[ColoradoTree]

They only went down one from the week before, and the only match they played was against Cal which was no help in the ratings for UCLA. We went ahead of them with the win against Texas, which dropped them by one slot.

Yeah. Plus, UCLA's win over us counted for this week's rankings as a win over the #12 team (worth 73 points). Next week, it'll count as a win over the #6 team (worth 88 points). Same win, same team, but worth different points as teams rise and fall in the rankings over the course of the year. 

Right now, the ITA is counting 5 wins and any losses a team may have. UCLA's Kick-Off Weekend schedule was pretty weak, like ours, so they don't get much value from those wins (Minnesota and Loyola). They got the weakest team in the field at Indoor Nationals, too (Illinois, now unranked), so that win isn't giving them anything. So, their resume this week is wins over then-#12 Stanford, #2 Florida State, and three unranked wins against the loss to #1 UNC. Hardly a bad loss, and the FSU win is a brobdingnagian boost, but their average score is weighed down by counting three unranked wins. They'll tick up as the season goes on and they get better wins to take the place of the ones they're forced to count now. 

As for the ACC, I think some of it is the fact that there are relatively few top-tier programs in California (so there are only, say, 8 spots available at Stanford, Cal, UCLA, or USC in a given year) and the combination of academic quality and a good athletic history at some of those ACC schools (I'm thinking Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech, Wake, and UVA, in particular). Stanford still stands atop the pack, for sure. If we want a player and she can get in (and isn't going pro), we're extremely likely to land her. But you're right that USC, UCLA, and Cal should be right there with us each year. Of course, if you're a blue chip CA prospect in a year where Stanford isn't taking anyone, UCLA prefers a couple different players, and USC or Cal stunk the year before, would you rather stay in state at one of those schools or go to, say, Atlanta and play for Georgia Tech or go play for a team with its own great tradition that is better right now? Viewed from a conference perspective, if there isn't a spot for you at the top 4 CA schools, would you rather play in warmer climes in the ACC/SEC or go to Eugene or Seattle? Or stay in the conference in Tucson or Tempe? I mean, I'd probably pick UVA, Duke, or Georgia Tech in that scenario, too. Where those schools rank against, say, Pepperdine, USD, St. Mary's, and other schools is up for debate, too. 

Stanford is also a national and international (at times) recruiter, so even though we're very open to California players (of our 8 current scholarship players, 5 (Higuchi, Gordon, Choy, Madurawe, and Mossmer) are Californians), we're not limited to them (Blake is from Florida, Shin is from Texas, and Arbuthnott is from the UK). Of the 11 players on USC's roster, 8 are from California. But just 4 of 9 on UCLA's roster are. And on the 10 on Cal's roster? Just two Californians. Some of that is UCLA's national reach, too, but if you're a California prospect, you have to know pretty early on that you need to cast a wide net in recruiting. 

FYI, there are 6 Californian girls among the blue chip HS seniors this year. 1 seems likely to go pro (Volynets), 1 is coming to Stanford (Houghton), and the other four are scattered (Harvard, Vanderbilt, Texas, and Illinois). Interestingly, of the 22 commitments so far among those blue chip seniors, only three are going to a school in their home state, with Houghton being one of them. (And of those 22 commitments, 6 are going to the ACC (2 to UNC), 3 to the Big 12, 3 to the SEC (2 to Tennessee), 3 to the Big Ten (2 to Michigan), 3 to the Ivy League (2 to Harvard), 2 to the WCC, and just 2 to the Pac-12 (Stanford and UCLA).  That doesn't mean Stanford's recruiting this year is weak, as we have a top 5 recruit in Houghton and one of the top internationals in Geller, or even UCLA's (they only lose Hart from this year's roster), but it does mean the rest of the conference's recruiting is weak this year. (Both Cal and USC made big splashes last year, though, and just like any sport, tennis players want to see a quick path to the top. Last year, 6 blue chips signed with the Pac-12--2 each to Stanford and UCLA, and 1 each to Cal and USC--while the ACC also had 6, the SEC had 4, the Big Ten 3, the Ivies 3, and the Big 12 just 2.)

[ColoradoTree]

They only went down one from the week before, and the only match they played was against Cal which was no help in the ratings for UCLA. We went ahead of them with the win against Texas, which dropped them by one slot.

Yeah. Plus, UCLA's win over us counted for this week's rankings as a win over the #12 team (worth 73 points). Next week, it'll count as a win over the #6 team (worth 88 points). Same win, same team, but worth different points as teams rise and fall in the rankings over the course of the year. 

Right now, the ITA is counting 5 wins and any losses a team may have. UCLA's Kick-Off Weekend schedule was pretty weak, like ours, so they don't get much value from those wins (Minnesota and Loyola). They got the weakest team in the field at Indoor Nationals, too (Illinois, now unranked), so that win isn't giving them anything. So, their resume this week is wins over then-#12 Stanford, #2 Florida State, and three unranked wins against the loss to #1 UNC. Hardly a bad loss, and the FSU win is a brobdingnagian boost, but their average score is weighed down by counting three unranked wins. They'll tick up as the season goes on and they get better wins to take the place of the ones they're forced to count now. 

As for the ACC, I think some of it is the fact that there are relatively few top-tier programs in California (so there are only, say, 8 spots available at Stanford, Cal, UCLA, or USC in a given year) and the combination of academic quality and a good athletic history at some of those ACC schools (I'm thinking Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech, Wake, and UVA, in particular). Stanford still stands atop the pack, for sure. If we want a player and she can get in (and isn't going pro), we're extremely likely to land her. But you're right that USC, UCLA, and Cal should be right there with us each year. Of course, if you're a blue chip CA prospect in a year where Stanford isn't taking anyone, UCLA prefers a couple different players, and USC or Cal stunk the year before, would you rather stay in state at one of those schools or go to, say, Atlanta and play for Georgia Tech or go play for a team with its own great tradition that is better right now? Viewed from a conference perspective, if there isn't a spot for you at the top 4 CA schools, would you rather play in warmer climes in the ACC/SEC or go to Eugene or Seattle? Or stay in the conference in Tucson or Tempe? I mean, I'd probably pick UVA, Duke, or Georgia Tech in that scenario, too. Where those schools rank against, say, Pepperdine, USD, St. Mary's, and other schools is up for debate, too. 

Stanford is also a national and international (at times) recruiter, so even though we're very open to California players (of our 8 current scholarship players, 5 (Higuchi, Gordon, Choy, Madurawe, and Mossmer) are Californians), we're not limited to them (Blake is from Florida, Shin is from Texas, and Arbuthnott is from the UK). Of the 11 players on USC's roster, 8 are from California. But just 4 of 9 on UCLA's roster are. And on the 10 on Cal's roster? Just two Californians. Some of that is UCLA's national reach, too, but if you're a California prospect, you have to know pretty early on that you need to cast a wide net in recruiting. 

FYI, there are 6 Californian girls among the blue chip HS seniors this year. 1 seems likely to go pro (Volynets), 1 is coming to Stanford (Houghton), and the other four are scattered (Harvard, Vanderbilt, Texas, and Illinois). Interestingly, of the 22 commitments so far among those blue chip seniors, only three are going to a school in their home state, with Houghton being one of them. (And of those 22 commitments, 6 are going to the ACC (2 to UNC), 3 to the Big 12, 3 to the SEC (2 to Tennessee), 3 to the Big Ten (2 to Michigan), 3 to the Ivy League (2 to Harvard), 2 to the WCC, and just 2 to the Pac-12 (Stanford and UCLA).  That doesn't mean Stanford's recruiting this year is weak, as we have a top 5 recruit in Houghton and one of the top internationals in Geller, or even UCLA's (they only lose Hart from this year's roster), but it does mean the rest of the conference's recruiting is weak this year. (Both Cal and USC made big splashes last year, though, and just like any sport, tennis players want to see a quick path to the top. Last year, 6 blue chips signed with the Pac-12--2 each to Stanford and UCLA, and 1 each to Cal and USC--while the ACC also had 6, the SEC had 4, the Big Ten 3, the Ivies 3, and the Big 12 just 2.)