[ColoradoTree]

It's crazy how much of a difference the absence of one player can make in collegiate tennis, given its pairing system. I'm kind of surprised they don't do something more like women's golf, where the strategies are in part about the pairings. Is it the case that tennis players are more clearly better or worse than in golf, so it wouldn't be plausible to do this? Or just norms against it? Or something about actually playing against another player as opposed to hitting shots side by side against the course?

I'm not very familiar with either our current women's team or collegiate tennis more generally, but from ColoradoTree's super helpful and thorough explanations of our recent matches, it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right? It just seems silly because it turns what could be hard-fought contests for 6 of the 7 points into near blowouts all down the lineup, and that's merely a function of who gets positioned where.

Right, the women's team would very much be better off if they could simply forfeit #1 singles and play in their normal singles positions otherwise.  The problem is that both norms and rules by the governing body state you can't do that.  If you only bring five players to a match, it's the #6 singles slot that gets forfeited, not whichever one the missing/sick/injured player normally occupies.  Both norms and rules dictate that you rank the players you have in order from best to worst and place them in the lineup accordingly.  If you put your worst player at #1 to get an advantage on the lower courts, that's called stacking, and you can get sanctioned for it.  (The rule merely formalizes a deeply-rooted norm, however.)

There are some exceptions (if players are at a similar level, you can swap them in the order, and that's fine; you get some latitude when players come back from an extended illness or injury).  But an injury to your #1 singles player is pretty devastating.

You can reasonably criticize the system, though. Certain players match up well or poorly against others, just like in other sports.  Perhaps Emma Higuchi is our 5th best singles player, but the #5 player from, say, Florida is just a matchup problem for her (Higuchi struggles more against bigger players, while she can play smaller players right off the court).  Higuchi might well beat the #3, #4, or #6 players, but she's stuck in that matchup.  Them's the breaks, though.

[ColoradoTree]

It's crazy how much of a difference the absence of one player can make in collegiate tennis, given its pairing system. I'm kind of surprised they don't do something more like women's golf, where the strategies are in part about the pairings. Is it the case that tennis players are more clearly better or worse than in golf, so it wouldn't be plausible to do this? Or just norms against it? Or something about actually playing against another player as opposed to hitting shots side by side against the course?

I'm not very familiar with either our current women's team or collegiate tennis more generally, but from ColoradoTree's super helpful and thorough explanations of our recent matches, it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right? It just seems silly because it turns what could be hard-fought contests for 6 of the 7 points into near blowouts all down the lineup, and that's merely a function of who gets positioned where.

Right, the women's team would very much be better off if they could simply forfeit #1 singles and play in their normal singles positions otherwise.  The problem is that both norms and rules by the governing body state you can't do that.  If you only bring five players to a match, it's the #6 singles slot that gets forfeited, not whichever one the missing/sick/injured player normally occupies.  Both norms and rules dictate that you rank the players you have in order from best to worst and place them in the lineup accordingly.  If you put your worst player at #1 to get an advantage on the lower courts, that's called stacking, and you can get sanctioned for it.  (The rule merely formalizes a deeply-rooted norm, however.)

There are some exceptions (if players are at a similar level, you can swap them in the order, and that's fine; you get some latitude when players come back from an extended illness or injury).  But an injury to your #1 singles player is pretty devastating.

You can reasonably criticize the system, though. Certain players match up well or poorly against others, just like in other sports.  Perhaps Emma Higuchi is our 5th best singles player, but the #5 player from, say, Florida is just a matchup problem for her (Higuchi struggles more against bigger players, while she can play smaller players right off the court).  Higuchi might well beat the #3, #4, or #6 players, but she's stuck in that matchup.  Them's the breaks, though.