[ColoradoTree]

At long last, the NCAA tournament is upon us, and Stanford can get back to what it's good at--rolling through higher seeds and making the NCAA look foolish for underseeding them.  But before they can do that, they have to take care of business at home in the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament.  First up is St. John's (NY) tomorrow (Friday) at 2:00pm, and barring an upset, Stanford will then take on #17 Michigan in the second round on Saturday at 4:00pm.  

St. John's Preview

St. John's (17-5) is here on the strength of winning the Big East tournament and getting that conference's automatic bid, as their ranking would not otherwise justify it.  The simulated ITA rankings on collegetennisranks show them as #106. They haven't played anyone good, so we can't compare results against other teams.  No ranked doubles teams, and their lone ranked singles player is #118 Jessica Livianu, a sophomore and former Blue Chip recruit from the same class that saw Stanford get blue chip Emma Higuchi (and highly-ranked international Emily Arbuthnott). Higuchi was the higher-ranked recruit coming out of high school, but Livianu has shown the ability to beat higher-ranked players when given the chance.  In last year's NCAA singles tournament, Livianu locked up All-American status by upsetting Pepperdine's Luisa Stefani and USC's Gabby Smith before falling in 3 sets to Michigan's Kate Fahey. And she has been ranked as high as #24 this year, as she had a strong fall, reaching the quarterfinals of the ITA All-Americans on the strength of two three-set wins. She just hasn't played enough good players this spring to maintain that ranking, however, though that's no fault of hers.  

Though that should mean a competitive match for Gordon, the rest of the matches shouldn't be terribly close, as the talent level just isn't there. Expect Stanford to get the doubles point quickly and for three fairly quick wins, somewhere from Courts 2-5, to follow.  

How to follow: http://streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/?DB_OEM_ID=30600

Michigan Preview

Michigan (17-9) might not look like the 17th-ranked team based solely on record, but when you consider that this team avenged its only conference loss (to #13 Northwestern) in the Big Ten Tournament final, and their losses are all to highly-ranked teams, it makes more sense. Due to the Big Ten being down this year, however, they don't have a lot of marquee wins, with their best results being beating #18 Kansas, #19 Illinois, #24 Tulsa, and the aforementioned split with Northwestern.  That said, while the USTA ranks Stanford 6th, the same rankings have Michigan in 15th, so the USTA agrees that Michigan is dangerous and likely should have been seeded and hosting their own regional rather than coming to ours.  

Given their lofty ranking, it's surprising that the Wolverines have just two ranked players, #29 Kate Fahey and #97 Chiara Lommer, but their #3 player is Brienne Minor, who caught fire during last year's singles tournament and ended up as NCAA singles champion.  (She hasn't been quite the same player this year.)  No ranked doubles teams, though, so the path here is the traditional one: the doubles point and wins on the back 3 courts while the top 3 courts have their hands full. (Last year in the Round of 16, Stanford cruised to the doubles point and then got a very quick Higuchi win at #6, scored a fairly quick three-set win from Davidson at #3, took a loss at #1 when Doyle fell in 3 sets, and then got a three-set win from Arbuthnott at #5 to clinch.  (When the match was abandoned, Lord was leading in her 3rd set and Lampl was in a second-set tiebreaker after winning her first set, so while Michigan provided a stiff test, the scoreline didn't totally reflect that.)  

That assumes, of course, that Michigan gets past Hawaii.  They should do that with relative ease, but recall that at the top of Hawaii's lineup is Petra Melounova, who beat Gordon solidly, 6-2, 6-3, back at the end of March.  Hawaii's lineup isn't deep enough to compete with team like Michigan, however, so Hawaii beating Michigan would be a massive upset. 

How to follow:   http://streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/?DB_OEM_ID=30600

Wait, how good are we?

Really good.  The ITA, which ranks based on resume, says we're the 15th best team in the country.  The USTA, however, ranks based on how good they think teams are, and they peg us as the 6th-best team in the country.  In terms of actual quality of players, we can look to the total Universal Tennis Rating* for our 6 singles players (the so-called "UTR Power 6" rankings), and by that measure, Stanford is the best team in the country, just barely ahead of Pepperdine.  (See https://www.collegetennistoday.com/item/...gures.html). It's close, though--Stanford's average UTR is 11.7 along with Pepperdine, but Vanderbilt, Duke, and Georgia are at 11.6, and UNC and Texas are at 11.5.  

Stanford is clicking at the right time, winners of 14 straight matches and finally with an entirely healthy lineup.  Our record doesn't necessarily reflect it, but we might just be the best team in the country and live up to our ITA preseason #1 ranking by the time it's all said and done.  We have the talent to do it, if not the ranking. FWIW, slam.tennis puts us as a 86% chance to advance to the Round of 16, giving Michigan just a 14% to do the same 

* Universal Tennis Rating is an attempt to objectively measure how good a player is based on their universe of results. Beating good players moves you up, losing to bad players moves you down, and all your results are factored in.  (Technically, it doesn't measure wins and losses, but the percentage of games won vs. a particular player. So, dominating wins are better than winning ugly. Style points matter.)  The UTR Power 6 rankings add up your singles players' individual ratings to get an overall picture of how good your team is.  

[ColoradoTree]

At long last, the NCAA tournament is upon us, and Stanford can get back to what it's good at--rolling through higher seeds and making the NCAA look foolish for underseeding them.  But before they can do that, they have to take care of business at home in the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament.  First up is St. John's (NY) tomorrow (Friday) at 2:00pm, and barring an upset, Stanford will then take on #17 Michigan in the second round on Saturday at 4:00pm.  

St. John's Preview

St. John's (17-5) is here on the strength of winning the Big East tournament and getting that conference's automatic bid, as their ranking would not otherwise justify it.  The simulated ITA rankings on collegetennisranks show them as #106. They haven't played anyone good, so we can't compare results against other teams.  No ranked doubles teams, and their lone ranked singles player is #118 Jessica Livianu, a sophomore and former Blue Chip recruit from the same class that saw Stanford get blue chip Emma Higuchi (and highly-ranked international Emily Arbuthnott). Higuchi was the higher-ranked recruit coming out of high school, but Livianu has shown the ability to beat higher-ranked players when given the chance.  In last year's NCAA singles tournament, Livianu locked up All-American status by upsetting Pepperdine's Luisa Stefani and USC's Gabby Smith before falling in 3 sets to Michigan's Kate Fahey. And she has been ranked as high as #24 this year, as she had a strong fall, reaching the quarterfinals of the ITA All-Americans on the strength of two three-set wins. She just hasn't played enough good players this spring to maintain that ranking, however, though that's no fault of hers.  

Though that should mean a competitive match for Gordon, the rest of the matches shouldn't be terribly close, as the talent level just isn't there. Expect Stanford to get the doubles point quickly and for three fairly quick wins, somewhere from Courts 2-5, to follow.  

How to follow: http://streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/?DB_OEM_ID=30600

Michigan Preview

Michigan (17-9) might not look like the 17th-ranked team based solely on record, but when you consider that this team avenged its only conference loss (to #13 Northwestern) in the Big Ten Tournament final, and their losses are all to highly-ranked teams, it makes more sense. Due to the Big Ten being down this year, however, they don't have a lot of marquee wins, with their best results being beating #18 Kansas, #19 Illinois, #24 Tulsa, and the aforementioned split with Northwestern.  That said, while the USTA ranks Stanford 6th, the same rankings have Michigan in 15th, so the USTA agrees that Michigan is dangerous and likely should have been seeded and hosting their own regional rather than coming to ours.  

Given their lofty ranking, it's surprising that the Wolverines have just two ranked players, #29 Kate Fahey and #97 Chiara Lommer, but their #3 player is Brienne Minor, who caught fire during last year's singles tournament and ended up as NCAA singles champion.  (She hasn't been quite the same player this year.)  No ranked doubles teams, though, so the path here is the traditional one: the doubles point and wins on the back 3 courts while the top 3 courts have their hands full. (Last year in the Round of 16, Stanford cruised to the doubles point and then got a very quick Higuchi win at #6, scored a fairly quick three-set win from Davidson at #3, took a loss at #1 when Doyle fell in 3 sets, and then got a three-set win from Arbuthnott at #5 to clinch.  (When the match was abandoned, Lord was leading in her 3rd set and Lampl was in a second-set tiebreaker after winning her first set, so while Michigan provided a stiff test, the scoreline didn't totally reflect that.)  

That assumes, of course, that Michigan gets past Hawaii.  They should do that with relative ease, but recall that at the top of Hawaii's lineup is Petra Melounova, who beat Gordon solidly, 6-2, 6-3, back at the end of March.  Hawaii's lineup isn't deep enough to compete with team like Michigan, however, so Hawaii beating Michigan would be a massive upset. 

How to follow:   http://streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/?DB_OEM_ID=30600

Wait, how good are we?

Really good.  The ITA, which ranks based on resume, says we're the 15th best team in the country.  The USTA, however, ranks based on how good they think teams are, and they peg us as the 6th-best team in the country.  In terms of actual quality of players, we can look to the total Universal Tennis Rating* for our 6 singles players (the so-called "UTR Power 6" rankings), and by that measure, Stanford is the best team in the country, just barely ahead of Pepperdine.  (See https://www.collegetennistoday.com/item/...gures.html). It's close, though--Stanford's average UTR is 11.7 along with Pepperdine, but Vanderbilt, Duke, and Georgia are at 11.6, and UNC and Texas are at 11.5.  

Stanford is clicking at the right time, winners of 14 straight matches and finally with an entirely healthy lineup.  Our record doesn't necessarily reflect it, but we might just be the best team in the country and live up to our ITA preseason #1 ranking by the time it's all said and done.  We have the talent to do it, if not the ranking. FWIW, slam.tennis puts us as a 86% chance to advance to the Round of 16, giving Michigan just a 14% to do the same 

* Universal Tennis Rating is an attempt to objectively measure how good a player is based on their universe of results. Beating good players moves you up, losing to bad players moves you down, and all your results are factored in.  (Technically, it doesn't measure wins and losses, but the percentage of games won vs. a particular player. So, dominating wins are better than winning ugly. Style points matter.)  The UTR Power 6 rankings add up your singles players' individual ratings to get an overall picture of how good your team is.  

[ColoradoTree]

If you want to crunch the numbers behind various matchups, Bobby Knight (different guy) of the College Tennis Today website has put together some numbers and some capsule previews of each regional.  

Here's his overall preview: https://www.collegetennistoday.com/item/...gures.html
Here are the region-by-region previews: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1796044974
And here are some other numbers, including each player's UTR, their records at different spots in the lineup, etc.: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1796044974

Bobby does great stuff, and it really helps put some of the early matches in context.

[ColoradoTree]

If you want to crunch the numbers behind various matchups, Bobby Knight (different guy) of the College Tennis Today website has put together some numbers and some capsule previews of each regional.  

Here's his overall preview: https://www.collegetennistoday.com/item/...gures.html
Here are the region-by-region previews: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1796044974
And here are some other numbers, including each player's UTR, their records at different spots in the lineup, etc.: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1796044974

Bobby does great stuff, and it really helps put some of the early matches in context.

[ColoradoTree]

At this roundtable of college tennis experts, when asked what "dark horses" could make a run aside from the top seeds, most said Stanford (after saying it's absurd to call Stanford a dark horse, regardless of their seed): 
https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/article...0B44007D9B.  Many also properly noted Pepperdine as a team that is way better than their seed--I'd be more scared of playing 13th-seeded Pepperdine than 4th-seeded Georgia Tech, and I'm confident most of the coaches of the other seeded teams would feel the same way.  

Because I like it when people say nice things about our team, here are the highlights:

* "And of course, Stanford, the No. 15 seed, is always a threat regardless of their seeding."
* "On the women’s side, Stanford, Stanford, Stanford!! Don't ever count Lele Forood's teams out when it come to ‘the big prize.’”
* “Obviously, Stanford is a dark horse on the women's side."
* "On the women's side, Stanford is the No. 15 seed so they're a dark horse on paper. However, they're also Stanford and the hottest team in the country."
* "Given the Stanford women’s incredible history in this tournament, I don't how the Cardinal can be called a dark horse. But at No. 15, Stanford seems very much underseeded."
* "On the women’s side, my dark horse would be Stanford. It’s hard to actually consider the Cardinal a dark horse with all the history of their program, but they enter the tournament as the No. 15 seed! Coach Forood’s team understands how to proceed through a major tournament like this. Don’t be shocked if Stanford is one of the last few teams standing.”

That said, two of the panelists actually suggested Michigan as a dark horse team that could make a run to the title (though they recognized Stanford was a very tough draw).  And when asked who they thought would win the title, a couple folks mentioned Stanford as a possibility, but UNC and Vanderbilt were the most common choices.  But there's general consensus that Stanford could absolutely win it all, and while they might tab UNC to win in the Round of 16, absolutely no one will be shocked if Stanford wins that one.

In any event, we get NCAA tennis at Taube today, and that's exciting. For those of you on (or close to) campus, Michigan-Hawaii is up at 11:00am if you want to head over to Taube early and scout our potential opposition.  

[ColoradoTree]

At this roundtable of college tennis experts, when asked what "dark horses" could make a run aside from the top seeds, most said Stanford (after saying it's absurd to call Stanford a dark horse, regardless of their seed): 
https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/article...0B44007D9B.  Many also properly noted Pepperdine as a team that is way better than their seed--I'd be more scared of playing 13th-seeded Pepperdine than 4th-seeded Georgia Tech, and I'm confident most of the coaches of the other seeded teams would feel the same way.  

Because I like it when people say nice things about our team, here are the highlights:

* "And of course, Stanford, the No. 15 seed, is always a threat regardless of their seeding."
* "On the women’s side, Stanford, Stanford, Stanford!! Don't ever count Lele Forood's teams out when it come to ‘the big prize.’”
* “Obviously, Stanford is a dark horse on the women's side."
* "On the women's side, Stanford is the No. 15 seed so they're a dark horse on paper. However, they're also Stanford and the hottest team in the country."
* "Given the Stanford women’s incredible history in this tournament, I don't how the Cardinal can be called a dark horse. But at No. 15, Stanford seems very much underseeded."
* "On the women’s side, my dark horse would be Stanford. It’s hard to actually consider the Cardinal a dark horse with all the history of their program, but they enter the tournament as the No. 15 seed! Coach Forood’s team understands how to proceed through a major tournament like this. Don’t be shocked if Stanford is one of the last few teams standing.”

That said, two of the panelists actually suggested Michigan as a dark horse team that could make a run to the title (though they recognized Stanford was a very tough draw).  And when asked who they thought would win the title, a couple folks mentioned Stanford as a possibility, but UNC and Vanderbilt were the most common choices.  But there's general consensus that Stanford could absolutely win it all, and while they might tab UNC to win in the Round of 16, absolutely no one will be shocked if Stanford wins that one.

In any event, we get NCAA tennis at Taube today, and that's exciting. For those of you on (or close to) campus, Michigan-Hawaii is up at 11:00am if you want to head over to Taube early and scout our potential opposition.  

[Spiny_Norman]

Thanks, CT, for bringing this discussion to our attention.  I read the thread to see what they said about the men's side.

Most observers favor Wake Forest because they are the overall #1 seed and the host for the tournament. The only other favorite seems to be UCLA. Ohio State gets some love too, but no one mentioned #4 seed Stanford.

[Spiny_Norman]

Thanks, CT, for bringing this discussion to our attention.  I read the thread to see what they said about the men's side.

Most observers favor Wake Forest because they are the overall #1 seed and the host for the tournament. The only other favorite seems to be UCLA. Ohio State gets some love too, but no one mentioned #4 seed Stanford.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks, CT, for bringing this discussion to our attention.  I read the thread to see what they said about the men's side.

Most observers favor Wake Forest because they are the overall #1 seed and the host for the tournament. The only other favorite seems to be UCLA. Ohio State gets some love too, but no one mentioned #4 seed Stanford.

Yeah, the conventional wisdom appears to be that on the women's side, any number of several teams (including Stanford, the 15 seed) could plausibly win the national title, but on the men's side, the likely winners are a much, much smaller group (excluding Stanford, the 4 seed). I don't follow the men's game overall closely enough to say how crazy that might be, but it does seem weird given that Stanford's UTR Power 6 (the sum of the 6 singles players' individual ratings) is 83.8, while Wake and UCLA are both at 83.7. The talent is there, though heck, I also think UCLA is better than Stanford on the men's side and that home court will be tough to overcome against Wake. And that's if they get to Wake in the semis--Stanford's men will first have to beat 5th-seeded Texas A&M in the quarterfinals, and A&M has the top UTR in the country.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks, CT, for bringing this discussion to our attention.  I read the thread to see what they said about the men's side.

Most observers favor Wake Forest because they are the overall #1 seed and the host for the tournament. The only other favorite seems to be UCLA. Ohio State gets some love too, but no one mentioned #4 seed Stanford.

Yeah, the conventional wisdom appears to be that on the women's side, any number of several teams (including Stanford, the 15 seed) could plausibly win the national title, but on the men's side, the likely winners are a much, much smaller group (excluding Stanford, the 4 seed). I don't follow the men's game overall closely enough to say how crazy that might be, but it does seem weird given that Stanford's UTR Power 6 (the sum of the 6 singles players' individual ratings) is 83.8, while Wake and UCLA are both at 83.7. The talent is there, though heck, I also think UCLA is better than Stanford on the men's side and that home court will be tough to overcome against Wake. And that's if they get to Wake in the semis--Stanford's men will first have to beat 5th-seeded Texas A&M in the quarterfinals, and A&M has the top UTR in the country.

[ColoradoTree]

The other Pac-12 women's teams in the tournament--UCLA, Arizona State, and Oregon--are also active today.

* ASU plays Wake Forest in Athens, GA. ASU lost the doubles point very narrowly. Based on ranking, Wake is favored (29 to 37), but ASU has a slightly better UTR Power 6 rating, so this could go either way. UTR would predict WF wins at 1, 2, and 4, ASU wins at 5 and 6, and a complete toss-up at 3, but none of the individual matchups is all that lopsided, so we'll see how that plays out. The winner gets #7 Georgia tomorrow.  UPDATE: It's 2-2 with the remaining matches into third sets. ASU got wins at 5 and 6, and Wake won at 4, so UTR is right so far. 1 and 3 are into third sets with opposite momentum (ASU surging at 1, fading at 3), and a third set is just starting on Court 2.  UPDATE 2: ASU lost big in the third set on 3, so now it's 3-2 Wake Forest with ASU down a break at 4-2 on Court 1 and ASU leading 2-0 on Court 2. ASU needs both to advance, but after taking the second set 6-1, ASU's John-Baptiste is on the verge of watching it all slip away. UPDATE 3: She watched it slip away. ASU loses 4-2. Sigh.

* Oregon is playing Tennessee. The ITA thinks Oregon is slightly better (33 to 38), but UTR rankings think Oregon is significantly better (20th to 41st). In the early going in doubles now. In singles, UTR would predict Oregon wins at the top 4 spots and losses at 5 and 6, but again, they're fairly close. If Oregon wins, they'll get #3 Duke tomorrow.  UPDATE: Oregon lost the doubles point, but won first sets in singles at 3, 4, and 5, lost the first set at 6, is in a tiebreaker at 1 and is down a break late in the first at 2. Tennessee is cruising in the second set on Court 4, however. This one will be tight. UPDATE 2: Oregon's Tobita lost the first set in a tiebreaker, and Sangwan is into a tiebreaker in the first at Court 2. Of the other four matches, Oregon won three first sets, but don't lead in any of the second sets. UPDATE 3: A nice change in momentum for Oregon, as Sangwan won a marathon tiebreaker to take her first set, Tobita charged back in her second set to force a third, and Oregon got a win on Court 4. Tennessee won on 6, so the Vols lead 2-1 with four matches remaining. 1: Tobita tied, 6-7, 6-1, 0-0; 2: Sangwan leads 7-6, 0-0; 3: Oregon trails: 6-0, 4-6, 0-1; 5: Oregon leads 6-4, 3-5. Oregon needs 3 of 4 to advance. UPDATE 4: Everything going Oregon's way at the moment, coming back to win the second set and the match at 5 to tie up the overall match at 2-2, and winning 6-3 in the third set at 3 to give Oregon a 3-2 lead. Oregon looks primed to clinch soon, leading 7-6, 5-2 on Court 2, and leading 4-3 in the third (up a break) on Court 1. Close enough that Oregon can taste it. 4 points away....

* UCLA hosts Fresno State at 2:00pm. They will win handily. The real challenge will be Baylor (ranked 25th in the ITA, but with the 15th-best UTR) tomorrow, just like Stanford's challenge against Michigan.

And as for the other match going on at Stanford today, the doubles point was closer than expected. Michigan won 6-0 at #1, but Courts 2 and 3 went down to the wire before Michigan took the point. It probably won't be, but let's hope the match is close! UPDATE: It's not that close! That said, Melounova responded to losing the first set 6-1 to Fahey by going up a break, 4-3 in the second. But Michigan won all 6 first sets and leads in the second set in 5 of them, so this one should end 4-0.

FYI, this is the first year that Cal has ever missed the women's tournament.  Stanford and UCLA are thus the only schools who haven't missed it, so they're tied for the lead in consecutive appearances with 37.  Historic failure from Cal.  Normally, I'd celebrate that, but Cal being miss-the-tournament bad hurts us and our ranking, and I am opposed to that.

[ColoradoTree]

The other Pac-12 women's teams in the tournament--UCLA, Arizona State, and Oregon--are also active today.

* ASU plays Wake Forest in Athens, GA. ASU lost the doubles point very narrowly. Based on ranking, Wake is favored (29 to 37), but ASU has a slightly better UTR Power 6 rating, so this could go either way. UTR would predict WF wins at 1, 2, and 4, ASU wins at 5 and 6, and a complete toss-up at 3, but none of the individual matchups is all that lopsided, so we'll see how that plays out. The winner gets #7 Georgia tomorrow.  UPDATE: It's 2-2 with the remaining matches into third sets. ASU got wins at 5 and 6, and Wake won at 4, so UTR is right so far. 1 and 3 are into third sets with opposite momentum (ASU surging at 1, fading at 3), and a third set is just starting on Court 2.  UPDATE 2: ASU lost big in the third set on 3, so now it's 3-2 Wake Forest with ASU down a break at 4-2 on Court 1 and ASU leading 2-0 on Court 2. ASU needs both to advance, but after taking the second set 6-1, ASU's John-Baptiste is on the verge of watching it all slip away. UPDATE 3: She watched it slip away. ASU loses 4-2. Sigh.

* Oregon is playing Tennessee. The ITA thinks Oregon is slightly better (33 to 38), but UTR rankings think Oregon is significantly better (20th to 41st). In the early going in doubles now. In singles, UTR would predict Oregon wins at the top 4 spots and losses at 5 and 6, but again, they're fairly close. If Oregon wins, they'll get #3 Duke tomorrow.  UPDATE: Oregon lost the doubles point, but won first sets in singles at 3, 4, and 5, lost the first set at 6, is in a tiebreaker at 1 and is down a break late in the first at 2. Tennessee is cruising in the second set on Court 4, however. This one will be tight. UPDATE 2: Oregon's Tobita lost the first set in a tiebreaker, and Sangwan is into a tiebreaker in the first at Court 2. Of the other four matches, Oregon won three first sets, but don't lead in any of the second sets. UPDATE 3: A nice change in momentum for Oregon, as Sangwan won a marathon tiebreaker to take her first set, Tobita charged back in her second set to force a third, and Oregon got a win on Court 4. Tennessee won on 6, so the Vols lead 2-1 with four matches remaining. 1: Tobita tied, 6-7, 6-1, 0-0; 2: Sangwan leads 7-6, 0-0; 3: Oregon trails: 6-0, 4-6, 0-1; 5: Oregon leads 6-4, 3-5. Oregon needs 3 of 4 to advance. UPDATE 4: Everything going Oregon's way at the moment, coming back to win the second set and the match at 5 to tie up the overall match at 2-2, and winning 6-3 in the third set at 3 to give Oregon a 3-2 lead. Oregon looks primed to clinch soon, leading 7-6, 5-2 on Court 2, and leading 4-3 in the third (up a break) on Court 1. Close enough that Oregon can taste it. 4 points away....

* UCLA hosts Fresno State at 2:00pm. They will win handily. The real challenge will be Baylor (ranked 25th in the ITA, but with the 15th-best UTR) tomorrow, just like Stanford's challenge against Michigan.

And as for the other match going on at Stanford today, the doubles point was closer than expected. Michigan won 6-0 at #1, but Courts 2 and 3 went down to the wire before Michigan took the point. It probably won't be, but let's hope the match is close! UPDATE: It's not that close! That said, Melounova responded to losing the first set 6-1 to Fahey by going up a break, 4-3 in the second. But Michigan won all 6 first sets and leads in the second set in 5 of them, so this one should end 4-0.

FYI, this is the first year that Cal has ever missed the women's tournament.  Stanford and UCLA are thus the only schools who haven't missed it, so they're tied for the lead in consecutive appearances with 37.  Historic failure from Cal.  Normally, I'd celebrate that, but Cal being miss-the-tournament bad hurts us and our ranking, and I am opposed to that.

[StanfordMatt]

I'm no match for ColoradoTree when it comes to providing as detailed of an analysis of our men's chances, but suffice it to say that it would be foolish to count them out as a contender for the title. For starters, we already have beaten UCLA this year so the idea that they are on a different level from us is hogwash. Regarding Wake Forest, we played them in the semifinals of the Indoor National Championships where we lost 4-3 back in February. In the deciding match, our top player, Tom Fawcett, jumped out to a 4-1 lead in the third set tiebreaker but shanked an overhead on the next point and ended up losing 7-5 in the tiebreak. It was a match that we literally lost by one swing of the racquet. There's no reason we're not capable of beating the Deacs should we meet again.

The biggest problem our men are facing is that, unlike our women, they haven't been playing their best tennis down the stretch. In the PAC-12 semis two weeks ago, they were beaten soundly by a USC team that Stanford had dominated twice earlier in the year. Our top three players (Fawcett, Geller and Kumar) all dropped matches to lesser ranked opponents in Ojai and generally looked off their game. As ColoradoTree points out, our women can sometimes get by without wins on the top courts because of the strength of their 4-6 players. That's not the case for our men. Those top three will have to get back on track if they're going to entertain any hopes of winning the championship. Hopefully, they can do just that with wins in the first two rounds versus New Mexico State and Duke/Ole Miss.

[StanfordMatt]

I'm no match for ColoradoTree when it comes to providing as detailed of an analysis of our men's chances, but suffice it to say that it would be foolish to count them out as a contender for the title. For starters, we already have beaten UCLA this year so the idea that they are on a different level from us is hogwash. Regarding Wake Forest, we played them in the semifinals of the Indoor National Championships where we lost 4-3 back in February. In the deciding match, our top player, Tom Fawcett, jumped out to a 4-1 lead in the third set tiebreaker but shanked an overhead on the next point and ended up losing 7-5 in the tiebreak. It was a match that we literally lost by one swing of the racquet. There's no reason we're not capable of beating the Deacs should we meet again.

The biggest problem our men are facing is that, unlike our women, they haven't been playing their best tennis down the stretch. In the PAC-12 semis two weeks ago, they were beaten soundly by a USC team that Stanford had dominated twice earlier in the year. Our top three players (Fawcett, Geller and Kumar) all dropped matches to lesser ranked opponents in Ojai and generally looked off their game. As ColoradoTree points out, our women can sometimes get by without wins on the top courts because of the strength of their 4-6 players. That's not the case for our men. Those top three will have to get back on track if they're going to entertain any hopes of winning the championship. Hopefully, they can do just that with wins in the first two rounds versus New Mexico State and Duke/Ole Miss.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks for the analysis, Matt! Re: UCLA, I agree we're certainly capable of beating them, but the fact that we beat them in a close match at home early in the season, and got smoked when we played them at their place later in the season, gives me some pause.  That said, UCLA is on the opposite side of the bracket, so if our men see them again, we will have beaten #5 A&M and #1 Wake and thus demonstrated our ability to take out some top teams and have our top 3 spots in the lineup rolling again.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks for the analysis, Matt! Re: UCLA, I agree we're certainly capable of beating them, but the fact that we beat them in a close match at home early in the season, and got smoked when we played them at their place later in the season, gives me some pause.  That said, UCLA is on the opposite side of the bracket, so if our men see them again, we will have beaten #5 A&M and #1 Wake and thus demonstrated our ability to take out some top teams and have our top 3 spots in the lineup rolling again.

[BigEasyCard]

Here's a link to the full bracket:

https://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket...s-women/d1

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

Here's a link to the full bracket:

https://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket...s-women/d1

Geaux Cardinal!

[ColoradoTree]

Of note, Minor is playing at #2 for Michigan, shifting Lommer to #3.  That's not crazy, since both have played at both positions this year, and they're very similar on UTR.  It doesn't change my outlook on the match--Lord is still a medium favorite on Court 2 and Lampl an ever-so-slight favorite on Court 3--but Minor has the higher ceiling, so that could be a terrific match on Court 2 tomorrow.

[ColoradoTree]

Of note, Minor is playing at #2 for Michigan, shifting Lommer to #3.  That's not crazy, since both have played at both positions this year, and they're very similar on UTR.  It doesn't change my outlook on the match--Lord is still a medium favorite on Court 2 and Lampl an ever-so-slight favorite on Court 3--but Minor has the higher ceiling, so that could be a terrific match on Court 2 tomorrow.

[ColoradoTree]

Lots of could-go-either-way matches in the women's tournament today, but we saw one "wow" upset--74th-ranked Winthrop getting their first-ever NCAA tournament win over 20th-ranked Auburn. Auburn spent much of the season living in the top 16 (and thus, in line for a seed), but fell just far enough to have to go on the road. This is a legit stunner, as many (me included) thought Auburn could knock off #4 Georgia Tech in the second round.

Oregon ended up pulling it out against Tennessee, 4-2, with Tobita up a break in the third set when the match was clinched, so there was some room for error there.  

Pepperdine looks like they might dodge a big bullet, as Kansas is tied 3-3 with Denver with one match tied up late. But even if Kansas survives, the Jayhawks' #1 player, 8th-ranked Anastasia Rychagova didn't play. If she's healthy, Kansas blows the doors off Denver, but instead, they're at risk of losing in the first round.

Michigan just won 4-0 with singles wins from Minor at #2, Jones at #4, and Ruder-Hook at #5.  Melounova took the second set from Fahey just before the clincher, but while that match was in doubt, Hawaii just didn't have the depth to challenge Michigan overall.

[ColoradoTree]

Lots of could-go-either-way matches in the women's tournament today, but we saw one "wow" upset--74th-ranked Winthrop getting their first-ever NCAA tournament win over 20th-ranked Auburn. Auburn spent much of the season living in the top 16 (and thus, in line for a seed), but fell just far enough to have to go on the road. This is a legit stunner, as many (me included) thought Auburn could knock off #4 Georgia Tech in the second round.

Oregon ended up pulling it out against Tennessee, 4-2, with Tobita up a break in the third set when the match was clinched, so there was some room for error there.  

Pepperdine looks like they might dodge a big bullet, as Kansas is tied 3-3 with Denver with one match tied up late. But even if Kansas survives, the Jayhawks' #1 player, 8th-ranked Anastasia Rychagova didn't play. If she's healthy, Kansas blows the doors off Denver, but instead, they're at risk of losing in the first round.

Michigan just won 4-0 with singles wins from Minor at #2, Jones at #4, and Ruder-Hook at #5.  Melounova took the second set from Fahey just before the clincher, but while that match was in doubt, Hawaii just didn't have the depth to challenge Michigan overall.

[BobK]

Stanford won the doubles in 26 minutes

[BobK]

Stanford won the doubles in 26 minutes

[ColoradoTree]

And Lampl wins the race to be the first to take a set, getting her first set 6-0 in what, like 15 minutes?  Goodness.  

Everyone else is up early:

1. Gordon up 3-1 
2. Lord up 4-1
3. Lampl up 6-0, 0-0
4. Arbuthnott up 3-1
5. Shin up 2-1
6. Higuchi up 5-0

For me, this team will go as far as Lampl and Arbuthnott will take them.  We're going to be better at 5 and 6 than almost everyone we play, and Gordon and Lord will be playing highly-ranked opponents the rest of the way after today, and those are rarely better than coin flips.  But if Lampl and Arbuthnott can really assert themselves in the middle of the lineup?  Look out.

---

Stanford 2, St. John's 0

Folks, Lampl looked sharp today. Even accounting for the quality of opponent, the ball was flying off her racket, and she was hitting corners with ease.  She plays like this the rest of the tournament, and we'll be tough to beat.

1. Gordon leads 6-4, 0-0 
2. Lord tied 6-6
3. Lampl won 6-0, 6-1
4. Arbuthnott leads 6-2, 2-0
5. Shin leads 6-1, 1-2
6. Higuchi leads 6-0, 5-0

Uneven display from Lord so far, who was up 4-2 but lost three straight to a much lesser player before stopping the bleeding with an easy hold. Stanford will advance, but she can't be happy about how she's playing, especially with a tough match on deck vs. Minor tomorrow.

[ColoradoTree]

And Lampl wins the race to be the first to take a set, getting her first set 6-0 in what, like 15 minutes?  Goodness.  

Everyone else is up early:

1. Gordon up 3-1 
2. Lord up 4-1
3. Lampl up 6-0, 0-0
4. Arbuthnott up 3-1
5. Shin up 2-1
6. Higuchi up 5-0

For me, this team will go as far as Lampl and Arbuthnott will take them.  We're going to be better at 5 and 6 than almost everyone we play, and Gordon and Lord will be playing highly-ranked opponents the rest of the way after today, and those are rarely better than coin flips.  But if Lampl and Arbuthnott can really assert themselves in the middle of the lineup?  Look out.

---

Stanford 2, St. John's 0

Folks, Lampl looked sharp today. Even accounting for the quality of opponent, the ball was flying off her racket, and she was hitting corners with ease.  She plays like this the rest of the tournament, and we'll be tough to beat.

1. Gordon leads 6-4, 0-0 
2. Lord tied 6-6
3. Lampl won 6-0, 6-1
4. Arbuthnott leads 6-2, 2-0
5. Shin leads 6-1, 1-2
6. Higuchi leads 6-0, 5-0

Uneven display from Lord so far, who was up 4-2 but lost three straight to a much lesser player before stopping the bleeding with an easy hold. Stanford will advance, but she can't be happy about how she's playing, especially with a tough match on deck vs. Minor tomorrow.

[StanfordMatt]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

[StanfordMatt]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

[unclechuck]

Thanks to all posters for the surfeit of juicy backstory on this thread. Makes it easy for us late-comers to get up to speed with the drama and to make sense of it when we might get a glimpse of some part of it on broadcast. Cheers.

[unclechuck]

Thanks to all posters for the surfeit of juicy backstory on this thread. Makes it easy for us late-comers to get up to speed with the drama and to make sense of it when we might get a glimpse of some part of it on broadcast. Cheers.

[ColoradoTree]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

I think a lot of the lower ranked automatic bid teams are based on the East Coast, the Northeast in particular, and there just aren’t enough top seeds on the East Coast to accommodate them, so someone was getting shafted. It was just a question of which team, and St. John’s drew the short straw.

[ColoradoTree]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

I think a lot of the lower ranked automatic bid teams are based on the East Coast, the Northeast in particular, and there just aren’t enough top seeds on the East Coast to accommodate them, so someone was getting shafted. It was just a question of which team, and St. John’s drew the short straw.

[Hulk01]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

I think a lot of the lower ranked automatic bid teams are based on the East Coast, the Northeast in particular, and there just aren’t enough top seeds on the East Coast to accommodate them, so someone was getting shafted. It was just a question of which team, and St. John’s drew the short straw.

---

I watched several of Lord's games.  Way way too many unforced errors.  She can't beat a decent number two playing like that.

I saw enough of Arbuthnot to decide she can't lose at #4 playing like that.  She was overpowering.

[Hulk01]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

I think a lot of the lower ranked automatic bid teams are based on the East Coast, the Northeast in particular, and there just aren’t enough top seeds on the East Coast to accommodate them, so someone was getting shafted. It was just a question of which team, and St. John’s drew the short straw.

---

I watched several of Lord's games.  Way way too many unforced errors.  She can't beat a decent number two playing like that.

I saw enough of Arbuthnot to decide she can't lose at #4 playing like that.  She was overpowering.

[ColoradoTree]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

I think a lot of the lower ranked automatic bid teams are based on the East Coast, the Northeast in particular, and there just aren’t enough top seeds on the East Coast to accommodate them, so someone was getting shafted. It was just a question of which team, and St. John’s drew the short straw.

---

I watched several of Lord's games.  Way way too many unforced errors.  She can't beat a decent number two playing like that.

I saw enough of Arbuthnot to decide she can't lose at #4 playing like that.  She was overpowering.

 Yeah, it was sloppy enough that you wonder if she was just getting frustrated to be playing a grinder that obviously wasn’t as good as she was. We had a discussion on here about Arbuthnott a couple of weeks ago, noting how she’s content to extend points when she’s playing a grinder like that, and not feel rushed to end the point early. But when you KNOW you’re better, frustration can easily set in, and you start making uncharacteristic mistakes, and then you get in your own head, and you can get in a tailspin. Let’s hope this is all it is, and Lord will elevate her play when necessary! (We’ll find out in a few hours, either way.)

I am pumped about how Arbuthnott looked, though. And Lampl.

[ColoradoTree]

Nice start for the women. Not taking anything away from St. John's, but I really don't understand the logic behind having them travel 3,000 miles to play a match in a non-revenue sport where the outcome technically was decided in about an hour but realistically was decided before they ever left NYC.

I think a lot of the lower ranked automatic bid teams are based on the East Coast, the Northeast in particular, and there just aren’t enough top seeds on the East Coast to accommodate them, so someone was getting shafted. It was just a question of which team, and St. John’s drew the short straw.

---

I watched several of Lord's games.  Way way too many unforced errors.  She can't beat a decent number two playing like that.

I saw enough of Arbuthnot to decide she can't lose at #4 playing like that.  She was overpowering.

 Yeah, it was sloppy enough that you wonder if she was just getting frustrated to be playing a grinder that obviously wasn’t as good as she was. We had a discussion on here about Arbuthnott a couple of weeks ago, noting how she’s content to extend points when she’s playing a grinder like that, and not feel rushed to end the point early. But when you KNOW you’re better, frustration can easily set in, and you start making uncharacteristic mistakes, and then you get in your own head, and you can get in a tailspin. Let’s hope this is all it is, and Lord will elevate her play when necessary! (We’ll find out in a few hours, either way.)

I am pumped about how Arbuthnott looked, though. And Lampl.

[Hulk01]

---

I watched several of Lord's games.  Way way too many unforced errors.  She can't beat a decent number two playing like that.


"Yeah, it was sloppy enough that you wonder if she was just getting frustrated to be playing a grinder that obviously wasn’t as good as she was."

That seems a plausible explanation.  I hope it's the right one.

The tennis team somewhat resembles the golf team.  Both teams have an enormously gifted #2 who is playing inconsistently and two players right behind her, in #3 and #4, are playing like #2's--or close enough to it to be overwhelming favorites to win.   

Alas for us golf fans, there's a brobdingnagian difference: Higuchi looks like an all-but sure win in the final spot for the tennis, while Aubert is a question mark--and the X Factor--for the golf team.

[Hulk01]

---

I watched several of Lord's games.  Way way too many unforced errors.  She can't beat a decent number two playing like that.


"Yeah, it was sloppy enough that you wonder if she was just getting frustrated to be playing a grinder that obviously wasn’t as good as she was."

That seems a plausible explanation.  I hope it's the right one.

The tennis team somewhat resembles the golf team.  Both teams have an enormously gifted #2 who is playing inconsistently and two players right behind her, in #3 and #4, are playing like #2's--or close enough to it to be overwhelming favorites to win.   

Alas for us golf fans, there's a brobdingnagian difference: Higuchi looks like an all-but sure win in the final spot for the tennis, while Aubert is a question mark--and the X Factor--for the golf team.

[Lorcan]

Florida is in a bit of trouble against Florida State. They're slightly  ahead 3-2 at the moment. Things could get dicey if Florida State forces a third on the third court combined with slight edge on court six in the third set. Worth keeping an eye on this.

North Carolina taking care of business already against Mississippi State 4-0, and await the winner of Stanford-Michigan.

---

So, the 8 and the 9 seeds are out! Florida falls to Florida State 4-3, and Tulsa shocks Oklahoma State 4-2! Vanderbilt's road just got a little easier with Miami the only seed remaining between them and the semi-finals.

[Lorcan]

Florida is in a bit of trouble against Florida State. They're slightly  ahead 3-2 at the moment. Things could get dicey if Florida State forces a third on the third court combined with slight edge on court six in the third set. Worth keeping an eye on this.

North Carolina taking care of business already against Mississippi State 4-0, and await the winner of Stanford-Michigan.

---

So, the 8 and the 9 seeds are out! Florida falls to Florida State 4-3, and Tulsa shocks Oklahoma State 4-2! Vanderbilt's road just got a little easier with Miami the only seed remaining between them and the semi-finals.