[ColoradoTree]

Stanford is the 15th seed, and will host St. John's (NY) in the opener, with the winner advancing to play either Michigan or Hawaii.  Specific dates and times are TBA, but it'll be the weekend of May 11-13. If Stanford gets past Michigan, it'll be a date with #2 North Carolina in the Round of 16, and then either Georgia or South Carolina loom in the quarterfinal.  It's not ideal, but such is life. If we beat UNC, though, I think we win the whole darn thing.

Ugh.  The answer to "how much will the NCAA consider Stanford's two head to head wins over UCLA" is "not much."  At least Pepperdine is on the other half of the bracket?

The seeds, as announced on the selection just now, are:

1. Vanderbilt
2. North Carolina
3. Duke
4. Georgia Tech
5. Ole Miss
6. Texas
7. Georgia
8. Oklahoma State
9. Florida
10. South Carolina
11. Texas Tech
12. UCLA
13. Pepperdine
14. Northwestern
15. Stanford
16. Miami (FL)

Interestingly, our regional consists of four conference champions, with Michigan (Big Ten), Hawaii (Big West), and St. John's (Big East) joining us. I haven't done a deep dive, but I think that's unique among the

Also, the committee decided not to reward the ingenuity of the Arkansas Razorbacks, and left them out of the field. Despite UW being the next team up, the committee skipped UW *and* WSU and included Kansas State as the last at-large team in the field.

[ColoradoTree]

Stanford is the 15th seed, and will host St. John's (NY) in the opener, with the winner advancing to play either Michigan or Hawaii.  Specific dates and times are TBA, but it'll be the weekend of May 11-13. If Stanford gets past Michigan, it'll be a date with #2 North Carolina in the Round of 16, and then either Georgia or South Carolina loom in the quarterfinal.  It's not ideal, but such is life. If we beat UNC, though, I think we win the whole darn thing.

Ugh.  The answer to "how much will the NCAA consider Stanford's two head to head wins over UCLA" is "not much."  At least Pepperdine is on the other half of the bracket?

The seeds, as announced on the selection just now, are:

1. Vanderbilt
2. North Carolina
3. Duke
4. Georgia Tech
5. Ole Miss
6. Texas
7. Georgia
8. Oklahoma State
9. Florida
10. South Carolina
11. Texas Tech
12. UCLA
13. Pepperdine
14. Northwestern
15. Stanford
16. Miami (FL)

Interestingly, our regional consists of four conference champions, with Michigan (Big Ten), Hawaii (Big West), and St. John's (Big East) joining us. I haven't done a deep dive, but I think that's unique among the

Also, the committee decided not to reward the ingenuity of the Arkansas Razorbacks, and left them out of the field. Despite UW being the next team up, the committee skipped UW *and* WSU and included Kansas State as the last at-large team in the field.

[BobK]

Unbelievable.   Well if you ain’t playing in the south you ain’t nothin.  Stupid

---

Unbelievable.   Well if you ain’t playing in the south you ain’t nothin.  Stupid

[BobK]

Unbelievable.   Well if you ain’t playing in the south you ain’t nothin.  Stupid

---

Unbelievable.   Well if you ain’t playing in the south you ain’t nothin.  Stupid

[ColoradoTree]

The seeds generally track the anticipated ITA ranking. But for reference, here are the seeds with their USTA ranking in parentheses (it should be noted that these rankings don't reflect the outcome of the Pac-12, ACC, Big Ten, or Big 12 tournaments, so there will be some shuffling):

1. Vanderbilt (1)
2. North Carolina (2)
3. Duke (3)
4. Georgia Tech (7)
5. Ole Miss (10)
6. Texas (5)
7. Georgia (11)
8. Oklahoma State (13)
9. Florida (9)
10. South Carolina (14)
11. Texas Tech (12)
12. UCLA (8)
13. Pepperdine (4)
14. Northwestern (17)
15. Stanford (6)
16. Miami (FL) (16)

EDIT: these numbers are now up to date. And what certainly stands out is that the ITA's rankings system noticeably overrates SEC teams, overrates Big 12 teams a bit, gets ACC and Big Ten teams about right, and criminally *underrates* California teams. I can be made that the NCAA made UCLA the 12 while making us the 15 based on what they usually do, but really, both teams should be top 8 seeds. If the USTA rankings were used to seed the teams, Michigan (15) would displace Northwestern (17) as a seed, Stanford would have an easier second-round match, a Round of 16 date with Georgia, and would be slated for a quarterfinal match against Duke and wouldn't play North Carolina until the semis.

---

Doing a bit of quick bracket analysis, it looks like the combination of (1) the glut of teams in the southeast, (2) efforts to minimize travel, and (3) efforts to avoid regional intra-conference matchups meant we're getting the toughest 2 seed in our regional, #17 Michigan.

#16 Miami, by contrast, gets #22 UCF. #14 Northwestern gets #26 Kentucky. Kentucky! And Northwestern also gets the very last team in the field as the #3 seed, Kansas State. #12 UCLA gets #25 Baylor. #11 Texas Tech gets #19 Illinois, which is a tough draw. And #13 Pepperdine gets the second-toughest 2 seed, #18 Kansas.

Of course, we also get Hawaii as one of the lesser 3 seeds, but that's somewhat irrelevant to us, because we likely won't be playing them anyway. St. John's isn't very good, but since all of the 4 seeds are automatic qualifiers, all of the 4 seeds are pretty bad. Under any hosting scenario, you're playing a bad team in the first round. The only thing that really matters is how good the 2 seed is, because that's likely who you'll be playing.

Elsewhere in the Pac-12, #33 Oregon is the 2 seed in Duke's regional, with a first-round matchup against #38 Tennessee. I don't think the Ducks have it against the Blue Devils. And #37 Arizona State is the 3 seed in Georgia's regional, with a first-round matchup against #29 Wake Forest. If they can get past Wake, I don't think an upset of Georgia is completely ridiculous to imagine.

[ColoradoTree]

The seeds generally track the anticipated ITA ranking. But for reference, here are the seeds with their USTA ranking in parentheses (it should be noted that these rankings don't reflect the outcome of the Pac-12, ACC, Big Ten, or Big 12 tournaments, so there will be some shuffling):

1. Vanderbilt (1)
2. North Carolina (2)
3. Duke (3)
4. Georgia Tech (7)
5. Ole Miss (10)
6. Texas (5)
7. Georgia (11)
8. Oklahoma State (13)
9. Florida (9)
10. South Carolina (14)
11. Texas Tech (12)
12. UCLA (8)
13. Pepperdine (4)
14. Northwestern (17)
15. Stanford (6)
16. Miami (FL) (16)

EDIT: these numbers are now up to date. And what certainly stands out is that the ITA's rankings system noticeably overrates SEC teams, overrates Big 12 teams a bit, gets ACC and Big Ten teams about right, and criminally *underrates* California teams. I can be made that the NCAA made UCLA the 12 while making us the 15 based on what they usually do, but really, both teams should be top 8 seeds. If the USTA rankings were used to seed the teams, Michigan (15) would displace Northwestern (17) as a seed, Stanford would have an easier second-round match, a Round of 16 date with Georgia, and would be slated for a quarterfinal match against Duke and wouldn't play North Carolina until the semis.

---

Doing a bit of quick bracket analysis, it looks like the combination of (1) the glut of teams in the southeast, (2) efforts to minimize travel, and (3) efforts to avoid regional intra-conference matchups meant we're getting the toughest 2 seed in our regional, #17 Michigan.

#16 Miami, by contrast, gets #22 UCF. #14 Northwestern gets #26 Kentucky. Kentucky! And Northwestern also gets the very last team in the field as the #3 seed, Kansas State. #12 UCLA gets #25 Baylor. #11 Texas Tech gets #19 Illinois, which is a tough draw. And #13 Pepperdine gets the second-toughest 2 seed, #18 Kansas.

Of course, we also get Hawaii as one of the lesser 3 seeds, but that's somewhat irrelevant to us, because we likely won't be playing them anyway. St. John's isn't very good, but since all of the 4 seeds are automatic qualifiers, all of the 4 seeds are pretty bad. Under any hosting scenario, you're playing a bad team in the first round. The only thing that really matters is how good the 2 seed is, because that's likely who you'll be playing.

Elsewhere in the Pac-12, #33 Oregon is the 2 seed in Duke's regional, with a first-round matchup against #38 Tennessee. I don't think the Ducks have it against the Blue Devils. And #37 Arizona State is the 3 seed in Georgia's regional, with a first-round matchup against #29 Wake Forest. If they can get past Wake, I don't think an upset of Georgia is completely ridiculous to imagine.

[Spiny_Norman]

Michigan would be a familiar opponent. Stanford has knocked them out of the tournament each of the last two years.

[Spiny_Norman]

Michigan would be a familiar opponent. Stanford has knocked them out of the tournament each of the last two years.

[ColoradoTree]

It's early, but the national seeds that seem most susceptible to an early-round upset are:

* Us. On one hand, drawing #17 Michigan in a second-round matchup hurts. On the other, Michigan was 17-9 this year, losing to just about every good team they faced. Their resume is based on beating Kansas back in January, beating Illinois twice, splitting with Northwestern (losing in the regular season but winning the conference tournament), and generally rolling through a middling Big Ten. I will be so mad if we lose to this team.

* (16) Miami vs. #22 UCF. UCF is a dangerous mid-major who is weighed down by a weaker conference schedule, but they beat South Carolina, Michigan, and Baylor in non-conference play, so they're no joke.

* (4) Georgia Tech vs. #20 Auburn.

* (11) Texas Tech vs. #19 Illinois.

* (10) South Carolina vs. #24 UVA. South Carolina is one of those teams that gets a boost from being a middling SEC team, but who isn't all *that* good. I don't think UVA is that great, either, but has some decent results on its schedule this year.

[ColoradoTree]

It's early, but the national seeds that seem most susceptible to an early-round upset are:

* Us. On one hand, drawing #17 Michigan in a second-round matchup hurts. On the other, Michigan was 17-9 this year, losing to just about every good team they faced. Their resume is based on beating Kansas back in January, beating Illinois twice, splitting with Northwestern (losing in the regular season but winning the conference tournament), and generally rolling through a middling Big Ten. I will be so mad if we lose to this team.

* (16) Miami vs. #22 UCF. UCF is a dangerous mid-major who is weighed down by a weaker conference schedule, but they beat South Carolina, Michigan, and Baylor in non-conference play, so they're no joke.

* (4) Georgia Tech vs. #20 Auburn.

* (11) Texas Tech vs. #19 Illinois.

* (10) South Carolina vs. #24 UVA. South Carolina is one of those teams that gets a boost from being a middling SEC team, but who isn't all *that* good. I don't think UVA is that great, either, but has some decent results on its schedule this year.

[oldalum]

So how does the SEC bias in the ITA rankings arise in the first place? early inter-conference results?? I guess I need to dive into how the ITA rankings are calculated. Once so many SEC teams are ranked and the conference season starts, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

---

one incidental note: on the NCAA website, Emma Higuchi is the face of women's college tennis for the story on the NCAA field announcement and bracket.
https://www.ncaa.com/sports/tennis-women/d1

[oldalum]

So how does the SEC bias in the ITA rankings arise in the first place? early inter-conference results?? I guess I need to dive into how the ITA rankings are calculated. Once so many SEC teams are ranked and the conference season starts, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

---

one incidental note: on the NCAA website, Emma Higuchi is the face of women's college tennis for the story on the NCAA field announcement and bracket.
https://www.ncaa.com/sports/tennis-women/d1

[ColoradoTree]

We have some match times:

Friday, May 11:

11:00am: Michigan vs. Hawai'i
2:00pm: Stanford vs. St. John's

Saturday, May 12:

4:00pm: Winners play Round 2

The men's team also plays at Taube, hosting New Mexico State on Saturday at 1:00pm before the women's second round match. The men's second round match is Sunday, May 13, at 2:00pm against the winner of the Duke-Ole Miss first round match. That match is Saturday at 10:00am, so if you want to watch several hours of NCAA tournament tennis on Saturday, May 12, Taube will oblige.

[ColoradoTree]

We have some match times:

Friday, May 11:

11:00am: Michigan vs. Hawai'i
2:00pm: Stanford vs. St. John's

Saturday, May 12:

4:00pm: Winners play Round 2

The men's team also plays at Taube, hosting New Mexico State on Saturday at 1:00pm before the women's second round match. The men's second round match is Sunday, May 13, at 2:00pm against the winner of the Duke-Ole Miss first round match. That match is Saturday at 10:00am, so if you want to watch several hours of NCAA tournament tennis on Saturday, May 12, Taube will oblige.

[Nan3cy]

Go Hawaii!

[Nan3cy]

Go Hawaii!

[mbdude]

Colorado, could u explain what is meant by the "ingenuity of Arkansas"? Thank you

[mbdude]

Colorado, could u explain what is meant by the "ingenuity of Arkansas"? Thank you

[ColoradoTree]

Colorado, could u explain what is meant by the "ingenuity of Arkansas"? Thank you

After a surprising run in the SEC tournament, Arkansas had enough good wins to make it likely they'd be included in the NCAA tournament field.  But there's a catch: they were 10-16, and you need to be .500 or better to make the field. So, with their season over, Arkansas went looking for opponents who might be willing to schedule more matches.  They only found one taker, so they went to Nashville and played six matches against cupcake Tennessee State to get the six wins that would make them eligible. Six matches.  All on the same day. First match started at 8am, and the last one started at 7pm.  (Arkansas won the first five 4-0, but some tired legs and retirements meant they only won the final match 4-3.) Tennessee State got $15,000 for their women's tennis program for their trouble.

Had the NCAA selection committee stuck to the ITA rankings--which they basically always do--Arkansas would be in.  Their final ranking warranted inclusion, based on their combination of good wins and losses to good teams.  But the committee decided not to bless the Razorbacks' rather unorthodox method of coming into technical compliance with the eligibility requirements.

EDIT: Some more backstory to this. So, apparently Kansas State formally challenged the matches to the ITA, and the ITA formally reprimanded the Arkansas head coach for violating ITA rules. (The rule at issue is that you're not allowed to move players up more than one singles slot in back-to-back singles matches. Against this backdrop is another ITA rule, which requires you to rank your players in order of how good they are. So, your preexisting lineup should be right, and you can make moves to reflect some players doing better and others doing worse, sure, but when you take your #6 singles player and suddenly put them at #2, that's likely because you're trying to stack your lineup and throw away the match at #2 in the hopes of making it more likely to win at positions 3 through 6. That's what the rule here addresses.) In the process of playing the six Tennessee State matches, some players were rotated through various positions in an effort to mix things up and not have six matches all against the same player from the other team. The ITA let the results stand, but gave the NCAA committee a heads up about its formal reprimand of the Arkansas coach, and the NCAA apparently used its discretion to leave Arkansas out of the field. That coach has now been fired, by the way, after 15 years as the head of the program.

[ColoradoTree]

Colorado, could u explain what is meant by the "ingenuity of Arkansas"? Thank you

After a surprising run in the SEC tournament, Arkansas had enough good wins to make it likely they'd be included in the NCAA tournament field.  But there's a catch: they were 10-16, and you need to be .500 or better to make the field. So, with their season over, Arkansas went looking for opponents who might be willing to schedule more matches.  They only found one taker, so they went to Nashville and played six matches against cupcake Tennessee State to get the six wins that would make them eligible. Six matches.  All on the same day. First match started at 8am, and the last one started at 7pm.  (Arkansas won the first five 4-0, but some tired legs and retirements meant they only won the final match 4-3.) Tennessee State got $15,000 for their women's tennis program for their trouble.

Had the NCAA selection committee stuck to the ITA rankings--which they basically always do--Arkansas would be in.  Their final ranking warranted inclusion, based on their combination of good wins and losses to good teams.  But the committee decided not to bless the Razorbacks' rather unorthodox method of coming into technical compliance with the eligibility requirements.

EDIT: Some more backstory to this. So, apparently Kansas State formally challenged the matches to the ITA, and the ITA formally reprimanded the Arkansas head coach for violating ITA rules. (The rule at issue is that you're not allowed to move players up more than one singles slot in back-to-back singles matches. Against this backdrop is another ITA rule, which requires you to rank your players in order of how good they are. So, your preexisting lineup should be right, and you can make moves to reflect some players doing better and others doing worse, sure, but when you take your #6 singles player and suddenly put them at #2, that's likely because you're trying to stack your lineup and throw away the match at #2 in the hopes of making it more likely to win at positions 3 through 6. That's what the rule here addresses.) In the process of playing the six Tennessee State matches, some players were rotated through various positions in an effort to mix things up and not have six matches all against the same player from the other team. The ITA let the results stand, but gave the NCAA committee a heads up about its formal reprimand of the Arkansas coach, and the NCAA apparently used its discretion to leave Arkansas out of the field. That coach has now been fired, by the way, after 15 years as the head of the program.

[PVTree]

North Carolina saw the brackets and their coach had to change to clean undergarments. Their path to the championship just got a major obstacle as they spotted a large iceberg with a Treed S on it.

[PVTree]

North Carolina saw the brackets and their coach had to change to clean undergarments. Their path to the championship just got a major obstacle as they spotted a large iceberg with a Treed S on it.

[ColoradoTree]

Right after the Pac-12 tournament, I posted about how Melissa Lord might just have done enough to make the NCAA singles field.  The field got released yesterday afternoon, and sure enough, she's in there, along with Emily Arbuthnott and Michaela Gordon (who scored a 9-16 seed, and must have been one of the last to do that).  

On the doubles side, Gordon/Arbuthnott are in, and they're the 3rd seed in the tournament.  I don't think draws are done until after the team championships are done, but Gordon's seed means she won't face a top 8 seed until the Round of 16. 

What that means: Michaela Gordon is a singles All-American, and Gordon and Arbuthnott are doubles All-Americans!  In singles, All-American honors go to any player who is (1) a top 16 seed in the singles tournament, (2) reaches the Round of 16 at the singles tournament, or (3) is ranked in the top 20 of the final singles rankings (which is how Lord qualified last year).  In doubles, the threshold is to be (1) a top 8 seed, (2) reach the quarterfinals of the doubles tournament, or (3) be ranked in the top 10 at the end of the year.  So, Lord and Arbuthnott could still earn their way to a singles All-American honor by reaching the Round of 16.  

Congrats to Michaela and Emily on their All-American honors!

---

Also, the penultimate ITA rankings for the year are out, and the team has some reason to be upset.  They finished 15th, which is what the algorithm called for, but the committee decided to leave them there.  What's galling is that UCLA finished 14th, with Northwestern 13th and Pepperdine 12th.  When two teams finish right next to each other in the rankings, what the committee usually does is give the higher seed to the head-to-head winner during the regular season.  Had they done that, Stanford is the 14 seed and UCLA is the 15 seed.  Instead, they took a broader view, credited UCLA's head to head win over Pepperdine, and jumped UCLA all the way up to 12th, bumping Pepperdine and Northwestern each down a spot, and leaving us behind.  I think that's weak.  

Anyway, North Carolina is the #1 team in the country, but Vanderbilt got the 1 seed due to the head-to-head win.  So, just like 2015, if we want to win the title as the 15 seed, we'll have to go through the 2nd-seeded, but top-ranked team. Michigan is the 17th-ranked team, so we have the toughest second-round opponent and the toughest Round of 16 projected opponent of any seeded team.  

Final pre-tournament rankings of Pac-12 teams:

14. UCLA
15. Stanford
33. Oregon (last regional 2 seed)
37. Arizona State
43. Washington
44. Washington State
50. USC

Cal finished the season unranked.

---

And the final pre-tournament singles and doubles rankings:

Singles

15. Gordon
40. Lord (that is so much more like it)
43. Arbuthnott
93. Lampl
96. Shin
102. Higuchi

FYI, UCLA's Shibahara is the top Pac-12 player at #9; Gordon is second in the conference, just ahead of #16 Fung of UW.

Doubles

3. Arbuthnott/Gordon (top team in Pac-12)
84. Lampl/Yee
NR Lord/Shin

Looking ahead to our opponents and likely opponents in the NCAA tournament:

* St. John's has one ranked player, #118 Jessica Livianu, and no ranked doubles teams. So, figure on the doubles point and the back courts to finish first.

* Michigan has 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.)  

* North Carolina is well-represented in the rankings: #2 Makenna Jones (who played on Court 5 and lost to Arbuthnott in the tournament last year; she has absolutely taken the leap); #26 Alle Sanford; #46 Sara Daavettila; #85 Jessie Aney; #95 Alexa Graham; and #119 Chloe Oullet-Pizer. And all three doubles teams are ranked.  Matches don't get tougher than this, but Stanford beat 2nd-seeded UNC 4-2 in the quarterfinals of last year's tournament after rolling to the doubles point and then getting wins from Lord over Daavettila, Davidson over Aney, and Arbuthnott over Jones.  (Higuchi had just forced a third set against Oullet-Pizer when the match was abandoned, and she had all the momentum with her after losing the first in a tiebreaker and cruising in the second.)  We've done it before. We can do it again.

If you're interested in how the rest of the Pac-12 fared, here's the list of conference players in the singles and doubles draws, in order of ITA ranking:

9. Shibahara (UCLA)
15. Gordon
16. Fung (UW)
23. Bayerlova (WSU)
33. Hart (UCLA)
35. Smith (USC)
36. Rosenqvist (Cal)
40. Lord
42. Tobita (Oregon)
43. Arbuthnott
45. Bright (Cal)
47. Wong (UW)
50. Hauger (Cal)

Cal thus gets 3 into the tournament, as many as Stanford, making their failure to qualify for the team tournament even more shocking. UCLA and UW each get two, and Oregon, USC, and Wazzu get one apiece. Could be more, as #66 John-Baptiste (ASU) and #67 Altick (UCLA) are the 7th and 8th alternates, respectively.  

In doubles (a field of 32 teams), the Pac-12 just gets 4 teams in:

3. Arbuthnott/Gordon (3 seed)
7. Hart/Fleming (UCLA) (5-8 seed)
12. John-Baptiste/Hattingh (ASU) 
27. Kobayashi/Wong (UW)

34th-ranked Tobita/Sangwan of Oregon are the second alternates, so they stand a decent chance of making the field.

[ColoradoTree]

Right after the Pac-12 tournament, I posted about how Melissa Lord might just have done enough to make the NCAA singles field.  The field got released yesterday afternoon, and sure enough, she's in there, along with Emily Arbuthnott and Michaela Gordon (who scored a 9-16 seed, and must have been one of the last to do that).  

On the doubles side, Gordon/Arbuthnott are in, and they're the 3rd seed in the tournament.  I don't think draws are done until after the team championships are done, but Gordon's seed means she won't face a top 8 seed until the Round of 16. 

What that means: Michaela Gordon is a singles All-American, and Gordon and Arbuthnott are doubles All-Americans!  In singles, All-American honors go to any player who is (1) a top 16 seed in the singles tournament, (2) reaches the Round of 16 at the singles tournament, or (3) is ranked in the top 20 of the final singles rankings (which is how Lord qualified last year).  In doubles, the threshold is to be (1) a top 8 seed, (2) reach the quarterfinals of the doubles tournament, or (3) be ranked in the top 10 at the end of the year.  So, Lord and Arbuthnott could still earn their way to a singles All-American honor by reaching the Round of 16.  

Congrats to Michaela and Emily on their All-American honors!

---

Also, the penultimate ITA rankings for the year are out, and the team has some reason to be upset.  They finished 15th, which is what the algorithm called for, but the committee decided to leave them there.  What's galling is that UCLA finished 14th, with Northwestern 13th and Pepperdine 12th.  When two teams finish right next to each other in the rankings, what the committee usually does is give the higher seed to the head-to-head winner during the regular season.  Had they done that, Stanford is the 14 seed and UCLA is the 15 seed.  Instead, they took a broader view, credited UCLA's head to head win over Pepperdine, and jumped UCLA all the way up to 12th, bumping Pepperdine and Northwestern each down a spot, and leaving us behind.  I think that's weak.  

Anyway, North Carolina is the #1 team in the country, but Vanderbilt got the 1 seed due to the head-to-head win.  So, just like 2015, if we want to win the title as the 15 seed, we'll have to go through the 2nd-seeded, but top-ranked team. Michigan is the 17th-ranked team, so we have the toughest second-round opponent and the toughest Round of 16 projected opponent of any seeded team.  

Final pre-tournament rankings of Pac-12 teams:

14. UCLA
15. Stanford
33. Oregon (last regional 2 seed)
37. Arizona State
43. Washington
44. Washington State
50. USC

Cal finished the season unranked.

---

And the final pre-tournament singles and doubles rankings:

Singles

15. Gordon
40. Lord (that is so much more like it)
43. Arbuthnott
93. Lampl
96. Shin
102. Higuchi

FYI, UCLA's Shibahara is the top Pac-12 player at #9; Gordon is second in the conference, just ahead of #16 Fung of UW.

Doubles

3. Arbuthnott/Gordon (top team in Pac-12)
84. Lampl/Yee
NR Lord/Shin

Looking ahead to our opponents and likely opponents in the NCAA tournament:

* St. John's has one ranked player, #118 Jessica Livianu, and no ranked doubles teams. So, figure on the doubles point and the back courts to finish first.

* Michigan has 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.)  

* North Carolina is well-represented in the rankings: #2 Makenna Jones (who played on Court 5 and lost to Arbuthnott in the tournament last year; she has absolutely taken the leap); #26 Alle Sanford; #46 Sara Daavettila; #85 Jessie Aney; #95 Alexa Graham; and #119 Chloe Oullet-Pizer. And all three doubles teams are ranked.  Matches don't get tougher than this, but Stanford beat 2nd-seeded UNC 4-2 in the quarterfinals of last year's tournament after rolling to the doubles point and then getting wins from Lord over Daavettila, Davidson over Aney, and Arbuthnott over Jones.  (Higuchi had just forced a third set against Oullet-Pizer when the match was abandoned, and she had all the momentum with her after losing the first in a tiebreaker and cruising in the second.)  We've done it before. We can do it again.

If you're interested in how the rest of the Pac-12 fared, here's the list of conference players in the singles and doubles draws, in order of ITA ranking:

9. Shibahara (UCLA)
15. Gordon
16. Fung (UW)
23. Bayerlova (WSU)
33. Hart (UCLA)
35. Smith (USC)
36. Rosenqvist (Cal)
40. Lord
42. Tobita (Oregon)
43. Arbuthnott
45. Bright (Cal)
47. Wong (UW)
50. Hauger (Cal)

Cal thus gets 3 into the tournament, as many as Stanford, making their failure to qualify for the team tournament even more shocking. UCLA and UW each get two, and Oregon, USC, and Wazzu get one apiece. Could be more, as #66 John-Baptiste (ASU) and #67 Altick (UCLA) are the 7th and 8th alternates, respectively.  

In doubles (a field of 32 teams), the Pac-12 just gets 4 teams in:

3. Arbuthnott/Gordon (3 seed)
7. Hart/Fleming (UCLA) (5-8 seed)
12. John-Baptiste/Hattingh (ASU) 
27. Kobayashi/Wong (UW)

34th-ranked Tobita/Sangwan of Oregon are the second alternates, so they stand a decent chance of making the field.

[mbdude]

Colorado, thanks for reply to Arkansas question.

[mbdude]

Colorado, thanks for reply to Arkansas question.

[ColoradoTree]

Colorado, thanks for reply to Arkansas question.

Of course! It had been discussed on a different thread, but not this one, so I shouldn't have assumed folks knew the score. 

It's a fascinating topic. Ultimately, the resolution of the issue should probably be: (1) dropping the .500 requirement; and (2) forbidding teams from scheduling post-regular season matches on the fly to try and game rankings to make the NCAA field.  If the goal is to get the best teams (and Arkansas' final ranking would have given them the final regional 2 seed had the committee allowed them in, so they were comfortably in the field based on merit), then maintaining the .500 requirement just creates incentives to schedule sufficient cupcakes.  If the NCAA really believes that the ITA rankings are a good metric for measuring who deserves to make the field--and they have repeatedly said they do--then why not let the ITA rankings take their natural course?  Arkansas played one of the country's toughest schedules, lost to a bunch of good teams, and beat some good teams.  I think they only played one unranked non-conference team all season, which is insane.  

That said, putting them in the field would have blessed this kind of behavior in the future, and isn't fair to the bubble teams that might make it in otherwise.  A big part of me thinks what Arkansas did was genius, but ultimately, allowing this would have opened the door to similar shenanigans in the future, and I think at some point a schedule has to be final. Next time, it could be a couple of high seeds deciding to play each other, realizing a loss won't cost them much at all, but a win might be enough to bump you up to the #1 seed.  Or you have a team that's comfortably in decide to schedule a bubble team from their own conference, and some of the better team's players are magically out with an injury.  Or you know you have some singles players on the bubble, so let's schedule a match against another team in a similar situation so that we can try and boost each player's ranking and get them in the field, at the expense of a player who had earned a right to be in the tournament but whose team didn't pull a stunt like that.   

In other words, the rule that led Arkansas to take this action was wrong and should have never been in place, but the NCAA was still right to keep Arkansas out due to what they did to get around it.  (Oh, and if that story doesn't get picked up in the national media, that coach absolutely still has a job, especially since the AD had signed off on the plan in the first place. Big-time coaches get some leeway with the administration, but women's tennis coaches don't have the cachet to get to embarrass the school on a national stage.)

---

North Carolina saw the brackets and their coach had to change to clean undergarments. Their path to the championship just got a major obstacle as they spotted a large iceberg with a Treed S on it.

North Carolina has a legitimate beef.  They're the #1 team in the country (#2 according to the USTA), and they get punished by playing what the USTA says is the #6 team in the country. The committee may think they're enforcing the rules by underseeding Stanford (at least in terms of how good Stanford is, rather than how impressive its resume has been), but what they're really doing is being unfair to both Stanford and the highly-ranked team slated to play Stanford in the Round of 16.  It wasn't fair to Florida two years ago, and it's not fair to North Carolina now. And it's not fair to Michigan, for that matter.  Michigan won the Big Ten tournament, ended up ranked #17, and should by rights be playing the #16 team for the right to advance in a match that's effectively a coin flip.  Instead, they have to go play the 6th-best team on the road?  Brutal. 

I don't know that the North Carolina coach or players are scared--teams this good aren't scared of anyone--but if I were the head coach there, I'd be ticked off that the NCAA dealt me this hand. 

I always look at this from a Stanford-centric perspective, but the unfairness comes into starker relief when you consider how the other teams feel about getting Stanford in their corner of the draw.  I'm cool with using the ITA rankings as the cutoff for who makes it in the field, but the committee needs to use more discretion in how they seed the field once it's set. 

(FYI, I updated the post at the top with the just-released USTA rankings.)

---

Silver lining to being underseeded.  If you get past North Carolina in the Round of 16, the draw sure opens up.  I think Stanford should beat either (7) Georgia or (10) South Carolina in a quarterfinal (and the USTA would seem to agree, ranking both teams below Stanford, and that's assuming one of those teams is still there--I think they're both susceptible to upsets), and then it's a semifinal versus the Duke-Texas winner, and I'd put money on Stanford over either team.  Then it'd be a rematch in the final versus Vanderbilt.  

That match back in February was 1 vs. 2 (based on the ITA's early-season committee rankings before they move over to the formula) when it happened earlier in the year, and both teams making it that far would be great ammunition for the ITA changing its ranking formula or the NCAA changing its approach to seeding. That Stanford is one of the few best teams in the country is a surprise to exactly nobody in college tennis.  That you'd suddenly think they're the 15th-best team because they lost three matches, all to Top 10 teams (and two on the road) while their only returning All-American was out with injury?  GTFO.

[ColoradoTree]

Colorado, thanks for reply to Arkansas question.

Of course! It had been discussed on a different thread, but not this one, so I shouldn't have assumed folks knew the score. 

It's a fascinating topic. Ultimately, the resolution of the issue should probably be: (1) dropping the .500 requirement; and (2) forbidding teams from scheduling post-regular season matches on the fly to try and game rankings to make the NCAA field.  If the goal is to get the best teams (and Arkansas' final ranking would have given them the final regional 2 seed had the committee allowed them in, so they were comfortably in the field based on merit), then maintaining the .500 requirement just creates incentives to schedule sufficient cupcakes.  If the NCAA really believes that the ITA rankings are a good metric for measuring who deserves to make the field--and they have repeatedly said they do--then why not let the ITA rankings take their natural course?  Arkansas played one of the country's toughest schedules, lost to a bunch of good teams, and beat some good teams.  I think they only played one unranked non-conference team all season, which is insane.  

That said, putting them in the field would have blessed this kind of behavior in the future, and isn't fair to the bubble teams that might make it in otherwise.  A big part of me thinks what Arkansas did was genius, but ultimately, allowing this would have opened the door to similar shenanigans in the future, and I think at some point a schedule has to be final. Next time, it could be a couple of high seeds deciding to play each other, realizing a loss won't cost them much at all, but a win might be enough to bump you up to the #1 seed.  Or you have a team that's comfortably in decide to schedule a bubble team from their own conference, and some of the better team's players are magically out with an injury.  Or you know you have some singles players on the bubble, so let's schedule a match against another team in a similar situation so that we can try and boost each player's ranking and get them in the field, at the expense of a player who had earned a right to be in the tournament but whose team didn't pull a stunt like that.   

In other words, the rule that led Arkansas to take this action was wrong and should have never been in place, but the NCAA was still right to keep Arkansas out due to what they did to get around it.  (Oh, and if that story doesn't get picked up in the national media, that coach absolutely still has a job, especially since the AD had signed off on the plan in the first place. Big-time coaches get some leeway with the administration, but women's tennis coaches don't have the cachet to get to embarrass the school on a national stage.)

---

North Carolina saw the brackets and their coach had to change to clean undergarments. Their path to the championship just got a major obstacle as they spotted a large iceberg with a Treed S on it.

North Carolina has a legitimate beef.  They're the #1 team in the country (#2 according to the USTA), and they get punished by playing what the USTA says is the #6 team in the country. The committee may think they're enforcing the rules by underseeding Stanford (at least in terms of how good Stanford is, rather than how impressive its resume has been), but what they're really doing is being unfair to both Stanford and the highly-ranked team slated to play Stanford in the Round of 16.  It wasn't fair to Florida two years ago, and it's not fair to North Carolina now. And it's not fair to Michigan, for that matter.  Michigan won the Big Ten tournament, ended up ranked #17, and should by rights be playing the #16 team for the right to advance in a match that's effectively a coin flip.  Instead, they have to go play the 6th-best team on the road?  Brutal. 

I don't know that the North Carolina coach or players are scared--teams this good aren't scared of anyone--but if I were the head coach there, I'd be ticked off that the NCAA dealt me this hand. 

I always look at this from a Stanford-centric perspective, but the unfairness comes into starker relief when you consider how the other teams feel about getting Stanford in their corner of the draw.  I'm cool with using the ITA rankings as the cutoff for who makes it in the field, but the committee needs to use more discretion in how they seed the field once it's set. 

(FYI, I updated the post at the top with the just-released USTA rankings.)

---

Silver lining to being underseeded.  If you get past North Carolina in the Round of 16, the draw sure opens up.  I think Stanford should beat either (7) Georgia or (10) South Carolina in a quarterfinal (and the USTA would seem to agree, ranking both teams below Stanford, and that's assuming one of those teams is still there--I think they're both susceptible to upsets), and then it's a semifinal versus the Duke-Texas winner, and I'd put money on Stanford over either team.  Then it'd be a rematch in the final versus Vanderbilt.  

That match back in February was 1 vs. 2 (based on the ITA's early-season committee rankings before they move over to the formula) when it happened earlier in the year, and both teams making it that far would be great ammunition for the ITA changing its ranking formula or the NCAA changing its approach to seeding. That Stanford is one of the few best teams in the country is a surprise to exactly nobody in college tennis.  That you'd suddenly think they're the 15th-best team because they lost three matches, all to Top 10 teams (and two on the road) while their only returning All-American was out with injury?  GTFO.

[Lorcan]

So, Gordon, Lord, and Arbuthnott to NCAA Singles, and Gordon/Arbuthnott to the doubles.

[Lorcan]

So, Gordon, Lord, and Arbuthnott to NCAA Singles, and Gordon/Arbuthnott to the doubles.

[oldalum]

I've complained on forums for years about the NCAA tennis committee's slavish devotion to the ITA rankings that results in underseeding Stanford year after year (which is easily demonstrable--we recently had a winning streak in NCAA tournament matches against higher-seeded teams that reached >10 IIRC), to the detriment of both Stanford and our opponents. But nothing has changed. Go figure.

[oldalum]

I've complained on forums for years about the NCAA tennis committee's slavish devotion to the ITA rankings that results in underseeding Stanford year after year (which is easily demonstrable--we recently had a winning streak in NCAA tournament matches against higher-seeded teams that reached >10 IIRC), to the detriment of both Stanford and our opponents. But nothing has changed. Go figure.

[ColoradoTree]

I've complained on forums for years about the NCAA tennis committee's slavish devotion to the ITA rankings that results in underseeding Stanford year after year (which is easily demonstrable--we recently had a winning streak in NCAA tournament matches against higher-seeded teams that reached >10 IIRC), to the detriment of both Stanford and our opponents. But nothing has changed. Go figure.

Amen. The advent of the USTA rankings this year gives me some hope for the future, though. It provides the NCAA committee with another data point to consider, and one much more focused on how good a team is rather than the resume they've put together. Let's hope the USTA rankings stick around, prove more accurate than the seeds year over year, and the NCAA faces pressure to incorporate them into determining the seeds. Even averaging the USTA rankings with the ITA rankings would get to a more equitable result (Stanford as, say, a 10 or 11 seed).

[ColoradoTree]

I've complained on forums for years about the NCAA tennis committee's slavish devotion to the ITA rankings that results in underseeding Stanford year after year (which is easily demonstrable--we recently had a winning streak in NCAA tournament matches against higher-seeded teams that reached >10 IIRC), to the detriment of both Stanford and our opponents. But nothing has changed. Go figure.

Amen. The advent of the USTA rankings this year gives me some hope for the future, though. It provides the NCAA committee with another data point to consider, and one much more focused on how good a team is rather than the resume they've put together. Let's hope the USTA rankings stick around, prove more accurate than the seeds year over year, and the NCAA faces pressure to incorporate them into determining the seeds. Even averaging the USTA rankings with the ITA rankings would get to a more equitable result (Stanford as, say, a 10 or 11 seed).

[ColoradoTree]

A final word on the Arkansas non-selection.  While the ITA allowed those matches to continue to count, the NCAA selection committee apparently looked at each case, determined that the rule on lineup adjustments was violated in three matches.  The first violation should have resulted in a warning, while the two subsequent violations should have counted as defaults.  Thus, when the NCAA tennis committee made its decisions, it deemed Arkansas to be 14-16, not 16-16, and thus ineligible for selection. (Note: that is proper, according to NCAA bylaws.  Of course, it would also have been proper for the NCAA to deem Arkansas 16-16 and not select them anyway as a message to other teams to not try such shenanigans in the future.)  

So, the route to Arkansas not getting in was technical rather than the NCAA making an example out of Arkansas, but the end result is the same.  It seems to lack the same precedential effect, however.  Had Arkansas simply kept their lineups in place, then they would have been 16-16 in the NCAA's mind.  I don't think the NCAA is saying "be more careful in your shenanigans next time, teams, and you'll be OK," but perhaps the NCAA decided that because it didn't have to make a sweeping statement on keeping an otherwise eligible team out of the tournament, it preferred to go the more technical and careful route, i.e., using its discretion to determine Arkansas' record NCAA selection purposes based on ITA rule violations.

[ColoradoTree]

A final word on the Arkansas non-selection.  While the ITA allowed those matches to continue to count, the NCAA selection committee apparently looked at each case, determined that the rule on lineup adjustments was violated in three matches.  The first violation should have resulted in a warning, while the two subsequent violations should have counted as defaults.  Thus, when the NCAA tennis committee made its decisions, it deemed Arkansas to be 14-16, not 16-16, and thus ineligible for selection. (Note: that is proper, according to NCAA bylaws.  Of course, it would also have been proper for the NCAA to deem Arkansas 16-16 and not select them anyway as a message to other teams to not try such shenanigans in the future.)  

So, the route to Arkansas not getting in was technical rather than the NCAA making an example out of Arkansas, but the end result is the same.  It seems to lack the same precedential effect, however.  Had Arkansas simply kept their lineups in place, then they would have been 16-16 in the NCAA's mind.  I don't think the NCAA is saying "be more careful in your shenanigans next time, teams, and you'll be OK," but perhaps the NCAA decided that because it didn't have to make a sweeping statement on keeping an otherwise eligible team out of the tournament, it preferred to go the more technical and careful route, i.e., using its discretion to determine Arkansas' record NCAA selection purposes based on ITA rule violations.

[2006alum]

So, the route to Arkansas not getting in was technical rather than the NCAA making an example out of Arkansas, but the end result is the same.  It seems to lack the same precedential effect, however.  Had Arkansas simply kept their lineups in place, then they would have been 16-16 in the NCAA's mind.  I don't think the NCAA is saying "be more careful in your shenanigans next time, teams, and you'll be OK," but perhaps the NCAA decided that because it didn't have to make a sweeping statement on keeping an otherwise eligible team out of the tournament, it preferred to go the more technical and careful route, i.e., using its discretion to determine Arkansas' record NCAA selection purposes based on ITA rule violations.

It sounds like lawyers were involved in the NCAA's decisionmaking. Send the message but use a non-controversial technical mechanism to avoid unnecessary controversy or the setting of precedent needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, the message should be received by other schools loud and clear...

[2006alum]

So, the route to Arkansas not getting in was technical rather than the NCAA making an example out of Arkansas, but the end result is the same.  It seems to lack the same precedential effect, however.  Had Arkansas simply kept their lineups in place, then they would have been 16-16 in the NCAA's mind.  I don't think the NCAA is saying "be more careful in your shenanigans next time, teams, and you'll be OK," but perhaps the NCAA decided that because it didn't have to make a sweeping statement on keeping an otherwise eligible team out of the tournament, it preferred to go the more technical and careful route, i.e., using its discretion to determine Arkansas' record NCAA selection purposes based on ITA rule violations.

It sounds like lawyers were involved in the NCAA's decisionmaking. Send the message but use a non-controversial technical mechanism to avoid unnecessary controversy or the setting of precedent needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, the message should be received by other schools loud and clear...

[ColoradoTree]

So, the route to Arkansas not getting in was technical rather than the NCAA making an example out of Arkansas, but the end result is the same.  It seems to lack the same precedential effect, however.  Had Arkansas simply kept their lineups in place, then they would have been 16-16 in the NCAA's mind.  I don't think the NCAA is saying "be more careful in your shenanigans next time, teams, and you'll be OK," but perhaps the NCAA decided that because it didn't have to make a sweeping statement on keeping an otherwise eligible team out of the tournament, it preferred to go the more technical and careful route, i.e., using its discretion to determine Arkansas' record NCAA selection purposes based on ITA rule violations.

It sounds like lawyers were involved in the NCAA's decisionmaking. Send the message but use a non-controversial technical mechanism to avoid unnecessary controversy or the setting of precedent needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, the message should be received by other schools loud and clear...

I think you're right.  While it's a less sweeping statement than it could have been, I agree the impact should be the same.  And heck, the coach got fired, which is likely to weigh heavier in the minds of any coaches considering a similar move than what the NCAA ultimately decided to do.  

It'll be an interesting case if, say, a team would be in otherwise but just needs one win to get to .500.  Or two wins.  If it's just one cupcake thrown in at the end of the schedule, do we care?  If it's two?  Is the entire concept of "post-regular season matches to help with postseason eligibility" off limits now, or just the extreme sort practiced by Arkansas this year?

[ColoradoTree]

So, the route to Arkansas not getting in was technical rather than the NCAA making an example out of Arkansas, but the end result is the same.  It seems to lack the same precedential effect, however.  Had Arkansas simply kept their lineups in place, then they would have been 16-16 in the NCAA's mind.  I don't think the NCAA is saying "be more careful in your shenanigans next time, teams, and you'll be OK," but perhaps the NCAA decided that because it didn't have to make a sweeping statement on keeping an otherwise eligible team out of the tournament, it preferred to go the more technical and careful route, i.e., using its discretion to determine Arkansas' record NCAA selection purposes based on ITA rule violations.

It sounds like lawyers were involved in the NCAA's decisionmaking. Send the message but use a non-controversial technical mechanism to avoid unnecessary controversy or the setting of precedent needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, the message should be received by other schools loud and clear...

I think you're right.  While it's a less sweeping statement than it could have been, I agree the impact should be the same.  And heck, the coach got fired, which is likely to weigh heavier in the minds of any coaches considering a similar move than what the NCAA ultimately decided to do.  

It'll be an interesting case if, say, a team would be in otherwise but just needs one win to get to .500.  Or two wins.  If it's just one cupcake thrown in at the end of the schedule, do we care?  If it's two?  Is the entire concept of "post-regular season matches to help with postseason eligibility" off limits now, or just the extreme sort practiced by Arkansas this year?