[ColoradoTree]

The full spring schedule was announced, so here it is (http://www.gostanford.com/schedule.aspx?path=wten), with an annotated version below, followed by some analysis on the relative strength of schedule and which dates to circle as benchmarks for how good our team is this year.  Because the first team rankings of the year don't come out until January 2, the rankings used are last year's final team rankings. 

Schedule: 

* Jan. 18-20: Freeman Memorial Championships, Las Vegas, NV 
* Jan. 18-20: NCTC Classic, Indian Wells, CA 

* Jan. 26: vs. #63 St. Mary's (ITA Kick-Off Weekend)
* Jan. 27: vs. #42 Washington State or #54 SMU (ITA Kick-Off Weekend)   

* Jan. 31 (Thursday): vs. #50 Princeton; Feb. 2 vs. UC Davis

* Feb. 8-11: ITA National Indoor Championships (Seattle, WA) (3 matches against other Kick-Off winners, presuming we qualify; 4 if we make the final)

* Feb. 15: vs. Santa Clara; rest of weekend open

* Feb. 23: vs. #2 Vanderbilt; rest of weekend open
  
* Mar. 2: vs. #6 Texas; rest of weekend open

* Mar. 10: at #28 Oregon; rest of weekend open  

* Mar. 15 vs. #36 Arizona State; Mar. 16 vs. Arizona

* Mar. 24: vs. #65 Hawaii; rest of weekend open

* Mar. 27 (Wednesday): vs. #72 UC Santa Barbara

* Mar. 29: at #10 UCLA; Mar. 30: at #49 USC

* Apr. 5: vs. #42 Washington State; Apr. 6 vs. #43 Washington

* Apr. 12: at Utah; April 14: at Colorado

* Apr. 20: at #52 Cal

* Apr. 24-27: Pac-12 Championships, Ojai, CA

That's 19 regular season matches scheduled, with a near-certainty of at least three more at Indoor Nationals.  That total is thus currently low for Stanford (last year was 20), but nearly certain to go a bit higher. 

Analysis:

January tournaments

The two January tournaments are a bit of a holdover from the fall season, and will see split-squad contingents at each.  Two years ago, Melissa Lord won the Freeman Memorial Championships, beating two Top 10 players (and another ranked player) in the process, but with Lord injured last year, neither Lampl nor Yee (our two representatives at that tournament) had similar success. The other tournament, the NCTC Classic, had a number of withdrawals last year that led the organizers to reshuffle the structure, and it effectively became a series of random matches, with less of a quality test. Hopefully this year is a tougher challenge and we meet it. 

---

Regular season schedule

We don't know preseason team rankings yet, so I'll use final rankings from last year as a substitute for now (I'll edit the post to include team preseason rankings in a couple weeks). 

Dropping off the schedule from last year: Florida, Pepperdine, TCU, San Jose State, UNLV
New to the schedule this year: Princeton, Santa Clara, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, Kick-Off Weekend, Indoor Nationals 

Last year, we had 12 scheduled matches against Top 50 teams, including just 2 scheduled top 10 matchups. This year, we have just 7 matches against Top 50 teams on the schedule, and 3 top 10 teams, though we're almost certain to get three more Top 50 teams (and at least two top 10 teams) at Indoor Nationals, with a 4th match if we make the finals. But the reasoning behind signing up for Kick-Off Weekend and Indoor Nationals this year was so that we could make sure we finished in the top 8 at the end of the year rather than just the top 16, as the NCAA has moved to a baseball-like super-regional format followed by the final 8 at one site (unlike past years where the final 16 all went to the same site), so if you're a 9-16 seed, you get two home matches but then have to go play a top 8 seed on the road just to make the final site. Thus, playing 12-ish ranked matches has been just enough to get us in the top 16 in recent years. So we need more. 

The home-road split in terms of ranked opponents is great for non-conference (Vanderbilt and Texas at home), but rough for in-conference, as we get UCLA, USC, Oregon, and Cal on the road. 

In terms of the quality of our non-conference schedule, we play a few of the same opponents: Vanderbilt, Texas, Hawaii, and St. Mary's. And we can bet that we'll see 

But the big news is that Florida and Pepperdine are not on our schedule. That's a real loss, as Stanford-Florida has been arguably the preeminent women's tennis rivalry over the last 10-15 years, and Pepperdine provides as tough a test as anyone in the country, right close to home. I worried that by signing up for ITA Kick-Off Weekend/Indoor Nationals, we might schedule a little lighter otherwise, but I assumed Lele wouldn't want to do that because it would just be trading 2-3 highly-ranked nonconference matches for 2-3 other highly-ranked nonconference matches (it's easy to imagine a scenario where Stanford plays Pepperdine, Florida, and Oklahoma State at Indoor Nationals--all teams that were on the nonconference schedule two years ago when Stanford ended up with the 7 seed in NCAAs), and thus wouldn't do much to move the needle in terms of a schedule that often sees us slotted somewhere from 12-15 come NCAAs, and this year we need to be in the top 8 to guarantee a home date with the new "super regional" format.  But despite it making little sense, that's what's happened here.  Our schedule will end up being about the same as last year's, meaning we can afford maybe one loss and still get a home super regional date. But if they lose a couple at Indoor Nationals (or if they lose to Vanderbilt, Texas, or both), there just aren't enough good matches on the calendar to get a top 8 seed for NCAAs. And the good conference matches that are on the calendar are on the road--UCLA, USC, and Cal--which is a double-edged sword. You get a 10% bonus for getting wins on the road, but of course, it's harder to win on the road, so you might not get any points at all. Heck, what if you suffer a rash of sprained ankles right before the Wazzu match to qualify for Indoor Nationals, and you don't even make it to Indoor Nationals? That's a disaster, and it wouldn't need to be if there were a few more good non-conference matches on this schedule. 

Remember that broad strength of schedule--i.e., playing a bunch of teams that are in the top 50--doesn't get you to the top. Beating top 20 teams is what gets you there. And losing to top 10 teams doesn't really hurt you in the rankings formula, so you might as well schedule as many as you can. 

This schedule is thus basically a bet that (1) USC and Cal will be better than last year's ranking, (2) Stanford will advance to Indoor Nationals, (3) Stanford will win at least a couple of matches at Indoor Nationals, and (4) Stanford will beat Vanderbilt and Texas at home, but those teams will still be Top 10 at the end of the year. And, to be honest, I don't think each of those bets, individually, is a bad one. Cal will be better this year, and so will USC. Stanford will advance to Indoor Nationals (if we can't beat Wazzu at home, we'll have our work cut out for us just making the NCAA tournament, let alone hosting any rounds of it). But 3 is a coin flip. And so is 4 (I like our odds against both Vanderbilt and Texas--I think Vanderbilt will be just slightly worse than last year, as they lost Sharma to graduation, and we only got better). 

---

Indoor Nationals

Indoor Nationals is in Seattle this year, so UW is automatically there as the host. The other 15 spots will be filled by 15 regional winners, with hosting duties determined off last year's final rankings. Last year, those 15 regional winners included the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #21, #24, and #27 teams in the final rankings. In other words, you're likely to play at least 2 top 10 teams. It's a single elimination tournament that's seeded by current ranking with a draw to determine each seeded team's first-round opponent, so you could get the #9 team, a team in the 20s who pulled an upset to get there, or Washington. I'd rather get a tougher draw, since the whole point of the tournament is to play top teams for ranking purposes. There is a consolation draw, and each team is guaranteed three matches, but you'll get four if you make the final of the main draw (they stop the consolation draw after each team has 3 matches).

Expect #1 Stanford, #2 Vanderbilt, #3 UNC, #4 Duke, #7 Georgia, and #10 UCLA to sail through their regions, as they're not terribly competitive. But #5 Georgia Tech (who lost some players, and who won't be #5 when this tournament is played) faces a tough test, as do #6 Texas (surprisingly, as UT's best players all return), #8 Ole Miss (who lost its #1 player and signed an international to replace her), #11 Florida (their roster has six very good players, but just six, so they're especially vulnerable to injury), and #12 South Carolina (who lost their #3). #13 Pepperdine has a potential roadblock in Oregon, but really, the Ducks (who currently have just five players on their roster, and will thus need a walk-on or a spring transfer to get to the minimum six players) just don't measure up. 

My annual special note on team rankings

The first several team rankings of the year are done by committee, and Stanford will do very well there, as those in the tennis world generally agree that Stanford is one of the top teams.  But at some point in mid- to late-February, the rankings switch over to an algorithm, and Stanford may drop substantially when that switch happens. In the past, that drop was substantial, because (1) we play a lighter schedule, period, (2) we didn't participate in the ITA Kick-off weekend, where you're guaranteed two matches against good opponents and where you can qualify for the Indoor Team Championships in February, where you'll get at least a couple more, and (3) we have some early-season matches against weaker, but local, teams.  This year, the second reason no longer exists, but the first and third still do, so this will likely still happen (unless we win Indoor Nationals), but the drop won't be as precipitous. And it could carry over to the NCAA tournament, where we'll be underseeded, and then overperform our seed.  Do not fret. 'Twas ever thus.  

(Recall last year, where we dropped from #1 all the way to #46 before climbing back into the top 16 by NCAAs and finishing the year at #1 again. That was an extreme version, though. More often, it's like two years ago, where we were ranked 4th or 5th in the early going, we dropped to #25 in the first computer rankings, gradually climbed all the way back to #6 by the time NCAAs rolled around, and we finished #2. Point being, the early season rank is much more predictive of how good Stanford is than the mid-season rankings.  That said, the Pac-12's shift toward a team tournament (and thus up to 3 or 4 more matches on your record) should help speed up that late-season climb back up the rankings, while playing ITA Kick-Off Weekend (and thus Indoor Nationals) this year should put us on a more even footing, with only Pac-12 overall weakness affecting us at the bottom).  

[ColoradoTree]

The full spring schedule was announced, so here it is (http://www.gostanford.com/schedule.aspx?path=wten), with an annotated version below, followed by some analysis on the relative strength of schedule and which dates to circle as benchmarks for how good our team is this year.  Because the first team rankings of the year don't come out until January 2, the rankings used are last year's final team rankings. 

Schedule: 

* Jan. 18-20: Freeman Memorial Championships, Las Vegas, NV 
* Jan. 18-20: NCTC Classic, Indian Wells, CA 

* Jan. 26: vs. #63 St. Mary's (ITA Kick-Off Weekend)
* Jan. 27: vs. #42 Washington State or #54 SMU (ITA Kick-Off Weekend)   

* Jan. 31 (Thursday): vs. #50 Princeton; Feb. 2 vs. UC Davis

* Feb. 8-11: ITA National Indoor Championships (Seattle, WA) (3 matches against other Kick-Off winners, presuming we qualify; 4 if we make the final)

* Feb. 15: vs. Santa Clara; rest of weekend open

* Feb. 23: vs. #2 Vanderbilt; rest of weekend open
  
* Mar. 2: vs. #6 Texas; rest of weekend open

* Mar. 10: at #28 Oregon; rest of weekend open  

* Mar. 15 vs. #36 Arizona State; Mar. 16 vs. Arizona

* Mar. 24: vs. #65 Hawaii; rest of weekend open

* Mar. 27 (Wednesday): vs. #72 UC Santa Barbara

* Mar. 29: at #10 UCLA; Mar. 30: at #49 USC

* Apr. 5: vs. #42 Washington State; Apr. 6 vs. #43 Washington

* Apr. 12: at Utah; April 14: at Colorado

* Apr. 20: at #52 Cal

* Apr. 24-27: Pac-12 Championships, Ojai, CA

That's 19 regular season matches scheduled, with a near-certainty of at least three more at Indoor Nationals.  That total is thus currently low for Stanford (last year was 20), but nearly certain to go a bit higher. 

Analysis:

January tournaments

The two January tournaments are a bit of a holdover from the fall season, and will see split-squad contingents at each.  Two years ago, Melissa Lord won the Freeman Memorial Championships, beating two Top 10 players (and another ranked player) in the process, but with Lord injured last year, neither Lampl nor Yee (our two representatives at that tournament) had similar success. The other tournament, the NCTC Classic, had a number of withdrawals last year that led the organizers to reshuffle the structure, and it effectively became a series of random matches, with less of a quality test. Hopefully this year is a tougher challenge and we meet it. 

---

Regular season schedule

We don't know preseason team rankings yet, so I'll use final rankings from last year as a substitute for now (I'll edit the post to include team preseason rankings in a couple weeks). 

Dropping off the schedule from last year: Florida, Pepperdine, TCU, San Jose State, UNLV
New to the schedule this year: Princeton, Santa Clara, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, Kick-Off Weekend, Indoor Nationals 

Last year, we had 12 scheduled matches against Top 50 teams, including just 2 scheduled top 10 matchups. This year, we have just 7 matches against Top 50 teams on the schedule, and 3 top 10 teams, though we're almost certain to get three more Top 50 teams (and at least two top 10 teams) at Indoor Nationals, with a 4th match if we make the finals. But the reasoning behind signing up for Kick-Off Weekend and Indoor Nationals this year was so that we could make sure we finished in the top 8 at the end of the year rather than just the top 16, as the NCAA has moved to a baseball-like super-regional format followed by the final 8 at one site (unlike past years where the final 16 all went to the same site), so if you're a 9-16 seed, you get two home matches but then have to go play a top 8 seed on the road just to make the final site. Thus, playing 12-ish ranked matches has been just enough to get us in the top 16 in recent years. So we need more. 

The home-road split in terms of ranked opponents is great for non-conference (Vanderbilt and Texas at home), but rough for in-conference, as we get UCLA, USC, Oregon, and Cal on the road. 

In terms of the quality of our non-conference schedule, we play a few of the same opponents: Vanderbilt, Texas, Hawaii, and St. Mary's. And we can bet that we'll see 

But the big news is that Florida and Pepperdine are not on our schedule. That's a real loss, as Stanford-Florida has been arguably the preeminent women's tennis rivalry over the last 10-15 years, and Pepperdine provides as tough a test as anyone in the country, right close to home. I worried that by signing up for ITA Kick-Off Weekend/Indoor Nationals, we might schedule a little lighter otherwise, but I assumed Lele wouldn't want to do that because it would just be trading 2-3 highly-ranked nonconference matches for 2-3 other highly-ranked nonconference matches (it's easy to imagine a scenario where Stanford plays Pepperdine, Florida, and Oklahoma State at Indoor Nationals--all teams that were on the nonconference schedule two years ago when Stanford ended up with the 7 seed in NCAAs), and thus wouldn't do much to move the needle in terms of a schedule that often sees us slotted somewhere from 12-15 come NCAAs, and this year we need to be in the top 8 to guarantee a home date with the new "super regional" format.  But despite it making little sense, that's what's happened here.  Our schedule will end up being about the same as last year's, meaning we can afford maybe one loss and still get a home super regional date. But if they lose a couple at Indoor Nationals (or if they lose to Vanderbilt, Texas, or both), there just aren't enough good matches on the calendar to get a top 8 seed for NCAAs. And the good conference matches that are on the calendar are on the road--UCLA, USC, and Cal--which is a double-edged sword. You get a 10% bonus for getting wins on the road, but of course, it's harder to win on the road, so you might not get any points at all. Heck, what if you suffer a rash of sprained ankles right before the Wazzu match to qualify for Indoor Nationals, and you don't even make it to Indoor Nationals? That's a disaster, and it wouldn't need to be if there were a few more good non-conference matches on this schedule. 

Remember that broad strength of schedule--i.e., playing a bunch of teams that are in the top 50--doesn't get you to the top. Beating top 20 teams is what gets you there. And losing to top 10 teams doesn't really hurt you in the rankings formula, so you might as well schedule as many as you can. 

This schedule is thus basically a bet that (1) USC and Cal will be better than last year's ranking, (2) Stanford will advance to Indoor Nationals, (3) Stanford will win at least a couple of matches at Indoor Nationals, and (4) Stanford will beat Vanderbilt and Texas at home, but those teams will still be Top 10 at the end of the year. And, to be honest, I don't think each of those bets, individually, is a bad one. Cal will be better this year, and so will USC. Stanford will advance to Indoor Nationals (if we can't beat Wazzu at home, we'll have our work cut out for us just making the NCAA tournament, let alone hosting any rounds of it). But 3 is a coin flip. And so is 4 (I like our odds against both Vanderbilt and Texas--I think Vanderbilt will be just slightly worse than last year, as they lost Sharma to graduation, and we only got better). 

---

Indoor Nationals

Indoor Nationals is in Seattle this year, so UW is automatically there as the host. The other 15 spots will be filled by 15 regional winners, with hosting duties determined off last year's final rankings. Last year, those 15 regional winners included the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #21, #24, and #27 teams in the final rankings. In other words, you're likely to play at least 2 top 10 teams. It's a single elimination tournament that's seeded by current ranking with a draw to determine each seeded team's first-round opponent, so you could get the #9 team, a team in the 20s who pulled an upset to get there, or Washington. I'd rather get a tougher draw, since the whole point of the tournament is to play top teams for ranking purposes. There is a consolation draw, and each team is guaranteed three matches, but you'll get four if you make the final of the main draw (they stop the consolation draw after each team has 3 matches).

Expect #1 Stanford, #2 Vanderbilt, #3 UNC, #4 Duke, #7 Georgia, and #10 UCLA to sail through their regions, as they're not terribly competitive. But #5 Georgia Tech (who lost some players, and who won't be #5 when this tournament is played) faces a tough test, as do #6 Texas (surprisingly, as UT's best players all return), #8 Ole Miss (who lost its #1 player and signed an international to replace her), #11 Florida (their roster has six very good players, but just six, so they're especially vulnerable to injury), and #12 South Carolina (who lost their #3). #13 Pepperdine has a potential roadblock in Oregon, but really, the Ducks (who currently have just five players on their roster, and will thus need a walk-on or a spring transfer to get to the minimum six players) just don't measure up. 

My annual special note on team rankings

The first several team rankings of the year are done by committee, and Stanford will do very well there, as those in the tennis world generally agree that Stanford is one of the top teams.  But at some point in mid- to late-February, the rankings switch over to an algorithm, and Stanford may drop substantially when that switch happens. In the past, that drop was substantial, because (1) we play a lighter schedule, period, (2) we didn't participate in the ITA Kick-off weekend, where you're guaranteed two matches against good opponents and where you can qualify for the Indoor Team Championships in February, where you'll get at least a couple more, and (3) we have some early-season matches against weaker, but local, teams.  This year, the second reason no longer exists, but the first and third still do, so this will likely still happen (unless we win Indoor Nationals), but the drop won't be as precipitous. And it could carry over to the NCAA tournament, where we'll be underseeded, and then overperform our seed.  Do not fret. 'Twas ever thus.  

(Recall last year, where we dropped from #1 all the way to #46 before climbing back into the top 16 by NCAAs and finishing the year at #1 again. That was an extreme version, though. More often, it's like two years ago, where we were ranked 4th or 5th in the early going, we dropped to #25 in the first computer rankings, gradually climbed all the way back to #6 by the time NCAAs rolled around, and we finished #2. Point being, the early season rank is much more predictive of how good Stanford is than the mid-season rankings.  That said, the Pac-12's shift toward a team tournament (and thus up to 3 or 4 more matches on your record) should help speed up that late-season climb back up the rankings, while playing ITA Kick-Off Weekend (and thus Indoor Nationals) this year should put us on a more even footing, with only Pac-12 overall weakness affecting us at the bottom).  

[ColoradoTree]

Interesting quirk about Kick-Off Weekend (the 4-team regional pods where the winners go to Indoor Nationals). It's often a benefit for teams, because you get a good non-conference match or two even before you advance to Indoor Nationals. But because of the draft process they use to slot teams, some regions are very top-heavy while others are very balanced. So, Stanford gets two matches that likely won't count toward the rankings by the end of the year (rankings are like the Directors Cup in a way--only your top 10 wins count, along with deductions for all of your losses, so beating lower-tier teams won't give the better teams any boost by the end of the year). 

Basically, the top 16 teams in last year's rankings are the host sites, and starting at #17 and going on down the rankings, each team decides where it wants to play. For example, Oklahoma State and Northwestern finished last year #14 and #16 respectively, but they lost key players and expect to have a down year. So, #17 Miami decided to take the 2 seed in Evanston, IL, while #18 Kansas took the 2 seed in Stillwater, OK. Then, rather than be the 2 seed in one of the other 14 regionals, #19 Tulsa decided to take the 3 seed in Evanston, and #20 Illinois took the 3 seed in Stillwater. #21 Michigan decided to take a shot at another potentially vulnerable seed, #8 Ole Miss, as the 2 seed there, but then the Evanston and Stillwater regions got filled up by #22 UCF and #23 UVA before 13 of the 16 regions even had a second team! It makes sense, to be sure--if you're ranked around 20th, you probably feel better about beating two teams right around your same quality level than you would about pulling off an upset of a top 5 or top 10 team. 

It makes for an interesting pseudo-ranking system. You can tell the tennis world doesn't think very strongly of #5 Georgia Tech, for example, since they lost some key pieces, as they get the #24, #26, and #33 teams in their regional. Same for #8 Ole Miss (who gets #21 and #31, and then #56). But geography plays a role. For example, #25 Baylor could have decided to be the 3 seed in Atlanta or Oxford, but decided to instead be favored in its first-round match as the 2 seed in Austin before presumably falling to Texas in the second round. #42 Washington State could have been the 3 seed in Los Angeles with a coin flip of a match against Florida International before playing UCLA, but instead chose to be the 2 seed at Stanford. By the time St. Mary's picked, it was just 4 seeds remaining, so they stayed closer to home at Stanford rather than go to Nashville, Chapel Hill, Durham, etc. At a certain point, teams are less concerned about actually making Indoor Nationals then just trying to get a winnable first-round match (for example, #54 SMU probably would have preferred to stay in Texas, but only the 4 seed (meaning a first-round matchup with the Longhorns) was left there, while the 3 was still available in several places, so it took a winnable match against Washington State here at Stanford instead. 

The South Carolina regional will be interesting. The #12 Gamecocks are the host, but the 2-3 match between #27 Wake Forest and #36 Arizona State could be a great one, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if #52 Cal knocks off South Carolina in the first round. Cal should be much improved this year.

[ColoradoTree]

Interesting quirk about Kick-Off Weekend (the 4-team regional pods where the winners go to Indoor Nationals). It's often a benefit for teams, because you get a good non-conference match or two even before you advance to Indoor Nationals. But because of the draft process they use to slot teams, some regions are very top-heavy while others are very balanced. So, Stanford gets two matches that likely won't count toward the rankings by the end of the year (rankings are like the Directors Cup in a way--only your top 10 wins count, along with deductions for all of your losses, so beating lower-tier teams won't give the better teams any boost by the end of the year). 

Basically, the top 16 teams in last year's rankings are the host sites, and starting at #17 and going on down the rankings, each team decides where it wants to play. For example, Oklahoma State and Northwestern finished last year #14 and #16 respectively, but they lost key players and expect to have a down year. So, #17 Miami decided to take the 2 seed in Evanston, IL, while #18 Kansas took the 2 seed in Stillwater, OK. Then, rather than be the 2 seed in one of the other 14 regionals, #19 Tulsa decided to take the 3 seed in Evanston, and #20 Illinois took the 3 seed in Stillwater. #21 Michigan decided to take a shot at another potentially vulnerable seed, #8 Ole Miss, as the 2 seed there, but then the Evanston and Stillwater regions got filled up by #22 UCF and #23 UVA before 13 of the 16 regions even had a second team! It makes sense, to be sure--if you're ranked around 20th, you probably feel better about beating two teams right around your same quality level than you would about pulling off an upset of a top 5 or top 10 team. 

It makes for an interesting pseudo-ranking system. You can tell the tennis world doesn't think very strongly of #5 Georgia Tech, for example, since they lost some key pieces, as they get the #24, #26, and #33 teams in their regional. Same for #8 Ole Miss (who gets #21 and #31, and then #56). But geography plays a role. For example, #25 Baylor could have decided to be the 3 seed in Atlanta or Oxford, but decided to instead be favored in its first-round match as the 2 seed in Austin before presumably falling to Texas in the second round. #42 Washington State could have been the 3 seed in Los Angeles with a coin flip of a match against Florida International before playing UCLA, but instead chose to be the 2 seed at Stanford. By the time St. Mary's picked, it was just 4 seeds remaining, so they stayed closer to home at Stanford rather than go to Nashville, Chapel Hill, Durham, etc. At a certain point, teams are less concerned about actually making Indoor Nationals then just trying to get a winnable first-round match (for example, #54 SMU probably would have preferred to stay in Texas, but only the 4 seed (meaning a first-round matchup with the Longhorns) was left there, while the 3 was still available in several places, so it took a winnable match against Washington State here at Stanford instead. 

The South Carolina regional will be interesting. The #12 Gamecocks are the host, but the 2-3 match between #27 Wake Forest and #36 Arizona State could be a great one, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if #52 Cal knocks off South Carolina in the first round. Cal should be much improved this year.

[Jskass]

Just realized that my cousin is Duke associate coach

[Jskass]

Just realized that my cousin is Duke associate coach

[oldalum]

Any idea why in alternate years we play either 6 home/4 away Pac12 matches or 4 home/6 away Pac12 matches? The problem is the location of our match against Cal, who has a similar unbalanced schedule. Seems like the Pac-12 could take advantage of a year in which we and Cal are clearly mismatched in strength to fix this by having one team host 2 years in a row.

[oldalum]

Any idea why in alternate years we play either 6 home/4 away Pac12 matches or 4 home/6 away Pac12 matches? The problem is the location of our match against Cal, who has a similar unbalanced schedule. Seems like the Pac-12 could take advantage of a year in which we and Cal are clearly mismatched in strength to fix this by having one team host 2 years in a row.

[Spiny_Norman]

First ITA Rankings of 2019. Stanford is #1. UCLA is the only other P12 school in the top 25 at #8.

https://www.itatennis.com/ITA/Results_Ra..._2019.aspx

[Spiny_Norman]

First ITA Rankings of 2019. Stanford is #1. UCLA is the only other P12 school in the top 25 at #8.

https://www.itatennis.com/ITA/Results_Ra..._2019.aspx

[oldalum]

It's concerning that the Pac-12 has become so weak compared with the other top conferences. Does not help us get ready for or good seeding in the NCAA tournament. Seems like we should be the best, as we have been in the past. Any idea what happened?


I enjoyed the following comment in the ITA's news release. After mentioning that, last year, Stanford and Wake Forest were ranked #1 in the first team rankings in January 2018, it says:

"The Cardinal and Demon Deacons concluded the 2018 season winning the women’s and men’s NCAA National Championship, respectfully."

I always like it when our teams are respectful of their opponents.

[oldalum]

It's concerning that the Pac-12 has become so weak compared with the other top conferences. Does not help us get ready for or good seeding in the NCAA tournament. Seems like we should be the best, as we have been in the past. Any idea what happened?


I enjoyed the following comment in the ITA's news release. After mentioning that, last year, Stanford and Wake Forest were ranked #1 in the first team rankings in January 2018, it says:

"The Cardinal and Demon Deacons concluded the 2018 season winning the women’s and men’s NCAA National Championship, respectfully."

I always like it when our teams are respectful of their opponents.

[ColoradoTree]

It's concerning that the Pac-12 has become so weak compared with the other top conferences. Does not help us get ready for or good seeding in the NCAA tournament. Seems like we should be the best, as we have been in the past. Any idea what happened?

Well, it's not our fault, certainly. And UCLA has been holding up its end of the bargain, too. But there are two big issues, and that's the current state of the program at Cal and the state of the program at USC. Those are the four traditional powers in the conference, so when one is having a down year or cycle, the conference as a whole gets thrown off. (That has allowed some of the other teams to sniff the Top 25, too: Oregon finished last year ranked #28, Arizona State was #36, Wazzu was #42, and UW was #43. But we need Cal and USC to be good.)

Cal

Cal finished #52 last year. Just a stunningly bad year from a team that started the 2018 spring season ranked #11, which was #13 at the end of 2017, and which was ranked #2 (behind us, of course) after the 2016 season. Now, Cal women's tennis has never won a national championship despite its great history--a fact which brings me great joy--but prior to this past season, it had made the NCAA tournament every single year, the team made regular runs to the NCAA quarters and semis (and even to the championship match a couple of times). Cal challenged Stanford, UCLA, and USC for the Pac-12 title just about every year, and even won it in 2014 (before falling to, you guessed it, us in the Round of 16 of NCAAs). So what happened? 

Well, that 2017 team was led by seniors Maegan Manasse (at #1) and Denise Starr (at #3), and junior Karla Popovic (#2). Manasse and Starr graduated, and Popovic missed the spring season due to injury, so what was already expected to be a bit of a rebuilding year (though still competitive) turned into a disaster with everyone playing up a spot, with sometimes 4 freshmen in the lineup. The team had improved by the end of the year, with Julia Rosenqvist cementing herself at the #1 spot, and Anna Bright looking pretty solid behind her at #2. They should be improved this year, with sophomores Rosenqvist and Bright ranked #28 and #29 in the preseason ITA rankings and senior Olivia Hauger not far behind at #34. But they're a little top-heavy, and the overall roster depth isn't to the same level that Cal has had in the past. But I'm confident they'll make the NCAA tournament this year, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them in the Top 25 by the end of the year. Last year was basically a hiccup that was due to injury and a very tough non-conference schedule, meaning Cal just couldn't rack up enough good wins to qualify for the tournament. 

Note: Berkeley's star may have faded a bit in terms of a domestic recruiting destination, as the current roster of 9 players includes 4 international students (1 each from Sweden, Slovenia, England, and the Czech Republic). 

USC

USC has a pedigree (2 national titles), but hasn't won a national title since 1985 and hasn't made it to a NCAA championship match since 1986. But it has had some NCAA singles and doubles champions, and it was even the #1 seed at the NCAA tournament as recently as 2015, when it fell to eventual champion Vanderbilt in the semifinals. It had an outstanding recruiting class in 2014, with three blue chips, but that class never quite lived up to expectations, as USC hasn't been seeded at NCAAs since getting that top seed in 2015. There is some reason to believe they'll improve this year, however, as senior Rianna Valdes is a top 100 preseason player, there are more blue chips on the roster, they signed one of the very best incoming freshmen in Salma Ewing, and their new head coach is just starting her second year. I think they'll rebound, and while they're not yet on the level of Stanford or UCLA, I think the days of them being an easy out are over.

[ColoradoTree]

It's concerning that the Pac-12 has become so weak compared with the other top conferences. Does not help us get ready for or good seeding in the NCAA tournament. Seems like we should be the best, as we have been in the past. Any idea what happened?

Well, it's not our fault, certainly. And UCLA has been holding up its end of the bargain, too. But there are two big issues, and that's the current state of the program at Cal and the state of the program at USC. Those are the four traditional powers in the conference, so when one is having a down year or cycle, the conference as a whole gets thrown off. (That has allowed some of the other teams to sniff the Top 25, too: Oregon finished last year ranked #28, Arizona State was #36, Wazzu was #42, and UW was #43. But we need Cal and USC to be good.)

Cal

Cal finished #52 last year. Just a stunningly bad year from a team that started the 2018 spring season ranked #11, which was #13 at the end of 2017, and which was ranked #2 (behind us, of course) after the 2016 season. Now, Cal women's tennis has never won a national championship despite its great history--a fact which brings me great joy--but prior to this past season, it had made the NCAA tournament every single year, the team made regular runs to the NCAA quarters and semis (and even to the championship match a couple of times). Cal challenged Stanford, UCLA, and USC for the Pac-12 title just about every year, and even won it in 2014 (before falling to, you guessed it, us in the Round of 16 of NCAAs). So what happened? 

Well, that 2017 team was led by seniors Maegan Manasse (at #1) and Denise Starr (at #3), and junior Karla Popovic (#2). Manasse and Starr graduated, and Popovic missed the spring season due to injury, so what was already expected to be a bit of a rebuilding year (though still competitive) turned into a disaster with everyone playing up a spot, with sometimes 4 freshmen in the lineup. The team had improved by the end of the year, with Julia Rosenqvist cementing herself at the #1 spot, and Anna Bright looking pretty solid behind her at #2. They should be improved this year, with sophomores Rosenqvist and Bright ranked #28 and #29 in the preseason ITA rankings and senior Olivia Hauger not far behind at #34. But they're a little top-heavy, and the overall roster depth isn't to the same level that Cal has had in the past. But I'm confident they'll make the NCAA tournament this year, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them in the Top 25 by the end of the year. Last year was basically a hiccup that was due to injury and a very tough non-conference schedule, meaning Cal just couldn't rack up enough good wins to qualify for the tournament. 

Note: Berkeley's star may have faded a bit in terms of a domestic recruiting destination, as the current roster of 9 players includes 4 international students (1 each from Sweden, Slovenia, England, and the Czech Republic). 

USC

USC has a pedigree (2 national titles), but hasn't won a national title since 1985 and hasn't made it to a NCAA championship match since 1986. But it has had some NCAA singles and doubles champions, and it was even the #1 seed at the NCAA tournament as recently as 2015, when it fell to eventual champion Vanderbilt in the semifinals. It had an outstanding recruiting class in 2014, with three blue chips, but that class never quite lived up to expectations, as USC hasn't been seeded at NCAAs since getting that top seed in 2015. There is some reason to believe they'll improve this year, however, as senior Rianna Valdes is a top 100 preseason player, there are more blue chips on the roster, they signed one of the very best incoming freshmen in Salma Ewing, and their new head coach is just starting her second year. I think they'll rebound, and while they're not yet on the level of Stanford or UCLA, I think the days of them being an easy out are over.

[ColoradoTree]

Any idea why in alternate years we play either 6 home/4 away Pac12 matches or 4 home/6 away Pac12 matches? The problem is the location of our match against Cal, who has a similar unbalanced schedule. Seems like the Pac-12 could take advantage of a year in which we and Cal are clearly mismatched in strength to fix this by having one team host 2 years in a row.

We used to generally play Cal twice a season, with only one match counting in the conference standings, so perhaps Lele didn't worry about it so much since we were playing at both places anyway. We've gone away from that, and the first year we did that (2017), it was Cal's turn to host the match that counted, so we ended up in this uneven conference schedule where we host the Washington and Arizona schools in odd years while playing at Oregon, Utah, Colorado, and the other California schools, with it being flipped in even years.  

Cal still plays UCLA and USC twice a season, though, so while their schedule looks unbalanced, it isn't this year. In the 10 matches that count in the conference standings, they get the Arizona and Washington schools and us at home this year, with Oregon, Utah, Colorado, and the L.A. schools on the road. Last year, it was flipped, also at 5 home and 5 away.  USC is also balanced this year, since it gets UCLA at home, which means UCLA is in our same boat at 4 home matches and 6 away matches. Similarly, UW is balanced this year (hosting Oregon and playing at Wazzu), while Wazzu is unbalanced, with 6 home matches and 4 away matches, since it hosts both Oregon and UW. Arizona has a 5-5 split, while ASU has a 6-4 split (hosting both Arizona and Oregon this year). 

Since everyone other than Oregon has a travel partner, we have five "pods" of 2 neighboring teams and then Oregon to try and slot in somehow, meaning you'll play the other 4 pods, Oregon, and your travel partner. You could get everyone to a 5-5 home-away split, but it would mean Oregon would play one match at home and one away with every pod, upsetting normal travel schedules and putting Oregon at a competitive disadvantage. (Oregon is unbalanced every year, too, and this year it's at 4 home matches and 6 away matches.)  

So, the way I think it works is that within each travel pod, one team has a 5-5 home-away split, and the other team rotates between a 6-4 and 4-6 home-away split. If we were to change our away Cal date to a home date, it would just switch roles, as we'd then be the 5-5 team (hosting Cal the year we play in Eugene), and Cal would turn into the 6-4/4-6 rotating team. Not sure there's a way to get everyone to 5-5 without upending travel schedules, though.

[ColoradoTree]

Any idea why in alternate years we play either 6 home/4 away Pac12 matches or 4 home/6 away Pac12 matches? The problem is the location of our match against Cal, who has a similar unbalanced schedule. Seems like the Pac-12 could take advantage of a year in which we and Cal are clearly mismatched in strength to fix this by having one team host 2 years in a row.

We used to generally play Cal twice a season, with only one match counting in the conference standings, so perhaps Lele didn't worry about it so much since we were playing at both places anyway. We've gone away from that, and the first year we did that (2017), it was Cal's turn to host the match that counted, so we ended up in this uneven conference schedule where we host the Washington and Arizona schools in odd years while playing at Oregon, Utah, Colorado, and the other California schools, with it being flipped in even years.  

Cal still plays UCLA and USC twice a season, though, so while their schedule looks unbalanced, it isn't this year. In the 10 matches that count in the conference standings, they get the Arizona and Washington schools and us at home this year, with Oregon, Utah, Colorado, and the L.A. schools on the road. Last year, it was flipped, also at 5 home and 5 away.  USC is also balanced this year, since it gets UCLA at home, which means UCLA is in our same boat at 4 home matches and 6 away matches. Similarly, UW is balanced this year (hosting Oregon and playing at Wazzu), while Wazzu is unbalanced, with 6 home matches and 4 away matches, since it hosts both Oregon and UW. Arizona has a 5-5 split, while ASU has a 6-4 split (hosting both Arizona and Oregon this year). 

Since everyone other than Oregon has a travel partner, we have five "pods" of 2 neighboring teams and then Oregon to try and slot in somehow, meaning you'll play the other 4 pods, Oregon, and your travel partner. You could get everyone to a 5-5 home-away split, but it would mean Oregon would play one match at home and one away with every pod, upsetting normal travel schedules and putting Oregon at a competitive disadvantage. (Oregon is unbalanced every year, too, and this year it's at 4 home matches and 6 away matches.)  

So, the way I think it works is that within each travel pod, one team has a 5-5 home-away split, and the other team rotates between a 6-4 and 4-6 home-away split. If we were to change our away Cal date to a home date, it would just switch roles, as we'd then be the 5-5 team (hosting Cal the year we play in Eugene), and Cal would turn into the 6-4/4-6 rotating team. Not sure there's a way to get everyone to 5-5 without upending travel schedules, though.

[oldalum]

thanks for the info CT!
Seems like the Arizona schools with their good weather oughtt to be better in tennis.
Maybe we should play Cal twice each year again to help our ranking.

[oldalum]

thanks for the info CT!
Seems like the Arizona schools with their good weather oughtt to be better in tennis.
Maybe we should play Cal twice each year again to help our ranking.

[ColoradoTree]

thanks for the info CT!
Seems like the Arizona schools with their good weather oughtt to be better in tennis.
Maybe we should play Cal twice each year again to help our ranking.

Agreed on both counts. The Arizona schools need to strike gold a couple of times with recruits so that they can (1) have a nice run at NCAAs, and (2) convince recruits that coming to Tempe or Tucson isn't throwing away your chance to win something in college tennis or even have a crack at the pros. ASU in particular strikes me as a school that could really establish itself if it continues to recruit a lot of international players (they currently have 4 international players out of 8 scholarships), with that success leading to more interest from domestic recruits. These past couple of years were a nice step in the right direction for them. And since the conference's overall health only helps us, I'm all for them getting better. (Just not too good, of course.)

And I'd welcome a second match against Cal (and/or USC/UCLA), though I wouldn't want to give up our national rivalries to do it. There's room in the schedule, but this team obviously isn't interested in playing as full a schedule as other top teams teams nationally. UCLA, for example, is playing two excellent non-conference opponents, #7 Pepperdine and #9 Oklahoma State, on top of playing Cal and USC twice (and on top of whoever they'll face at Indoor Nationals). Stanford isn't much different--we have #2 Vanderbilt and #6 Texas on top of whoever we play at Indoor Nationals. This year it wouldn't have worked, because the weekend the L.A. schools are coming to Berkeley is the same weekend we're hosting Vanderbilt. But next year, hopefully we can find a weekend to either add a couple more Top 25-caliber teams, or we figure out a trip to the L.A. schools early.  Just for Cal, though, they're completely open the weekend of February 15-17, and our only match that weekend is hosting Santa Clara on Friday. You could make that happen right now if you wanted. But for whatever reason, we or they (or both) don't want to do that. 

One additional thought for a Cal match is that in years where we're hosting Oregon, maybe we add a Cal match that same weekend (most weekends have two opponents anyway). You could do Friday vs./at Cal, Oregon could play at one school Saturday, and at the other school on Sunday.

---

One more thought on the unbalanced schedule front. I don't think Lele makes much of a distinction between the conference and non-conference schedules, because when you combine them, we're usually in pretty good shape. For example, we have 4 home and 6 away conference matches this year, but our toughest non-conference matches--Vanderbilt and Texas--are both at home. Next year when we're 6 home and 4 away, it'll be flipped. 

Basically, in years where our conference schedule is harder (i.e., playing Cal, UCLA, and USC on the road), we get the tougher non-conference matches at home, and when we travel to Nashville, Austin, or Gainesville early in the season, we get the tougher conference matches at home. 

(I'm still bummed that Florida and Pepperdine aren't on the schedule. And there is absolutely still room to add Pepperdine, at least. Sigh.)

[ColoradoTree]

thanks for the info CT!
Seems like the Arizona schools with their good weather oughtt to be better in tennis.
Maybe we should play Cal twice each year again to help our ranking.

Agreed on both counts. The Arizona schools need to strike gold a couple of times with recruits so that they can (1) have a nice run at NCAAs, and (2) convince recruits that coming to Tempe or Tucson isn't throwing away your chance to win something in college tennis or even have a crack at the pros. ASU in particular strikes me as a school that could really establish itself if it continues to recruit a lot of international players (they currently have 4 international players out of 8 scholarships), with that success leading to more interest from domestic recruits. These past couple of years were a nice step in the right direction for them. And since the conference's overall health only helps us, I'm all for them getting better. (Just not too good, of course.)

And I'd welcome a second match against Cal (and/or USC/UCLA), though I wouldn't want to give up our national rivalries to do it. There's room in the schedule, but this team obviously isn't interested in playing as full a schedule as other top teams teams nationally. UCLA, for example, is playing two excellent non-conference opponents, #7 Pepperdine and #9 Oklahoma State, on top of playing Cal and USC twice (and on top of whoever they'll face at Indoor Nationals). Stanford isn't much different--we have #2 Vanderbilt and #6 Texas on top of whoever we play at Indoor Nationals. This year it wouldn't have worked, because the weekend the L.A. schools are coming to Berkeley is the same weekend we're hosting Vanderbilt. But next year, hopefully we can find a weekend to either add a couple more Top 25-caliber teams, or we figure out a trip to the L.A. schools early.  Just for Cal, though, they're completely open the weekend of February 15-17, and our only match that weekend is hosting Santa Clara on Friday. You could make that happen right now if you wanted. But for whatever reason, we or they (or both) don't want to do that. 

One additional thought for a Cal match is that in years where we're hosting Oregon, maybe we add a Cal match that same weekend (most weekends have two opponents anyway). You could do Friday vs./at Cal, Oregon could play at one school Saturday, and at the other school on Sunday.

---

One more thought on the unbalanced schedule front. I don't think Lele makes much of a distinction between the conference and non-conference schedules, because when you combine them, we're usually in pretty good shape. For example, we have 4 home and 6 away conference matches this year, but our toughest non-conference matches--Vanderbilt and Texas--are both at home. Next year when we're 6 home and 4 away, it'll be flipped. 

Basically, in years where our conference schedule is harder (i.e., playing Cal, UCLA, and USC on the road), we get the tougher non-conference matches at home, and when we travel to Nashville, Austin, or Gainesville early in the season, we get the tougher conference matches at home. 

(I'm still bummed that Florida and Pepperdine aren't on the schedule. And there is absolutely still room to add Pepperdine, at least. Sigh.)

[ColoradoTree]

Looks like a change in the calendar--the National Collegiate Tennis Classic was held this past weekend rather than this upcoming weekend in La Quinta. 

No update from the official Stanford page (either a preview or a recap), but piecing things together from the Daily Bruin as well as limited updates from the USD, Ole Miss, and Arizona team websites, here's what we know so far:

* UCLA, Arizona, Ole Miss, and USD also participated, with UCLA sending just a few players, including highly-touted freshman Taylor Johnson in her first collegiate tennis (she was a 2019 grad who enrolled early). 
* Stanford participants included Michaela Gordon, Emily Arbuthnott Emma Higuchi, Janice Shin, and Sara Choy, with Higuchi being the 3 seed and Shin the 4 seed. (I can't say for sure, but from that, I feel safe in inferring that Gordon was the 1 and Arbuthnott the 2.) 
* It appears to have been a 24-player tournament, with the 8 seeds getting byes into the Round of 16.
* Due to rain, the tournament wasn't completed; it looks like only a couple of the quarterfinal matches got completed. 

Round of 32 results:
Sara Choy d. Maria Tyrina (USD) 7-6, 6-2

Round of 16 results:
(1) Gordon lost to USD's Solymar Colling, 7-5, 6-3
(2) Arbuthnott d. Daniela Morales (USD) 3-6, 6-2, 6-1
* (3) Higuchi d. (8) Alaina Miller (UCLA) 6-3, 6-4
(4) Shin d. Taylor Johnson (UCLA) 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
Choy d. #114 Anna Vrbenska (Ole Miss) 6-3, 6-3

* Just who Emma Higuchi played in the Round of 16 is uncertain. The Daily Bruin reports that Higuchi beat UCLA's Alaina Miller 6-3, 6-4 in the Round of 16, but the official Ole Miss site claims its own Alexa Bortles beat UCLA's Miller 6-3, 6-3 in the Round of 16, and the Arizona site claims Higuchi beat UA's Marie Van Aelst, 6-3, 6-4 in that round, so since the Arizona and Ole Miss sites aren't in conflict, I'll go with them and assume the Daily Bruin misread something. 

Quarterfinal results:
(3) Higuchi d. Emma Wilson (Arizona) 4-6, 7-6, 6-4. FYI, Wilson is a transfer from Fresno State who was that team's #1 and is ranked #86 in the country. 
Unclear who Arbuthnott, Shin, and Choy were set to play, but there is no mention of their matches on the other teams' websites, and as one of the quarterfinals was USD vs. Ole Miss, at least one of the quarterfinals was an all-Stanford affair (if it was even played). One of the Stanford players would have been set to play USD's Kati Kukaras, but that one looks like it never got played. (I'll update with any details if the Stanford site provides any.)

In doubles, it looks like Arbuthnott/Gordon made the final, but it wasn't contested. They beat USD's Chow/Tyrina 6-3 before beating UA's Wesbrooks/Wilson 12-10; they would have played UCLA's Taylor Johnson and Alaina Miller in the final. 

Anyway, a nice weekend for Higuchi and Choy, at least, and a "meets expectations" weekend for everyone else except for Gordon, whose upset loss is a weird one given her strong performance in the recent Blizzard Wild Card Challenge. 

Up next:

This weekend is the Freeman Memorial Championships, starting this Friday in Las Vegas on UNLV's campus. In addition to #1 Stanford and host UNLV, the tournament will see players from #3 UNC, #6 Texas, #7 Pepperdine, #8 UCLA, and #11 Florida take part, so it'll be a great early-season challenge, and an opportunity for Gordon to rebound and notch some wins against some top players. I'll post draws if and when they're available, but the general schedule is below. There will be two flights each of singles and doubles, so everyone on the roster should get some matches. 

Friday:
10:00am: Doubles Round of 16
Singles R32: To follow
Singles R16: To follow

Saturday: 
10:00am: Doubles Quarterfinals
Singles QF: To follow
Singles SF: To follow

Sunday:
10:00am: Doubles Semifinals
Doubles Final: To follow
Singles Final: To follow

[ColoradoTree]

Looks like a change in the calendar--the National Collegiate Tennis Classic was held this past weekend rather than this upcoming weekend in La Quinta. 

No update from the official Stanford page (either a preview or a recap), but piecing things together from the Daily Bruin as well as limited updates from the USD, Ole Miss, and Arizona team websites, here's what we know so far:

* UCLA, Arizona, Ole Miss, and USD also participated, with UCLA sending just a few players, including highly-touted freshman Taylor Johnson in her first collegiate tennis (she was a 2019 grad who enrolled early). 
* Stanford participants included Michaela Gordon, Emily Arbuthnott Emma Higuchi, Janice Shin, and Sara Choy, with Higuchi being the 3 seed and Shin the 4 seed. (I can't say for sure, but from that, I feel safe in inferring that Gordon was the 1 and Arbuthnott the 2.) 
* It appears to have been a 24-player tournament, with the 8 seeds getting byes into the Round of 16.
* Due to rain, the tournament wasn't completed; it looks like only a couple of the quarterfinal matches got completed. 

Round of 32 results:
Sara Choy d. Maria Tyrina (USD) 7-6, 6-2

Round of 16 results:
(1) Gordon lost to USD's Solymar Colling, 7-5, 6-3
(2) Arbuthnott d. Daniela Morales (USD) 3-6, 6-2, 6-1
* (3) Higuchi d. (8) Alaina Miller (UCLA) 6-3, 6-4
(4) Shin d. Taylor Johnson (UCLA) 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
Choy d. #114 Anna Vrbenska (Ole Miss) 6-3, 6-3

* Just who Emma Higuchi played in the Round of 16 is uncertain. The Daily Bruin reports that Higuchi beat UCLA's Alaina Miller 6-3, 6-4 in the Round of 16, but the official Ole Miss site claims its own Alexa Bortles beat UCLA's Miller 6-3, 6-3 in the Round of 16, and the Arizona site claims Higuchi beat UA's Marie Van Aelst, 6-3, 6-4 in that round, so since the Arizona and Ole Miss sites aren't in conflict, I'll go with them and assume the Daily Bruin misread something. 

Quarterfinal results:
(3) Higuchi d. Emma Wilson (Arizona) 4-6, 7-6, 6-4. FYI, Wilson is a transfer from Fresno State who was that team's #1 and is ranked #86 in the country. 
Unclear who Arbuthnott, Shin, and Choy were set to play, but there is no mention of their matches on the other teams' websites, and as one of the quarterfinals was USD vs. Ole Miss, at least one of the quarterfinals was an all-Stanford affair (if it was even played). One of the Stanford players would have been set to play USD's Kati Kukaras, but that one looks like it never got played. (I'll update with any details if the Stanford site provides any.)

In doubles, it looks like Arbuthnott/Gordon made the final, but it wasn't contested. They beat USD's Chow/Tyrina 6-3 before beating UA's Wesbrooks/Wilson 12-10; they would have played UCLA's Taylor Johnson and Alaina Miller in the final. 

Anyway, a nice weekend for Higuchi and Choy, at least, and a "meets expectations" weekend for everyone else except for Gordon, whose upset loss is a weird one given her strong performance in the recent Blizzard Wild Card Challenge. 

Up next:

This weekend is the Freeman Memorial Championships, starting this Friday in Las Vegas on UNLV's campus. In addition to #1 Stanford and host UNLV, the tournament will see players from #3 UNC, #6 Texas, #7 Pepperdine, #8 UCLA, and #11 Florida take part, so it'll be a great early-season challenge, and an opportunity for Gordon to rebound and notch some wins against some top players. I'll post draws if and when they're available, but the general schedule is below. There will be two flights each of singles and doubles, so everyone on the roster should get some matches. 

Friday:
10:00am: Doubles Round of 16
Singles R32: To follow
Singles R16: To follow

Saturday: 
10:00am: Doubles Quarterfinals
Singles QF: To follow
Singles SF: To follow

Sunday:
10:00am: Doubles Semifinals
Doubles Final: To follow
Singles Final: To follow

[ColoradoTree]

Just to follow up, Stanford posted a NCTC recap last night, confirming certain results but with slightly different scorelines in places:

Singles

Round of 32 results:
Sara Choy d. Maria Tyrina (USD) 7-6, 6-2

Round of 16 results:
(1) Gordon lost to USD's Solymar Colling, 7-5, 6-3
(2) Arbuthnott d. Daniela Morales (USD) 3-6, 6-2, 6-1
(3) Higuchi d. Marie Van Aelst (Arizona) 6-3, 6-4
(4) Shin d. Taylor Johnson (UCLA) 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
Choy d. #114 Anna Vrbenska (Ole Miss) 6-3, 6-2

Quarterfinal results
(3) Higuchi d. #86 Emma Wilson (Arizona) 4-6, 7-6, 6-4
(4) Shin d. Choy 6-4, 7-5
(2) Arbuthnott d. Kati Kukaras (USD) 7-6, 6-0

Doubles

Choy/Shin lost to Garcia/Kukaras (USD) 7-5 in Round of 16
Arbuthnott/Gordon d. Chow/Tyrina (USD) 6-3 in QF
Arbuthnott/Gordon d. Van Aelst/Wesbrooks (Arizona) 7-6 in SF

Quick thoughts:
I'm encouraged by Choy's progress and performance that she could not only knock off a ranked opponent with ease (Vrbenska played #4 for Ole Miss last year, and will likely be the Rebels' #3 this year, and recall that Ole Miss is currently #12 in the country and finished last year ranked #8, so she's a player), but also gave Janice Shin, who held down our #5 spot with aplomb last year as a freshman, everything she could handle. 

Higuchi's growth is also encouraging; beating Van Aelst (Arizona's #5 last year) doesn't move the needle, because she ought to be beating folks like that. But Emma Wilson is ranked in the top 100 for a reason. She was Fresno State's #1 player before transferring, and will probably be Arizona's #1 this year. Take that with a grain of salt, as Arizona was dreadful last year and doesn't look to be much better this year (the Wildcats went 0-10 in conference and lost 2 of its top 3 to graduation and the third as a transfer to LSU). But it's still a good win. 

I'm not going to lose any sleep over Gordon taking an upset loss. Individual tournament tennis is a different animal from team play, and this is the same Michaela Gordon who knocked off some of the top players in the country on her road to winning the USTA Blizzard Wild Card Challenge a few weeks ago. She ran into a freshman who clearly was playing great tennis, and who was a 5-star recruit herself. It happens. (Colling, fyi, probably should have been tabbed as a blue chip, given that she was a top 15 recruit by the time her senior year finished, but she was ranked in the 30s as a recruit when she signed her NLI with USD, which itself was a brobdingnagian jump from the year before, when she wasn't ranked in the top 100 of recruits. She's a player who has improved a lot each of the past few years, so San Diego looks to have gotten a good one there.)

But the better test comes this weekend in Las Vegas. The rescheduling of the NCTC should mean that we see a lot of full rosters at the Freeman, which will mean a lot of individual All-Americans in the field. Taking the preseason rankings as a guide, and just looking at the Top 30 players, the #1, #2, #4, #10, #13, #15, #19, #21, #24, and #27 players could all be there. A great opportunity to shake off rust and to pick up some wins that will really boost some of our players' rankings.

[ColoradoTree]

Just to follow up, Stanford posted a NCTC recap last night, confirming certain results but with slightly different scorelines in places:

Singles

Round of 32 results:
Sara Choy d. Maria Tyrina (USD) 7-6, 6-2

Round of 16 results:
(1) Gordon lost to USD's Solymar Colling, 7-5, 6-3
(2) Arbuthnott d. Daniela Morales (USD) 3-6, 6-2, 6-1
(3) Higuchi d. Marie Van Aelst (Arizona) 6-3, 6-4
(4) Shin d. Taylor Johnson (UCLA) 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
Choy d. #114 Anna Vrbenska (Ole Miss) 6-3, 6-2

Quarterfinal results
(3) Higuchi d. #86 Emma Wilson (Arizona) 4-6, 7-6, 6-4
(4) Shin d. Choy 6-4, 7-5
(2) Arbuthnott d. Kati Kukaras (USD) 7-6, 6-0

Doubles

Choy/Shin lost to Garcia/Kukaras (USD) 7-5 in Round of 16
Arbuthnott/Gordon d. Chow/Tyrina (USD) 6-3 in QF
Arbuthnott/Gordon d. Van Aelst/Wesbrooks (Arizona) 7-6 in SF

Quick thoughts:
I'm encouraged by Choy's progress and performance that she could not only knock off a ranked opponent with ease (Vrbenska played #4 for Ole Miss last year, and will likely be the Rebels' #3 this year, and recall that Ole Miss is currently #12 in the country and finished last year ranked #8, so she's a player), but also gave Janice Shin, who held down our #5 spot with aplomb last year as a freshman, everything she could handle. 

Higuchi's growth is also encouraging; beating Van Aelst (Arizona's #5 last year) doesn't move the needle, because she ought to be beating folks like that. But Emma Wilson is ranked in the top 100 for a reason. She was Fresno State's #1 player before transferring, and will probably be Arizona's #1 this year. Take that with a grain of salt, as Arizona was dreadful last year and doesn't look to be much better this year (the Wildcats went 0-10 in conference and lost 2 of its top 3 to graduation and the third as a transfer to LSU). But it's still a good win. 

I'm not going to lose any sleep over Gordon taking an upset loss. Individual tournament tennis is a different animal from team play, and this is the same Michaela Gordon who knocked off some of the top players in the country on her road to winning the USTA Blizzard Wild Card Challenge a few weeks ago. She ran into a freshman who clearly was playing great tennis, and who was a 5-star recruit herself. It happens. (Colling, fyi, probably should have been tabbed as a blue chip, given that she was a top 15 recruit by the time her senior year finished, but she was ranked in the 30s as a recruit when she signed her NLI with USD, which itself was a brobdingnagian jump from the year before, when she wasn't ranked in the top 100 of recruits. She's a player who has improved a lot each of the past few years, so San Diego looks to have gotten a good one there.)

But the better test comes this weekend in Las Vegas. The rescheduling of the NCTC should mean that we see a lot of full rosters at the Freeman, which will mean a lot of individual All-Americans in the field. Taking the preseason rankings as a guide, and just looking at the Top 30 players, the #1, #2, #4, #10, #13, #15, #19, #21, #24, and #27 players could all be there. A great opportunity to shake off rust and to pick up some wins that will really boost some of our players' rankings.

[oldalum]

fortunately, it looks like no rain in Vegas after Thursday.

[oldalum]

fortunately, it looks like no rain in Vegas after Thursday.