[ColoradoTree]

Why doesn't the ITA automatically rank the singles champion #1 at the end of the year, as they do for the team champion? Runner-up Jokic is #1 and winner Estela Perez-Somarriba is #2 in the final rankings; seems wrong to me. Same thing in doubles, where the winner ended up ranked #2.

That's a great question, and I have no idea why it's not the case. To me, it suggests that the ITA knows that the individual tournaments are a weird animal that sees a ton of upsets, and all it really means is that the person who won that tournament was the best that week, not necessarily the best all year. Whereas it's much more likely that the team who wins the tournament really is the best team? Individuals can have a crazy run of form--it happens all the time on tour--but it's much more likely that the team standing on top at the end is the best team. 

I guess there are also a lot more individual tournaments in the fall calendar, whereas for teams, you just have National Indoors and NCAAs. For singles, you have the Riviera ITA All-American Championships in October, the Oracle ITA National Fall Championships in November, and a series of smaller tournaments. The ITA has said that the singles ranking formula "reflects a player's entire body of work for the full 2018-19 season" and that "[n]o added weight is given to wins at any one tournament, including the NCAAs." 

That's what they're doing, but it doesn't tell us why. My guess is that it's designed to mirror the professional ranking system, which adds up your points over the course of the year and the person with the most points is year-end #1. The player who wins the last Grand Slam of the year isn't automatically #1 just because they won the last Grand Slam of the year. I think the ITA's statement as quoted above is pretty solid confirmation that they don't view the NCAA tournament as more important than the fall tournaments or marquee singles wins you got in team play. (Here, Jokic won Fall Nationals, was the NCAA runner-up, and lost in the quarterfinals of ITA All-Americans. EPS won NCAAs, lost in the Round of 16 at Fall Nationals, and lost in the first round of ITA All-Americans. If you consider them equivalent tournaments, there's no question Jokic's year was better.)

Now that I think through it, I'm actually pretty good with that choice. It's much harder to assess overall team quality short of a season-ending tournament, but it's been the norm in the Open Era to judge individual players on the strength of their entire seasons. That's still true today when you have a nominal year-ending championship that players qualify for based on how well they did all season--the Grand Slams still reign supreme. (The Tour Finals even offers less prize money and fewer ranking points than the Grand Slams, which is kind of funny.)

[ColoradoTree]

Why doesn't the ITA automatically rank the singles champion #1 at the end of the year, as they do for the team champion? Runner-up Jokic is #1 and winner Estela Perez-Somarriba is #2 in the final rankings; seems wrong to me. Same thing in doubles, where the winner ended up ranked #2.

That's a great question, and I have no idea why it's not the case. To me, it suggests that the ITA knows that the individual tournaments are a weird animal that sees a ton of upsets, and all it really means is that the person who won that tournament was the best that week, not necessarily the best all year. Whereas it's much more likely that the team who wins the tournament really is the best team? Individuals can have a crazy run of form--it happens all the time on tour--but it's much more likely that the team standing on top at the end is the best team. 

I guess there are also a lot more individual tournaments in the fall calendar, whereas for teams, you just have National Indoors and NCAAs. For singles, you have the Riviera ITA All-American Championships in October, the Oracle ITA National Fall Championships in November, and a series of smaller tournaments. The ITA has said that the singles ranking formula "reflects a player's entire body of work for the full 2018-19 season" and that "[n]o added weight is given to wins at any one tournament, including the NCAAs." 

That's what they're doing, but it doesn't tell us why. My guess is that it's designed to mirror the professional ranking system, which adds up your points over the course of the year and the person with the most points is year-end #1. The player who wins the last Grand Slam of the year isn't automatically #1 just because they won the last Grand Slam of the year. I think the ITA's statement as quoted above is pretty solid confirmation that they don't view the NCAA tournament as more important than the fall tournaments or marquee singles wins you got in team play. (Here, Jokic won Fall Nationals, was the NCAA runner-up, and lost in the quarterfinals of ITA All-Americans. EPS won NCAAs, lost in the Round of 16 at Fall Nationals, and lost in the first round of ITA All-Americans. If you consider them equivalent tournaments, there's no question Jokic's year was better.)

Now that I think through it, I'm actually pretty good with that choice. It's much harder to assess overall team quality short of a season-ending tournament, but it's been the norm in the Open Era to judge individual players on the strength of their entire seasons. That's still true today when you have a nominal year-ending championship that players qualify for based on how well they did all season--the Grand Slams still reign supreme. (The Tour Finals even offers less prize money and fewer ranking points than the Grand Slams, which is kind of funny.)