04-03-2019, 12:30 PM
Ha! Nope, as long as things play out roughly like they should, we'll be comfortably in the Top 8 and we'll be in line to host a super regional as long as seeds hold in the tournament. We played the schedule game better this year, we were healthy all year, and it means we're in better shape overall. We're cutting it close, of course, but it looks like Lele balanced it just right between scheduling enough tough matches and allowing for enough rest. In my mind, here's what made the difference in ranking from last year to this year:
1. We were healthy. Lord being hurt last year was brutal, because it came during our toughest non-conference stretch, against teams that would finish #2, #5, and #8 in the final pre-NCAA rankings. If she's healthy and we win two of those, we're seeded several spots higher (though we still wouldn't have been top 8 last year because of my next point). We scheduled lightly, like always, so we desperately needed wins out of those matches, and we didn't get them.
2. The Pac-12 was better this year. In the final pre-NCAA rankings last year, #14 UCLA was highest, followed by us at #15, #33 Oregon, #37 Arizona State, #43 UW, #44 WSU, and #50 USC. That's it. This year, it's #5 us, #8 UCLA, #11 USC, #15 UW, #19 Cal, #36 WSU, #39 Utah, and #44 Arizona State. That's just a sea change (5 Top 20 teams compared to 2), and beating those teams keeps us near the top.
I don't actually think playing National Indoors mattered that much for us, though it gave us two good ranked wins (and necessarily kept some other team from getting those wins). If we'd skipped National Indoors and instead kept Pepperdine and Florida on the schedule (and beaten them), we'd be roughly in the same position, replacing a win over #7 Texas with a win over #9 Pepperdine and a win over #28 LSU with a win over #23 Florida, though we wouldn't have played that second match vs. #36 Washington State, so the ranking would have dipped a bit lower than its nadir of #7 this year (before ultimately returning to the same place as we no longer needed to count either WSU win). I'm glad we played National Indoors given the history of having to play some NCAA matches indoors the last few years, and because the upside far outweighs the downside, but it was kind of a wash, rankings-wise.
If you compare our best 9 pre-NCAA wins last year to our best 9 pre-NCAA wins this year if we win out, it's pretty clear why we ended up where we did:
Last year: #14 UCLA, #14 UCLA (Pac-12s), #33 Oregon, #37 Arizona State, #43 UW, #43 UW (Pac-12s), #44 WSU, #44 WSU (Pac-12s), and #50 USC, against three losses (to #2 Vanderbilt, #5 Texas, and #8 Florida). That was 45.77 and worth 15th place. (For reference, you get 46 points for beating the #36 team, so this is sort of like saying our average countable win was #36.)
This year: #6 Vanderbilt, #7 Texas, #8 UCLA (away), #11 USC (Pac-12s), #11 USC (away), #15 UW, #19 Cal (away), #19 Cal (Pac-12s), and #28 LSU, against one loss (to #1 Georgia). That would be 74.066, which would have been 3rd last year and which would be 3rd right now this year. (That's an average countable win around #11/#12.) If that Texas match hadn't been rained out, we replace #28 with another #7, and you'd be even higher (77.47), though it would still be 3rd both last year and this year right now (albeit a lot closer).
Again, I don't agree that the NCAA committee follows the ITA rankings so slavishly in seeding teams, but they do, and we didn't put a resume together last year that was indicative of how good we really were. There should be more discretion--right now, it's only when there's a head-to-head result in a neighboring seed line that warrants switching those lines. But we've had better injury luck and a better conference this year, and that's made all the difference. (My concern is that you can't count on a certain level of conference quality every year, so you should build in more of a buffer in the non-conference schedule in case Cal and USC struggle like they did last year, though you can't blame Lele's scheduling for the Texas match getting rained out. Lele wants her team healthy and rested for May, though, and it's hard to quibble with results.)
1. We were healthy. Lord being hurt last year was brutal, because it came during our toughest non-conference stretch, against teams that would finish #2, #5, and #8 in the final pre-NCAA rankings. If she's healthy and we win two of those, we're seeded several spots higher (though we still wouldn't have been top 8 last year because of my next point). We scheduled lightly, like always, so we desperately needed wins out of those matches, and we didn't get them.
2. The Pac-12 was better this year. In the final pre-NCAA rankings last year, #14 UCLA was highest, followed by us at #15, #33 Oregon, #37 Arizona State, #43 UW, #44 WSU, and #50 USC. That's it. This year, it's #5 us, #8 UCLA, #11 USC, #15 UW, #19 Cal, #36 WSU, #39 Utah, and #44 Arizona State. That's just a sea change (5 Top 20 teams compared to 2), and beating those teams keeps us near the top.
I don't actually think playing National Indoors mattered that much for us, though it gave us two good ranked wins (and necessarily kept some other team from getting those wins). If we'd skipped National Indoors and instead kept Pepperdine and Florida on the schedule (and beaten them), we'd be roughly in the same position, replacing a win over #7 Texas with a win over #9 Pepperdine and a win over #28 LSU with a win over #23 Florida, though we wouldn't have played that second match vs. #36 Washington State, so the ranking would have dipped a bit lower than its nadir of #7 this year (before ultimately returning to the same place as we no longer needed to count either WSU win). I'm glad we played National Indoors given the history of having to play some NCAA matches indoors the last few years, and because the upside far outweighs the downside, but it was kind of a wash, rankings-wise.
If you compare our best 9 pre-NCAA wins last year to our best 9 pre-NCAA wins this year if we win out, it's pretty clear why we ended up where we did:
Last year: #14 UCLA, #14 UCLA (Pac-12s), #33 Oregon, #37 Arizona State, #43 UW, #43 UW (Pac-12s), #44 WSU, #44 WSU (Pac-12s), and #50 USC, against three losses (to #2 Vanderbilt, #5 Texas, and #8 Florida). That was 45.77 and worth 15th place. (For reference, you get 46 points for beating the #36 team, so this is sort of like saying our average countable win was #36.)
This year: #6 Vanderbilt, #7 Texas, #8 UCLA (away), #11 USC (Pac-12s), #11 USC (away), #15 UW, #19 Cal (away), #19 Cal (Pac-12s), and #28 LSU, against one loss (to #1 Georgia). That would be 74.066, which would have been 3rd last year and which would be 3rd right now this year. (That's an average countable win around #11/#12.) If that Texas match hadn't been rained out, we replace #28 with another #7, and you'd be even higher (77.47), though it would still be 3rd both last year and this year right now (albeit a lot closer).
Again, I don't agree that the NCAA committee follows the ITA rankings so slavishly in seeding teams, but they do, and we didn't put a resume together last year that was indicative of how good we really were. There should be more discretion--right now, it's only when there's a head-to-head result in a neighboring seed line that warrants switching those lines. But we've had better injury luck and a better conference this year, and that's made all the difference. (My concern is that you can't count on a certain level of conference quality every year, so you should build in more of a buffer in the non-conference schedule in case Cal and USC struggle like they did last year, though you can't blame Lele's scheduling for the Texas match getting rained out. Lele wants her team healthy and rested for May, though, and it's hard to quibble with results.)