[oldalum]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=16887.msg193570#msg193570 date=1495469418]
[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193565#msg193565 date=1495466777]
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

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.
[/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 59er 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.
[/quote]
thanks for the thoughtful comments. I guess what I was thinking is, if the committee should be deciding which are the best teams going into the tournament. If they are basically going to rely on the computer rankings for that, then they should improve the computer rankings. I would support them using the computer rankings as info on the overall season for each team if they would then make reasonable adjustments. Vanderbilt was the hottest/best team going into the tournament so moving them from their #2 computer ranking to a #4 seed makes no sense to me.

I don't think the ITA should build anything into the ranking system to account for Stanford's postseason dominance. Rather, the committee should look at its history of underseeding Stanford, often grossly as in last year, and either adjust its own performance (by understanding how the ranking algorithm is biased) or adjust the computer ranking algorithm so that teams like Stanford are not under-ranked for playing a weaker schedule. Pepperdine is another team this year that was probably underseeded because of its softer schedule.

You're right about basketball in that injuries are not factored into the NCAA's RPI rankings (and probably not in most or all computer rankings either), but the right to be in the tournament field and the seeding within the field are both determined by the selection committee (except for automatic qualifiers by conference championships)

[oldalum]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=16887.msg193570#msg193570 date=1495469418]
[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193565#msg193565 date=1495466777]
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

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.
[/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 59er 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.
[/quote]
thanks for the thoughtful comments. I guess what I was thinking is, if the committee should be deciding which are the best teams going into the tournament. If they are basically going to rely on the computer rankings for that, then they should improve the computer rankings. I would support them using the computer rankings as info on the overall season for each team if they would then make reasonable adjustments. Vanderbilt was the hottest/best team going into the tournament so moving them from their #2 computer ranking to a #4 seed makes no sense to me.

I don't think the ITA should build anything into the ranking system to account for Stanford's postseason dominance. Rather, the committee should look at its history of underseeding Stanford, often grossly as in last year, and either adjust its own performance (by understanding how the ranking algorithm is biased) or adjust the computer ranking algorithm so that teams like Stanford are not under-ranked for playing a weaker schedule. Pepperdine is another team this year that was probably underseeded because of its softer schedule.

You're right about basketball in that injuries are not factored into the NCAA's RPI rankings (and probably not in most or all computer rankings either), but the right to be in the tournament field and the seeding within the field are both determined by the selection committee (except for automatic qualifiers by conference championships)

[ColoradoTree]

You're right about basketball in that injuries are not factored into the NCAA's RPI rankings (and probably not in most or all computer rankings either), but the right to be in the tournament field and the seeding within the field are both determined by the selection committee (except for automatic qualifiers by conference championships)

Right, I know it's all the basketball committee's discretion, but I thought I'd heard that the committee ignores injuries to major players when it comes time to get them in the field, but then factors them in when they assign seeds.  Of course, it's easy enough for the committee to say that; I have no idea whether they actually stick to it. 

And yeah, Vanderbilt getting seeded 4th seemed crazy to me, too, given that beat consensus #1 Florida twice this year and they won the SEC on a hot streak to end the season. I just looked at their schedule, though, and they do have 5 losses (though 4 of those were to Top 10 teams in Ohio State, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Michigan--the fifth loss was to #17 Kentucky).  That's a hard team to slot appropriately, given that Ohio State, Stanford, and UNC each only had two losses. 

Really, I'm going to need one of those ESPN hot take argument shows to start tackling weightier issues like NCAA tennis rankings and seeding.  Then we'll know we've made it!

[ColoradoTree]

You're right about basketball in that injuries are not factored into the NCAA's RPI rankings (and probably not in most or all computer rankings either), but the right to be in the tournament field and the seeding within the field are both determined by the selection committee (except for automatic qualifiers by conference championships)

Right, I know it's all the basketball committee's discretion, but I thought I'd heard that the committee ignores injuries to major players when it comes time to get them in the field, but then factors them in when they assign seeds.  Of course, it's easy enough for the committee to say that; I have no idea whether they actually stick to it. 

And yeah, Vanderbilt getting seeded 4th seemed crazy to me, too, given that beat consensus #1 Florida twice this year and they won the SEC on a hot streak to end the season. I just looked at their schedule, though, and they do have 5 losses (though 4 of those were to Top 10 teams in Ohio State, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Michigan--the fifth loss was to #17 Kentucky).  That's a hard team to slot appropriately, given that Ohio State, Stanford, and UNC each only had two losses. 

Really, I'm going to need one of those ESPN hot take argument shows to start tackling weightier issues like NCAA tennis rankings and seeding.  Then we'll know we've made it!

[ColoradoTree]

Looks like they're going to continue the men's semifinals indoors at 5pm ET, with each matchup getting two courts; no announcement yet on the women's semifinals.  They're putting the two Ohio State-UVA matches closer to completion on first, as discussed earlier, so perhaps they're going to try and get the women playing yet tonight.

[ColoradoTree]

Looks like they're going to continue the men's semifinals indoors at 5pm ET, with each matchup getting two courts; no announcement yet on the women's semifinals.  They're putting the two Ohio State-UVA matches closer to completion on first, as discussed earlier, so perhaps they're going to try and get the women playing yet tonight.

[M T]

Currently, this is posted
On the women’s side, Florida vs. Vanderbilt is anticipated to start at 7 p.m. at the Lindsey Hopkins Indoor Courts in Athens. Stanford vs. Ohio State will move to the Byers Tennis Complex at Georgia Tech in Atlanta at 8 p.m.

[M T]

Currently, this is posted
On the women’s side, Florida vs. Vanderbilt is anticipated to start at 7 p.m. at the Lindsey Hopkins Indoor Courts in Athens. Stanford vs. Ohio State will move to the Byers Tennis Complex at Georgia Tech in Atlanta at 8 p.m.

[oldalum]

Vanderbilt getting seeded 4th seemed crazy to me, too, given that beat consensus #1 Florida twice this year and they won the SEC on a hot streak to end the season. I just looked at their schedule, though, and they do have 5 losses (though 4 of those were to Top 10 teams in Ohio State, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Michigan--the fifth loss was to #17 Kentucky).  That's a hard team to slot appropriately, given that Ohio State, Stanford, and UNC each only had two losses. 

Four of Vandy's 5 losses were early, before the start of conference play; and the last of the four was 4-3 to us at our courts. The only subsequent loss was at Kentucky when Vandy was missing their #2 singles player, so everyone else had to move up a court and a bench player had to play #6. The SEC was brutal this year, at one point claiming 11 of the top 25 ranked teams. Extremely hard to go through that schedule undefeated; Florida lost to Georgia at home before losing to Vanderbilt in the last conference game. It seems to me Vandy is a great example of a team that got dramatically better over the course of the season, and over the last month of the season I think they were hands down the best team in the nation. That should have been understood by the committee. I would have seeded them #1 for the NCAAs, no quarrel with #2, but moving them from 2 to 4 is extremely difficult to understand. Especially when it would likely mean they'd play Florida for the 3rd time in a month; given that seeding is an inexact science, I think the committee should try to avoid that type of scheduling when it would not compromise seeding to do so.

[oldalum]

Vanderbilt getting seeded 4th seemed crazy to me, too, given that beat consensus #1 Florida twice this year and they won the SEC on a hot streak to end the season. I just looked at their schedule, though, and they do have 5 losses (though 4 of those were to Top 10 teams in Ohio State, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Michigan--the fifth loss was to #17 Kentucky).  That's a hard team to slot appropriately, given that Ohio State, Stanford, and UNC each only had two losses. 

Four of Vandy's 5 losses were early, before the start of conference play; and the last of the four was 4-3 to us at our courts. The only subsequent loss was at Kentucky when Vandy was missing their #2 singles player, so everyone else had to move up a court and a bench player had to play #6. The SEC was brutal this year, at one point claiming 11 of the top 25 ranked teams. Extremely hard to go through that schedule undefeated; Florida lost to Georgia at home before losing to Vanderbilt in the last conference game. It seems to me Vandy is a great example of a team that got dramatically better over the course of the season, and over the last month of the season I think they were hands down the best team in the nation. That should have been understood by the committee. I would have seeded them #1 for the NCAAs, no quarrel with #2, but moving them from 2 to 4 is extremely difficult to understand. Especially when it would likely mean they'd play Florida for the 3rd time in a month; given that seeding is an inexact science, I think the committee should try to avoid that type of scheduling when it would not compromise seeding to do so.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193611#msg193611 date=1495484482]
Vanderbilt getting seeded 4th seemed crazy to me, too, given that beat consensus #1 Florida twice this year and they won the SEC on a hot streak to end the season. I just looked at their schedule, though, and they do have 5 losses (though 4 of those were to Top 10 teams in Ohio State, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Michigan--the fifth loss was to #17 Kentucky).  That's a hard team to slot appropriately, given that Ohio State, Stanford, and UNC each only had two losses. 

Four of Vandy's 5 losses were early, before the start of conference play; and the last of the four was 4-3 to us at our courts. The only subsequent loss was at Kentucky when Vandy was missing their #2 singles player, so everyone else had to move up a court and a bench player had to play #6. The SEC was brutal this year, at one point claiming 11 of the top 25 ranked teams. Extremely hard to go through that schedule undefeated; Florida lost to Georgia at home before losing to Vanderbilt in the last conference game. It seems to me Vandy is a great example of a team that got dramatically better over the course of the season, and over the last month of the season I think they were hands down the best team in the nation. That should have been understood by the committee. I would have seeded them #1 for the NCAAs, no quarrel with #2, but moving them from 2 to 4 is extremely difficult to understand. Especially when it would likely mean they'd play Florida for the 3rd time in a month; given that seeding is an inexact science, I think the committee should try to avoid that type of scheduling when it would not compromise seeding to do so.
[/quote]

Intelligent people arguing passionately about women's tennis seeding is my happy place.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193611#msg193611 date=1495484482]
Vanderbilt getting seeded 4th seemed crazy to me, too, given that beat consensus #1 Florida twice this year and they won the SEC on a hot streak to end the season. I just looked at their schedule, though, and they do have 5 losses (though 4 of those were to Top 10 teams in Ohio State, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Michigan--the fifth loss was to #17 Kentucky).  That's a hard team to slot appropriately, given that Ohio State, Stanford, and UNC each only had two losses. 

Four of Vandy's 5 losses were early, before the start of conference play; and the last of the four was 4-3 to us at our courts. The only subsequent loss was at Kentucky when Vandy was missing their #2 singles player, so everyone else had to move up a court and a bench player had to play #6. The SEC was brutal this year, at one point claiming 11 of the top 25 ranked teams. Extremely hard to go through that schedule undefeated; Florida lost to Georgia at home before losing to Vanderbilt in the last conference game. It seems to me Vandy is a great example of a team that got dramatically better over the course of the season, and over the last month of the season I think they were hands down the best team in the nation. That should have been understood by the committee. I would have seeded them #1 for the NCAAs, no quarrel with #2, but moving them from 2 to 4 is extremely difficult to understand. Especially when it would likely mean they'd play Florida for the 3rd time in a month; given that seeding is an inexact science, I think the committee should try to avoid that type of scheduling when it would not compromise seeding to do so.
[/quote]

Intelligent people arguing passionately about women's tennis seeding is my happy place.

[oldalum]

Intelligent people arguing passionately about women's tennis seeding is my happy place.

you assume wrong about me, but you are right if you are referring to the other posters.

[oldalum]

Intelligent people arguing passionately about women's tennis seeding is my happy place.

you assume wrong about me, but you are right if you are referring to the other posters.

[StanfordMatt]

Small familiarity edge goes to Ohio State as they played their quarterfinal in Ga Tech's indoors yesterday whereas we played in UGA's indoor facility.

[StanfordMatt]

Small familiarity edge goes to Ohio State as they played their quarterfinal in Ga Tech's indoors yesterday whereas we played in UGA's indoor facility.

[ColoradoTree]

Currently, this is posted
On the women’s side, Florida vs. Vanderbilt is anticipated to start at 7 p.m. at the Lindsey Hopkins Indoor Courts in Athens. Stanford vs. Ohio State will move to the Byers Tennis Complex at Georgia Tech in Atlanta at 8 p.m.

Thanks, MT.  While it's annoying to have to drive an hour and a half to Atlanta to play the match at 8pm local time (which affects both teams) and then driving an hour and a half back later, when you likely won't get back to your hotel after midnight (which is unfair to the winner, who has to play a more rested Florida/Vanderbilt team in the final tomorrow), playing on the Georgia Tech indoor courts is better for Stanford than playing on the Georgia indoor courts for one big reason: there are six of them.  So, you can get all six singles matches on at the same time, and Stanford doesn't have to wait to deploy Arbuthnott and Higuchi.  (Not only are they two of our more successful players this season, but Arbuthnott's matches often take a relatively long time to finish.)

Of course, StanfordMatt has a good point in that Ohio State has at least some sense in how those courts play, whereas Stanford will be playing on those courts for the first time. 

But all in all, I'm OK with this.  The doubles point going our way, and a quick Higuchi win when she doesn't have the weight of a berth in the championship match on her shoulders*, and Ohio State is feeling the pressure.  She's used to racing out to our first win, so I want her in a situation to be able to do that.  And heck, with all six matches going at the same time, this semi will finish up before the Florida-Vanderbilt semi will anyway. 

FYI, I think--but I am not positive--that live scoring for the match will still be on UGA's website, even though the matches are on GT's courts.

* Note: I chalk up way more of Higuchi's first set loss yesterday to the fact that she had been kept on ice for hours, first by delaying the match time and time again, and then by having to wait for two matches to finish before she could start playing, than I do to the quality of UNC's #6.  This isn't to denigrate the player, but more to highlight how uncomfortable and unusual a situation that must have been for Higuchi.  It sure seemed that once she got over that, she established herself as the better player.  I was very confident that she would have won that third set if we'd needed it. 

[ColoradoTree]

Currently, this is posted
On the women’s side, Florida vs. Vanderbilt is anticipated to start at 7 p.m. at the Lindsey Hopkins Indoor Courts in Athens. Stanford vs. Ohio State will move to the Byers Tennis Complex at Georgia Tech in Atlanta at 8 p.m.

Thanks, MT.  While it's annoying to have to drive an hour and a half to Atlanta to play the match at 8pm local time (which affects both teams) and then driving an hour and a half back later, when you likely won't get back to your hotel after midnight (which is unfair to the winner, who has to play a more rested Florida/Vanderbilt team in the final tomorrow), playing on the Georgia Tech indoor courts is better for Stanford than playing on the Georgia indoor courts for one big reason: there are six of them.  So, you can get all six singles matches on at the same time, and Stanford doesn't have to wait to deploy Arbuthnott and Higuchi.  (Not only are they two of our more successful players this season, but Arbuthnott's matches often take a relatively long time to finish.)

Of course, StanfordMatt has a good point in that Ohio State has at least some sense in how those courts play, whereas Stanford will be playing on those courts for the first time. 

But all in all, I'm OK with this.  The doubles point going our way, and a quick Higuchi win when she doesn't have the weight of a berth in the championship match on her shoulders*, and Ohio State is feeling the pressure.  She's used to racing out to our first win, so I want her in a situation to be able to do that.  And heck, with all six matches going at the same time, this semi will finish up before the Florida-Vanderbilt semi will anyway. 

FYI, I think--but I am not positive--that live scoring for the match will still be on UGA's website, even though the matches are on GT's courts.

* Note: I chalk up way more of Higuchi's first set loss yesterday to the fact that she had been kept on ice for hours, first by delaying the match time and time again, and then by having to wait for two matches to finish before she could start playing, than I do to the quality of UNC's #6.  This isn't to denigrate the player, but more to highlight how uncomfortable and unusual a situation that must have been for Higuchi.  It sure seemed that once she got over that, she established herself as the better player.  I was very confident that she would have won that third set if we'd needed it. 

[oldalum]

I agree, I'd rather us playing on the 6 courts at Ga Tech than the 4 at Georgia.

But it seems like the NCAA could have made that decision earlier.

[oldalum]

I agree, I'd rather us playing on the 6 courts at Ga Tech than the 4 at Georgia.

But it seems like the NCAA could have made that decision earlier.

[Spiny_Norman]

FYI, I think--but I am not positive--that live scoring for the match will still be on UGA's website, even though the matches are on GT's courts.

CT, streaming for the indoor courts will be available here once the matches begin - http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-tenn...-ncaa.html

[Spiny_Norman]

FYI, I think--but I am not positive--that live scoring for the match will still be on UGA's website, even though the matches are on GT's courts.

CT, streaming for the indoor courts will be available here once the matches begin - http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-tenn...-ncaa.html

[ColoradoTree]

I agree, I'd rather us playing on the 6 courts at Ga Tech than the 4 at Georgia.

But it seems like the NCAA could have made that decision earlier.

Oh, no question.  The NCAA is managing the clock in this tournament worse than Les Miles.

All of that waiting has to be absolute hell on players' nerves.  You're getting yourself ready to play 7 hours before you actually do?  It's hard enough to get yourself into the right frame of mind, but to maintain it for hours, or to flush it and then go get it back later?  This is when Stanford's mental toughness becomes a competitive advantage. 

[ColoradoTree]

I agree, I'd rather us playing on the 6 courts at Ga Tech than the 4 at Georgia.

But it seems like the NCAA could have made that decision earlier.

Oh, no question.  The NCAA is managing the clock in this tournament worse than Les Miles.

All of that waiting has to be absolute hell on players' nerves.  You're getting yourself ready to play 7 hours before you actually do?  It's hard enough to get yourself into the right frame of mind, but to maintain it for hours, or to flush it and then go get it back later?  This is when Stanford's mental toughness becomes a competitive advantage. 

[oldalum]

All of that waiting has to be absolute hell on players' nerves.  You're getting yourself ready to play 7 hours before you actually do?  It's hard enough to get yourself into the right frame of mind, but to maintain it for hours, or to flush it and then go get it back later?  This is when Stanford's mental toughness becomes a competitive advantage.

Yeah, but it's turning my mind to mush. Good thing when I play tennis that the stakes are usually just steaks.

[oldalum]

All of that waiting has to be absolute hell on players' nerves.  You're getting yourself ready to play 7 hours before you actually do?  It's hard enough to get yourself into the right frame of mind, but to maintain it for hours, or to flush it and then go get it back later?  This is when Stanford's mental toughness becomes a competitive advantage.

Yeah, but it's turning my mind to mush. Good thing when I play tennis that the stakes are usually just steaks.

[StanfordMatt]

Off to a slow start in doubles. Down 3-1 on courts 1 & 2 and down 2-1 on court 3.

[StanfordMatt]

Off to a slow start in doubles. Down 3-1 on courts 1 & 2 and down 2-1 on court 3.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193623#msg193623 date=1495487314]
Intelligent people arguing passionately about women's tennis seeding is my happy place.

you assume wrong about me, but you are right if you are referring to the other posters.
[/quote]

Intelligent whatever you are, then!

[CompSci87]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=16887.msg193623#msg193623 date=1495487314]
Intelligent people arguing passionately about women's tennis seeding is my happy place.

you assume wrong about me, but you are right if you are referring to the other posters.
[/quote]

Intelligent whatever you are, then!

[StanfordMatt]

Buckeyes claim doubles point in short order with wins at #2 and #3. Need to pick up 4 wins in singles.

[StanfordMatt]

Buckeyes claim doubles point in short order with wins at #2 and #3. Need to pick up 4 wins in singles.

[oldalum]

Intelligent whatever you are, then!

You've outed me! Woof!

[oldalum]

Intelligent whatever you are, then!

You've outed me! Woof!

[BostonCard]

The bad news is we are trailing 2-0, as Doyle goes down 6-1, 6-0; identical to yesterday's score against UNC.  Poor Doyle, she played the #2 and #1 ranked players on consecutive days.

The good news is that we took the first set in the other 5 matches.

BC

[BostonCard]

The bad news is we are trailing 2-0, as Doyle goes down 6-1, 6-0; identical to yesterday's score against UNC.  Poor Doyle, she played the #2 and #1 ranked players on consecutive days.

The good news is that we took the first set in the other 5 matches.

BC

[BostonCard]

Update:

Lord loses her second set; going on to a third set
Lampl is tied 3-3 in the second set after taking the first
Davidson is down 0-4 in the second after taking the first
Arbuthnott is up 3-0 in the second set after taking the first
Higuchi won the first set but I haven't seen an update since

BC

[BostonCard]

Update:

Lord loses her second set; going on to a third set
Lampl is tied 3-3 in the second set after taking the first
Davidson is down 0-4 in the second after taking the first
Arbuthnott is up 3-0 in the second set after taking the first
Higuchi won the first set but I haven't seen an update since

BC

[BostonCard]

Arbuthnott has won her match, Stanford now trails 2-1
Higuchi is up 3-2 in the second set after taking the first
Lord is up 3-0 in the third set

BC

[BostonCard]

Arbuthnott has won her match, Stanford now trails 2-1
Higuchi is up 3-2 in the second set after taking the first
Lord is up 3-0 in the third set

BC