[ColoradoTree]

A suggestion to next year's NCAA women's tennis tournament committee -- When you're doing the seedings, take into account human polls, computer rankings, strength of schedule, W/L record, conference titles, conference tournaments, head-to-head results, and UTRs . . . then give the top seed to Stanford. Because Stanford has been making a mockery of your seedings for years. It's time to recognize it and admit that Stanford is #1.

My suggestion to NCAA tennis at large - get rid of no-AD scoring. It's a cheap ploy to make the sport more friendly for TV that makes a mockery of the game. Imagine Federer and Nadal playing a match at Wimbledon where one point represents a match point and a break point simultaneously. It's absurd and the quality of tennis exhibited by these women is too good for such gimmicks.

But enough ranting, bravo to the women of Stanford Tennis (and Frankie) and thanks to ColoradoTree for all of the updates!

I really dislike no-ad scoring, and now that college tennis has a tennis-specific TV home rather than a general sports TV home (if you can call ESPN3 a "TV" home), I wonder whether they'll reconsider it. It's undeniably exciting, and I'm growing more and more used to it as time goes on, but in my mind, winning each game by two points is essential to tennis. 

As to the seeding, I'm not sure how much we can really complain about being the #3 seed (if this were basketball, we still got a 1 seed, after all). We lost to Georgia in the regular season, and so did North Carolina. Both teams' only loss. Plus, I think UNC had a slightly harder schedule than we did, so the seeding felt right this year (albeit for the first time in years). ITA ranking and UTR converged this year, too, in a way they didn't last year. We were the #15 seed last year, but the #1 team according to UTR Power 6. This year, we were the #3 seed, and I think the #4 or #5 team according to UTR Power 6. 

But the broader point--this team finds another gear in May that other teams can't match--is true enough. How much must North Carolina hate us? Three years in a row, they've been the #2 seed in the tournament. And three years in a row, they lose to Stanford, as the #15, as the #7, and as the #3.

---

FYI, Melissa Lord was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player, and made the All-Tournament Team at #2 singles. Shin joined her as the selection at #5 singles, while Arbuthnott/Gordon made it at #2 doubles, and Lord/Shin made it at #3 doubles.

They don't play doubles together for months, and they make the NCAA All-Tournament Team. Funny sport, this. 

Here's the full list:

1. Katarina Jokic, Georgia
2. Melissa Lord, Stanford
3. Sara Daavettila, North Carolina
4. Vivian Wolff, Georgia
5. Janice Shin, Stanford
6. Meg Kowalski, Georgia

Jokic/Carle got the nod at #1 doubles, too. 

Odd to see a team winning it all and only put two players on the all-tournament team, but I can see the rationale for each particular spot. Hard to give it to us at #6, when we rolled out three different players. Jokic is deserving at #1, and she was leading Gordon when the match was clinched, after all. Lampl not getting it at #3 is debatable, but she had a 4-0 win over UNC on her racket, and she ended up losing that set and the match, while Daavettila was undefeated for the tournament.

[ColoradoTree]

A suggestion to next year's NCAA women's tennis tournament committee -- When you're doing the seedings, take into account human polls, computer rankings, strength of schedule, W/L record, conference titles, conference tournaments, head-to-head results, and UTRs . . . then give the top seed to Stanford. Because Stanford has been making a mockery of your seedings for years. It's time to recognize it and admit that Stanford is #1.

My suggestion to NCAA tennis at large - get rid of no-AD scoring. It's a cheap ploy to make the sport more friendly for TV that makes a mockery of the game. Imagine Federer and Nadal playing a match at Wimbledon where one point represents a match point and a break point simultaneously. It's absurd and the quality of tennis exhibited by these women is too good for such gimmicks.

But enough ranting, bravo to the women of Stanford Tennis (and Frankie) and thanks to ColoradoTree for all of the updates!

I really dislike no-ad scoring, and now that college tennis has a tennis-specific TV home rather than a general sports TV home (if you can call ESPN3 a "TV" home), I wonder whether they'll reconsider it. It's undeniably exciting, and I'm growing more and more used to it as time goes on, but in my mind, winning each game by two points is essential to tennis. 

As to the seeding, I'm not sure how much we can really complain about being the #3 seed (if this were basketball, we still got a 1 seed, after all). We lost to Georgia in the regular season, and so did North Carolina. Both teams' only loss. Plus, I think UNC had a slightly harder schedule than we did, so the seeding felt right this year (albeit for the first time in years). ITA ranking and UTR converged this year, too, in a way they didn't last year. We were the #15 seed last year, but the #1 team according to UTR Power 6. This year, we were the #3 seed, and I think the #4 or #5 team according to UTR Power 6. 

But the broader point--this team finds another gear in May that other teams can't match--is true enough. How much must North Carolina hate us? Three years in a row, they've been the #2 seed in the tournament. And three years in a row, they lose to Stanford, as the #15, as the #7, and as the #3.

---

FYI, Melissa Lord was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player, and made the All-Tournament Team at #2 singles. Shin joined her as the selection at #5 singles, while Arbuthnott/Gordon made it at #2 doubles, and Lord/Shin made it at #3 doubles.

They don't play doubles together for months, and they make the NCAA All-Tournament Team. Funny sport, this. 

Here's the full list:

1. Katarina Jokic, Georgia
2. Melissa Lord, Stanford
3. Sara Daavettila, North Carolina
4. Vivian Wolff, Georgia
5. Janice Shin, Stanford
6. Meg Kowalski, Georgia

Jokic/Carle got the nod at #1 doubles, too. 

Odd to see a team winning it all and only put two players on the all-tournament team, but I can see the rationale for each particular spot. Hard to give it to us at #6, when we rolled out three different players. Jokic is deserving at #1, and she was leading Gordon when the match was clinched, after all. Lampl not getting it at #3 is debatable, but she had a 4-0 win over UNC on her racket, and she ended up losing that set and the match, while Daavettila was undefeated for the tournament.