[oldalum]

In Lele's 19 years, we have played in the championship match 13 times, winning 10 of them. The other 6 years saw us lose in the semifinals twice, in the quarterfinals three times, and in one dark, dark year, the *gasp* Round of 16!

So Lele can tell recruits, based on my 19-season head coaching history, you can expect to play in a championship match 2 or 3 times during your 4 years, and to win 2 championships. Not a bad recruiting spiel.

The 10-3 record in championship matches is truly astounding. Having gotten there, anything more than 50% wins is beyond expectations.

[oldalum]

In Lele's 19 years, we have played in the championship match 13 times, winning 10 of them. The other 6 years saw us lose in the semifinals twice, in the quarterfinals three times, and in one dark, dark year, the *gasp* Round of 16!

So Lele can tell recruits, based on my 19-season head coaching history, you can expect to play in a championship match 2 or 3 times during your 4 years, and to win 2 championships. Not a bad recruiting spiel.

The 10-3 record in championship matches is truly astounding. Having gotten there, anything more than 50% wins is beyond expectations.

[ColoradoTree]

Michaela Gordon repeats as an ITA All-American in singles, as she makes it to #10 in the final rankings, climbing 14 spots from #24. Beating the #5 player twice in a week didn't hurt, I'd wager. 

Final singles rankings for Stanford players:

10. Michaela Gordon (All-American)
25. Melissa Lord (up 4; she finished last year ranked #25 as well)
49. Emily Arbuthnott (down 5)
61. Caroline Lampl (up 5)
95. Janice Shin (up 13)
120. Emma Higuchi (down 13)

Choy finally drops out of the rankings.

Final doubles rankings for Stanford players:

20. Lampl/Yee (down 1)
34. Arbuthnott/Gordon (down 5)
62. Lord/Madurawe (down 5)
68. Yee/Madurawe (down 23) (not bad for a team that played together in precisely one tournament last fall)

Congratulations to Michaela for being named an ITA All-American! As a reminder, she was an All-American in singles and doubles last year, teaming with Emily Arbuthnott. (Gordon finished #21 last year, outside the threshold for All-American status, but the strength of her regular season meant she was seeded for that tournament, which got her in. She and Arbuthnott were the #3 seed last year and finished 6th in the rankings. Arbuthnott was also a singles All-American last year because she made the Round of 16 in the NCAA singles tournament.) 

ITA All-American recognition on this year's roster:

Gordon: 2x singles (2018, 2019), 1x doubles (2018)
Arbuthnott: 1x singles (2018), 1x doubles (2018)
Lord: 1x singles (2017, when she finished the year ranked #19)

[ColoradoTree]

Michaela Gordon repeats as an ITA All-American in singles, as she makes it to #10 in the final rankings, climbing 14 spots from #24. Beating the #5 player twice in a week didn't hurt, I'd wager. 

Final singles rankings for Stanford players:

10. Michaela Gordon (All-American)
25. Melissa Lord (up 4; she finished last year ranked #25 as well)
49. Emily Arbuthnott (down 5)
61. Caroline Lampl (up 5)
95. Janice Shin (up 13)
120. Emma Higuchi (down 13)

Choy finally drops out of the rankings.

Final doubles rankings for Stanford players:

20. Lampl/Yee (down 1)
34. Arbuthnott/Gordon (down 5)
62. Lord/Madurawe (down 5)
68. Yee/Madurawe (down 23) (not bad for a team that played together in precisely one tournament last fall)

Congratulations to Michaela for being named an ITA All-American! As a reminder, she was an All-American in singles and doubles last year, teaming with Emily Arbuthnott. (Gordon finished #21 last year, outside the threshold for All-American status, but the strength of her regular season meant she was seeded for that tournament, which got her in. She and Arbuthnott were the #3 seed last year and finished 6th in the rankings. Arbuthnott was also a singles All-American last year because she made the Round of 16 in the NCAA singles tournament.) 

ITA All-American recognition on this year's roster:

Gordon: 2x singles (2018, 2019), 1x doubles (2018)
Arbuthnott: 1x singles (2018), 1x doubles (2018)
Lord: 1x singles (2017, when she finished the year ranked #19)

[oldalum]

OK so we had 1 all-American this year. UNC had 5, so they must have killed us in the team match, right???

[oldalum]

OK so we had 1 all-American this year. UNC had 5, so they must have killed us in the team match, right???

[martyup]

OK so we had 1 all-American this year. UNC had 5, so they must have killed us in the team match, right???

That's what made their win of the National Championship that much more special.  They played with heart against, arguably, better players and won.

[martyup]

OK so we had 1 all-American this year. UNC had 5, so they must have killed us in the team match, right???

That's what made their win of the National Championship that much more special.  They played with heart against, arguably, better players and won.

[oldalum]

Why doesn't the ITA automatically rank the singles champion #1 at the end of the year, as they do for the team champion? Runner-up Jokic is #1 and winner Estela Perez-Somarriba is #2 in the final rankings; seems wrong to me. Same thing in doubles, where the winner ended up ranked #2.

[oldalum]

Why doesn't the ITA automatically rank the singles champion #1 at the end of the year, as they do for the team champion? Runner-up Jokic is #1 and winner Estela Perez-Somarriba is #2 in the final rankings; seems wrong to me. Same thing in doubles, where the winner ended up ranked #2.

[2006alum]

OK so we had 1 all-American this year. UNC had 5, so they must have killed us in the team match, right???

That's what made their win of the National Championship that much more special.  They played with heart against, arguably, better players and won.

Plus we had Lele, the two-time *cough cough cough* ITA coach of the year... And they didn't.

[2006alum]

OK so we had 1 all-American this year. UNC had 5, so they must have killed us in the team match, right???

That's what made their win of the National Championship that much more special.  They played with heart against, arguably, better players and won.

Plus we had Lele, the two-time *cough cough cough* ITA coach of the year... And they didn't.

[ColoradoTree]

Why doesn't the ITA automatically rank the singles champion #1 at the end of the year, as they do for the team champion? Runner-up Jokic is #1 and winner Estela Perez-Somarriba is #2 in the final rankings; seems wrong to me. Same thing in doubles, where the winner ended up ranked #2.

That's a great question, and I have no idea why it's not the case. To me, it suggests that the ITA knows that the individual tournaments are a weird animal that sees a ton of upsets, and all it really means is that the person who won that tournament was the best that week, not necessarily the best all year. Whereas it's much more likely that the team who wins the tournament really is the best team? Individuals can have a crazy run of form--it happens all the time on tour--but it's much more likely that the team standing on top at the end is the best team. 

I guess there are also a lot more individual tournaments in the fall calendar, whereas for teams, you just have National Indoors and NCAAs. For singles, you have the Riviera ITA All-American Championships in October, the Oracle ITA National Fall Championships in November, and a series of smaller tournaments. The ITA has said that the singles ranking formula "reflects a player's entire body of work for the full 2018-19 season" and that "[n]o added weight is given to wins at any one tournament, including the NCAAs." 

That's what they're doing, but it doesn't tell us why. My guess is that it's designed to mirror the professional ranking system, which adds up your points over the course of the year and the person with the most points is year-end #1. The player who wins the last Grand Slam of the year isn't automatically #1 just because they won the last Grand Slam of the year. I think the ITA's statement as quoted above is pretty solid confirmation that they don't view the NCAA tournament as more important than the fall tournaments or marquee singles wins you got in team play. (Here, Jokic won Fall Nationals, was the NCAA runner-up, and lost in the quarterfinals of ITA All-Americans. EPS won NCAAs, lost in the Round of 16 at Fall Nationals, and lost in the first round of ITA All-Americans. If you consider them equivalent tournaments, there's no question Jokic's year was better.)

Now that I think through it, I'm actually pretty good with that choice. It's much harder to assess overall team quality short of a season-ending tournament, but it's been the norm in the Open Era to judge individual players on the strength of their entire seasons. That's still true today when you have a nominal year-ending championship that players qualify for based on how well they did all season--the Grand Slams still reign supreme. (The Tour Finals even offers less prize money and fewer ranking points than the Grand Slams, which is kind of funny.)

[ColoradoTree]

Why doesn't the ITA automatically rank the singles champion #1 at the end of the year, as they do for the team champion? Runner-up Jokic is #1 and winner Estela Perez-Somarriba is #2 in the final rankings; seems wrong to me. Same thing in doubles, where the winner ended up ranked #2.

That's a great question, and I have no idea why it's not the case. To me, it suggests that the ITA knows that the individual tournaments are a weird animal that sees a ton of upsets, and all it really means is that the person who won that tournament was the best that week, not necessarily the best all year. Whereas it's much more likely that the team who wins the tournament really is the best team? Individuals can have a crazy run of form--it happens all the time on tour--but it's much more likely that the team standing on top at the end is the best team. 

I guess there are also a lot more individual tournaments in the fall calendar, whereas for teams, you just have National Indoors and NCAAs. For singles, you have the Riviera ITA All-American Championships in October, the Oracle ITA National Fall Championships in November, and a series of smaller tournaments. The ITA has said that the singles ranking formula "reflects a player's entire body of work for the full 2018-19 season" and that "[n]o added weight is given to wins at any one tournament, including the NCAAs." 

That's what they're doing, but it doesn't tell us why. My guess is that it's designed to mirror the professional ranking system, which adds up your points over the course of the year and the person with the most points is year-end #1. The player who wins the last Grand Slam of the year isn't automatically #1 just because they won the last Grand Slam of the year. I think the ITA's statement as quoted above is pretty solid confirmation that they don't view the NCAA tournament as more important than the fall tournaments or marquee singles wins you got in team play. (Here, Jokic won Fall Nationals, was the NCAA runner-up, and lost in the quarterfinals of ITA All-Americans. EPS won NCAAs, lost in the Round of 16 at Fall Nationals, and lost in the first round of ITA All-Americans. If you consider them equivalent tournaments, there's no question Jokic's year was better.)

Now that I think through it, I'm actually pretty good with that choice. It's much harder to assess overall team quality short of a season-ending tournament, but it's been the norm in the Open Era to judge individual players on the strength of their entire seasons. That's still true today when you have a nominal year-ending championship that players qualify for based on how well they did all season--the Grand Slams still reign supreme. (The Tour Finals even offers less prize money and fewer ranking points than the Grand Slams, which is kind of funny.)

[oldalum]

thanks for the thoughtful reply. My only response is, again, I wish that Jokic would turn pro.

[oldalum]

thanks for the thoughtful reply. My only response is, again, I wish that Jokic would turn pro.

[ColoradoTree]

thanks for the thoughtful reply. My only response is, again, I wish that Jokic would turn pro.

One part of me wants Michaela to keep getting better and beat players like Jokic as easily as she took care of Makenna Jones in the individual tournament. I think she's the most talented player we've had here since Nicole Gibbs, and I really do think she's got it in her to dominate this level if she becomes a little more consistent. 

The other part of me recognizes how good Georgia will be next year, and I would dearly like for them to be less good so we can win again, so Jokic should totally go pro immediately. Go get that money, Katarina! You're ready!

[ColoradoTree]

thanks for the thoughtful reply. My only response is, again, I wish that Jokic would turn pro.

One part of me wants Michaela to keep getting better and beat players like Jokic as easily as she took care of Makenna Jones in the individual tournament. I think she's the most talented player we've had here since Nicole Gibbs, and I really do think she's got it in her to dominate this level if she becomes a little more consistent. 

The other part of me recognizes how good Georgia will be next year, and I would dearly like for them to be less good so we can win again, so Jokic should totally go pro immediately. Go get that money, Katarina! You're ready!

[ColoradoTree]

Two tennis items of note coming today. First, the final recruiting class rankings are out, and second, the ITA Kick-Off Weekend Draft for next season is going on right now. 

Recruiting Class Rankings

According to Tennisrecruiting.net, Stanford has the #9 recruiting class. That class, of course, consists of Angelica Blake and Nicole Mossmer, two blue chips. Like all recruiting rankings, it's a combination of quantity and quality, and Stanford is hampered by the relatively small size of its class. Indeed, there are only two classes with two players ranked higher than Stanford: UCLA (#2) and Oklahoma State (#8).  

https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/article...5128A58343

Unlike football, having the very top-ranked class in tennis could be a sign that the roster hasn't been managed well, if that ranking is based in part on a large class. Take South Carolina, for example. They have the #1 class, with 6 players. But it's an 8-scholarship sport, and they return 5 players. So that's 11 on the roster next year, where only 6 play. Yes, depth is important, but roster numbers don't = good depth. A better way to look at classes may be to focus on the strength at the top of the class. Here are the top 10 classes, with the top two incoming UTRs in each class:

1. South Carolina (6 players; 11.24 and 11.18)
2. UCLA (2 players; 11.85 and 11.00)
3. Princeton (5 players; 11.58 and 11.38)
4. Texas Tech (3 players; 11.86 and 11.40)
5. Yale (4 players; 11.19 and 10.66)
6. Florida State (3 players; 12.00 and 11.00)
7. USC (3 players; 12.00 and 10.94)
8. Oklahoma State (2 players; 11.68 and 11.17)
9. Stanford (2 players; 11.36 and 11.02)
10. LSU (3 players; 11.48 and 11.02)

Note: often, a player's UTR can be higher coming off junior tennis, when they're playing a lot of tournaments against similarly ranked players, than after a season in college tennis, when they might be playing lower-ranked players. 

ITA Kick-Off Weekend Draft

As a reminder, the top 15 teams host a regional pod, much like the NCAA tournament, with each pod sending one team to Indoor Nationals (the 16th team is the host, which was UW last year, and will be Illinois this year, though the tournament will be held in Chicago). Starting with the 16th-ranked team, teams select which region they want to go to, and that is often a good barometer of how good (or how bad) teams think they'll be. Sometimes teams will prefer to be the #3 in a region with a strong #1 rather than a #2 in a different region because they feel comfortable they have a good chance at beating the #2 and can at least get out of the weekend with one reasonably valuable win rather than run the risk the #3 and #4 teams in those regions end up being pretty lowly. Beating a bad team and losing to a good team isn't a great use of your travel budget, as the returns in terms of rankings are minimal. 

That draft is going on right now, and so far, teams are least afraid of #10 Washington, #11 N.C. State, #12 Oklahoma State, and #13 Kansas, as those regions have been filled. #36 Washington State is the #2 seed in Stanford's region, and #45 Denver elected to be the #3 seed in our region rather than the #2 in either Georgia's, Duke's Pepperdine's, or UCLA's region. (Which is rational, I think. Beating Wazzu is worth something to a team like Denver, whereas a mystery matchup against a team ranked lower than you isn't worth much. The teams with a realistic shot at advancing have long since picked.)

At the moment, #4 Duke and #7 UCLA are the only teams without another team in their region yet, so they should have little trouble advancing (and they'll also get little value out of those Kick-Off Weekend matchups, which is the downside).

---

Here are the five regions that have filled up already:

Seattle:

#10 UW
#16 USC
#27 Kentucky
#33 Princeton

Raleigh:

#11 N.C. State
#24 Florida
#32 Oklahoma
#40 Rice

Stillwater:

#12 Oklahoma State 
#23 Wake Forest
#25 Ohio State
#37 San Diego

Lawrence:

#13 Kansas
#18 Cal
#21 Virginia
#22 Tennesee

Ann Arbor:

#14 Michigan
#19 UCF
#44 Utah
#48 Ole Miss

Each interesting in their own way. Clearly, no one is afraid of Kansas, as they lose some big pieces. San Diego electing to take their shot in the first round against Oklahoma State rather than sit back and be the #2 close to home in L.A. shows some belief they can actually pull some upsets. #30 Syracuse chose to pass their turn in the draft and skip Kick-Off Weekend, which is interesting--they could have been the #2 in a number of regions or the #3 with a winnable matchup somewhere.

At this point, what's left is the #4 at Stanford, the #3/#4 at Georgia, the #4 at UNC, the #3/#4 at Duke (#50 Mississippi State just chose to be the #2 at Duke), the #4 at South Carolina, the #4 at Pepperdine, the #3/#4 at UCLA (#51 Gonzaga just chose to be the #2 there), the #4 at Vanderbilt, the #4 at Texas, and the #4 at Florida State. That FSU regional is interesting, because you have #15 FSU as the #1, #17 A&M as the #2, and #20 Miami as the #3, but team after team has passed on being the #4 there and taking a shot at FSU. I think that would have been a very attractive regional for a team in the 20s optimistic about its chances, but FSU dodged a first-round bullet.

[ColoradoTree]

Two tennis items of note coming today. First, the final recruiting class rankings are out, and second, the ITA Kick-Off Weekend Draft for next season is going on right now. 

Recruiting Class Rankings

According to Tennisrecruiting.net, Stanford has the #9 recruiting class. That class, of course, consists of Angelica Blake and Nicole Mossmer, two blue chips. Like all recruiting rankings, it's a combination of quantity and quality, and Stanford is hampered by the relatively small size of its class. Indeed, there are only two classes with two players ranked higher than Stanford: UCLA (#2) and Oklahoma State (#8).  

https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/article...5128A58343

Unlike football, having the very top-ranked class in tennis could be a sign that the roster hasn't been managed well, if that ranking is based in part on a large class. Take South Carolina, for example. They have the #1 class, with 6 players. But it's an 8-scholarship sport, and they return 5 players. So that's 11 on the roster next year, where only 6 play. Yes, depth is important, but roster numbers don't = good depth. A better way to look at classes may be to focus on the strength at the top of the class. Here are the top 10 classes, with the top two incoming UTRs in each class:

1. South Carolina (6 players; 11.24 and 11.18)
2. UCLA (2 players; 11.85 and 11.00)
3. Princeton (5 players; 11.58 and 11.38)
4. Texas Tech (3 players; 11.86 and 11.40)
5. Yale (4 players; 11.19 and 10.66)
6. Florida State (3 players; 12.00 and 11.00)
7. USC (3 players; 12.00 and 10.94)
8. Oklahoma State (2 players; 11.68 and 11.17)
9. Stanford (2 players; 11.36 and 11.02)
10. LSU (3 players; 11.48 and 11.02)

Note: often, a player's UTR can be higher coming off junior tennis, when they're playing a lot of tournaments against similarly ranked players, than after a season in college tennis, when they might be playing lower-ranked players. 

ITA Kick-Off Weekend Draft

As a reminder, the top 15 teams host a regional pod, much like the NCAA tournament, with each pod sending one team to Indoor Nationals (the 16th team is the host, which was UW last year, and will be Illinois this year, though the tournament will be held in Chicago). Starting with the 16th-ranked team, teams select which region they want to go to, and that is often a good barometer of how good (or how bad) teams think they'll be. Sometimes teams will prefer to be the #3 in a region with a strong #1 rather than a #2 in a different region because they feel comfortable they have a good chance at beating the #2 and can at least get out of the weekend with one reasonably valuable win rather than run the risk the #3 and #4 teams in those regions end up being pretty lowly. Beating a bad team and losing to a good team isn't a great use of your travel budget, as the returns in terms of rankings are minimal. 

That draft is going on right now, and so far, teams are least afraid of #10 Washington, #11 N.C. State, #12 Oklahoma State, and #13 Kansas, as those regions have been filled. #36 Washington State is the #2 seed in Stanford's region, and #45 Denver elected to be the #3 seed in our region rather than the #2 in either Georgia's, Duke's Pepperdine's, or UCLA's region. (Which is rational, I think. Beating Wazzu is worth something to a team like Denver, whereas a mystery matchup against a team ranked lower than you isn't worth much. The teams with a realistic shot at advancing have long since picked.)

At the moment, #4 Duke and #7 UCLA are the only teams without another team in their region yet, so they should have little trouble advancing (and they'll also get little value out of those Kick-Off Weekend matchups, which is the downside).

---

Here are the five regions that have filled up already:

Seattle:

#10 UW
#16 USC
#27 Kentucky
#33 Princeton

Raleigh:

#11 N.C. State
#24 Florida
#32 Oklahoma
#40 Rice

Stillwater:

#12 Oklahoma State 
#23 Wake Forest
#25 Ohio State
#37 San Diego

Lawrence:

#13 Kansas
#18 Cal
#21 Virginia
#22 Tennesee

Ann Arbor:

#14 Michigan
#19 UCF
#44 Utah
#48 Ole Miss

Each interesting in their own way. Clearly, no one is afraid of Kansas, as they lose some big pieces. San Diego electing to take their shot in the first round against Oklahoma State rather than sit back and be the #2 close to home in L.A. shows some belief they can actually pull some upsets. #30 Syracuse chose to pass their turn in the draft and skip Kick-Off Weekend, which is interesting--they could have been the #2 in a number of regions or the #3 with a winnable matchup somewhere.

At this point, what's left is the #4 at Stanford, the #3/#4 at Georgia, the #4 at UNC, the #3/#4 at Duke (#50 Mississippi State just chose to be the #2 at Duke), the #4 at South Carolina, the #4 at Pepperdine, the #3/#4 at UCLA (#51 Gonzaga just chose to be the #2 there), the #4 at Vanderbilt, the #4 at Texas, and the #4 at Florida State. That FSU regional is interesting, because you have #15 FSU as the #1, #17 A&M as the #2, and #20 Miami as the #3, but team after team has passed on being the #4 there and taking a shot at FSU. I think that would have been a very attractive regional for a team in the 20s optimistic about its chances, but FSU dodged a first-round bullet.

[oldalum]

What is considered a meaningful difference in UTR?

[oldalum]

What is considered a meaningful difference in UTR?

[ColoradoTree]

In terms of Pac-12 teams, we have 3 hosts--#1 Stanford, #7 UCLA, and #10 Washington. #16 USC is the #2 at UW's regional, #18 Cal is the #2 at Kansas's regional, #34 ASU is the #3 at Vanderbilt's regional, #36 Washington State is the #2 at our regional, #44 Utah is the #3 at Michigan's regional, and #49 Arizona is the #3 at Pepperdine's regional. 

Colorado looks to have opted out entirely, and it's unlikely that they'll get to #90 Oregon. Some teams pass at this point in the draft, since they don't see the value in paying to fly across the country to get crushed in the first round, but not that many teams pass. 

#53 South Florida has opted to be the #4 in our regional, meaning it chose to play us rather than be the #3 at Georgia, the #4 at UNC, the #3 at Duke, the #4 at Vanderbilt, the #4 at Texas, or the #4 at in-state Florida State. Maybe it's a "let's challenge ourselves by taking on the best" kind of thing, but there are a lot closer and theoretically less dangerous teams that they passed on playing to play us.

---

What is considered a meaningful difference in UTR?

That's an excellent question. I struggle with that myself. All I really know is two things: (1) UTR doesn't even count matches where the UTR difference between players coming in was 2.50 or more and the favored player wins as expected, since those should be blowouts; and (2) UTR reps say that matches where players are within a point of each other should be competitive. I saw one post somewhere that said where there is a difference of more than 1.0 points, the lower-rated player wins just 3% of the time. But we rarely see such lopsided matches in NCAA tournament play, so it would be far more meaningful to see data about how often players win when their UTR is 0.1 higher, or 0.25/0.5/0.75 higher, etc. I don't think UTR has released that, though. I wish they would, so I'd know how linear the difference was between a coin flip with a tied UTR and a near-certain outcome when the difference is 1.0 or more. Are 0.25 differences also basically coin flips, or is it more like the favored player wins 2/3 of the time? If someone has done that analysis, I haven't seen it. 

From my unscientific tracking of how we've been doing the last couple of years at NCAAs, it sure seems like there's a meaningful difference in being favored by 0.8 or so than there is in being favored by 0.25 or 0.05. If someone like Gordon (11.72 at season's end) were to play someone ranked at 11.00 or 10.9, I would expect Michaela to win that match handily. 

FYI, both Gordon and Lord had Top 10 UTRs at the end of the NCAA season. Gordon was #6, with her 11.72 just 0.18 behind the top score of 11.9, shared by Michigan's Kate Fahey and Miami's Estela Perez-Somarriba (Georgia's Jokic was in third with 11.85). Lord tied for 9th with UNC's Makenna Jones, as they both had 11.67.

[ColoradoTree]

In terms of Pac-12 teams, we have 3 hosts--#1 Stanford, #7 UCLA, and #10 Washington. #16 USC is the #2 at UW's regional, #18 Cal is the #2 at Kansas's regional, #34 ASU is the #3 at Vanderbilt's regional, #36 Washington State is the #2 at our regional, #44 Utah is the #3 at Michigan's regional, and #49 Arizona is the #3 at Pepperdine's regional. 

Colorado looks to have opted out entirely, and it's unlikely that they'll get to #90 Oregon. Some teams pass at this point in the draft, since they don't see the value in paying to fly across the country to get crushed in the first round, but not that many teams pass. 

#53 South Florida has opted to be the #4 in our regional, meaning it chose to play us rather than be the #3 at Georgia, the #4 at UNC, the #3 at Duke, the #4 at Vanderbilt, the #4 at Texas, or the #4 at in-state Florida State. Maybe it's a "let's challenge ourselves by taking on the best" kind of thing, but there are a lot closer and theoretically less dangerous teams that they passed on playing to play us.

---

What is considered a meaningful difference in UTR?

That's an excellent question. I struggle with that myself. All I really know is two things: (1) UTR doesn't even count matches where the UTR difference between players coming in was 2.50 or more and the favored player wins as expected, since those should be blowouts; and (2) UTR reps say that matches where players are within a point of each other should be competitive. I saw one post somewhere that said where there is a difference of more than 1.0 points, the lower-rated player wins just 3% of the time. But we rarely see such lopsided matches in NCAA tournament play, so it would be far more meaningful to see data about how often players win when their UTR is 0.1 higher, or 0.25/0.5/0.75 higher, etc. I don't think UTR has released that, though. I wish they would, so I'd know how linear the difference was between a coin flip with a tied UTR and a near-certain outcome when the difference is 1.0 or more. Are 0.25 differences also basically coin flips, or is it more like the favored player wins 2/3 of the time? If someone has done that analysis, I haven't seen it. 

From my unscientific tracking of how we've been doing the last couple of years at NCAAs, it sure seems like there's a meaningful difference in being favored by 0.8 or so than there is in being favored by 0.25 or 0.05. If someone like Gordon (11.72 at season's end) were to play someone ranked at 11.00 or 10.9, I would expect Michaela to win that match handily. 

FYI, both Gordon and Lord had Top 10 UTRs at the end of the NCAA season. Gordon was #6, with her 11.72 just 0.18 behind the top score of 11.9, shared by Michigan's Kate Fahey and Miami's Estela Perez-Somarriba (Georgia's Jokic was in third with 11.85). Lord tied for 9th with UNC's Makenna Jones, as they both had 11.67.

[BostonCard]

Looking at the above, would it be fair to break down the recruiting rankings as follows?

>/= 12: Elite, one of the top college players, a difference maker
11.5 - 12: Blue chip; solid #1, or possibly #2 in an elite team
11 - 11.5: Solid recruit; #1 on a good team, #2 or 3 on an elite team
< 11: Good recruit; starter on a good team, #4 or 5 on an elite team

BC

[BostonCard]

Looking at the above, would it be fair to break down the recruiting rankings as follows?

>/= 12: Elite, one of the top college players, a difference maker
11.5 - 12: Blue chip; solid #1, or possibly #2 in an elite team
11 - 11.5: Solid recruit; #1 on a good team, #2 or 3 on an elite team
< 11: Good recruit; starter on a good team, #4 or 5 on an elite team

BC

[eb388]

Thanks for this overview. Do you have thoughts on the recruiting classes for the other hot Pac-12 schools and what that could mean for next season? Looks like USC is getting someone with a top UTR and they just lose their #4 (and half of their AA doubles team). I'd imagine they may be able to advance during kick-off weekend over Washington, which is losing its #1 and doesn't have a top class. 

UCLA loses their #4 (who probably should've been their #5 and was for part of the season), #6, and NCAA champ doubles team, but they were named the #2 class. 

Feels like the conference will be more competitive this year, which I gather is good for us, provided we can get some wins.

[eb388]

Thanks for this overview. Do you have thoughts on the recruiting classes for the other hot Pac-12 schools and what that could mean for next season? Looks like USC is getting someone with a top UTR and they just lose their #4 (and half of their AA doubles team). I'd imagine they may be able to advance during kick-off weekend over Washington, which is losing its #1 and doesn't have a top class. 

UCLA loses their #4 (who probably should've been their #5 and was for part of the season), #6, and NCAA champ doubles team, but they were named the #2 class. 

Feels like the conference will be more competitive this year, which I gather is good for us, provided we can get some wins.

[ColoradoTree]

The brackets are filled, as #65 Iowa takes the last spot remaining, the #4 seed in Austin, TX. (Last year, the last team to take a spot was #76 Middle Tennessee State, so fewer teams passed this time around.) Here are the matchups: https://slam.tennis/ita/draft/2020/ncaaw

The most competitive regional is unquestionably Kansas (#13, #18, #21, #22), but it's not hard to imagine any of the four teams advancing out of UW's regional. Florida State has a very tough top 3 seeds (#15, #17, #20), but the #4 will get crushed. That's the same situation, but in a less extreme way, in Austin (#9, #26, #29). #14 Michigan should be afraid of its #2 seed, 19th-ranked UCF, but the #3 and #4 there shouldn't be competitive. 

The easiest regionals for the host to advance are Georgia (#2, #47, #55, #58), UNC (#3, #41, #42, #62), Duke (#4, #50, #56, #60), Pepperdine (#6, #46, #49, #52), and UCLA (#7, #51, #59, #61). Stanford (#1, #36, #45, #53) and South Carolina (#5, #35, #39, #64) shouldn't be challenged in the first round but have potentially competitive second round matches, and that's even more true for Vanderbilt (#8, #28, #34, #54), Texas (#9, #26, #29, #65), and Oklahoma State (#12, #23, #25, #37). 

As for Pac-12 teams, I think USC is the favorite to get out of Washington's regional, and while Cal will have some battles on their hands in both the first and second rounds, I think Cal is the favorite to advance from KU's regional. (KU loses its top 3 singles players.) I like Arizona State to win its first round but lose to Vandy, WSU-Denver is a coin flip, and I wouldn't expect anything out of Utah or Arizona.

---

One interesting feature is that slam.tennis has a "compare teams" feature that predicts the lineup and compares UTRs across those anticipated singles lines. It slots incoming players in where their UTRs would suggest, so Angelica Blake is projected to play #2 for us (11.41), and Mossmer is at #5 (11.03), behind Shin and ahead of Higuchi, with Madurawe and Choy on the bench. I don't think that's likely, however, since a junior player having a higher UTR than an established collegian might not prove anything--it could just be that the incoming freshman has been playing tournaments against comparably ranked players, while someone like Shin or Higuchi has just spent several months playing players rated below them, so they don't get much of a chance to climb. Comparing this year's batch of UTRs to the same time last year (and recognizing that there was a tweak to the UTR algorithm sometime in the last year that seemed to bump down collegiate UTRs across the board a bit), here's what it looked like at the end of the 2018 season vs. the end of this season:

2018:
Gordon (11.99)
Lord (11.98)
Arbuthnott (11.77)
Lampl (11.71)
Shin (11.57)
Madurawe* (11.57)
Higuchi (11.55)
Choy* (11.08)
Yee (10.91)

2019:
Gordon (11.71)
Lord** (11.55)
Lampl** (11.45)
Blake* (11.41)
Arbuthnott (11.39)
Shin (11.29)
Mossmer* (11.03)
Higuchi (10.87)
Madurawe (10.86)
Choy (10.85)
Yee** (10.59)

* incoming freshman
** departing senior

I think the odds of Blake playing singles are high, and vaulting Higuchi/Madurawe/Choy seems plausible, but I don't see her playing higher than Arbuthnott or Shin. I think the odds of both Madurawe and Choy being out of the singles lineup are very small, so I'm assuming Mossmer is on the outside looking in along with one of Madurawe/Choy.

[ColoradoTree]

The brackets are filled, as #65 Iowa takes the last spot remaining, the #4 seed in Austin, TX. (Last year, the last team to take a spot was #76 Middle Tennessee State, so fewer teams passed this time around.) Here are the matchups: https://slam.tennis/ita/draft/2020/ncaaw

The most competitive regional is unquestionably Kansas (#13, #18, #21, #22), but it's not hard to imagine any of the four teams advancing out of UW's regional. Florida State has a very tough top 3 seeds (#15, #17, #20), but the #4 will get crushed. That's the same situation, but in a less extreme way, in Austin (#9, #26, #29). #14 Michigan should be afraid of its #2 seed, 19th-ranked UCF, but the #3 and #4 there shouldn't be competitive. 

The easiest regionals for the host to advance are Georgia (#2, #47, #55, #58), UNC (#3, #41, #42, #62), Duke (#4, #50, #56, #60), Pepperdine (#6, #46, #49, #52), and UCLA (#7, #51, #59, #61). Stanford (#1, #36, #45, #53) and South Carolina (#5, #35, #39, #64) shouldn't be challenged in the first round but have potentially competitive second round matches, and that's even more true for Vanderbilt (#8, #28, #34, #54), Texas (#9, #26, #29, #65), and Oklahoma State (#12, #23, #25, #37). 

As for Pac-12 teams, I think USC is the favorite to get out of Washington's regional, and while Cal will have some battles on their hands in both the first and second rounds, I think Cal is the favorite to advance from KU's regional. (KU loses its top 3 singles players.) I like Arizona State to win its first round but lose to Vandy, WSU-Denver is a coin flip, and I wouldn't expect anything out of Utah or Arizona.

---

One interesting feature is that slam.tennis has a "compare teams" feature that predicts the lineup and compares UTRs across those anticipated singles lines. It slots incoming players in where their UTRs would suggest, so Angelica Blake is projected to play #2 for us (11.41), and Mossmer is at #5 (11.03), behind Shin and ahead of Higuchi, with Madurawe and Choy on the bench. I don't think that's likely, however, since a junior player having a higher UTR than an established collegian might not prove anything--it could just be that the incoming freshman has been playing tournaments against comparably ranked players, while someone like Shin or Higuchi has just spent several months playing players rated below them, so they don't get much of a chance to climb. Comparing this year's batch of UTRs to the same time last year (and recognizing that there was a tweak to the UTR algorithm sometime in the last year that seemed to bump down collegiate UTRs across the board a bit), here's what it looked like at the end of the 2018 season vs. the end of this season:

2018:
Gordon (11.99)
Lord (11.98)
Arbuthnott (11.77)
Lampl (11.71)
Shin (11.57)
Madurawe* (11.57)
Higuchi (11.55)
Choy* (11.08)
Yee (10.91)

2019:
Gordon (11.71)
Lord** (11.55)
Lampl** (11.45)
Blake* (11.41)
Arbuthnott (11.39)
Shin (11.29)
Mossmer* (11.03)
Higuchi (10.87)
Madurawe (10.86)
Choy (10.85)
Yee** (10.59)

* incoming freshman
** departing senior

I think the odds of Blake playing singles are high, and vaulting Higuchi/Madurawe/Choy seems plausible, but I don't see her playing higher than Arbuthnott or Shin. I think the odds of both Madurawe and Choy being out of the singles lineup are very small, so I'm assuming Mossmer is on the outside looking in along with one of Madurawe/Choy.

[oldalum]

(despair takes over)
There's no replacing Lord/Lampl. :(

[oldalum]

(despair takes over)
There's no replacing Lord/Lampl. :(

[ColoradoTree]

Looking at the above, would it be fair to break down the recruiting rankings as follows?

>/= 12: Elite, one of the top college players, a difference maker
11.5 - 12: Blue chip; solid #1, or possibly #2 in an elite team
11 - 11.5: Solid recruit; #1 on a good team, #2 or 3 on an elite team
< 11: Good recruit; starter on a good team, #4 or 5 on an elite team

BC

I think it's hard to break down like that with great certainty, but you're not far off. Madurawe came in as a 11.57 and didn't crack the lineup until late in the year, but again, the algorithm tweak makes it tough to compare year over year. But I'd agree that if you're coming in with a 12 or above, you should absolutely be expected to be in the top 2 in almost any lineup. In general, I think you need to discount the UTRs of incoming players because the competition levels may not be the same, but USC's Branstine is one of the top juniors in the world, so in her case, I'd expect her to play #1 there over Ewing.

And Madurawe and Choy would certainly have been capable starters at #6 if we'd needed them there all year, really. But cracking the lineups of these teams that consistently have all blue chip or top international-type talent (like us, UNC, Duke, etc.) is really hard. I'd agree that anyone coming in above, say, 11.25, could be a #1 on a lot of D-I teams, and that same player might not play at all for the top handful of teams. 

FYI, the "blue chip" designation that Tennis Recruiting Network bestows doesn't always track with UTR, if a player gets hurt and old results fall off, or if they're not playing as heavy a junior tournament circuit as others do. UTR tries to get to an apples-to-apples comparison of player quality, but that's hard to do when some players exclusively play big junior tournaments, others are playing international tournaments, and others mostly play high school tennis with the occasional tournament. 

Sometimes a UTR like 12.00 or 11.00 indicates some rounding--slam.tennis has USC's Carson Branstine at 11.82, not 12.00. Sometimes it might mean an older, less reliable UTR that has since changed to reflect more results, like FSU's Victoria Allen being at 11.48 on slam.tennis rather than 12.00 in the TRN article. In general, I think UTR becomes a more reliable metric as time goes on, and it's at its best each year during NCAA tournament play after we've had a season to sort things out, each team establishes its internal pecking order, etc.

[ColoradoTree]

Looking at the above, would it be fair to break down the recruiting rankings as follows?

>/= 12: Elite, one of the top college players, a difference maker
11.5 - 12: Blue chip; solid #1, or possibly #2 in an elite team
11 - 11.5: Solid recruit; #1 on a good team, #2 or 3 on an elite team
< 11: Good recruit; starter on a good team, #4 or 5 on an elite team

BC

I think it's hard to break down like that with great certainty, but you're not far off. Madurawe came in as a 11.57 and didn't crack the lineup until late in the year, but again, the algorithm tweak makes it tough to compare year over year. But I'd agree that if you're coming in with a 12 or above, you should absolutely be expected to be in the top 2 in almost any lineup. In general, I think you need to discount the UTRs of incoming players because the competition levels may not be the same, but USC's Branstine is one of the top juniors in the world, so in her case, I'd expect her to play #1 there over Ewing.

And Madurawe and Choy would certainly have been capable starters at #6 if we'd needed them there all year, really. But cracking the lineups of these teams that consistently have all blue chip or top international-type talent (like us, UNC, Duke, etc.) is really hard. I'd agree that anyone coming in above, say, 11.25, could be a #1 on a lot of D-I teams, and that same player might not play at all for the top handful of teams. 

FYI, the "blue chip" designation that Tennis Recruiting Network bestows doesn't always track with UTR, if a player gets hurt and old results fall off, or if they're not playing as heavy a junior tournament circuit as others do. UTR tries to get to an apples-to-apples comparison of player quality, but that's hard to do when some players exclusively play big junior tournaments, others are playing international tournaments, and others mostly play high school tennis with the occasional tournament. 

Sometimes a UTR like 12.00 or 11.00 indicates some rounding--slam.tennis has USC's Carson Branstine at 11.82, not 12.00. Sometimes it might mean an older, less reliable UTR that has since changed to reflect more results, like FSU's Victoria Allen being at 11.48 on slam.tennis rather than 12.00 in the TRN article. In general, I think UTR becomes a more reliable metric as time goes on, and it's at its best each year during NCAA tournament play after we've had a season to sort things out, each team establishes its internal pecking order, etc.

[ColoradoTree]

You all may have seen this, but Emily Arbuthnott was named a First Team Academic All-American (per the CoSIDA Google Cloud Academic All-America teams), the first women's tennis player so honored since Alice Barnes in 2006. Congrats to Emily!

Also, here's the official Stanford website's wrap-up of the season, including all the accolades every player received: https://gostanford.com/news/2019/6/23/wo...eview.aspx

[ColoradoTree]

You all may have seen this, but Emily Arbuthnott was named a First Team Academic All-American (per the CoSIDA Google Cloud Academic All-America teams), the first women's tennis player so honored since Alice Barnes in 2006. Congrats to Emily!

Also, here's the official Stanford website's wrap-up of the season, including all the accolades every player received: https://gostanford.com/news/2019/6/23/wo...eview.aspx

[eb388]

Tennis Recruiting shows a new 2020 recruit from Argentina, Ana Geller (Axel's sister). Didn't immediately find her UTR, but her ITF page says she lost 2 and 5 to Coco Gauff in December, so I guess she's pretty competitive.

https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player....776E4091B0

[eb388]

Tennis Recruiting shows a new 2020 recruit from Argentina, Ana Geller (Axel's sister). Didn't immediately find her UTR, but her ITF page says she lost 2 and 5 to Coco Gauff in December, so I guess she's pretty competitive.

https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player....776E4091B0

[BobK]

Wow thanks. Big news

[BobK]

Wow thanks. Big news