05-23-2017, 03:13 PM
Hey, thanks, folks! I mean, if you're going to pick another Stanford sport to follow closely, the returns on picking women's tennis are pretty great. Easy money. The win the title about every other year, they're always in the mix, and their history and toughness means you'll always be proud of their effort. They have a preternatural ability to win the close ones, too.Â
Last year was a particularly insane example of that: 4-3 over #19 Texas A&M just to get out of the NCAA second round (with Davidson winning a three-set match to clinch); 4-3 over #1 Florida in the R16 (with Davidson winning a three-set match to clinch); 4-3 over #10 Michigan in the QFs (Doyle winning a third-set tiebreaker to clinch); 4-2 over #6 and defending champion Vanderbilt in the SFs (with Lampl winning in three to clinch, though if she'd lost, Davidson was tied 2-2 in her third set, so she probably just would have won a third-set tiebreaker anyway); and 4-3 over #12 Oklahoma State in the final (with, wait for it, Davidson clinching the match 7-5 in the third).Â
Last year was a particularly insane example of that: 4-3 over #19 Texas A&M just to get out of the NCAA second round (with Davidson winning a three-set match to clinch); 4-3 over #1 Florida in the R16 (with Davidson winning a three-set match to clinch); 4-3 over #10 Michigan in the QFs (Doyle winning a third-set tiebreaker to clinch); 4-2 over #6 and defending champion Vanderbilt in the SFs (with Lampl winning in three to clinch, though if she'd lost, Davidson was tied 2-2 in her third set, so she probably just would have won a third-set tiebreaker anyway); and 4-3 over #12 Oklahoma State in the final (with, wait for it, Davidson clinching the match 7-5 in the third).Â