[ColoradoTree]

Thinking ahead to next year, here's what we and our perennial Pac-12 competitors have in store:

What they're doing:

* UCLA.  They had an up and down season, finishing 4th, despite the emergence of freshman Eni Shibahara as one of the nation's best.  All six singles players return for next year, so they should be improved.  And that's before adding two blue-chip, Top 10 recruits in Caroline Dolehide and Helen Altick.  I'd expect them to be our top competition in the Pac-12, and it shouldn't be surprising to see them tabbed as the favorite.  And they might well be the better team in January, February, and March.  But we'll probably be better again in April and May. 

* SC.  They underperformed even more than UCLA did, finishing 6th in the conference.  They lose only Zoe Katz to graduation, but late in the season, they didn't use her in singles anyway, so they're mostly on track.  Their recruiting is unclear (Sydney Van Alphen would have been part of this class, but she enrolled early and ended up playing #6 much of the year).  They should be somewhat improved. 

* Cal. They finished second in the Pac-12, and they were good enough for a national seed (13th) before falling to Vanderbilt in the NCAAs.  They lose some key pieces: Maya Jansen, who played #5 for much of the year and is a great doubles player; Maegan Manasse, their top player; Denise Starr, their #3; and Stephane Lin, who sometimes played #6.  They add just one player, blue chip Anna Bright, and they'd have 6 other players returning, but some of those are non-scholarship players.  Seems fair to expect a dip in form from them next year, but they'll still be dangerous. 

We also saw Arizona State, Washington, and Oregon make some strides this year, but as programs, they're still finding their way, so I'm not inclined to look too closely.  (That said, ASU loses Kassidy Jump at #1 and a couple of other lesser contributors, Washington loses Nour Abbes at #3, and it doesn't look like Oregon loses anyone from their singles lineup.) 

What we're doing:

And as a reminder (and apologies for repeating some information from earlier in the thread), Stanford loses both Taylor Davidson and Caroline Doyle to graduation.  We've got two blue chip, Top 10 caliber players coming in, however, in Michaela Gordon and Janice Shin.  Also coming is Paly's Avanika Narayan, a 3-star recruit.  FYI, tennis recruiting isn't generally like football where you can see 3 star players develop into monsters.  The ranking system goes: (1) blue chips (there are 33 this year); (2) five stars (50+); (3) four stars (maybe 80-90); (4) three stars (150 or so); and on down through two and one stars.  At the top schools, blue chips play, and even 5-star players are often just depth, so we have to adjust our football recruiting metrics for tennis.  (On this year's roster, all six singles players were either blue chips or were top international players (blue chips are only domestic players), and Kimberly Yee was a blue chip that largely didn't play.)

On the scholarship front, tennis is a headcount sport and it has 8 scholarships available.  This year and last year, we've only had 7 scholarship players on the roster, possibly because we didn't take any players in 2014, which means that next year's roster will have no scholarship seniors.  Three juniors (Lord, Lampl, and Kimberly Yee), two sophomores (Arbuthnott and Higuchi), and two freshmen (Gordon and Shin).  As walk-ons, in addition to Narayan, we'll also have former 4-star recruit Elizabeth Yao (a junior from Sunnyvale), former 3-star recruit Naomie Rosenberg (a junior from Los Angeles), and Paulette Wolak (a senior from Los Altos Hills).  Or, at least, I assume those are walk-ons.  It's possible they gave one of them a scholarship, but I have long assumed that the team has stayed at 7 scholarship athletes so that they could take someone in next year's class and avoid a situation where you're replacing most of your singles lineup in one year. 

[ColoradoTree]

Thinking ahead to next year, here's what we and our perennial Pac-12 competitors have in store:

What they're doing:

* UCLA.  They had an up and down season, finishing 4th, despite the emergence of freshman Eni Shibahara as one of the nation's best.  All six singles players return for next year, so they should be improved.  And that's before adding two blue-chip, Top 10 recruits in Caroline Dolehide and Helen Altick.  I'd expect them to be our top competition in the Pac-12, and it shouldn't be surprising to see them tabbed as the favorite.  And they might well be the better team in January, February, and March.  But we'll probably be better again in April and May. 

* SC.  They underperformed even more than UCLA did, finishing 6th in the conference.  They lose only Zoe Katz to graduation, but late in the season, they didn't use her in singles anyway, so they're mostly on track.  Their recruiting is unclear (Sydney Van Alphen would have been part of this class, but she enrolled early and ended up playing #6 much of the year).  They should be somewhat improved. 

* Cal. They finished second in the Pac-12, and they were good enough for a national seed (13th) before falling to Vanderbilt in the NCAAs.  They lose some key pieces: Maya Jansen, who played #5 for much of the year and is a great doubles player; Maegan Manasse, their top player; Denise Starr, their #3; and Stephane Lin, who sometimes played #6.  They add just one player, blue chip Anna Bright, and they'd have 6 other players returning, but some of those are non-scholarship players.  Seems fair to expect a dip in form from them next year, but they'll still be dangerous. 

We also saw Arizona State, Washington, and Oregon make some strides this year, but as programs, they're still finding their way, so I'm not inclined to look too closely.  (That said, ASU loses Kassidy Jump at #1 and a couple of other lesser contributors, Washington loses Nour Abbes at #3, and it doesn't look like Oregon loses anyone from their singles lineup.) 

What we're doing:

And as a reminder (and apologies for repeating some information from earlier in the thread), Stanford loses both Taylor Davidson and Caroline Doyle to graduation.  We've got two blue chip, Top 10 caliber players coming in, however, in Michaela Gordon and Janice Shin.  Also coming is Paly's Avanika Narayan, a 3-star recruit.  FYI, tennis recruiting isn't generally like football where you can see 3 star players develop into monsters.  The ranking system goes: (1) blue chips (there are 33 this year); (2) five stars (50+); (3) four stars (maybe 80-90); (4) three stars (150 or so); and on down through two and one stars.  At the top schools, blue chips play, and even 5-star players are often just depth, so we have to adjust our football recruiting metrics for tennis.  (On this year's roster, all six singles players were either blue chips or were top international players (blue chips are only domestic players), and Kimberly Yee was a blue chip that largely didn't play.)

On the scholarship front, tennis is a headcount sport and it has 8 scholarships available.  This year and last year, we've only had 7 scholarship players on the roster, possibly because we didn't take any players in 2014, which means that next year's roster will have no scholarship seniors.  Three juniors (Lord, Lampl, and Kimberly Yee), two sophomores (Arbuthnott and Higuchi), and two freshmen (Gordon and Shin).  As walk-ons, in addition to Narayan, we'll also have former 4-star recruit Elizabeth Yao (a junior from Sunnyvale), former 3-star recruit Naomie Rosenberg (a junior from Los Angeles), and Paulette Wolak (a senior from Los Altos Hills).  Or, at least, I assume those are walk-ons.  It's possible they gave one of them a scholarship, but I have long assumed that the team has stayed at 7 scholarship athletes so that they could take someone in next year's class and avoid a situation where you're replacing most of your singles lineup in one year.