[ColoradoTree]

I suspect the primary benefit is more matches against better competition, now that the Pac-12 is in a down cycle. The coaches obviously have a reason for doing it. But the fact that we have been winning without competing in the ITA Indoors doesn't mean we wouldn't have been better had we competed in it; our last two championships have been won by a whisker (versus our thumping by Florida last year). Having a low seed does hurt us in the NCAAs, it just hasn't been decisive--yet. In the NCAAs we have to play earlier/more against tougher competition than our rivals for the crown. This wears us down more, and with the semi-randomness of the deuce point acting as a wild card, the more close matches you play the more likely you will lose one. Two years ago in the NCAAs, every one of our wins beginning with the second round was 4-3 except the semifinal against Vanderbilt (4-2 because we unexpectedly won the doubles point in that match).

I was out of town last week, so didn't get a chance to comment on this news.  The biggest reason for why this makes sense is that starting next year, the NCAA tennis championships will adopt the baseball/softball super regional approach, so getting a top 16 ranking is no longer enough to ensure home court until you head to the final site--you need a top 8 seed.  Stanford might occasionally still do that if it were to skip ITA Kick-Off Weekend/Indoor Nationals--Stanford was the #7 seed in 2017 after a 21-2 regular season, going undefeated in Pac-12 play and losing only two matches, both on the road to highly-ranked teams--but more often than not, Stanford would be somewhere from 9-15 after having objectively successful seasons, with 2 or 3 losses to good teams.  We lost to Pepperdine and Florida in 2017 and got the 7 seed, but we lost to Florida, Vanderbilt, and Texas in 2018 and got the 15.  

When the only goals are (1) to win national championships, and (2) get home court until you travel to the final site, we could get away with a lighter schedule and still get a seed, albeit a double-digit one.  But if those are still your only two goals, and now you need to get into the top eight to satisfy them, well, that's tougher. You can't assume the Pac-12 schedule and a few marquee matches will be enough, so you need bigger and better wins in most years.  If the NCAA weren't changing the championship format, I assume Lele would keep going with what has been working the last few years.  

I wonder what this will mean for the rest of the non-conference schedule. If you win Kick-Off weekend but lose right away at Indoor Nationals, you don't get a schedule boost, so it would be good to have some Top 10 caliber teams anyway, like continuing the Florida and Vanderbilt duals.  (For example, Cal played Kick-Off weekend this past year, lost in an upset, never even made it to Indoor Nationals, and they didn't have enough good wins to even get them into the tournament because they were idle during Indoor Nationals. You can't assume you'll win a few matches at Indoor Nationals.)  Vanderbilt, at least, would be at our place next year, so no reason to give up on that one yet.  I would think the Pepperdine series would continue as well, and should also be at our place since the home match was rained out this past season.  If we continue Florida, then I'd like to see us add a one-off the same weekend in Gainesville, someone in the 15-25 range like Florida State or UCF. 

In any event, Kick-Off Weekend next year won't look too much different than our schedule this year.  The 2 seed in our region is #42 Washington State, the 3 seed is #54 SMU, and the 4 seed is #63 St. Mary's, so we'll play St. Mary's and the WSU-SMU winner.  I suspect that means St. Mary's won't be on our regular non-conference schedule.  

As an aside, the way teams are placed into regionals for Kick-Off Weekend is very interesting.  Once the 15 host teams are decided by final season ranking--the 16th spot at Indoor Nationals is given to the host institution, which next year will be Washington--the remaining teams choose which regional site they want to attend, in order.  Not surprisingly, teams stayed away from Stanford and the other top 3 teams, Vanderbilt, UNC, and Duke.  So, after just 7 selections, the regionals for #14 Oklahoma State and #15 Northwestern filled up very fast.  The bottom seeds always fill up first, but it makes even more sense this year, as Northwestern loses 3 starters, including its top 2 singles players, and Oklahoma State also loses two Top 50 players, so those will be very competitive regionals.  #5 Georgia Tech filled up next, which seems odd at first, but Georgia Tech lost two starters to graduation and a third starter to Florida as a transfer, so it made a lot of sense for, say, #26 Kentucky to decide to be the 3 seed in that regional rather than be the 2 seed against a stronger team.  Towards the end, a team like St. Mary's is content to play at Stanford and get crushed locally, rather than fly to Nashville or Chapel Hill and get crushed there.  Thus, while Stanford hosts the #42, #54, and #63 teams, Northwestern hosts #17, #19, and #22, while Oklahoma State hosts #18, #20, and #23.  Whoever emerges from those regionals will see a tangible boost in their ranking just from Kick-Off Weekend, while teams like Stanford and Vanderbilt will have to win a couple matches at Indoor Nationals to see any kind of boost.

The regional lineups are a good barometer for how good other coaches think certain teams are.  Through this draft, coaches showed they're afraid of the top 4 teams, they think #5 Georgia Tech, #8 Ole Miss, #11 Florida, and #12 South Carolina might be vulnerable, they want to steer clear of #7 Georgia and #10 UCLA, and they're salivating to get a chance at Oklahoma State and Northwestern.

[ColoradoTree]

I suspect the primary benefit is more matches against better competition, now that the Pac-12 is in a down cycle. The coaches obviously have a reason for doing it. But the fact that we have been winning without competing in the ITA Indoors doesn't mean we wouldn't have been better had we competed in it; our last two championships have been won by a whisker (versus our thumping by Florida last year). Having a low seed does hurt us in the NCAAs, it just hasn't been decisive--yet. In the NCAAs we have to play earlier/more against tougher competition than our rivals for the crown. This wears us down more, and with the semi-randomness of the deuce point acting as a wild card, the more close matches you play the more likely you will lose one. Two years ago in the NCAAs, every one of our wins beginning with the second round was 4-3 except the semifinal against Vanderbilt (4-2 because we unexpectedly won the doubles point in that match).

I was out of town last week, so didn't get a chance to comment on this news.  The biggest reason for why this makes sense is that starting next year, the NCAA tennis championships will adopt the baseball/softball super regional approach, so getting a top 16 ranking is no longer enough to ensure home court until you head to the final site--you need a top 8 seed.  Stanford might occasionally still do that if it were to skip ITA Kick-Off Weekend/Indoor Nationals--Stanford was the #7 seed in 2017 after a 21-2 regular season, going undefeated in Pac-12 play and losing only two matches, both on the road to highly-ranked teams--but more often than not, Stanford would be somewhere from 9-15 after having objectively successful seasons, with 2 or 3 losses to good teams.  We lost to Pepperdine and Florida in 2017 and got the 7 seed, but we lost to Florida, Vanderbilt, and Texas in 2018 and got the 15.  

When the only goals are (1) to win national championships, and (2) get home court until you travel to the final site, we could get away with a lighter schedule and still get a seed, albeit a double-digit one.  But if those are still your only two goals, and now you need to get into the top eight to satisfy them, well, that's tougher. You can't assume the Pac-12 schedule and a few marquee matches will be enough, so you need bigger and better wins in most years.  If the NCAA weren't changing the championship format, I assume Lele would keep going with what has been working the last few years.  

I wonder what this will mean for the rest of the non-conference schedule. If you win Kick-Off weekend but lose right away at Indoor Nationals, you don't get a schedule boost, so it would be good to have some Top 10 caliber teams anyway, like continuing the Florida and Vanderbilt duals.  (For example, Cal played Kick-Off weekend this past year, lost in an upset, never even made it to Indoor Nationals, and they didn't have enough good wins to even get them into the tournament because they were idle during Indoor Nationals. You can't assume you'll win a few matches at Indoor Nationals.)  Vanderbilt, at least, would be at our place next year, so no reason to give up on that one yet.  I would think the Pepperdine series would continue as well, and should also be at our place since the home match was rained out this past season.  If we continue Florida, then I'd like to see us add a one-off the same weekend in Gainesville, someone in the 15-25 range like Florida State or UCF. 

In any event, Kick-Off Weekend next year won't look too much different than our schedule this year.  The 2 seed in our region is #42 Washington State, the 3 seed is #54 SMU, and the 4 seed is #63 St. Mary's, so we'll play St. Mary's and the WSU-SMU winner.  I suspect that means St. Mary's won't be on our regular non-conference schedule.  

As an aside, the way teams are placed into regionals for Kick-Off Weekend is very interesting.  Once the 15 host teams are decided by final season ranking--the 16th spot at Indoor Nationals is given to the host institution, which next year will be Washington--the remaining teams choose which regional site they want to attend, in order.  Not surprisingly, teams stayed away from Stanford and the other top 3 teams, Vanderbilt, UNC, and Duke.  So, after just 7 selections, the regionals for #14 Oklahoma State and #15 Northwestern filled up very fast.  The bottom seeds always fill up first, but it makes even more sense this year, as Northwestern loses 3 starters, including its top 2 singles players, and Oklahoma State also loses two Top 50 players, so those will be very competitive regionals.  #5 Georgia Tech filled up next, which seems odd at first, but Georgia Tech lost two starters to graduation and a third starter to Florida as a transfer, so it made a lot of sense for, say, #26 Kentucky to decide to be the 3 seed in that regional rather than be the 2 seed against a stronger team.  Towards the end, a team like St. Mary's is content to play at Stanford and get crushed locally, rather than fly to Nashville or Chapel Hill and get crushed there.  Thus, while Stanford hosts the #42, #54, and #63 teams, Northwestern hosts #17, #19, and #22, while Oklahoma State hosts #18, #20, and #23.  Whoever emerges from those regionals will see a tangible boost in their ranking just from Kick-Off Weekend, while teams like Stanford and Vanderbilt will have to win a couple matches at Indoor Nationals to see any kind of boost.

The regional lineups are a good barometer for how good other coaches think certain teams are.  Through this draft, coaches showed they're afraid of the top 4 teams, they think #5 Georgia Tech, #8 Ole Miss, #11 Florida, and #12 South Carolina might be vulnerable, they want to steer clear of #7 Georgia and #10 UCLA, and they're salivating to get a chance at Oklahoma State and Northwestern.