[ColoradoTree]

The dual season is upon us!  Sure, it's been upon most everybody else for at least a week already, but better late than never. 

While most weekends this season will see two opponents, we start off with just one--San Jose State, tomorrow at noon. 

San Jose State preview:

The Spartans are unranked, and they don't have any singles players or doubles teams currently in the rankings.  That said, they are the defending Mountain West champions and senior Sybille Gauvain was #50 in the preseason rankings and gave Caroline Doyle the toughest match of the day when these two teams met early last season (7-5, 6-2).  It's a relatively young team, with four freshmen joining two sophomores, one junior, and a single senior (Gauvain), and the four freshmen are all from abroad, so it's difficult to know exactly what to expect.  They're opening a new tennis complex this weekend so they might be playing with a little extra juice.  But let's not overthink this.  We should win handily. 

Last meeting:  Last February, Stanford won 7-0 in a match where Stanford didn't drop a set.  Before that, the two teams hadn't played since 1988 (and always at Stanford before this weekend's match).  Oddly, both the Stanford and SJSU previews for tomorrow's match say it's the first Stanford-SJSU matchup in 30 years, so perhaps they haven't updated their copy?  The 2017 meeting is right there on last year's schedule, with a recap and everything....

This meeting: Anything less than 7-0 is a disappointment, but Gauvain is a good player and should give Lord a challenge at the top of the lineup.  As a freshman, Lord lost in three sets to Gauvain at the Northwest Regionals, but Lord has improved by leaps and bounds since then. SJSU's top doubles team beat Arbuthnott/Davidson last year, though Stanford still took the doubles point, so expect a challenge at #1 doubles as well. 

This match takes on added importance, however, because it's the only dual match of the season before Stanford travels to Nashville to take on #2 Vanderbilt.  Perhaps that won't matter, and perhaps this match gives us just the boost of confidence we need heading into such an early marquee match, but I'd feel more comfortable if this team had more matches under its belt. 

Rankings update:

Team rankings:

Ranked: #1 (obviously also a season high)

Future opponent watch (mostly steady from last week):

#2 Vanderbilt
#3 Florida
#6 Pepperdine
#11 Cal
#12 Texas
#16 UCLA (up one spot)
#22 Arizona State (up two spots)
#24 TCU (up one spot)

Individual rankings: 

Singles:

#13 Gordon (season high, debut)
#22 Arbuthnott (season high, up from previous high of #69)
#34 Lord (down from previous high of #7)
#69 Lampl (down from previous high of #51)
NR Higuchi (down from previous high of #44)
NR Shin (not yet ranked)

Doubles:

#3 Arbuthnott/Gordon (season high, debut)
#41 Lord/Lampl (season high, debut)
NR Higuchi/Shin (not yet ranked)

Comment:

We're still on the first set of individual rankings for the year, and won't get new ones until February 7.  That said, this weekend is also ITA Kick-off Weekend, so while we snack on a cupcake, next week's opponent Vanderbilt has a couple of matches against ranked opponents, and USC, UCLA, Cal, and Arizona State also have challenging slates.  So, don't be shocked if we lose some first place votes next week.

[ColoradoTree]

The dual season is upon us!  Sure, it's been upon most everybody else for at least a week already, but better late than never. 

While most weekends this season will see two opponents, we start off with just one--San Jose State, tomorrow at noon. 

San Jose State preview:

The Spartans are unranked, and they don't have any singles players or doubles teams currently in the rankings.  That said, they are the defending Mountain West champions and senior Sybille Gauvain was #50 in the preseason rankings and gave Caroline Doyle the toughest match of the day when these two teams met early last season (7-5, 6-2).  It's a relatively young team, with four freshmen joining two sophomores, one junior, and a single senior (Gauvain), and the four freshmen are all from abroad, so it's difficult to know exactly what to expect.  They're opening a new tennis complex this weekend so they might be playing with a little extra juice.  But let's not overthink this.  We should win handily. 

Last meeting:  Last February, Stanford won 7-0 in a match where Stanford didn't drop a set.  Before that, the two teams hadn't played since 1988 (and always at Stanford before this weekend's match).  Oddly, both the Stanford and SJSU previews for tomorrow's match say it's the first Stanford-SJSU matchup in 30 years, so perhaps they haven't updated their copy?  The 2017 meeting is right there on last year's schedule, with a recap and everything....

This meeting: Anything less than 7-0 is a disappointment, but Gauvain is a good player and should give Lord a challenge at the top of the lineup.  As a freshman, Lord lost in three sets to Gauvain at the Northwest Regionals, but Lord has improved by leaps and bounds since then. SJSU's top doubles team beat Arbuthnott/Davidson last year, though Stanford still took the doubles point, so expect a challenge at #1 doubles as well. 

This match takes on added importance, however, because it's the only dual match of the season before Stanford travels to Nashville to take on #2 Vanderbilt.  Perhaps that won't matter, and perhaps this match gives us just the boost of confidence we need heading into such an early marquee match, but I'd feel more comfortable if this team had more matches under its belt. 

Rankings update:

Team rankings:

Ranked: #1 (obviously also a season high)

Future opponent watch (mostly steady from last week):

#2 Vanderbilt
#3 Florida
#6 Pepperdine
#11 Cal
#12 Texas
#16 UCLA (up one spot)
#22 Arizona State (up two spots)
#24 TCU (up one spot)

Individual rankings: 

Singles:

#13 Gordon (season high, debut)
#22 Arbuthnott (season high, up from previous high of #69)
#34 Lord (down from previous high of #7)
#69 Lampl (down from previous high of #51)
NR Higuchi (down from previous high of #44)
NR Shin (not yet ranked)

Doubles:

#3 Arbuthnott/Gordon (season high, debut)
#41 Lord/Lampl (season high, debut)
NR Higuchi/Shin (not yet ranked)

Comment:

We're still on the first set of individual rankings for the year, and won't get new ones until February 7.  That said, this weekend is also ITA Kick-off Weekend, so while we snack on a cupcake, next week's opponent Vanderbilt has a couple of matches against ranked opponents, and USC, UCLA, Cal, and Arizona State also have challenging slates.  So, don't be shocked if we lose some first place votes next week.

[fullmetal]

Thanks for reminding me -- I need to put together an alumni event notice for the Texas roadtrip.  Feb 16-17 is coming up quickly!

[fullmetal]

Thanks for reminding me -- I need to put together an alumni event notice for the Texas roadtrip.  Feb 16-17 is coming up quickly!

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks for reminding me -- I need to put together an alumni event notice for the Texas roadtrip.  Feb 16-17 is coming up quickly!

That'll be a good couple of matches, too.  Both Texas and TCU seem improved compared to last year, so those should be very good tests, and it's great that both matches will be in Austin. 

If there are any Nashville-area alums on here, you may not see a better match all season than Stanford vs. Vanderbilt on Saturday, February 3rd.  Get on out there and watch--I'm sure our players will appreciate all the fan support in a road environment they can get!

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks for reminding me -- I need to put together an alumni event notice for the Texas roadtrip.  Feb 16-17 is coming up quickly!

That'll be a good couple of matches, too.  Both Texas and TCU seem improved compared to last year, so those should be very good tests, and it's great that both matches will be in Austin. 

If there are any Nashville-area alums on here, you may not see a better match all season than Stanford vs. Vanderbilt on Saturday, February 3rd.  Get on out there and watch--I'm sure our players will appreciate all the fan support in a road environment they can get!

[oldalum]

  Get on out there and watch--I'm sure our players will appreciate all the fan support in a road environment they can get!

I timed my trip to Nashville for this weekend. So I'll be there to cheer us on.  I would think that live streaming will be available. Should be a great match.

[oldalum]

  Get on out there and watch--I'm sure our players will appreciate all the fan support in a road environment they can get!

I timed my trip to Nashville for this weekend. So I'll be there to cheer us on.  I would think that live streaming will be available. Should be a great match.

[oldalum]

We win 6-1, but the glaring issue is no Lord at #1 (did not play). Injury? So everyone had to move up a slot, and Yee played #6 and lost our only match. I liked our chances against Vanderbilt assuming Lord was at 100%, but with today's lineup it's going to be tough. One ray of hope: Vandy lost the doubles point in both matches this weekend; it will be critical for us to do the same to them.

[oldalum]

We win 6-1, but the glaring issue is no Lord at #1 (did not play). Injury? So everyone had to move up a slot, and Yee played #6 and lost our only match. I liked our chances against Vanderbilt assuming Lord was at 100%, but with today's lineup it's going to be tough. One ray of hope: Vandy lost the doubles point in both matches this weekend; it will be critical for us to do the same to them.

[ColoradoTree]

No live scoring for today’s match, unfortunately, and with no SJSU women’s tennis twitter account to keep us in the loop, we just had to wait for the official recap.

We won, 6-1, and while that scoreline is closer than I expected, the outcome was never in doubt. Here’s how it went down:

* Melissa Lord, who missed the tournaments two weeks ago, missed today’s match. That meant Kimberly Yee was pressed into duty at #6 singles, and subbed for Lord at #2 doubles.

* Aside from Lord’s absence, the news today is we have our first look at this year’s lineup. With Lord out, the lineup was what I predicted, just with everyone bumped up a slot: Gordon played #1, Arbuthnott played #2, Lampl played #3, Higuchi played #4, and Shin played #5. So, once Lord is back, pencil her in at #1, with everyone else getting bumped down, and Yee bumped out entirely.

* As with the SJSU-Stanford match last year (a match which both schools still appear to have forgotten), #1 doubles was a challenge. While the other two teams (Lampl/Yee at #2, and Higuchi/Shin at #3, further confirming it will be Shin at #6 singles) rolled, clinching the doubles point for Stanford, Arbuthnott/Gordon were up just 4-3 at #1 when that match was abandoned.

* The match was clinched quickly, with Shin on the board first, 6-0, 6-1. Lampl followed at #3, 6-1, 6-0, and Higuchi clinched at #4, 6-2, 6-1.

* Gordon won her match next, 6-4, 6-1 over Gauvain, followed by Arbuthnott winning 6-1, 6-4.

* Then, the shock of the day. Kimberly Yee, junior and former blue chip recruit, lost in straight sets to the 6th-best player at San Jose Freaking State. To be fair, the first was in a tiebreak, but either she’s injured, or her game has regressed in a manner that is difficult to understand. If it’s not an injury, then she’s not the on-the-bench luxury (in case of an injury to someone above her in the lineup) that I thought she’d be this year.

But all in all, assuming Lord will be healthy by next weekend, we look pretty sharp from 1 through 6. If Lord *isn’t* healthy for Vanderbilt, though, our prospects are a good bit dimmer for that match.

[ColoradoTree]

No live scoring for today’s match, unfortunately, and with no SJSU women’s tennis twitter account to keep us in the loop, we just had to wait for the official recap.

We won, 6-1, and while that scoreline is closer than I expected, the outcome was never in doubt. Here’s how it went down:

* Melissa Lord, who missed the tournaments two weeks ago, missed today’s match. That meant Kimberly Yee was pressed into duty at #6 singles, and subbed for Lord at #2 doubles.

* Aside from Lord’s absence, the news today is we have our first look at this year’s lineup. With Lord out, the lineup was what I predicted, just with everyone bumped up a slot: Gordon played #1, Arbuthnott played #2, Lampl played #3, Higuchi played #4, and Shin played #5. So, once Lord is back, pencil her in at #1, with everyone else getting bumped down, and Yee bumped out entirely.

* As with the SJSU-Stanford match last year (a match which both schools still appear to have forgotten), #1 doubles was a challenge. While the other two teams (Lampl/Yee at #2, and Higuchi/Shin at #3, further confirming it will be Shin at #6 singles) rolled, clinching the doubles point for Stanford, Arbuthnott/Gordon were up just 4-3 at #1 when that match was abandoned.

* The match was clinched quickly, with Shin on the board first, 6-0, 6-1. Lampl followed at #3, 6-1, 6-0, and Higuchi clinched at #4, 6-2, 6-1.

* Gordon won her match next, 6-4, 6-1 over Gauvain, followed by Arbuthnott winning 6-1, 6-4.

* Then, the shock of the day. Kimberly Yee, junior and former blue chip recruit, lost in straight sets to the 6th-best player at San Jose Freaking State. To be fair, the first was in a tiebreak, but either she’s injured, or her game has regressed in a manner that is difficult to understand. If it’s not an injury, then she’s not the on-the-bench luxury (in case of an injury to someone above her in the lineup) that I thought she’d be this year.

But all in all, assuming Lord will be healthy by next weekend, we look pretty sharp from 1 through 6. If Lord *isn’t* healthy for Vanderbilt, though, our prospects are a good bit dimmer for that match.

[oldalum]

If Lord *isn’t* healthy for Vanderbilt, though, our prospects are a good bit dimmer for that match.

Yes. If Yee plays #6 against Vanderbilt she will lose. So if we don't win the doubles point, we'd have to win 4 out of the top 5 courts in singles to take the match. With the doubles point in hand, 3 out of 5 is doable, although we are going to have a tough time winning on Court 1 whether it's Lord or Gordon. Vandy's Sharma is an experienced redshirt senior, a top player who just got back from losing a close doubles match in the first round of the Australian Open. She's extremely good.

[oldalum]

If Lord *isn’t* healthy for Vanderbilt, though, our prospects are a good bit dimmer for that match.

Yes. If Yee plays #6 against Vanderbilt she will lose. So if we don't win the doubles point, we'd have to win 4 out of the top 5 courts in singles to take the match. With the doubles point in hand, 3 out of 5 is doable, although we are going to have a tough time winning on Court 1 whether it's Lord or Gordon. Vandy's Sharma is an experienced redshirt senior, a top player who just got back from losing a close doubles match in the first round of the Australian Open. She's extremely good.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=18631.msg222543#msg222543 date=1517117552] If Lord *isn’t* healthy for Vanderbilt, though, our prospects are a good bit dimmer for that match.

Yes. If Yee plays #6 against Vanderbilt she will lose. So if we don't win the doubles point, we'd have to win 4 out of the top 5 courts in singles to take the match. With the doubles point in hand, 3 out of 5 is doable, although we are going to have a tough time winning on Court 1 whether it's Lord or Gordon. Vandy's Sharma is an experienced redshirt senior, a top player who just got back from losing a close doubles match in the first round of the Australian Open. She's extremely good.
[/quote]

Normally I'd say we're not going to win the doubles point if we're shorthanded.  But Vanderbilt, as good as they are, are somewhat vulnerable in doubles.  Against Nebraska this weekend, an unranked team with no ranked singles or doubles players, Vanderbilt lost the doubles point, falling at #2 and #3 while #1 doubles was still in a tiebreaker.  Then against Florida State, lost the doubles point again, losing at #2, winning at #3, and falling just short in a tiebreaker at #1).  Vanderbilt's singles strength is such that they rolled 4-1 in both matches anyway, but getting that doubles point will be crucial for Stanford.  The most straightforward path to a win seems to be to capture doubles, and do well enough in the matches on the #3-#6 courts that you don't have to count on a returning Lord at #1 against Sharma, or need Gordon to beat the #4 player in the country at #2.  And again, that's if Lord is back.  Even if Lord isn't totally 100%, it would do wonders for our lineup to have her hold down the #1 spot. 

And as good as Sharma is (closed out last year ranked #2), she might not still be the best player on the team, given how Fernanda Contreras has come on this fall (now ranked #4 in the country).  If Lord is healthy, it would be odd to see two Top 15 players match up at the #2 slot in the lineup in Contreras and Gordon, but I'll take it!

As good as our top courts seem to be over last year, our standard path to victory this year seems like it will be much like last year--singles wins on the back courts. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=18631.msg222543#msg222543 date=1517117552] If Lord *isn’t* healthy for Vanderbilt, though, our prospects are a good bit dimmer for that match.

Yes. If Yee plays #6 against Vanderbilt she will lose. So if we don't win the doubles point, we'd have to win 4 out of the top 5 courts in singles to take the match. With the doubles point in hand, 3 out of 5 is doable, although we are going to have a tough time winning on Court 1 whether it's Lord or Gordon. Vandy's Sharma is an experienced redshirt senior, a top player who just got back from losing a close doubles match in the first round of the Australian Open. She's extremely good.
[/quote]

Normally I'd say we're not going to win the doubles point if we're shorthanded.  But Vanderbilt, as good as they are, are somewhat vulnerable in doubles.  Against Nebraska this weekend, an unranked team with no ranked singles or doubles players, Vanderbilt lost the doubles point, falling at #2 and #3 while #1 doubles was still in a tiebreaker.  Then against Florida State, lost the doubles point again, losing at #2, winning at #3, and falling just short in a tiebreaker at #1).  Vanderbilt's singles strength is such that they rolled 4-1 in both matches anyway, but getting that doubles point will be crucial for Stanford.  The most straightforward path to a win seems to be to capture doubles, and do well enough in the matches on the #3-#6 courts that you don't have to count on a returning Lord at #1 against Sharma, or need Gordon to beat the #4 player in the country at #2.  And again, that's if Lord is back.  Even if Lord isn't totally 100%, it would do wonders for our lineup to have her hold down the #1 spot. 

And as good as Sharma is (closed out last year ranked #2), she might not still be the best player on the team, given how Fernanda Contreras has come on this fall (now ranked #4 in the country).  If Lord is healthy, it would be odd to see two Top 15 players match up at the #2 slot in the lineup in Contreras and Gordon, but I'll take it!

As good as our top courts seem to be over last year, our standard path to victory this year seems like it will be much like last year--singles wins on the back courts. 

[oldalum]

Vanderbilt is having trouble with doubles just now because their #1 player, Sharma, played on the pro circuit in the fall instead of with the team, so they had no practice with her as a doubles partner. Then, the doubles combos they were using in the fall did not seem to work out well, so they just switched them up for the spring. So essentially all 3 doubles teams are playing together for the first time. They will undoubtedly get much better by the NCAAs, but for now they are obviously vulnerable.

If Lord plays, she doesn't have to win: her bigger contribution may be just to bump everyone below her down a slot, giving them a better chance of winning.

The match, while not critical, is important to us because we perennially have relatively fewer chances than other top teams to win computer ranking points and thus better NCAA seeding.

[oldalum]

Vanderbilt is having trouble with doubles just now because their #1 player, Sharma, played on the pro circuit in the fall instead of with the team, so they had no practice with her as a doubles partner. Then, the doubles combos they were using in the fall did not seem to work out well, so they just switched them up for the spring. So essentially all 3 doubles teams are playing together for the first time. They will undoubtedly get much better by the NCAAs, but for now they are obviously vulnerable.

If Lord plays, she doesn't have to win: her bigger contribution may be just to bump everyone below her down a slot, giving them a better chance of winning.

The match, while not critical, is important to us because we perennially have relatively fewer chances than other top teams to win computer ranking points and thus better NCAA seeding.

[ColoradoTree]

If Lord plays, she doesn't have to win: her bigger contribution may be just to bump everyone below her down a slot, giving them a better chance of winning.

This is the crucial point.  It's not stacking your lineup if you play your top player at #1!  ;)

(Note to those of you who may not know what "stacking a lineup" means.  The rules (and just as importantly, deeply-rooted norms) require that players play in order of ability.  So, the best player on a team should play at #1, the second-best player at #2, and so on.  Since each individual singles match is worth the same in determining the team result, coaches lacking a certain moral clarity might put their 6th-best player at #1, bumping each other player down a spot, giving each of them a better chance of winning.  In a match where each player at each slot was equally matched, you'd turn a completely uncertain result in which 3-3 might be expected into a situation where 5-1 is the likeliest outcome.  It's sort of like gerrymandering your lineup for the best overall result.  This doesn't mean you can't tweak your lineup as the season goes on, or if there are a couple of players at a similar level and you're trying to figure out which ordering of them gives you the best chance to win on a given day (a situation expressly blessed in the rulebook), or if intra-squad competition like a challenge match for the #1 spot forces a reordering.  For example, last year, Taylor Davidson wasn't playing terribly well at #1, missed some matches with an illness, and came back at #3.  At first, I figured she was working her way back to full fitness, but she stayed there, and her results confirmed she belonged there.  That kind of stuff is normal and perfectly fine.)

On that point, I just looked up the ITA regulations on stacking your lineup, and teams can object to the opposing team's lineup before the match starts, and if the lineup is not corrected to ensure the players "play in order of ability," there is a mechanism to protest the match result to the ITA, which can "reverse or overturn a result for ITA Rankings purposes," and also make a recommendation to the NCAA on how to treat that match for postseason seeding purposes.  That said, the player "whose results and record show that the player . . . is clearly stronger than the player . . . listed above that player . . . must be moved up a position."  (emphasis added)  That's an awfully high bar, and I'd think it would be reserved for cases of obvious stacking.  Putting the preseason #7 player, who was a singles All-American last year, at the #1 singles spot, simply wouldn't be stacking, just like Vanderbilt putting Sharma at #1 when she skipped the fall season and isn't currently ranked, wouldn't be stacking, because she finished last year ranked #2 and is generally accepted to be Vanderbilt's best player (though Contreras has a case, just like Gordon might have a case on our team).  In any event, Gordon's results and record wouldn't show that she's "clearly stronger" than Lord.  And there's a good amount of discretion built into the rules for players returning from injury or illness, anyway.  Also, it's super early in the season, where there's a decent amount of lineup tinkering to begin with.  And Lele would never stack anyway, because she's honorable.

Here's hoping Lord being held out from the SJSU match was mostly precautionary.  If she could benefit at all from the extra rest going into Vanderbilt, then by all means, she should have been held out.  The team's twitter account posted some action shots in practice the other day, and Lord wasn't wearing a cast or anything, so I'm hopeful that she'll be good to go for Vanderbilt.  (It would be good to get a match under her belt, but heck, Lord playing Gordon in practice would be better preparation for playing Sharma or Contreras anyway--Gordon is better than SJSU's Gauvain.) 

Basically, as long as Lord's injury is healed, she'd better be playing at #1, even if her timing or match fitness is a bit off after this much time.  (Or, if intra-squad competition to this point has cemented Gordon as the new #1, then Lord should be playing at #2, because keeping Arbuthnott-Lampl-Higuchi-Shin at 3-4-5-6 is the most important lineup issue here.)  It wouldn't be stacking in any event, because you wouldn't be intentionally putting a weaker player above stronger players, but instead preserving what your full-strength lineup would look like, and avoid placing your players at an unfair disadvantage. 

[ColoradoTree]

If Lord plays, she doesn't have to win: her bigger contribution may be just to bump everyone below her down a slot, giving them a better chance of winning.

This is the crucial point.  It's not stacking your lineup if you play your top player at #1!  ;)

(Note to those of you who may not know what "stacking a lineup" means.  The rules (and just as importantly, deeply-rooted norms) require that players play in order of ability.  So, the best player on a team should play at #1, the second-best player at #2, and so on.  Since each individual singles match is worth the same in determining the team result, coaches lacking a certain moral clarity might put their 6th-best player at #1, bumping each other player down a spot, giving each of them a better chance of winning.  In a match where each player at each slot was equally matched, you'd turn a completely uncertain result in which 3-3 might be expected into a situation where 5-1 is the likeliest outcome.  It's sort of like gerrymandering your lineup for the best overall result.  This doesn't mean you can't tweak your lineup as the season goes on, or if there are a couple of players at a similar level and you're trying to figure out which ordering of them gives you the best chance to win on a given day (a situation expressly blessed in the rulebook), or if intra-squad competition like a challenge match for the #1 spot forces a reordering.  For example, last year, Taylor Davidson wasn't playing terribly well at #1, missed some matches with an illness, and came back at #3.  At first, I figured she was working her way back to full fitness, but she stayed there, and her results confirmed she belonged there.  That kind of stuff is normal and perfectly fine.)

On that point, I just looked up the ITA regulations on stacking your lineup, and teams can object to the opposing team's lineup before the match starts, and if the lineup is not corrected to ensure the players "play in order of ability," there is a mechanism to protest the match result to the ITA, which can "reverse or overturn a result for ITA Rankings purposes," and also make a recommendation to the NCAA on how to treat that match for postseason seeding purposes.  That said, the player "whose results and record show that the player . . . is clearly stronger than the player . . . listed above that player . . . must be moved up a position."  (emphasis added)  That's an awfully high bar, and I'd think it would be reserved for cases of obvious stacking.  Putting the preseason #7 player, who was a singles All-American last year, at the #1 singles spot, simply wouldn't be stacking, just like Vanderbilt putting Sharma at #1 when she skipped the fall season and isn't currently ranked, wouldn't be stacking, because she finished last year ranked #2 and is generally accepted to be Vanderbilt's best player (though Contreras has a case, just like Gordon might have a case on our team).  In any event, Gordon's results and record wouldn't show that she's "clearly stronger" than Lord.  And there's a good amount of discretion built into the rules for players returning from injury or illness, anyway.  Also, it's super early in the season, where there's a decent amount of lineup tinkering to begin with.  And Lele would never stack anyway, because she's honorable.

Here's hoping Lord being held out from the SJSU match was mostly precautionary.  If she could benefit at all from the extra rest going into Vanderbilt, then by all means, she should have been held out.  The team's twitter account posted some action shots in practice the other day, and Lord wasn't wearing a cast or anything, so I'm hopeful that she'll be good to go for Vanderbilt.  (It would be good to get a match under her belt, but heck, Lord playing Gordon in practice would be better preparation for playing Sharma or Contreras anyway--Gordon is better than SJSU's Gauvain.) 

Basically, as long as Lord's injury is healed, she'd better be playing at #1, even if her timing or match fitness is a bit off after this much time.  (Or, if intra-squad competition to this point has cemented Gordon as the new #1, then Lord should be playing at #2, because keeping Arbuthnott-Lampl-Higuchi-Shin at 3-4-5-6 is the most important lineup issue here.)  It wouldn't be stacking in any event, because you wouldn't be intentionally putting a weaker player above stronger players, but instead preserving what your full-strength lineup would look like, and avoid placing your players at an unfair disadvantage. 

[oldalum]

The Bank of the West Classic tennis tournament, which unfortunately is leaving Stanford, has been reincarnated as the "Mubadala Silicon Valley Classic" and will be played at San Jose State's brand new tennis facility. Definitely not as good as being at Stanford, and not clear if Stanford players will be given wild cards in, but at least it's still within the area.

[oldalum]

The Bank of the West Classic tennis tournament, which unfortunately is leaving Stanford, has been reincarnated as the "Mubadala Silicon Valley Classic" and will be played at San Jose State's brand new tennis facility. Definitely not as good as being at Stanford, and not clear if Stanford players will be given wild cards in, but at least it's still within the area.

[ColoradoTree]

The Bank of the West Classic tennis tournament, which unfortunately is leaving Stanford, has been reincarnated as the "Mubadala Silicon Valley Classic" and will be played at San Jose State's brand new tennis facility. Definitely not as good as being at Stanford, and not clear if Stanford players will be given wild cards in, but at least it's still within the area.

I always figured Stanford students got wild cards as a favor to the host institution, and as a way to build a little excitement in the community to drive attendance (though with school out of session during the July tournament, I'm not sure how strong that factor was).  There was also a level of quality of Stanford players that the tournament could trust.  You give them a qualifying wild card, and they'll acquit themselves well. 

I'm not sure if giving a Stanford player a wild card to a San Jose tournament would drive attendance, and I am sure the tournament isn't feeling terribly charitable towards Stanford at the moment.  Though San Jose State players, other than Gauvain, don't have that same track record of quality, so you might not give them wild cards, either.  If I'm the tournament, I ignore Stanford affiliation and cast a wider net, look to the greater Bay Area and California in general for a certain caliber of player who could be deserving of a QWC.  From that perspective, incoming freshman Nikula Madurawe (Sunnyvale) could make sense, and Michaela Gordon (Saratoga) would make even more.  As for a main draw wild card, Cici Bellis is an easy choice if her ranking wouldn't justify a spot in the main draw.  But giving former Cardinal greats like Nicole Gibbs a wild card may be a thing of the past, too. 

In any event, it's disappointing to see the event leave Stanford.  Like you, oldalum, I'm glad it'll still be in the area, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Stanford players frozen out. 

[ColoradoTree]

The Bank of the West Classic tennis tournament, which unfortunately is leaving Stanford, has been reincarnated as the "Mubadala Silicon Valley Classic" and will be played at San Jose State's brand new tennis facility. Definitely not as good as being at Stanford, and not clear if Stanford players will be given wild cards in, but at least it's still within the area.

I always figured Stanford students got wild cards as a favor to the host institution, and as a way to build a little excitement in the community to drive attendance (though with school out of session during the July tournament, I'm not sure how strong that factor was).  There was also a level of quality of Stanford players that the tournament could trust.  You give them a qualifying wild card, and they'll acquit themselves well. 

I'm not sure if giving a Stanford player a wild card to a San Jose tournament would drive attendance, and I am sure the tournament isn't feeling terribly charitable towards Stanford at the moment.  Though San Jose State players, other than Gauvain, don't have that same track record of quality, so you might not give them wild cards, either.  If I'm the tournament, I ignore Stanford affiliation and cast a wider net, look to the greater Bay Area and California in general for a certain caliber of player who could be deserving of a QWC.  From that perspective, incoming freshman Nikula Madurawe (Sunnyvale) could make sense, and Michaela Gordon (Saratoga) would make even more.  As for a main draw wild card, Cici Bellis is an easy choice if her ranking wouldn't justify a spot in the main draw.  But giving former Cardinal greats like Nicole Gibbs a wild card may be a thing of the past, too. 

In any event, it's disappointing to see the event leave Stanford.  Like you, oldalum, I'm glad it'll still be in the area, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Stanford players frozen out. 

[oldalum]

It doesn't look like there are any stands at the new SJS tennis courts, so they're probably going to have to build temporary ones on all 4 sides of the main "stadium" court for the tournament (like they did for one side at Stanford).

[oldalum]

It doesn't look like there are any stands at the new SJS tennis courts, so they're probably going to have to build temporary ones on all 4 sides of the main "stadium" court for the tournament (like they did for one side at Stanford).

[ColoradoTree]

One of the conditions for moving the tournament there was that SJSU will build a 4,000-seat stadium court.  IIRC, the matches in the women's singles main draw at the BOTW Classic at Stanford were either mostly or all on the "stadium court," which was temporary bleachers put up over court 2 to make court 1 into the stadium court, but they needed a second court occasionally for doubles and some qualifying, I believe.  SJSU has the new six outdoor courts, so it would be easy enough to put some temporary bleachers on each side of courts 1 and 3 and also 4 and 6, to make 2 and 5 into courts that would allow for spectators to serve that purpose. 

It's being paid for by rental fees from IMG, apparently, so it shouldn't require taxpayer involvement.  That's the plan, at least.  I'm not sure what kind of value a single-court stadium would give SJSU outside of landing this tournament, though.  (There are supposed to be coaches' offices, locker rooms, and a player lounge in it, too, so SJSU would get a benefit out of that, at least.)  Maybe you put #1 singles on that court during home matches?  But then the player is isolated from her teammates, which isn't ideal. 

[ColoradoTree]

One of the conditions for moving the tournament there was that SJSU will build a 4,000-seat stadium court.  IIRC, the matches in the women's singles main draw at the BOTW Classic at Stanford were either mostly or all on the "stadium court," which was temporary bleachers put up over court 2 to make court 1 into the stadium court, but they needed a second court occasionally for doubles and some qualifying, I believe.  SJSU has the new six outdoor courts, so it would be easy enough to put some temporary bleachers on each side of courts 1 and 3 and also 4 and 6, to make 2 and 5 into courts that would allow for spectators to serve that purpose. 

It's being paid for by rental fees from IMG, apparently, so it shouldn't require taxpayer involvement.  That's the plan, at least.  I'm not sure what kind of value a single-court stadium would give SJSU outside of landing this tournament, though.  (There are supposed to be coaches' offices, locker rooms, and a player lounge in it, too, so SJSU would get a benefit out of that, at least.)  Maybe you put #1 singles on that court during home matches?  But then the player is isolated from her teammates, which isn't ideal. 

[Ratmandoo]

It's really sad that the Bank of the West is leaving Stanford. I worked on the tournament when it started in 1997 (that was the year of the Taube Tennis Stadium expansion) and it's what eventually got me my job at IMG. I was heavily involved with the operations on the tournament until 2005 so it's really a bummer to see it leave campus.

In the first couple of years of the event, we actually used courts 1 and 2 and had matches simultaneously on both courts. It made for some interesting viewing especially for the night matches. There would be cheering for one court while the other court was in the middle of a rally. That would stop before the Friday quarterfinals. Thursday night was brutal for our operations because we had to build an additional 300-400 seats overnight and then go right into working the next day. The first year, I screwed up the numbers on these new seats which made Friday morning a complete mess. The ticket manager was going to kill me but somehow I survived and eventually turned my internship into a full time job. I'm not really sure how I managed that.

One of the conditions for moving the tournament there was that SJSU will build a 4,000-seat stadium court.  IIRC, the matches in the women's singles main draw at the BOTW Classic at Stanford were either mostly or all on the "stadium court," which was temporary bleachers put up over court 2 to make court 1 into the stadium court, but they needed a second court occasionally for doubles and some qualifying, I believe.  SJSU has the new six outdoor courts, so it would be easy enough to put some temporary bleachers on each side of courts 1 and 3 and also 4 and 6, to make 2 and 5 into courts that would allow for spectators to serve that purpose. 

It's being paid for by rental fees from IMG, apparently, so it shouldn't require taxpayer involvement.  That's the plan, at least.  I'm not sure what kind of value a single-court stadium would give SJSU outside of landing this tournament, though.  (There are supposed to be coaches' offices, locker rooms, and a player lounge in it, too, so SJSU would get a benefit out of that, at least.)  Maybe you put #1 singles on that court during home matches?  But then the player is isolated from her teammates, which isn't ideal.

I'm sure any additional seats will be paid directly by IMG. Building temporary bleachers around a center court is relatively easy to figure out....it's not damaging the courts we build on top that's really tough.

[Ratmandoo]

It's really sad that the Bank of the West is leaving Stanford. I worked on the tournament when it started in 1997 (that was the year of the Taube Tennis Stadium expansion) and it's what eventually got me my job at IMG. I was heavily involved with the operations on the tournament until 2005 so it's really a bummer to see it leave campus.

In the first couple of years of the event, we actually used courts 1 and 2 and had matches simultaneously on both courts. It made for some interesting viewing especially for the night matches. There would be cheering for one court while the other court was in the middle of a rally. That would stop before the Friday quarterfinals. Thursday night was brutal for our operations because we had to build an additional 300-400 seats overnight and then go right into working the next day. The first year, I screwed up the numbers on these new seats which made Friday morning a complete mess. The ticket manager was going to kill me but somehow I survived and eventually turned my internship into a full time job. I'm not really sure how I managed that.

One of the conditions for moving the tournament there was that SJSU will build a 4,000-seat stadium court.  IIRC, the matches in the women's singles main draw at the BOTW Classic at Stanford were either mostly or all on the "stadium court," which was temporary bleachers put up over court 2 to make court 1 into the stadium court, but they needed a second court occasionally for doubles and some qualifying, I believe.  SJSU has the new six outdoor courts, so it would be easy enough to put some temporary bleachers on each side of courts 1 and 3 and also 4 and 6, to make 2 and 5 into courts that would allow for spectators to serve that purpose. 

It's being paid for by rental fees from IMG, apparently, so it shouldn't require taxpayer involvement.  That's the plan, at least.  I'm not sure what kind of value a single-court stadium would give SJSU outside of landing this tournament, though.  (There are supposed to be coaches' offices, locker rooms, and a player lounge in it, too, so SJSU would get a benefit out of that, at least.)  Maybe you put #1 singles on that court during home matches?  But then the player is isolated from her teammates, which isn't ideal.

I'm sure any additional seats will be paid directly by IMG. Building temporary bleachers around a center court is relatively easy to figure out....it's not damaging the courts we build on top that's really tough.

[Ratmandoo]

It's really sad that the Bank of the West is leaving Stanford. I worked on the tournament when it started in 1997 (that was the year of the Taube Tennis Stadium expansion) and it's what eventually got me my job at IMG. I was heavily involved with the operations on the tournament until 2005 so it's really a bummer to see it leave campus.

In the first couple of years of the event, we actually used courts 1 and 2 and had matches simultaneously on both courts. It made for some interesting viewing especially for the night matches. There would be cheering for one court while the other court was in the middle of a rally. That would stop before the Friday quarterfinals. Thursday night was brutal for our operations because we had to build an additional 300-400 seats overnight and then go right into working the next day. The first year, I screwed up the numbers on these new seats which made Friday morning a complete mess. The ticket manager was going to kill me but somehow I survived and eventually turned my internship into a full time job. I'm not really sure how I managed that.

One of the conditions for moving the tournament there was that SJSU will build a 4,000-seat stadium court.  IIRC, the matches in the women's singles main draw at the BOTW Classic at Stanford were either mostly or all on the "stadium court," which was temporary bleachers put up over court 2 to make court 1 into the stadium court, but they needed a second court occasionally for doubles and some qualifying, I believe.  SJSU has the new six outdoor courts, so it would be easy enough to put some temporary bleachers on each side of courts 1 and 3 and also 4 and 6, to make 2 and 5 into courts that would allow for spectators to serve that purpose. 

It's being paid for by rental fees from IMG, apparently, so it shouldn't require taxpayer involvement.  That's the plan, at least.  I'm not sure what kind of value a single-court stadium would give SJSU outside of landing this tournament, though.  (There are supposed to be coaches' offices, locker rooms, and a player lounge in it, too, so SJSU would get a benefit out of that, at least.)  Maybe you put #1 singles on that court during home matches?  But then the player is isolated from her teammates, which isn't ideal.

I'm sure any additional seats will be paid directly by IMG. Building temporary bleachers around a center court is relatively easy to figure out....it's not damaging the courts we build on top that's really tough.

[Ratmandoo]

It's really sad that the Bank of the West is leaving Stanford. I worked on the tournament when it started in 1997 (that was the year of the Taube Tennis Stadium expansion) and it's what eventually got me my job at IMG. I was heavily involved with the operations on the tournament until 2005 so it's really a bummer to see it leave campus.

In the first couple of years of the event, we actually used courts 1 and 2 and had matches simultaneously on both courts. It made for some interesting viewing especially for the night matches. There would be cheering for one court while the other court was in the middle of a rally. That would stop before the Friday quarterfinals. Thursday night was brutal for our operations because we had to build an additional 300-400 seats overnight and then go right into working the next day. The first year, I screwed up the numbers on these new seats which made Friday morning a complete mess. The ticket manager was going to kill me but somehow I survived and eventually turned my internship into a full time job. I'm not really sure how I managed that.

One of the conditions for moving the tournament there was that SJSU will build a 4,000-seat stadium court.  IIRC, the matches in the women's singles main draw at the BOTW Classic at Stanford were either mostly or all on the "stadium court," which was temporary bleachers put up over court 2 to make court 1 into the stadium court, but they needed a second court occasionally for doubles and some qualifying, I believe.  SJSU has the new six outdoor courts, so it would be easy enough to put some temporary bleachers on each side of courts 1 and 3 and also 4 and 6, to make 2 and 5 into courts that would allow for spectators to serve that purpose. 

It's being paid for by rental fees from IMG, apparently, so it shouldn't require taxpayer involvement.  That's the plan, at least.  I'm not sure what kind of value a single-court stadium would give SJSU outside of landing this tournament, though.  (There are supposed to be coaches' offices, locker rooms, and a player lounge in it, too, so SJSU would get a benefit out of that, at least.)  Maybe you put #1 singles on that court during home matches?  But then the player is isolated from her teammates, which isn't ideal.

I'm sure any additional seats will be paid directly by IMG. Building temporary bleachers around a center court is relatively easy to figure out....it's not damaging the courts we build on top that's really tough.