[ColoradoTree]

This is it, folks. One regular-season match left. Cal hasn't been as consistent as we would have expected this year, but they are still very dangerous and have some excellent players. It's an early one, starting at 11:00am tomorrow.

Cal preview:

You expect Cal and UCLA to play close matches, and they did (UCLA won 4-3 back in February). You don't expect Cal to lose 4-0 to Arizona State, but that happened, too. You certainly don't expect Cal to lose to Washington, but the Huskies prevailed 5-2 last weekend for their first win over Cal since 2005. The point: Cal has been very much up and down, but at their best, they can still beat you. 

Despite being ranked at the bottom of the top 50, Cal's individual players have had some success.  They have three ranked players in the lineup: #34 Julia Rosenqvist (who plays #1); #41 Anna Bright (who plays #2); and #48 Olivia Hauger (who plays #3).  #84 Karla Popovic is also in the lineup, but she hasn't played all spring; her ranking is a vestige of her very successful fall, much like Lord's was before she returned.  If Popovic's absence was due to injury and she's ready to come back?  Then this a very different Cal team.

Rosenqvist joined the team in January from Sweden and immediately made an impact, and has been holding down the #1 spot in the lineup for much of the spring season. 

As a team, Cal's strengths have been at the top of the lineup, with Rosenqvist at 1, and then Bright and Hauger in whatever order at 2 and 3. Because the top three courts in singles will have their hands full, our likeliest path to victory is what it often is: get the doubles point and get wins from the back courts.  (That's not to say those matches won't be close on the back courts. They should be. But we have an edge there.)

Since Rosenqvist at #1 has been important to their success, here's a quick comparison with Gordon of matches against common conference opponents:

* Both lost to Oregon's Tobita in straight sets.
* Gordon crushed USC's Smith, but Rosenqvist needed three sets to win
* Both beat UCLA's Shibahara, but Rosenqvist had a much easier time of it
* Gordon crushed ASU's John-Baptiste, who beat Rosenqvist in straights.
* Gordon was tied in the third set against UW's Fung, who beat Rosenqvist in straights.
* Gordon lost to WSU's Bayerlova in three, while Rosenqvist won handily.

What do I take from that? Rosenqvist is incredibly inconsistent, flashing the ability to beat Shibahara and Bayerlova solidly, but also struggling to beat (or losing to) players Gordon handled with ease, like Smith and John-Baptiste. In short, no result in this match would shock me.

Team comparisons:

* UCLA: Stanford won 4-3; Cal lost 4-3
* USC: both teams blanked USC
* ASU: Stanford won 4-0; Cal lost 4-0 (a bit misleading; Stanford trailed in a couple of abandoned matches, while Cal was leading in the remaining abandoned matches)
* Oregon: Stanford won 6-1; Cal won 5-2
* UW: Stanford won 4-2; Cal lost 5-2
* WSU: Stanford won 4-2; Cal won 4-3

Ultimately, we're at home, and I like us to win a close one.

How to follow:  The match will be aired live on the Pac-12 Network (https://pac-12.com/womens-tennis/event/2...a-stanford), and you should still be able to follow along with live scoring at http://streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/index.html

Pac-12 Standings:

I included updated standings at the end of the UW/Wazzu thread, so I won't repeat them here. Long story short: Stanford clinches the regular season title and the #1 seed in the conference tournament with a win. Cal is likely locked into the #4 seed no matter the result of this match, but a win over Stanford would be a big feather in their cap when it comes to the NCAAs.

UCLA is locked into the 2 seed (unless Stanford loses to Cal and then loses a makeup match with Colorado, which likely won't be played if Stanford beats Cal). Right now, it looks like Stanford would play 8th-seeded Washington in the quarterfinals, then a semifinal against the Cal-Wazzu winner, and very likely UCLA out of the other half of the bracket in the final. 

It's rivalry week, so while some of the matches are duds (ASU-Arizona, UCLA-USC) and others are meaningless (Colorado-Utah), the Stanford-Cal match will always be exciting, and Washington-Wazzu in Seattle promises to be a good one that could throw a wrench into tournament seeding.

ITA Rankings update: 

April 17 team rankings:

Ranked: #20, up a couple from last week. We're running out of time to get back in that top 16, but all we can do at this point is beat who's on the schedule. (A quick note: the teams between 16 and 20 are very close, with Kansas on a 41.53-point average at 16 and Stanford at 39.84. Top 12 seems out of reach, but the 14-16 range seems doable.) Beating the Washington schools was worth about 5 points in our rolling average, so with a win over Cal in the regular season, then winning the Pac-12 tournament (no guarantee of anything vs. UCLA, though), and losses by some of the teams above us, that really should be enough, especially since all three Stanford losses would be to top 10 teams.

Teams to watch this week to determine if we'll get a Top 16 seed (unless 22nd-ranked UVA goes on a tear in the ACC tournament and upsets multiple higher-ranked teams, we shouldn't get caught from behind):

13. Texas Tech
14. UCLA
15. Illinois
16. Kansas
17. Miami
18. Florida State
19. Auburn

Past opponent watch: 

# 2 Vanderbilt (L)
# 5 Texas (L)
# 9 Florida (L)
# 14 UCLA (W) 
# 29 Oregon (W)
# 32 Arizona State (W)
# 40 Washington State (W)   
# 47 USC (W)
# 49  Washington (W) 
NR TCU (W)
NR Utah
NR St. Mary's (W)
NR San Jose State (W)
NR UNLV (W)
NR Hawaii 
NR Arizona
NR UCSB

Future opponent watch:

# 42 Cal

Individual rankings:

All Stanford singles players are now ranked! That's more like it!

Singles:

# 22 Michaela Gordon (season high of #10)
# 45 Emily Arbuthnott (season high of #22)
# 64 Melissa Lord (season high was #7 preseason)
# 96 Janice Shin (rankings debut!)
# 100 Emma Higuchi (regular season debut; season high was #44 preseason)
# 102 Lampl (season high was #51 preseason)

Doubles:

# 3 Arbuthnott/Gordon (steady; season high of #1)
# 56 Lampl/Yee (season high of #54)

[ColoradoTree]

This is it, folks. One regular-season match left. Cal hasn't been as consistent as we would have expected this year, but they are still very dangerous and have some excellent players. It's an early one, starting at 11:00am tomorrow.

Cal preview:

You expect Cal and UCLA to play close matches, and they did (UCLA won 4-3 back in February). You don't expect Cal to lose 4-0 to Arizona State, but that happened, too. You certainly don't expect Cal to lose to Washington, but the Huskies prevailed 5-2 last weekend for their first win over Cal since 2005. The point: Cal has been very much up and down, but at their best, they can still beat you. 

Despite being ranked at the bottom of the top 50, Cal's individual players have had some success.  They have three ranked players in the lineup: #34 Julia Rosenqvist (who plays #1); #41 Anna Bright (who plays #2); and #48 Olivia Hauger (who plays #3).  #84 Karla Popovic is also in the lineup, but she hasn't played all spring; her ranking is a vestige of her very successful fall, much like Lord's was before she returned.  If Popovic's absence was due to injury and she's ready to come back?  Then this a very different Cal team.

Rosenqvist joined the team in January from Sweden and immediately made an impact, and has been holding down the #1 spot in the lineup for much of the spring season. 

As a team, Cal's strengths have been at the top of the lineup, with Rosenqvist at 1, and then Bright and Hauger in whatever order at 2 and 3. Because the top three courts in singles will have their hands full, our likeliest path to victory is what it often is: get the doubles point and get wins from the back courts.  (That's not to say those matches won't be close on the back courts. They should be. But we have an edge there.)

Since Rosenqvist at #1 has been important to their success, here's a quick comparison with Gordon of matches against common conference opponents:

* Both lost to Oregon's Tobita in straight sets.
* Gordon crushed USC's Smith, but Rosenqvist needed three sets to win
* Both beat UCLA's Shibahara, but Rosenqvist had a much easier time of it
* Gordon crushed ASU's John-Baptiste, who beat Rosenqvist in straights.
* Gordon was tied in the third set against UW's Fung, who beat Rosenqvist in straights.
* Gordon lost to WSU's Bayerlova in three, while Rosenqvist won handily.

What do I take from that? Rosenqvist is incredibly inconsistent, flashing the ability to beat Shibahara and Bayerlova solidly, but also struggling to beat (or losing to) players Gordon handled with ease, like Smith and John-Baptiste. In short, no result in this match would shock me.

Team comparisons:

* UCLA: Stanford won 4-3; Cal lost 4-3
* USC: both teams blanked USC
* ASU: Stanford won 4-0; Cal lost 4-0 (a bit misleading; Stanford trailed in a couple of abandoned matches, while Cal was leading in the remaining abandoned matches)
* Oregon: Stanford won 6-1; Cal won 5-2
* UW: Stanford won 4-2; Cal lost 5-2
* WSU: Stanford won 4-2; Cal won 4-3

Ultimately, we're at home, and I like us to win a close one.

How to follow:  The match will be aired live on the Pac-12 Network (https://pac-12.com/womens-tennis/event/2...a-stanford), and you should still be able to follow along with live scoring at http://streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/index.html

Pac-12 Standings:

I included updated standings at the end of the UW/Wazzu thread, so I won't repeat them here. Long story short: Stanford clinches the regular season title and the #1 seed in the conference tournament with a win. Cal is likely locked into the #4 seed no matter the result of this match, but a win over Stanford would be a big feather in their cap when it comes to the NCAAs.

UCLA is locked into the 2 seed (unless Stanford loses to Cal and then loses a makeup match with Colorado, which likely won't be played if Stanford beats Cal). Right now, it looks like Stanford would play 8th-seeded Washington in the quarterfinals, then a semifinal against the Cal-Wazzu winner, and very likely UCLA out of the other half of the bracket in the final. 

It's rivalry week, so while some of the matches are duds (ASU-Arizona, UCLA-USC) and others are meaningless (Colorado-Utah), the Stanford-Cal match will always be exciting, and Washington-Wazzu in Seattle promises to be a good one that could throw a wrench into tournament seeding.

ITA Rankings update: 

April 17 team rankings:

Ranked: #20, up a couple from last week. We're running out of time to get back in that top 16, but all we can do at this point is beat who's on the schedule. (A quick note: the teams between 16 and 20 are very close, with Kansas on a 41.53-point average at 16 and Stanford at 39.84. Top 12 seems out of reach, but the 14-16 range seems doable.) Beating the Washington schools was worth about 5 points in our rolling average, so with a win over Cal in the regular season, then winning the Pac-12 tournament (no guarantee of anything vs. UCLA, though), and losses by some of the teams above us, that really should be enough, especially since all three Stanford losses would be to top 10 teams.

Teams to watch this week to determine if we'll get a Top 16 seed (unless 22nd-ranked UVA goes on a tear in the ACC tournament and upsets multiple higher-ranked teams, we shouldn't get caught from behind):

13. Texas Tech
14. UCLA
15. Illinois
16. Kansas
17. Miami
18. Florida State
19. Auburn

Past opponent watch: 

# 2 Vanderbilt (L)
# 5 Texas (L)
# 9 Florida (L)
# 14 UCLA (W) 
# 29 Oregon (W)
# 32 Arizona State (W)
# 40 Washington State (W)   
# 47 USC (W)
# 49  Washington (W) 
NR TCU (W)
NR Utah
NR St. Mary's (W)
NR San Jose State (W)
NR UNLV (W)
NR Hawaii 
NR Arizona
NR UCSB

Future opponent watch:

# 42 Cal

Individual rankings:

All Stanford singles players are now ranked! That's more like it!

Singles:

# 22 Michaela Gordon (season high of #10)
# 45 Emily Arbuthnott (season high of #22)
# 64 Melissa Lord (season high was #7 preseason)
# 96 Janice Shin (rankings debut!)
# 100 Emma Higuchi (regular season debut; season high was #44 preseason)
# 102 Lampl (season high was #51 preseason)

Doubles:

# 3 Arbuthnott/Gordon (steady; season high of #1)
# 56 Lampl/Yee (season high of #54)

[ColoradoTree]

The SEC tournament is going on this week, and 19th-ranked Auburn is currently playing unranked Arkansas. Arkansas won the doubles point, and then Auburn captured 4 of 6 first sets, but Arkansas has hung in there, now up 2-1 with the four remaining matches into third sets. An Arkansas upset there would be one domino to fall in our efforts to get into the top 16, so if you have literally nothing else to do, you can follow that match (and the rest of the SEC tournament, I think) here: http://www.sidearmstats.com/utennessee/mten/

The ACC tournament (Miami, FSU), the Big 12 tournament (Texas Tech, Kansas, and Oklahoma State (currently 11th)), and the Big Ten tournament (Illinois, Michigan (currently 23rd), and Northwestern (currently 12th) are all next week at the same time as the Pac-12 tournament, so root for upsets from that group or at least that they fall to the higher-ranked teams that we have no chance of catching. 

So, this week, root for SEC frontrunners: Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, Ole Miss, and South Carolina. Then, next week, root for UNC, Georgia Tech, and Duke in the ACC, and Texas in the Big 12 (anyone, really, as long as Texas Tech and Kansas lose).  Not only would that inhibit the chances of teams like Auburn, Miami, Florida State, Texas Tech, and Kansas to get in ahead of us, but it would keep our three losses (Vanderbilt, Florida, and Texas) looking as good as can be, further boosting our stock (or technically, reducing the damage that those losses do to our ranking). In the Big Ten, Northwestern is the highest-ranked team, and we might not be able to catch them mathematically anyway, so we're in good shape as long as Illinois and Michigan don't take the title.

EDIT: Arkansas pulled off the upset, 4-2, with a 3rd set tiebreaker at #5 singles seconds before it would have lost at #6 singles, so this was a very tight match, and it dooms Auburn's chances at a top 16 seed. In my head, I've already moved Stanford up to 19th.

[ColoradoTree]

The SEC tournament is going on this week, and 19th-ranked Auburn is currently playing unranked Arkansas. Arkansas won the doubles point, and then Auburn captured 4 of 6 first sets, but Arkansas has hung in there, now up 2-1 with the four remaining matches into third sets. An Arkansas upset there would be one domino to fall in our efforts to get into the top 16, so if you have literally nothing else to do, you can follow that match (and the rest of the SEC tournament, I think) here: http://www.sidearmstats.com/utennessee/mten/

The ACC tournament (Miami, FSU), the Big 12 tournament (Texas Tech, Kansas, and Oklahoma State (currently 11th)), and the Big Ten tournament (Illinois, Michigan (currently 23rd), and Northwestern (currently 12th) are all next week at the same time as the Pac-12 tournament, so root for upsets from that group or at least that they fall to the higher-ranked teams that we have no chance of catching. 

So, this week, root for SEC frontrunners: Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, Ole Miss, and South Carolina. Then, next week, root for UNC, Georgia Tech, and Duke in the ACC, and Texas in the Big 12 (anyone, really, as long as Texas Tech and Kansas lose).  Not only would that inhibit the chances of teams like Auburn, Miami, Florida State, Texas Tech, and Kansas to get in ahead of us, but it would keep our three losses (Vanderbilt, Florida, and Texas) looking as good as can be, further boosting our stock (or technically, reducing the damage that those losses do to our ranking). In the Big Ten, Northwestern is the highest-ranked team, and we might not be able to catch them mathematically anyway, so we're in good shape as long as Illinois and Michigan don't take the title.

EDIT: Arkansas pulled off the upset, 4-2, with a 3rd set tiebreaker at #5 singles seconds before it would have lost at #6 singles, so this was a very tight match, and it dooms Auburn's chances at a top 16 seed. In my head, I've already moved Stanford up to 19th.

[ColoradoTree]

Doubles vs. Cal is ongoing, but perhaps due to the Pac-12 Network covering the match, the usual live scoring is not working.  The usual live video is working, however, so by looking at the Court 3 feed, you can see a portion of the scoreboard.  Stanford took the match at Court 1 6-1 (you can't see the scoreline for that court on the scoreboard; that's from Twitter), but the other matches are too close for comfort.

As an aside, I love playing Cal. I hate it, because it's stressful, but I love that a doubles point can have my heart in my throat like this.

EDIT: Stanford tied it up at Court 2, 5-5, before Cal held to go up 6-5 again and broke Yee to take that match 7-5.  so Yee is serving to force a tiebreaker.  Lord won her service game handily to go up 5-4 there, but Cal held to 5-5. We were then up 40-15 on Shin's serve before Cal forced a deciding point, but Stanford won that to make it 6-5. Cal will serve to force a tiebreaker on Court 3.

[ColoradoTree]

Doubles vs. Cal is ongoing, but perhaps due to the Pac-12 Network covering the match, the usual live scoring is not working.  The usual live video is working, however, so by looking at the Court 3 feed, you can see a portion of the scoreboard.  Stanford took the match at Court 1 6-1 (you can't see the scoreline for that court on the scoreboard; that's from Twitter), but the other matches are too close for comfort.

As an aside, I love playing Cal. I hate it, because it's stressful, but I love that a doubles point can have my heart in my throat like this.

EDIT: Stanford tied it up at Court 2, 5-5, before Cal held to go up 6-5 again and broke Yee to take that match 7-5.  so Yee is serving to force a tiebreaker.  Lord won her service game handily to go up 5-4 there, but Cal held to 5-5. We were then up 40-15 on Shin's serve before Cal forced a deciding point, but Stanford won that to make it 6-5. Cal will serve to force a tiebreaker on Court 3.

[ColoradoTree]

And there's the doubles point!  Lord/Shin pull it out 7-5 on Court 3.  Final scores:

1. Gordon/Arbuthnott d. Hauger/Rosenqvist (Cal) 6-1
2. Bright/Glozman (Cal) d. Lampl/Yee 7-5
3. Lord/Shin d. Smith/Mraz 7-5

[ColoradoTree]

And there's the doubles point!  Lord/Shin pull it out 7-5 on Court 3.  Final scores:

1. Gordon/Arbuthnott d. Hauger/Rosenqvist (Cal) 6-1
2. Bright/Glozman (Cal) d. Lampl/Yee 7-5
3. Lord/Shin d. Smith/Mraz 7-5

[ColoradoTree]

Anyone following along on the Pac-12 Network?  From the Cal Twitter account, it looks like we came out firing in singles:

1. Gordon up 4-0
2. Lord up 3-0
3. Lampl up 3-0
4. Arbuthnottr up 3-0
5. Shin up 2-1
6. Higuchi tied 2-2

[ColoradoTree]

Anyone following along on the Pac-12 Network?  From the Cal Twitter account, it looks like we came out firing in singles:

1. Gordon up 4-0
2. Lord up 3-0
3. Lampl up 3-0
4. Arbuthnottr up 3-0
5. Shin up 2-1
6. Higuchi tied 2-2

[StanfordMatt]

ColoradoTree, it seems like Lord still isn’t back to 100% and even if she does get back to 100% I doubt Lele shakes up the lineup at this point in the year. Putting that aside, how do you think a fully fit Lord matches up against Gordon?

[StanfordMatt]

ColoradoTree, it seems like Lord still isn’t back to 100% and even if she does get back to 100% I doubt Lele shakes up the lineup at this point in the year. Putting that aside, how do you think a fully fit Lord matches up against Gordon?

[Hulk01]

Gordon 6-2,
Lord 5-1
Lampl 4-3
Arb etc., 5-2
Shin 6-1, 1-0
Higuchi 6-2,

[Hulk01]

Gordon 6-2,
Lord 5-1
Lampl 4-3
Arb etc., 5-2
Shin 6-1, 1-0
Higuchi 6-2,

[ColoradoTree]

ColoradoTree, it seems like Lord still isn’t back to 100% and even if she does get back to 100% I doubt Lele shakes up the lineup at this point in the year. Putting that aside, how do you think a fully fit Lord matches up against Gordon?

Hmmm, fun hypothetical.  I assumed that Lord, based on experience and her improved game that we saw from her as a sophomore last year, would have started the year at #1, and had she been healthy the whole time, I really don't think Lele ever would have forced the issue and put Gordon at #1 over Lord absent the injury.  But if they were both fully healthy and at similar levels of match fitness?  I think they'd be very close, but I'd give Lord the edge (for this year), due to the fact I think her ground strokes are slightly more powerful and she's a better athlete than Gordon.  Both move around the court so well, though, and both anticipate their opponents' shots and use angles so well.  So much of tennis is mental, though, that I don't really know how they'd match up until we see it.  Next year, though?  If both are healthy, they will absolutely battle it out in practice for the right to play #1, so whoever is #1 for the first dual of the year is presumably the winner of that internal battle.  That won't be the final word, though--last year, we saw movement at the top of the lineup, based in part on Davidson's not-up-to-her-usual-standard play at #1 and then an illness that forced her out of the lineup for a few weeks.

[ColoradoTree]

ColoradoTree, it seems like Lord still isn’t back to 100% and even if she does get back to 100% I doubt Lele shakes up the lineup at this point in the year. Putting that aside, how do you think a fully fit Lord matches up against Gordon?

Hmmm, fun hypothetical.  I assumed that Lord, based on experience and her improved game that we saw from her as a sophomore last year, would have started the year at #1, and had she been healthy the whole time, I really don't think Lele ever would have forced the issue and put Gordon at #1 over Lord absent the injury.  But if they were both fully healthy and at similar levels of match fitness?  I think they'd be very close, but I'd give Lord the edge (for this year), due to the fact I think her ground strokes are slightly more powerful and she's a better athlete than Gordon.  Both move around the court so well, though, and both anticipate their opponents' shots and use angles so well.  So much of tennis is mental, though, that I don't really know how they'd match up until we see it.  Next year, though?  If both are healthy, they will absolutely battle it out in practice for the right to play #1, so whoever is #1 for the first dual of the year is presumably the winner of that internal battle.  That won't be the final word, though--last year, we saw movement at the top of the lineup, based in part on Davidson's not-up-to-her-usual-standard play at #1 and then an illness that forced her out of the lineup for a few weeks.

[ColoradoTree]

And that's it!  Arbuthnott was off court first, winning 6-2, 6-0, and Higuchi was next, winning 6-2, 6-1.  Gordon provided the clincher with a 6-2, 6-4 win over Rosenqvist at Court 1, and they didn't play the rest out.  (Not sure where the other matches were when Gordon clinched, but both Shin and Lord had won their first sets 6-1, though Lampl had lost hers in a tiebreaker.) Cal takes a fourth conference loss, which has to be the most they've taken in the regular season in a while.

With that result, Stanford clinches the regular season title over UCLA with a 9-0 conference record.  (The other rivalry matches are tomorrow, but UCLA can't do better than 9-1, so even if Stanford made up the rained-out match vs. Colorado and lost, they'd still get the 1 seed over UCLA based on the head-to-head win.)

I was a little panicked by how close the doubles point was, but I am really encouraged by how fast Stanford came out in singles. And for Gordon to shrug off a disappointing weekend by rolling over Rosenqvist (who crushed the same player--WSU's Bayerlova--who beat Gordon in three sets) is a nice sign going into the postseason.  Cal's quality drops off a bit after their top 3, so it was nice to see Arbuthnott take advantage of that, stay aggressive, and quickly dispose of a lesser player rather than let them stick around and sneak back into the match.  Higuchi was Higuchi, and we are very, very lucky to have a player that strong at #6.

[ColoradoTree]

And that's it!  Arbuthnott was off court first, winning 6-2, 6-0, and Higuchi was next, winning 6-2, 6-1.  Gordon provided the clincher with a 6-2, 6-4 win over Rosenqvist at Court 1, and they didn't play the rest out.  (Not sure where the other matches were when Gordon clinched, but both Shin and Lord had won their first sets 6-1, though Lampl had lost hers in a tiebreaker.) Cal takes a fourth conference loss, which has to be the most they've taken in the regular season in a while.

With that result, Stanford clinches the regular season title over UCLA with a 9-0 conference record.  (The other rivalry matches are tomorrow, but UCLA can't do better than 9-1, so even if Stanford made up the rained-out match vs. Colorado and lost, they'd still get the 1 seed over UCLA based on the head-to-head win.)

I was a little panicked by how close the doubles point was, but I am really encouraged by how fast Stanford came out in singles. And for Gordon to shrug off a disappointing weekend by rolling over Rosenqvist (who crushed the same player--WSU's Bayerlova--who beat Gordon in three sets) is a nice sign going into the postseason.  Cal's quality drops off a bit after their top 3, so it was nice to see Arbuthnott take advantage of that, stay aggressive, and quickly dispose of a lesser player rather than let them stick around and sneak back into the match.  Higuchi was Higuchi, and we are very, very lucky to have a player that strong at #6.

[ColoradoTree]

An interesting follow-up on the Arkansas match I mentioned earlier. So, they followed up their upset of Auburn with another shocking upset--this time 3rd-seeded (and the 7th-ranked team nationally) South Carolina.  They then fell to Florida (though they played them tough, losing 4-2) in the semis, but the deep run with wins over a Top 10 team and a Top 20 team gave them dreams of a NCAA berth they hadn't had before.  With that resume, and the number of good teams they lost to in the SEC over the course of the regular season (you're not penalized much at all for losing to highly-ranked teams), they'd probably be in the field. 

One problem: it was the end of the season, there were no more matches left on the calendar, and they were 10-16.  NCAA rules allow only teams with .500 records or better to make the tournament.  So despite likely having earned enough ranking points to be in the field, their overall record would leave them out.  

The solution: schedule six more matches against a cupcake and play them all in one day. https://deadspin.com/arkansas-womens-ten...1825475452.

It sounds like Tennessee State got something of a paycheck for their trouble.

[ColoradoTree]

An interesting follow-up on the Arkansas match I mentioned earlier. So, they followed up their upset of Auburn with another shocking upset--this time 3rd-seeded (and the 7th-ranked team nationally) South Carolina.  They then fell to Florida (though they played them tough, losing 4-2) in the semis, but the deep run with wins over a Top 10 team and a Top 20 team gave them dreams of a NCAA berth they hadn't had before.  With that resume, and the number of good teams they lost to in the SEC over the course of the regular season (you're not penalized much at all for losing to highly-ranked teams), they'd probably be in the field. 

One problem: it was the end of the season, there were no more matches left on the calendar, and they were 10-16.  NCAA rules allow only teams with .500 records or better to make the tournament.  So despite likely having earned enough ranking points to be in the field, their overall record would leave them out.  

The solution: schedule six more matches against a cupcake and play them all in one day. https://deadspin.com/arkansas-womens-ten...1825475452.

It sounds like Tennessee State got something of a paycheck for their trouble.

[ColoradoTree]

Arkansas wasn't wrong to think their tournament run would get them into the NCAA field. They weren't ranked at all prior to this set of rankings.  Now?  They're 29th, comfortably in the field if not for their overall record. 

Comparing to NCAA baseball, which has a similar setup (64 total teams, teams initially play in 4-team pods at a campus site), the Razorbacks' tournament run would have taken them from out of the tournament to the equivalent of a #2 regional seed.  Not too shabby for a week's work.

[ColoradoTree]

Arkansas wasn't wrong to think their tournament run would get them into the NCAA field. They weren't ranked at all prior to this set of rankings.  Now?  They're 29th, comfortably in the field if not for their overall record. 

Comparing to NCAA baseball, which has a similar setup (64 total teams, teams initially play in 4-team pods at a campus site), the Razorbacks' tournament run would have taken them from out of the tournament to the equivalent of a #2 regional seed.  Not too shabby for a week's work.

[oldalum]

Gotta give them some credit for cleverness in gaming the system. I wonder how they actually did this: did they play one game of each match and then TSU retired from each match, x 6 team matches.

[oldalum]

Gotta give them some credit for cleverness in gaming the system. I wonder how they actually did this: did they play one game of each match and then TSU retired from each match, x 6 team matches.

[ColoradoTree]

Gotta give them some credit for cleverness in gaming the system. I wonder how they actually did this: did they play one game of each match and then TSU retired from each match, x 6 team matches.

Amazingly enough, it looks like they played six full matches (though the 6th one looks to have had some casualties in doubles and a couple of singles matches with retirements).  Those players certainly put in a full day of work, that's for sure.

http://www.tsutigers.com/wtennis/news/20...-arkansas/

[ColoradoTree]

Gotta give them some credit for cleverness in gaming the system. I wonder how they actually did this: did they play one game of each match and then TSU retired from each match, x 6 team matches.

Amazingly enough, it looks like they played six full matches (though the 6th one looks to have had some casualties in doubles and a couple of singles matches with retirements).  Those players certainly put in a full day of work, that's for sure.

http://www.tsutigers.com/wtennis/news/20...-arkansas/

[oldalum]

impressive that they played that much tennis in one day. Not that it would happen often, but it points up the problem with an absolute rule like you have to be at least .500 overall to get into the NCAAs: your overall record depends on who you play. Penalizes tough OOC scheduling for teams that play in a tough conference.

[oldalum]

impressive that they played that much tennis in one day. Not that it would happen often, but it points up the problem with an absolute rule like you have to be at least .500 overall to get into the NCAAs: your overall record depends on who you play. Penalizes tough OOC scheduling for teams that play in a tough conference.

[M T]

The solution: schedule six more matches against a cupcake and play them all in one day. https://deadspin.com/arkansas-womens-ten...1825475452.

It sounds like Tennessee State got something of a paycheck for their trouble.

Disgusting.  Next thing we'll know, Alabama will play two football games at once against cupcakes.

[M T]

The solution: schedule six more matches against a cupcake and play them all in one day. https://deadspin.com/arkansas-womens-ten...1825475452.

It sounds like Tennessee State got something of a paycheck for their trouble.

Disgusting.  Next thing we'll know, Alabama will play two football games at once against cupcakes.

[ColoradoTree]

impressive that they played that much tennis in one day. Not that it would happen often, but it points up the problem with an absolute rule like you have to be at least .500 overall to get into the NCAAs: your overall record depends on who you play. Penalizes tough OOC scheduling for teams that play in a tough conference.

 
Yeah, to me the bigger problem here is the rule that you have to have at least a .500 record than what Arkansas did to get around it. Based on objective criteria, taking into account a team's wins and losses, Arkansas is the 29th-best team in the country. Should a team with that resume be left out of the NCAA tournament because they played in a tough conference (and most of their losses were very close) and didn't schedule cupcakes otherwise?  

(Seriously, I looked up their schedule. Out of the 26 matches they played prior to this Tennessee State binge, I counted one team--just one--that was neither ranked nor in a power conference. By way of comparison, 5 of Stanford's 18 matches fit that category.  Is college tennis really better off if Arkansas decides to cancel series with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Purdue, Missouri, etc. and replaces those matches with lesser programs?)

I feel confident stating that Arkansas, based on its resume prior to the Tennessee State matches, absolutely belonged in the tournament, so I guess I can't be that mad at them for figuring out a way into the dance.  I'd be mad if they hadn't actually played the matches, of course.  But the players did the work.  It's a little unseemly, to be sure, but keeping them out of the tournament would have been the bigger sin in my mind.

[ColoradoTree]

impressive that they played that much tennis in one day. Not that it would happen often, but it points up the problem with an absolute rule like you have to be at least .500 overall to get into the NCAAs: your overall record depends on who you play. Penalizes tough OOC scheduling for teams that play in a tough conference.

 
Yeah, to me the bigger problem here is the rule that you have to have at least a .500 record than what Arkansas did to get around it. Based on objective criteria, taking into account a team's wins and losses, Arkansas is the 29th-best team in the country. Should a team with that resume be left out of the NCAA tournament because they played in a tough conference (and most of their losses were very close) and didn't schedule cupcakes otherwise?  

(Seriously, I looked up their schedule. Out of the 26 matches they played prior to this Tennessee State binge, I counted one team--just one--that was neither ranked nor in a power conference. By way of comparison, 5 of Stanford's 18 matches fit that category.  Is college tennis really better off if Arkansas decides to cancel series with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Purdue, Missouri, etc. and replaces those matches with lesser programs?)

I feel confident stating that Arkansas, based on its resume prior to the Tennessee State matches, absolutely belonged in the tournament, so I guess I can't be that mad at them for figuring out a way into the dance.  I'd be mad if they hadn't actually played the matches, of course.  But the players did the work.  It's a little unseemly, to be sure, but keeping them out of the tournament would have been the bigger sin in my mind.

[StanfordMatt]

The coaches and administrators at Arkansas and Tennessee State should be embarrassed and reprimanded. I agree with ColoradoTree that the NCAA rule doesn't make sense, but that doesn't justify the actions of these two schools. No student-athlete should be required to play six matches in one day, but at least Arkansas' players get the benefit of qualifying for the NCAA Tournament. What about the TSU players; what did they get out of this stunt? Their administration essentially pimped them out to make a few easy bucks at their expense. The NCAA mandates that teams cannot require student-athletes to spend more than 20 hours per week on team activities. I just looked up the regulation (see below) and each competition is counted as three hours. There does not appear to be a daily maximum; however, so it seems as though both teams were able to circumvent the spirit of the rule by using 18/20 weekly hours in one day. I hope the NCAA takes another look at this rule in light of this situation.

https://tinyurl.com/ybrxjdvu

[StanfordMatt]

The coaches and administrators at Arkansas and Tennessee State should be embarrassed and reprimanded. I agree with ColoradoTree that the NCAA rule doesn't make sense, but that doesn't justify the actions of these two schools. No student-athlete should be required to play six matches in one day, but at least Arkansas' players get the benefit of qualifying for the NCAA Tournament. What about the TSU players; what did they get out of this stunt? Their administration essentially pimped them out to make a few easy bucks at their expense. The NCAA mandates that teams cannot require student-athletes to spend more than 20 hours per week on team activities. I just looked up the regulation (see below) and each competition is counted as three hours. There does not appear to be a daily maximum; however, so it seems as though both teams were able to circumvent the spirit of the rule by using 18/20 weekly hours in one day. I hope the NCAA takes another look at this rule in light of this situation.

https://tinyurl.com/ybrxjdvu