05-23-2019, 11:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2019, 12:00 PM by ColoradoTree.)
The rankings archive is pretty great, and yeah, I agree that we wouldn't have finished #1 last year without the help of the bonus points.
You know, I don't think the "automatic #1" provision has ever been needed, since Stanford is the lowest-ranked team ever to win it all, and even then (as a 15 seed in '16 and in '18), Stanford made it to #1 with the help of the bonus points. Of course, it helps when you get wins over the #1, #2, #3, #7, and #17 teams over the course of the NCAA tournament, and only your best ten wins count anyway.
Given that fact, the only way I can really imagine the "automatic #1" provision coming into play is if an excellent team on paper had bad injury luck but got everyone back healthy for NCAAs--i.e., a more extreme version of Stanford's 2018 season. And it doesn't even need to be that much more extreme. Say Stanford doesn't beat UCLA last year when Lord is out (a 4-3 win turns into a 3-4 loss) and we no longer have our very best pre-NCAA win (and our 5th-best win overall). Given how weak our schedule was otherwise, I'm confident our final ranking average would have been below Vanderbilt's, even with bonus points.
Season-ending ranking for Stanford women's tennis during Lele Forood's tenure:
2019: #1
2018: #1
2017: #2
2016: #1
2015: #11
2014: #8
2013: #1
2012: #5
2011: #2
2010: #1
2009: #13
2008: #7
2007: #2
2006: #1
2005: #1
2004: #1
2003: #2
2002: #1
2001: #1
(In looking back through this, though, I realized my guess was wrong and the "automatic #1" provision has been used at least once--Duke in 2009. See: http://itatennis.activecm.net/resultsand..._22_09.htm. Weirdly, Duke won as the #3 seed and still needed the automatic #1 provision, so they must have changed the bonus points since then.)
You know, I don't think the "automatic #1" provision has ever been needed, since Stanford is the lowest-ranked team ever to win it all, and even then (as a 15 seed in '16 and in '18), Stanford made it to #1 with the help of the bonus points. Of course, it helps when you get wins over the #1, #2, #3, #7, and #17 teams over the course of the NCAA tournament, and only your best ten wins count anyway.
Given that fact, the only way I can really imagine the "automatic #1" provision coming into play is if an excellent team on paper had bad injury luck but got everyone back healthy for NCAAs--i.e., a more extreme version of Stanford's 2018 season. And it doesn't even need to be that much more extreme. Say Stanford doesn't beat UCLA last year when Lord is out (a 4-3 win turns into a 3-4 loss) and we no longer have our very best pre-NCAA win (and our 5th-best win overall). Given how weak our schedule was otherwise, I'm confident our final ranking average would have been below Vanderbilt's, even with bonus points.
Season-ending ranking for Stanford women's tennis during Lele Forood's tenure:
2019: #1
2018: #1
2017: #2
2016: #1
2015: #11
2014: #8
2013: #1
2012: #5
2011: #2
2010: #1
2009: #13
2008: #7
2007: #2
2006: #1
2005: #1
2004: #1
2003: #2
2002: #1
2001: #1
(In looking back through this, though, I realized my guess was wrong and the "automatic #1" provision has been used at least once--Duke in 2009. See: http://itatennis.activecm.net/resultsand..._22_09.htm. Weirdly, Duke won as the #3 seed and still needed the automatic #1 provision, so they must have changed the bonus points since then.)