

There was a report, don't know how true, that Davidson was suffering leg cramps. 

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - 2006alum - 05-25-2016

(05-24-2016, 03:55 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:C.apital One Cup is still crap, though.

Totally agree. Not clear to me at all why women's softball, lacrosse, and volleyball should be worth three times the points of women's swimming and diving, cross country, track and field, gymnastics, golf, or tennis. I can see women's basketball and soccer, because those are the two sports played by most schools and that lead to the most prominent professional careers. But golf, tennis, gymnastics and swimming are all far more prominent professional women's sports than softball, lacrosse, or volleyball, so it just makes no sense.

[Insert similar rant re men's sports]

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - BostonCard - 05-25-2016

Women's Volleyball is a pretty major collegiate sport.  That's not necessarily a reason to overweight some sports compared to others, but if you are going to overweight something, volleyball isn't a bad choice.

BC

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - TreeWeird - 05-25-2016

I've assume the Capital One Cup multipliers for some sports has to do with how much those sports are on ESPN.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - Mick - 05-25-2016

(05-25-2016, 08:25 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Women's Volleyball is a pretty major collegiate sport.  That's not necessarily a reason to overweight some sports compared to others, but if you are going to overweight something, volleyball isn't a bad choice.

BC


My sense is that women's volleyball is similar to football, at least in terms of participation and popularity.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - StanfordMatt - 05-25-2016

I'll respectfully disagree with Viking_Guy and oldalum. The championship point was incredibly ugly but it worked so I'll take it. I don't think it was a strategy so much as nerves - or a strategy taking into account both players' nerves if you will. It's one thing to hit heavy, low-risk groundstrokes with lots of topspin that keep one's opponent pinned at the baseline but that's not what Davidson did at all. Several shots she didn't even swing through but instead simply blocked back returns that landed around the service line. As Viking_Guy noted, it's an approach that can work at the high school level but very rarely at this level. But hey, like I said, it worked so credit to Davidson and the rest of the team.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - BobK - 05-25-2016

For Matt from gostanford

Requiring a uniform change in the second set after drenching her first outfit in sweat, Davidson fought through cramps and fatigue to force a third frame. Davidson built a 5-2 cushion in the third set before Babic won three games in a row. But the Cardinal’s No. 2 player, who spent the early part of the season playing No. 1 in Zhao’s absence, settled down and once again provided the clincher on her biggest stage as the dogpile ensued.

It's leg cramps CI.  :P

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - oldalum - 05-25-2016

I think our players may be at a disadvantage to those in the midwest and south in playing in hot, humid, dehydrating conditions. they are just more used to handling it than we are. If Davidson had to change uniforms, she needed major rehydration.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - StanfordMatt - 05-25-2016

Thanks Bob. I watched a fair amount of Davidson's third set (was also flipping between Lampl and Lord's matches). Even with the dehydration, none of Davidson's other points that I saw played out like the championship point. The vast majority was very high quality tennis. I think the magnitude of the moment just affected the nerves of both players on the final point - 100% understandable given the circumstances - also not great tennis on that particular point.

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - oldalum - 05-25-2016

I wouldn't underestimate the effect of the heat, humidity, and dehydration on the players in the last few games of the third set. According to the Ok St coach, after the match was over, before the award ceremony the Okl St. player stood up and collapsed, and was treated by the Okl St and Stanford trainers for heat exhaustion with cooling measures.


Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - Spiny_Norman - 05-25-2016

A nice article from the Daily on the championship match - http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/05/25/womens-tennis-edges-oklahoma-state-for-18th-national-title/

Davidson talked about her mindset in the 3rd set.

Quote:“I started cramping a little bit [at 5-2], and things didn’t feel as good,” Davidson said after the match. “I knew if I could just stay in the match and make [Babic] hit a lot of balls, I was tougher than her.”


Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - terry - 05-25-2016

Wow, it didn't occur to me to downgrade Davidson due to lack of style points.  I enjoyed the result too much!

Re: Women's Tennis: NCAA Final vs. Oklahoma State - oldalum - 05-25-2016

full finals replay at:  http://www.ncaa.com/video/tennis-women/2016-05-24/di-womens-tennis-team-championship-full-replay-0