[oldalum]

you'd think the NCAA would correct for that when seeding teams for the NCAA tournament

Exactly. The committee appears to chronically have a case of a weak spine, not wanting to vary much from the computer rankings based on factors that are accepted as a matter of course by, e.g., the basketball selection committee; such as losses while playing without one or more top players; improvement over the season, especially in doubles play. That more than anything is why Stanford is consistently under seeded, but the committee never seems to learn from its past mistakes. Vanderbilt had several losses early in the year (including to us), but improved dramatically through the season, culminating in beating Florida twice on consecutive weekends. Certainly a strong case could be made for Florida remaining #1 based on their record for the whole season, but Vandy should have been the second seed. Instead the two are playing each other a third time in one month in the semifinals.

[oldalum]

you'd think the NCAA would correct for that when seeding teams for the NCAA tournament

Exactly. The committee appears to chronically have a case of a weak spine, not wanting to vary much from the computer rankings based on factors that are accepted as a matter of course by, e.g., the basketball selection committee; such as losses while playing without one or more top players; improvement over the season, especially in doubles play. That more than anything is why Stanford is consistently under seeded, but the committee never seems to learn from its past mistakes. Vanderbilt had several losses early in the year (including to us), but improved dramatically through the season, culminating in beating Florida twice on consecutive weekends. Certainly a strong case could be made for Florida remaining #1 based on their record for the whole season, but Vandy should have been the second seed. Instead the two are playing each other a third time in one month in the semifinals.