Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings - 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: Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings (/thread-12089.html)
+- 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: Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings (/thread-12089.html)
Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings - oldalum - 05-26-2016
http://www.itatennis.com/ResultsAndRankings/Rankings/2015-16_Oracle_ITA_Division_I_Women_s_Collegiate_Tennis_Rankings/Oracle_ITA_Collegiate_Tennis_Rankings_Division_I_Women_s_National_Team_-_May_25th.htm
Shows just how idiotic they are. Stanford is #1 only by fiat; Ok St is #8 and Cal #2 despite the NCAA championship head-to-head result. Ok St. did not look to me like the 8th best team out there. 5 Pac-12 teams in the top 25, 9 SEC.
Rank Avg School Previous Rank
1 82.53 Stanford 15
2 81.51 California 2
3 73.59 University of Florida 1
4 70.92 North Carolina 3
5 70.51 Vanderbilt University 6
6 70.30 Ohio State University 4
7 68.37 University of Georgia 5
8 67.83 Oklahoma State University 12
9 62.37 Pepperdine 8
10 60.01 University of Miami (Florida) 7
11 58.74 University of Michigan 10
12 52.41 Auburn University 11
13 52.21 University of Virginia 14
14 49.61 Duke University 9
15 48.08 Texas Tech University 16
16 45.89 Georgia Tech 17
17 45.68 University of South Carolina 13
18 39.97 LSU 18
19 39.12 Texas A&M University 19
20 38.57 University of Texas at Austin 24
21 38.42 University of Southern California 20
22 36.59 Arizona State University 23
23 35.27 Mississippi State University 21
24 32.23 University of Kentucky 22
25 31.72 UCLA 27
Re: Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings - 2006alum - 05-26-2016
This is why I always prefer the eye test to computers. You can debate the eye test. Computers are hard to argue with, other than to point out the utter stupidity of the results. Oklahoma State took Stanford to the brink and took care of Cal. How are they not #2 in the country? The whole point of rankings is to seed for tournaments. But once you have tournament results, you know exactly who beat whom. I can see a case for someone like Florida, who just had bad luck to play Stanford in the Round of 16, but frankly, if they really deserved to be ranked #3, they shouldn't have lost their round of 16 match.
Directors Cup gets it right for using tournament results rather than final rankings. Yet another flaw in the metrics of the Anyone But Stanford Cup.
Re: Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings - oldalum - 05-26-2016
The computer appears to treat the NCAA matches as just another match, equivalent in weight to any other. Look at North Carolina:Â seeded #3, lost in the Round of 16 to a 14-seed (who then lost to a 6-seed), and basically kept its #3 ranking (NC got bumped down to 4th in the final rankings just because we got inserted at #1). Why do they even produce end-of-season rankings in tennis? The top 16 ought to be the teams that made it to Tulsa, and who cares who is #18 or #33?
Re: Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings - fullmetal - 05-27-2016
Talk about disrespecting the national championship tournament...!
Re: Final ITA Women's Tennis rankings - oldalum - 06-01-2016
In W doubles final rankings, the championship team from Florida is ranked #2, while the Kentucky team that lost in the quarterfinals is ranked #1. The ITA forgot to "adjust" the rankings for the final results.