05-21-2017, 03:25 PM
NCAA Women's Tennis Tournament
05-21-2017, 03:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2017, 03:57 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
Stanford has now won 15 of its last 17 matches in the NCAAs as a lower seeded team. Incredible.
Stanford will play #3 seeded Ohio State in the semis on Tuesday Monday at 4 pm eastern/1 pm pacific.
Stanford will play #3 seeded Ohio State in the semis on Tuesday Monday at 4 pm eastern/1 pm pacific.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2017, 03:57 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
Stanford has now won 15 of its last 17 matches in the NCAAs as a lower seeded team. Incredible.
Stanford will play #3 seeded Ohio State in the semis on Tuesday Monday at 4 pm eastern/1 pm pacific.
Stanford will play #3 seeded Ohio State in the semis on Tuesday Monday at 4 pm eastern/1 pm pacific.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
05-21-2017, 04:14 PM
(05-21-2017, 03:20 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:Stanford wins! I take it back, oldalum. Let's play all of matches indoors from now on!this makes us winners of 3 out of 4 NCAA indoor matches in the past 4 years.* Can't keep a good team down!
*well, one was against kal so I'm not sure that really counts as much
(05-21-2017, 03:20 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:Stanford wins! I take it back, oldalum. Let's play all of matches indoors from now on!this makes us winners of 3 out of 4 NCAA indoor matches in the past 4 years.* Can't keep a good team down!
*well, one was against kal so I'm not sure that really counts as much
05-21-2017, 04:58 PM
(05-21-2017, 04:57 PM)BobK link Wrote:We play Ohio State on Tuesday
Bob - bracket says tomorrow (May 22) at 4pm eastern - http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/tennis-women/d1
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(05-21-2017, 04:57 PM)BobK link Wrote:We play Ohio State on Tuesday
Bob - bracket says tomorrow (May 22) at 4pm eastern - http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/tennis-women/d1
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
05-21-2017, 05:04 PM
It appears from the bracket that the quarters, semis, and finals are being played on consecutive days -- seems a disservice to the players, especially with how hard those matches are
05-22-2017, 07:41 AM
Once again, Stanford advances despite being underseeded-- #1 UF is playing #4 Vandy, and #3 tOSU is playing #7 Stanford.
I seem to remember that the underseeding generally stems from Stanford's absence at indoor nationals, generally held in the fall. That has to be it right? Why else would the tennis world continue to embarrass all these respectably-seeded teams by having a lowly-seeded Stanford rip through their ranks?
I seem to remember that the underseeding generally stems from Stanford's absence at indoor nationals, generally held in the fall. That has to be it right? Why else would the tennis world continue to embarrass all these respectably-seeded teams by having a lowly-seeded Stanford rip through their ranks?
Once again, Stanford advances despite being underseeded-- #1 UF is playing #4 Vandy, and #3 tOSU is playing #7 Stanford.
I seem to remember that the underseeding generally stems from Stanford's absence at indoor nationals, generally held in the fall. That has to be it right? Why else would the tennis world continue to embarrass all these respectably-seeded teams by having a lowly-seeded Stanford rip through their ranks?
I seem to remember that the underseeding generally stems from Stanford's absence at indoor nationals, generally held in the fall. That has to be it right? Why else would the tennis world continue to embarrass all these respectably-seeded teams by having a lowly-seeded Stanford rip through their ranks?
05-22-2017, 08:26 AM
(05-22-2017, 07:41 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Once again, Stanford advances despite being underseeded-- #1 UF is playing #4 Vandy, and #3 tOSU is playing #7 Stanford.
I seem to remember that the underseeding generally stems from Stanford's absence at indoor nationals, generally held in the fall. That has to be it right? Why else would the tennis world continue to embarrass all these respectably-seeded teams by having a lowly-seeded Stanford rip through their ranks?
I think that's right, though they were in February this year (not sure when they usually are). We also missed the ITA Kick-Off Weekend. The rankings are determined in part based on quality opponents and overall record, so whereas UNC entered this match 33-2, Stanford was 24-2. The weeks of ITA Kick-Off Weekend and ITA Indoors, for example, UNC played Oregon, Texas, Yale, Cal, Ohio State, and Florida (going 4-1). Stanford, by contrast, played San Jose State, Sacramento State, and St. Mary's on those dates. The rankings system isn't too impressed by beating those teams, so not playing Indoors hurts the team's ranking. Totally reasonable that it affects the ranking, but you'd think the NCAA would correct for that when seeding teams for the NCAA tournament, but the NCAA actually went the other direction with Stanford this year (ranked 6th, seeded 7th) for some reason.Â
(05-22-2017, 07:41 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Once again, Stanford advances despite being underseeded-- #1 UF is playing #4 Vandy, and #3 tOSU is playing #7 Stanford.
I seem to remember that the underseeding generally stems from Stanford's absence at indoor nationals, generally held in the fall. That has to be it right? Why else would the tennis world continue to embarrass all these respectably-seeded teams by having a lowly-seeded Stanford rip through their ranks?
I think that's right, though they were in February this year (not sure when they usually are). We also missed the ITA Kick-Off Weekend. The rankings are determined in part based on quality opponents and overall record, so whereas UNC entered this match 33-2, Stanford was 24-2. The weeks of ITA Kick-Off Weekend and ITA Indoors, for example, UNC played Oregon, Texas, Yale, Cal, Ohio State, and Florida (going 4-1). Stanford, by contrast, played San Jose State, Sacramento State, and St. Mary's on those dates. The rankings system isn't too impressed by beating those teams, so not playing Indoors hurts the team's ranking. Totally reasonable that it affects the ranking, but you'd think the NCAA would correct for that when seeding teams for the NCAA tournament, but the NCAA actually went the other direction with Stanford this year (ranked 6th, seeded 7th) for some reason.Â
05-22-2017, 09:01 AM
(05-22-2017, 08:26 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:you'd think the NCAA would correct for that when seeding teams for the NCAA tournamentExactly. The committee appears to chronically have a case of a weak spine, not wanting to vary much from the computer rankings based on factors that are accepted as a matter of course by, e.g., the basketball selection committee; such as losses while playing without one or more top players; improvement over the season, especially in doubles play. That more than anything is why Stanford is consistently under seeded, but the committee never seems to learn from its past mistakes. Vanderbilt had several losses early in the year (including to us), but improved dramatically through the season, culminating in beating Florida twice on consecutive weekends. Certainly a strong case could be made for Florida remaining #1 based on their record for the whole season, but Vandy should have been the second seed. Instead the two are playing each other a third time in one month in the semifinals.
(05-22-2017, 08:26 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:you'd think the NCAA would correct for that when seeding teams for the NCAA tournamentExactly. The committee appears to chronically have a case of a weak spine, not wanting to vary much from the computer rankings based on factors that are accepted as a matter of course by, e.g., the basketball selection committee; such as losses while playing without one or more top players; improvement over the season, especially in doubles play. That more than anything is why Stanford is consistently under seeded, but the committee never seems to learn from its past mistakes. Vanderbilt had several losses early in the year (including to us), but improved dramatically through the season, culminating in beating Florida twice on consecutive weekends. Certainly a strong case could be made for Florida remaining #1 based on their record for the whole season, but Vandy should have been the second seed. Instead the two are playing each other a third time in one month in the semifinals.
05-22-2017, 09:10 AM
(05-22-2017, 08:26 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:The rankings system isn't too impressed by beating those teams, so not playing Indoors hurts the team's ranking. Totally reasonable that it affects the rankingI disagree with this part of your post though. As I've commented before, a ranking system that consistently produces clearly wrong results should be fixed or replaced. The problem is that the computer system gives you points for your "x" best wins (X increases through the season), which assumes all teams play schedules of comparable strength. That I suspect is taken from the pro tour rankings, where you get Y points for your performance in each tournament. But college players are not pros and the assumption doesn't hold. The college basketball computer ranking systems do not seem to be afflicted by this problem despite quite different strengths of schedule. I don't understand why the NCAA doesn't switch to a better ranking system that would not require fixing each year by a committee that is too risk-averse to make any significant changes.
(05-22-2017, 08:26 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:The rankings system isn't too impressed by beating those teams, so not playing Indoors hurts the team's ranking. Totally reasonable that it affects the rankingI disagree with this part of your post though. As I've commented before, a ranking system that consistently produces clearly wrong results should be fixed or replaced. The problem is that the computer system gives you points for your "x" best wins (X increases through the season), which assumes all teams play schedules of comparable strength. That I suspect is taken from the pro tour rankings, where you get Y points for your performance in each tournament. But college players are not pros and the assumption doesn't hold. The college basketball computer ranking systems do not seem to be afflicted by this problem despite quite different strengths of schedule. I don't understand why the NCAA doesn't switch to a better ranking system that would not require fixing each year by a committee that is too risk-averse to make any significant changes.
05-22-2017, 09:27 AM
IIRC, Stanford doesn't attend indoor nationals because it's close to a week of travel+competition time to the east coast during/around midterms. Good on the coaches for thinking of the student-athletes. Let their tournament play do the talking when all these highly-seeded teams start wondering where Stanford came from.
IIRC, Stanford doesn't attend indoor nationals because it's close to a week of travel+competition time to the east coast during/around midterms. Good on the coaches for thinking of the student-athletes. Let their tournament play do the talking when all these highly-seeded teams start wondering where Stanford came from.
05-22-2017, 10:03 AM
A little preview of the semifinal match vs. Ohio State.
Rankings/Seedings: OSU is ranked #2, but seeded #3. Stanford is ranked #6, but seeded #7.Â
Records: OSU is 33-2 and Stanford is 25-2. OSU's losses are to North Carolina (4-3 at ITA Indoors) and Florida (4-1), while Stanford's are to Florida (4-1) and Pepperdine (5-2).Â
Common Opponents: North Carolina (Stanford just won 4-2, Ohio State lost 4-3); Pepperdine (Stanford lost 5-2, Ohio State won 6-1); Oklahoma State (Stanford won 4-3, Ohio State won 4-3); Arizona State (Stanford won 4-0, Ohio State won 4-0). So, not a ton to learn from that--both teams lost to someone the other team beat.Â
Ohio State's Run: Beat Buffalo 4-0, #32 Notre Dame 4-0, #14 South Carolina 4-1, and #7 Texas Tech (the #6 seed) 4-0. The one loss came against South Carolina at #2 singles. Against Texas Tech (which was played an hour and a half away at Georgia Tech's indoor courts in Atlanta), Ohio State won the doubles points by winning at #2 and #3, with the match at #1 tied 4-4 when it was abandoned. In singles, Ohio State got wins at #2, #4, and #6; in the other three matches, Texas Tech had won the first set, so much like UNC-Duke, the scoreline is something of an accident of timing.Â
Individual Matchups:
Doubles
#1. #39 Davidson/Arbuthnott vs. #18 Francesca Di Lorenzo/Miho Kowase
#2. #46 Doyle/Lord vs. Anna Sanford/Sandy Niehaus
#3. Lampl/Higuchi vs. Gabriella De Santis/Ferny Angeles Paz
Singles
#1. #38 Caroline Doyle vs. #1 Francesca Di Lorenzo.Â
#2. #28 Melissa Lord vs. #67 Anna Sanford.Â
#3. #54 Taylor Davidson vs. #95 Gabriella De Santis.Â
#4. #90 Caroline Lampl vs. #91 Miko Kowase
#5. Emily Arbuthnott vs. #112 Sandy Niehaus
#6. #71 Emma Higuchi vs. Ferny Angeles Paz
UNC and Pepperdine:
Since both teams played UNC and Pepperdine but had different results, I thought it might be useful to look at the matches against those teams to see what happened.
Stanford vs. UNC: I mean, you guys remember. Stanford won the doubles point through dominant performances at #1 and #2 doubles (and would have lost the match at #3 doubles had it finished), got trounced at #1 singles, won solidly at #3 singles, Lord turned on the gas to win #2 singles going away, Lampl lost a battle at #4 singles, and Arbuthnott turned it on as well to win at #5. Higuchi struggled initially--which is totally understandable, given how long she'd waited to go on court when she's usually the first player off it--but turned the corner and ran away with the second set and all the momentum going into the third.Â
Ohio State vs. UNC: Ohio State lost the doubles point, losing 6-2 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing in a tiebreaker at #3. UNC then won at the top three courts (winning #1 and #2 in three sets), while Ohio State won at 4-6 (winning #4 and #6 in three sets).Â
Stanford vs. Pepperdine: This match was in Malibu. Stanford lost the doubles point, losing 6-3 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing 6-4 at #3. Davidson was the first to lose at #3 (4 & 1); Higuchi won solidly to cut the deficit to one; Doyle then had arguably her best match of the season to beat then-#9 Luisa Stefani at #1 to tie the match up at 2-2; Arbuthnott then lost a close one to put Pepperdine one match away; the match was clinched when Lampl lost 7-5, 7-5 at #4; with the match decided, they played out #2 anyway (Lord had won the first set 6-2, and was up 5-2 in the second before disappearing, losing that set in a tiebreaker and losing the third 6-1). A disappointing match, but it was also on the road against a very good team.Â
Ohio State vs. Pepperdine: This match was at a neutral site (Tempe, AZ). Ohio State won the doubles point by getting wins at #1 (6-3) and #3 (6-2). They lost #2 by a 6-1 score. In singles, Pepperdine won at #2, but Ohio State won on all other courts, only needing three sets to win at #4.Â
Match Prediction:Â
Doubles: Stanford wins at #2, and loses a close one at #1 before winning a similarly close one at #3 to take the doubles point.Â
In singles:
#1. Sorry, Caroline.
#2. When Ohio State drops matches in wins or when they lose overall, they usually take a loss at #2. I think Lord wins here.
#3. UNC's Aney (who Davidson just beat yesterday) crushed De Santis 6-1, 6-3 back when they played. Of course, Pepperdine's Sherif crushed Davidson (4 & 1) and was beaten in turn by De Santis (7-5, 6-3). Heck if I know. But it's NCAAs, so I'll lean Davidson.Â
#4. OSU's Niehaus beat both UNC's Graham and Pepperdine's Gulbe, while Lampl lost both matches, though all four were competitive. But Lampl won't be playing Niehaus, though; Kowase has been playing #4 now. I think this one is a toss-up.
#5. Arbuthnott didn't play the same Pepperdine player, so tough to compare directly. Both beat UNC's Makenna Jones. This one will be a long slog.Â
#6. Higuchi crushed her Pepperdine opponent, while Paz struggled (but ended up winning). Paz beat UNC in three sets, just as Higuchi likely would have done. Closer than Emma is used to, but I'll give this one to Higuchi.Â
So, for Stanford to win, they would dearly love to get the doubles point, limit the early damages to a loss at #1, get a quick win from Higuchi and then hope Lord or Davidson can win quickly. I think Stanford should win at 2 and 6, while Ohio State should win at 1. I lean toward Davidson at #3, but 4 and 5 will be very, very close, and it wouldn't be at all shocking to see Ohio State win those. Thus, the doubles point looms very, very large.Â
Rankings/Seedings: OSU is ranked #2, but seeded #3. Stanford is ranked #6, but seeded #7.Â
Records: OSU is 33-2 and Stanford is 25-2. OSU's losses are to North Carolina (4-3 at ITA Indoors) and Florida (4-1), while Stanford's are to Florida (4-1) and Pepperdine (5-2).Â
Common Opponents: North Carolina (Stanford just won 4-2, Ohio State lost 4-3); Pepperdine (Stanford lost 5-2, Ohio State won 6-1); Oklahoma State (Stanford won 4-3, Ohio State won 4-3); Arizona State (Stanford won 4-0, Ohio State won 4-0). So, not a ton to learn from that--both teams lost to someone the other team beat.Â
Ohio State's Run: Beat Buffalo 4-0, #32 Notre Dame 4-0, #14 South Carolina 4-1, and #7 Texas Tech (the #6 seed) 4-0. The one loss came against South Carolina at #2 singles. Against Texas Tech (which was played an hour and a half away at Georgia Tech's indoor courts in Atlanta), Ohio State won the doubles points by winning at #2 and #3, with the match at #1 tied 4-4 when it was abandoned. In singles, Ohio State got wins at #2, #4, and #6; in the other three matches, Texas Tech had won the first set, so much like UNC-Duke, the scoreline is something of an accident of timing.Â
Individual Matchups:
Doubles
#1. #39 Davidson/Arbuthnott vs. #18 Francesca Di Lorenzo/Miho Kowase
#2. #46 Doyle/Lord vs. Anna Sanford/Sandy Niehaus
#3. Lampl/Higuchi vs. Gabriella De Santis/Ferny Angeles Paz
Singles
#1. #38 Caroline Doyle vs. #1 Francesca Di Lorenzo.Â
#2. #28 Melissa Lord vs. #67 Anna Sanford.Â
#3. #54 Taylor Davidson vs. #95 Gabriella De Santis.Â
#4. #90 Caroline Lampl vs. #91 Miko Kowase
#5. Emily Arbuthnott vs. #112 Sandy Niehaus
#6. #71 Emma Higuchi vs. Ferny Angeles Paz
UNC and Pepperdine:
Since both teams played UNC and Pepperdine but had different results, I thought it might be useful to look at the matches against those teams to see what happened.
Stanford vs. UNC: I mean, you guys remember. Stanford won the doubles point through dominant performances at #1 and #2 doubles (and would have lost the match at #3 doubles had it finished), got trounced at #1 singles, won solidly at #3 singles, Lord turned on the gas to win #2 singles going away, Lampl lost a battle at #4 singles, and Arbuthnott turned it on as well to win at #5. Higuchi struggled initially--which is totally understandable, given how long she'd waited to go on court when she's usually the first player off it--but turned the corner and ran away with the second set and all the momentum going into the third.Â
Ohio State vs. UNC: Ohio State lost the doubles point, losing 6-2 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing in a tiebreaker at #3. UNC then won at the top three courts (winning #1 and #2 in three sets), while Ohio State won at 4-6 (winning #4 and #6 in three sets).Â
Stanford vs. Pepperdine: This match was in Malibu. Stanford lost the doubles point, losing 6-3 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing 6-4 at #3. Davidson was the first to lose at #3 (4 & 1); Higuchi won solidly to cut the deficit to one; Doyle then had arguably her best match of the season to beat then-#9 Luisa Stefani at #1 to tie the match up at 2-2; Arbuthnott then lost a close one to put Pepperdine one match away; the match was clinched when Lampl lost 7-5, 7-5 at #4; with the match decided, they played out #2 anyway (Lord had won the first set 6-2, and was up 5-2 in the second before disappearing, losing that set in a tiebreaker and losing the third 6-1). A disappointing match, but it was also on the road against a very good team.Â
Ohio State vs. Pepperdine: This match was at a neutral site (Tempe, AZ). Ohio State won the doubles point by getting wins at #1 (6-3) and #3 (6-2). They lost #2 by a 6-1 score. In singles, Pepperdine won at #2, but Ohio State won on all other courts, only needing three sets to win at #4.Â
Match Prediction:Â
Doubles: Stanford wins at #2, and loses a close one at #1 before winning a similarly close one at #3 to take the doubles point.Â
In singles:
#1. Sorry, Caroline.
#2. When Ohio State drops matches in wins or when they lose overall, they usually take a loss at #2. I think Lord wins here.
#3. UNC's Aney (who Davidson just beat yesterday) crushed De Santis 6-1, 6-3 back when they played. Of course, Pepperdine's Sherif crushed Davidson (4 & 1) and was beaten in turn by De Santis (7-5, 6-3). Heck if I know. But it's NCAAs, so I'll lean Davidson.Â
#4. OSU's Niehaus beat both UNC's Graham and Pepperdine's Gulbe, while Lampl lost both matches, though all four were competitive. But Lampl won't be playing Niehaus, though; Kowase has been playing #4 now. I think this one is a toss-up.
#5. Arbuthnott didn't play the same Pepperdine player, so tough to compare directly. Both beat UNC's Makenna Jones. This one will be a long slog.Â
#6. Higuchi crushed her Pepperdine opponent, while Paz struggled (but ended up winning). Paz beat UNC in three sets, just as Higuchi likely would have done. Closer than Emma is used to, but I'll give this one to Higuchi.Â
So, for Stanford to win, they would dearly love to get the doubles point, limit the early damages to a loss at #1, get a quick win from Higuchi and then hope Lord or Davidson can win quickly. I think Stanford should win at 2 and 6, while Ohio State should win at 1. I lean toward Davidson at #3, but 4 and 5 will be very, very close, and it wouldn't be at all shocking to see Ohio State win those. Thus, the doubles point looms very, very large.Â
A little preview of the semifinal match vs. Ohio State.
Rankings/Seedings: OSU is ranked #2, but seeded #3. Stanford is ranked #6, but seeded #7.Â
Records: OSU is 33-2 and Stanford is 25-2. OSU's losses are to North Carolina (4-3 at ITA Indoors) and Florida (4-1), while Stanford's are to Florida (4-1) and Pepperdine (5-2).Â
Common Opponents: North Carolina (Stanford just won 4-2, Ohio State lost 4-3); Pepperdine (Stanford lost 5-2, Ohio State won 6-1); Oklahoma State (Stanford won 4-3, Ohio State won 4-3); Arizona State (Stanford won 4-0, Ohio State won 4-0). So, not a ton to learn from that--both teams lost to someone the other team beat.Â
Ohio State's Run: Beat Buffalo 4-0, #32 Notre Dame 4-0, #14 South Carolina 4-1, and #7 Texas Tech (the #6 seed) 4-0. The one loss came against South Carolina at #2 singles. Against Texas Tech (which was played an hour and a half away at Georgia Tech's indoor courts in Atlanta), Ohio State won the doubles points by winning at #2 and #3, with the match at #1 tied 4-4 when it was abandoned. In singles, Ohio State got wins at #2, #4, and #6; in the other three matches, Texas Tech had won the first set, so much like UNC-Duke, the scoreline is something of an accident of timing.Â
Individual Matchups:
Doubles
#1. #39 Davidson/Arbuthnott vs. #18 Francesca Di Lorenzo/Miho Kowase
#2. #46 Doyle/Lord vs. Anna Sanford/Sandy Niehaus
#3. Lampl/Higuchi vs. Gabriella De Santis/Ferny Angeles Paz
Singles
#1. #38 Caroline Doyle vs. #1 Francesca Di Lorenzo.Â
#2. #28 Melissa Lord vs. #67 Anna Sanford.Â
#3. #54 Taylor Davidson vs. #95 Gabriella De Santis.Â
#4. #90 Caroline Lampl vs. #91 Miko Kowase
#5. Emily Arbuthnott vs. #112 Sandy Niehaus
#6. #71 Emma Higuchi vs. Ferny Angeles Paz
UNC and Pepperdine:
Since both teams played UNC and Pepperdine but had different results, I thought it might be useful to look at the matches against those teams to see what happened.
Stanford vs. UNC: I mean, you guys remember. Stanford won the doubles point through dominant performances at #1 and #2 doubles (and would have lost the match at #3 doubles had it finished), got trounced at #1 singles, won solidly at #3 singles, Lord turned on the gas to win #2 singles going away, Lampl lost a battle at #4 singles, and Arbuthnott turned it on as well to win at #5. Higuchi struggled initially--which is totally understandable, given how long she'd waited to go on court when she's usually the first player off it--but turned the corner and ran away with the second set and all the momentum going into the third.Â
Ohio State vs. UNC: Ohio State lost the doubles point, losing 6-2 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing in a tiebreaker at #3. UNC then won at the top three courts (winning #1 and #2 in three sets), while Ohio State won at 4-6 (winning #4 and #6 in three sets).Â
Stanford vs. Pepperdine: This match was in Malibu. Stanford lost the doubles point, losing 6-3 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing 6-4 at #3. Davidson was the first to lose at #3 (4 & 1); Higuchi won solidly to cut the deficit to one; Doyle then had arguably her best match of the season to beat then-#9 Luisa Stefani at #1 to tie the match up at 2-2; Arbuthnott then lost a close one to put Pepperdine one match away; the match was clinched when Lampl lost 7-5, 7-5 at #4; with the match decided, they played out #2 anyway (Lord had won the first set 6-2, and was up 5-2 in the second before disappearing, losing that set in a tiebreaker and losing the third 6-1). A disappointing match, but it was also on the road against a very good team.Â
Ohio State vs. Pepperdine: This match was at a neutral site (Tempe, AZ). Ohio State won the doubles point by getting wins at #1 (6-3) and #3 (6-2). They lost #2 by a 6-1 score. In singles, Pepperdine won at #2, but Ohio State won on all other courts, only needing three sets to win at #4.Â
Match Prediction:Â
Doubles: Stanford wins at #2, and loses a close one at #1 before winning a similarly close one at #3 to take the doubles point.Â
In singles:
#1. Sorry, Caroline.
#2. When Ohio State drops matches in wins or when they lose overall, they usually take a loss at #2. I think Lord wins here.
#3. UNC's Aney (who Davidson just beat yesterday) crushed De Santis 6-1, 6-3 back when they played. Of course, Pepperdine's Sherif crushed Davidson (4 & 1) and was beaten in turn by De Santis (7-5, 6-3). Heck if I know. But it's NCAAs, so I'll lean Davidson.Â
#4. OSU's Niehaus beat both UNC's Graham and Pepperdine's Gulbe, while Lampl lost both matches, though all four were competitive. But Lampl won't be playing Niehaus, though; Kowase has been playing #4 now. I think this one is a toss-up.
#5. Arbuthnott didn't play the same Pepperdine player, so tough to compare directly. Both beat UNC's Makenna Jones. This one will be a long slog.Â
#6. Higuchi crushed her Pepperdine opponent, while Paz struggled (but ended up winning). Paz beat UNC in three sets, just as Higuchi likely would have done. Closer than Emma is used to, but I'll give this one to Higuchi.Â
So, for Stanford to win, they would dearly love to get the doubles point, limit the early damages to a loss at #1, get a quick win from Higuchi and then hope Lord or Davidson can win quickly. I think Stanford should win at 2 and 6, while Ohio State should win at 1. I lean toward Davidson at #3, but 4 and 5 will be very, very close, and it wouldn't be at all shocking to see Ohio State win those. Thus, the doubles point looms very, very large.Â
Rankings/Seedings: OSU is ranked #2, but seeded #3. Stanford is ranked #6, but seeded #7.Â
Records: OSU is 33-2 and Stanford is 25-2. OSU's losses are to North Carolina (4-3 at ITA Indoors) and Florida (4-1), while Stanford's are to Florida (4-1) and Pepperdine (5-2).Â
Common Opponents: North Carolina (Stanford just won 4-2, Ohio State lost 4-3); Pepperdine (Stanford lost 5-2, Ohio State won 6-1); Oklahoma State (Stanford won 4-3, Ohio State won 4-3); Arizona State (Stanford won 4-0, Ohio State won 4-0). So, not a ton to learn from that--both teams lost to someone the other team beat.Â
Ohio State's Run: Beat Buffalo 4-0, #32 Notre Dame 4-0, #14 South Carolina 4-1, and #7 Texas Tech (the #6 seed) 4-0. The one loss came against South Carolina at #2 singles. Against Texas Tech (which was played an hour and a half away at Georgia Tech's indoor courts in Atlanta), Ohio State won the doubles points by winning at #2 and #3, with the match at #1 tied 4-4 when it was abandoned. In singles, Ohio State got wins at #2, #4, and #6; in the other three matches, Texas Tech had won the first set, so much like UNC-Duke, the scoreline is something of an accident of timing.Â
Individual Matchups:
Doubles
#1. #39 Davidson/Arbuthnott vs. #18 Francesca Di Lorenzo/Miho Kowase
#2. #46 Doyle/Lord vs. Anna Sanford/Sandy Niehaus
#3. Lampl/Higuchi vs. Gabriella De Santis/Ferny Angeles Paz
Singles
#1. #38 Caroline Doyle vs. #1 Francesca Di Lorenzo.Â
#2. #28 Melissa Lord vs. #67 Anna Sanford.Â
#3. #54 Taylor Davidson vs. #95 Gabriella De Santis.Â
#4. #90 Caroline Lampl vs. #91 Miko Kowase
#5. Emily Arbuthnott vs. #112 Sandy Niehaus
#6. #71 Emma Higuchi vs. Ferny Angeles Paz
UNC and Pepperdine:
Since both teams played UNC and Pepperdine but had different results, I thought it might be useful to look at the matches against those teams to see what happened.
Stanford vs. UNC: I mean, you guys remember. Stanford won the doubles point through dominant performances at #1 and #2 doubles (and would have lost the match at #3 doubles had it finished), got trounced at #1 singles, won solidly at #3 singles, Lord turned on the gas to win #2 singles going away, Lampl lost a battle at #4 singles, and Arbuthnott turned it on as well to win at #5. Higuchi struggled initially--which is totally understandable, given how long she'd waited to go on court when she's usually the first player off it--but turned the corner and ran away with the second set and all the momentum going into the third.Â
Ohio State vs. UNC: Ohio State lost the doubles point, losing 6-2 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing in a tiebreaker at #3. UNC then won at the top three courts (winning #1 and #2 in three sets), while Ohio State won at 4-6 (winning #4 and #6 in three sets).Â
Stanford vs. Pepperdine: This match was in Malibu. Stanford lost the doubles point, losing 6-3 at #1, winning 6-4 at #2, and losing 6-4 at #3. Davidson was the first to lose at #3 (4 & 1); Higuchi won solidly to cut the deficit to one; Doyle then had arguably her best match of the season to beat then-#9 Luisa Stefani at #1 to tie the match up at 2-2; Arbuthnott then lost a close one to put Pepperdine one match away; the match was clinched when Lampl lost 7-5, 7-5 at #4; with the match decided, they played out #2 anyway (Lord had won the first set 6-2, and was up 5-2 in the second before disappearing, losing that set in a tiebreaker and losing the third 6-1). A disappointing match, but it was also on the road against a very good team.Â
Ohio State vs. Pepperdine: This match was at a neutral site (Tempe, AZ). Ohio State won the doubles point by getting wins at #1 (6-3) and #3 (6-2). They lost #2 by a 6-1 score. In singles, Pepperdine won at #2, but Ohio State won on all other courts, only needing three sets to win at #4.Â
Match Prediction:Â
Doubles: Stanford wins at #2, and loses a close one at #1 before winning a similarly close one at #3 to take the doubles point.Â
In singles:
#1. Sorry, Caroline.
#2. When Ohio State drops matches in wins or when they lose overall, they usually take a loss at #2. I think Lord wins here.
#3. UNC's Aney (who Davidson just beat yesterday) crushed De Santis 6-1, 6-3 back when they played. Of course, Pepperdine's Sherif crushed Davidson (4 & 1) and was beaten in turn by De Santis (7-5, 6-3). Heck if I know. But it's NCAAs, so I'll lean Davidson.Â
#4. OSU's Niehaus beat both UNC's Graham and Pepperdine's Gulbe, while Lampl lost both matches, though all four were competitive. But Lampl won't be playing Niehaus, though; Kowase has been playing #4 now. I think this one is a toss-up.
#5. Arbuthnott didn't play the same Pepperdine player, so tough to compare directly. Both beat UNC's Makenna Jones. This one will be a long slog.Â
#6. Higuchi crushed her Pepperdine opponent, while Paz struggled (but ended up winning). Paz beat UNC in three sets, just as Higuchi likely would have done. Closer than Emma is used to, but I'll give this one to Higuchi.Â
So, for Stanford to win, they would dearly love to get the doubles point, limit the early damages to a loss at #1, get a quick win from Higuchi and then hope Lord or Davidson can win quickly. I think Stanford should win at 2 and 6, while Ohio State should win at 1. I lean toward Davidson at #3, but 4 and 5 will be very, very close, and it wouldn't be at all shocking to see Ohio State win those. Thus, the doubles point looms very, very large.Â
05-22-2017, 10:25 AM
Thanks for the writeup CT--will be sending good vibes to Athens this afternoon!
05-22-2017, 10:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2017, 11:00 AM by StanfordMatt.)
Haven't seen any official updates for the women but the men's semis are currently in a rain delay. I'd be surprised if the women actually start at 11AM PST.
Update: Per NCAA release, women's matches will start at 1PM PST at the earliest.
Update: Per NCAA release, women's matches will start at 1PM PST at the earliest.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2017, 11:00 AM by StanfordMatt.)
Haven't seen any official updates for the women but the men's semis are currently in a rain delay. I'd be surprised if the women actually start at 11AM PST.
Update: Per NCAA release, women's matches will start at 1PM PST at the earliest.
Update: Per NCAA release, women's matches will start at 1PM PST at the earliest.
05-22-2017, 11:20 AM
(05-22-2017, 09:10 AM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193565#msg193565 date=1495466777]I disagree with this part of your post though. As I've commented before, a ranking system that consistently produces clearly wrong results should be fixed or replaced. The problem is that the computer system gives you points for your "x" best wins (X increases through the season), which assumes all teams play schedules of comparable strength. That I suspect is taken from the pro tour rankings, where you get Y points for your performance in each tournament. But college players are not pros and the assumption doesn't hold. The college basketball computer ranking systems do not seem to be afflicted by this problem despite quite different strengths of schedule. I don't understand why the NCAA doesn't switch to a better ranking system that would not require fixing each year by a committee that is too risk-averse to make any significant changes.
The rankings system isn't too impressed by beating those teams, so not playing Indoors hurts the team's ranking. Totally reasonable that it affects the ranking
[/quote]
This is an interesting conversation that gets to the purpose of the rankings--whether it is to measure which teams have had the best years, or whether it is to determine which are the best teams. When I said it was "totally reasonable" for the ITA rankings system to give the benefit of the doubt to teams that have played better teams (and gotten more wins against good teams) over the course of the season, I was thinking of the former approach. I think UNC had a better year than Stanford did. UNC played more ranked teams and had a more impressive resume than Stanford did. Not much better, but somewhat better, and the ranking differential (UNC was 4th, Stanford 6th) seems to bear that out (the seeding differential, #2 UNC vs. #7 Stanford, however, seemed a bit stark for such an even matchup). But Stanford just proved that it's a better team than UNC is (or, at least, it was a better team yesterday). Not much better, again, but somewhat better. After all, four of the six singles matches went into third sets.
I'm not sure how much credit the ITA should build into the rankings system to account for Stanford's postseason dominance. I'm comfortable with an approach where the ITA's rankings seek to determine who has had the best season to date, while the NCAA's seedings are the NCAA's best guess at which teams are actually the best. Of course, that's not what we have, as you noted. But it seems like the appropriate division of labor to do it that way. (I think basketball does something like this, no? If a key player is injured, it won't affect the team's ranking--i.e., whether that team has earned the right to play in the tournament based on the entirety of the season. But it will affect that team's seeding.)
Ultimately, I don't think this year is a particularly egregious example of it. There were several teams that could plausibly win the title, and Stanford is one of those teams. Whether Stanford played UNC as a slight favorite or a slight underdog doesn't mean a whole lot. Last year was more striking, when Stanford was the 15 seed. There were some complications, there, however, as Stanford not only suffered its usual rankings ding for not having as many matches against top-ranked foes, but the team also lost some more matches because Carol Zhao was off with the Canadian national team, so everyone was playing a slot higher than usual. The team was 14-5 entering NCAAs, which is a lot different than 21-2 this year. (Note: one useful change was the Pac-12's decision to change the conference tournament from a singles/doubles tournament to a team tournament. This gave Stanford a chance for three extra wins, two against ranked foes, which is something other conferences have been doing for a while, I believe. That'll mitigate at least some of the rankings hit Stanford usually takes.)
Of course, 7 was a bit too low for Stanford this year, and I think 4 would have been a more appropriate ranking/seeding. Of course, that would have put them in line to play the 5 seed in the quarters and the 1 seed in the semis as opposed to being on the 2 vs. 3 side of the bracket. I thought Florida and Vanderbilt were the scariest teams to face coming into this tournament, so I'm happy they're on the other side of the draw.Â
(05-22-2017, 09:10 AM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193565#msg193565 date=1495466777]I disagree with this part of your post though. As I've commented before, a ranking system that consistently produces clearly wrong results should be fixed or replaced. The problem is that the computer system gives you points for your "x" best wins (X increases through the season), which assumes all teams play schedules of comparable strength. That I suspect is taken from the pro tour rankings, where you get Y points for your performance in each tournament. But college players are not pros and the assumption doesn't hold. The college basketball computer ranking systems do not seem to be afflicted by this problem despite quite different strengths of schedule. I don't understand why the NCAA doesn't switch to a better ranking system that would not require fixing each year by a committee that is too risk-averse to make any significant changes.
The rankings system isn't too impressed by beating those teams, so not playing Indoors hurts the team's ranking. Totally reasonable that it affects the ranking
[/quote]
This is an interesting conversation that gets to the purpose of the rankings--whether it is to measure which teams have had the best years, or whether it is to determine which are the best teams. When I said it was "totally reasonable" for the ITA rankings system to give the benefit of the doubt to teams that have played better teams (and gotten more wins against good teams) over the course of the season, I was thinking of the former approach. I think UNC had a better year than Stanford did. UNC played more ranked teams and had a more impressive resume than Stanford did. Not much better, but somewhat better, and the ranking differential (UNC was 4th, Stanford 6th) seems to bear that out (the seeding differential, #2 UNC vs. #7 Stanford, however, seemed a bit stark for such an even matchup). But Stanford just proved that it's a better team than UNC is (or, at least, it was a better team yesterday). Not much better, again, but somewhat better. After all, four of the six singles matches went into third sets.
I'm not sure how much credit the ITA should build into the rankings system to account for Stanford's postseason dominance. I'm comfortable with an approach where the ITA's rankings seek to determine who has had the best season to date, while the NCAA's seedings are the NCAA's best guess at which teams are actually the best. Of course, that's not what we have, as you noted. But it seems like the appropriate division of labor to do it that way. (I think basketball does something like this, no? If a key player is injured, it won't affect the team's ranking--i.e., whether that team has earned the right to play in the tournament based on the entirety of the season. But it will affect that team's seeding.)
Ultimately, I don't think this year is a particularly egregious example of it. There were several teams that could plausibly win the title, and Stanford is one of those teams. Whether Stanford played UNC as a slight favorite or a slight underdog doesn't mean a whole lot. Last year was more striking, when Stanford was the 15 seed. There were some complications, there, however, as Stanford not only suffered its usual rankings ding for not having as many matches against top-ranked foes, but the team also lost some more matches because Carol Zhao was off with the Canadian national team, so everyone was playing a slot higher than usual. The team was 14-5 entering NCAAs, which is a lot different than 21-2 this year. (Note: one useful change was the Pac-12's decision to change the conference tournament from a singles/doubles tournament to a team tournament. This gave Stanford a chance for three extra wins, two against ranked foes, which is something other conferences have been doing for a while, I believe. That'll mitigate at least some of the rankings hit Stanford usually takes.)
Of course, 7 was a bit too low for Stanford this year, and I think 4 would have been a more appropriate ranking/seeding. Of course, that would have put them in line to play the 5 seed in the quarters and the 1 seed in the semis as opposed to being on the 2 vs. 3 side of the bracket. I thought Florida and Vanderbilt were the scariest teams to face coming into this tournament, so I'm happy they're on the other side of the draw.Â
05-22-2017, 11:39 AM
(05-22-2017, 10:03 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:A little preview of the semifinal match vs. Ohio State.
One other interesting comparison between Ohio State and Stanford that I forgot to mention is experience. Ohio State plays seniors at the #3, #4, #5, and #6 courts. (Di Lorenzo, OSU's #1, is a sophomore, and Sanford, the #2, is a junior.) Stanford plays just two seniors, Doyle at #1 and Davidson at #3. But as Stanford showed last year and is showing this year, relying on freshmen to lock down the back courts can work out just fine.Â
Of course, there is experience and there is experience. This is Ohio State's first semifinal appearance in women's tennis. It is Stanford's thirty-first (to go along with 18 NCAA titles since the NCAA started sanctioning the sport in 1982). 18 titles and 31 semifinal appearances in 36 years of sanctioning to date is just laughable. So, while Ohio State may have more seasoned individual players, our players have been there before. Everyone except for Higuchi and Arbuthnott have won a national title, and our freshmen sure don't seem scared of the moment.Â
I mean, I know how good Stanford women's tennis is, and that statistic still shocks me. They've made the semis 31 out of 36 times. Tough to adequately capture that dominance in words.Â
(05-22-2017, 10:03 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:A little preview of the semifinal match vs. Ohio State.
One other interesting comparison between Ohio State and Stanford that I forgot to mention is experience. Ohio State plays seniors at the #3, #4, #5, and #6 courts. (Di Lorenzo, OSU's #1, is a sophomore, and Sanford, the #2, is a junior.) Stanford plays just two seniors, Doyle at #1 and Davidson at #3. But as Stanford showed last year and is showing this year, relying on freshmen to lock down the back courts can work out just fine.Â
Of course, there is experience and there is experience. This is Ohio State's first semifinal appearance in women's tennis. It is Stanford's thirty-first (to go along with 18 NCAA titles since the NCAA started sanctioning the sport in 1982). 18 titles and 31 semifinal appearances in 36 years of sanctioning to date is just laughable. So, while Ohio State may have more seasoned individual players, our players have been there before. Everyone except for Higuchi and Arbuthnott have won a national title, and our freshmen sure don't seem scared of the moment.Â
I mean, I know how good Stanford women's tennis is, and that statistic still shocks me. They've made the semis 31 out of 36 times. Tough to adequately capture that dominance in words.Â
05-22-2017, 11:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2017, 12:07 PM by Viking_Guy.)
FYI, the current status is that the women's semifinals will not start before 4 pm ET at least. Weather delay again.
So why is the NCAA Championship consistently held in areas where rain is a constant threat, instead of places, say in the western United States, where weather conditions are more consistently favorable :) ?
EDIT: Another delay. Now men's matches won't resume until 4 pm ET at the earliest. Wondering if they're considering moving the women indoors soon, as they are no longer estimating a start time for the women's semis.
VG
So why is the NCAA Championship consistently held in areas where rain is a constant threat, instead of places, say in the western United States, where weather conditions are more consistently favorable :) ?
EDIT: Another delay. Now men's matches won't resume until 4 pm ET at the earliest. Wondering if they're considering moving the women indoors soon, as they are no longer estimating a start time for the women's semis.
VG
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2017, 12:07 PM by Viking_Guy.)
FYI, the current status is that the women's semifinals will not start before 4 pm ET at least. Weather delay again.
So why is the NCAA Championship consistently held in areas where rain is a constant threat, instead of places, say in the western United States, where weather conditions are more consistently favorable :) ?
EDIT: Another delay. Now men's matches won't resume until 4 pm ET at the earliest. Wondering if they're considering moving the women indoors soon, as they are no longer estimating a start time for the women's semis.
VG
So why is the NCAA Championship consistently held in areas where rain is a constant threat, instead of places, say in the western United States, where weather conditions are more consistently favorable :) ?
EDIT: Another delay. Now men's matches won't resume until 4 pm ET at the earliest. Wondering if they're considering moving the women indoors soon, as they are no longer estimating a start time for the women's semis.
VG
05-22-2017, 12:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2017, 12:38 PM by ColoradoTree.)
(05-22-2017, 11:45 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:FYI, the current status is that the women's semifinals will not start before 4 pm ET at least. Weather delay again.
So why is the NCAA Championship consistently held in areas where rain is a constant threat, instead of places, say in the western United States, where weather conditions are more consistently favorable :) ?
EDIT: Another delay. Now men's matches won't resume until 4 pm ET at the earliest. Wondering if they're considering moving the women indoors soon, as they are no longer estimating a start time for the women's semis.
VG
Hosting in rainy locales doesn't look to change anytime soon, either, as Orlando, FL will now host every other year at the new USTA National Campus (where Stanford beat Oklahoma State earlier this year). It sometimes rains in Florida, I'm told.Â
Regarding today, it doesn't look like the rain is supposed to let up anytime soon, either. (Tomorrow and Wednesday look rainy, too.) If I'm the NCAA, I move the men's semis inside to finish this afternoon (which stinks for those guys, but the alternative is to not finish). UNC-Georgia has two matches still going, so they get two of the four indoor courts. UVA-Ohio State has three matches going, so the two closest to completion get to go first. (UVA is up 3-1 and has match point at #6 right now, so that court should get one of the courts, while the match at #1, which is in a third-set tiebreaker) should get the other court. It's already 3:30 in Georgia right now, thought, so the odds you're going to get in two women's semis tonight seems unlikely, and it doesn't seem fair to do one today and one tomorrow. Instead, you finish the men's semis today, do the women's semis tomorrow morning (flipping a coin to determine who goes first), play the men's final as scheduled tomorrow (indoors, unfortunately), and play the women's final on Tuesday.Â
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2017, 12:38 PM by ColoradoTree.)
(05-22-2017, 11:45 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:FYI, the current status is that the women's semifinals will not start before 4 pm ET at least. Weather delay again.
So why is the NCAA Championship consistently held in areas where rain is a constant threat, instead of places, say in the western United States, where weather conditions are more consistently favorable :) ?
EDIT: Another delay. Now men's matches won't resume until 4 pm ET at the earliest. Wondering if they're considering moving the women indoors soon, as they are no longer estimating a start time for the women's semis.
VG
Hosting in rainy locales doesn't look to change anytime soon, either, as Orlando, FL will now host every other year at the new USTA National Campus (where Stanford beat Oklahoma State earlier this year). It sometimes rains in Florida, I'm told.Â
Regarding today, it doesn't look like the rain is supposed to let up anytime soon, either. (Tomorrow and Wednesday look rainy, too.) If I'm the NCAA, I move the men's semis inside to finish this afternoon (which stinks for those guys, but the alternative is to not finish). UNC-Georgia has two matches still going, so they get two of the four indoor courts. UVA-Ohio State has three matches going, so the two closest to completion get to go first. (UVA is up 3-1 and has match point at #6 right now, so that court should get one of the courts, while the match at #1, which is in a third-set tiebreaker) should get the other court. It's already 3:30 in Georgia right now, thought, so the odds you're going to get in two women's semis tonight seems unlikely, and it doesn't seem fair to do one today and one tomorrow. Instead, you finish the men's semis today, do the women's semis tomorrow morning (flipping a coin to determine who goes first), play the men's final as scheduled tomorrow (indoors, unfortunately), and play the women's final on Tuesday.Â
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »