PlaySight

Multi-Match Scoreboard


Donations/Tips Welcomed ↙

Monday, February 22, 2016

2/23 Rankings Projection

When the new ITA rankings come out tomorrow it'll be the first computer poll of the season after the ranking committee voted on all the polls up until this point. Usually there are some pretty big changes after the computers take over because teams are now ranked on what they've actually done as opposed to being ranked on its reputation.

Anyone with enough free time can calculate the rankings using the ITA's formula though I don't recommend it because it is highly timely consuming.  There's always a chance I made a calculation error somewhere but by and large they are usually pretty close. These 2/23 rankings utilize each team's 4 best wins (with best being determined by who gives you the most ranking points).  Road wins are given a 10% bonus so beating the 65th ranked team on the road would get your more points than beating the 64th ranked team at home.

It usually takes until the end of March before the rankings get leveled out because by then we're up to using the team's top 7 wins (goes up to top 9 before NCAA selections).  Many teams may have 4 or 5 good wins, which will keep them ranked higher for the first few rankings, but once they hit the meat of their schedule they'll likely take on a few more losses with not as many higher ranked wins. So what I'm saying is if your team is lower than you thought don't worry because if they take care of business against tougher competition they'll quickly climb.

Men's Movement:

Kentucky started off the year unranked before climbing to #47 last week - I see them making the jump all the way up to #19 this week after picking up a dominating road win over Notre Dame. Kentucky also has a road win over Duke which helped but that win won't look as good next week after Duke falls out of the top 50 this week.

Oregon should jump up to #21 due to its 11-1 record which includes 6 wins over ranked opponents. Oregon will likely be 14-1 when it goes to UCLA on March 25th though it may drop some in the next few rankings due to some of its ranked wins dropping as well.

Penn State should come up to #22 with 4 ranked wins though the Clemson win won't carry as much weight next week after it falls out of the top 75.

Minnesota, Pepperdine, and Louisville are a few teams that were ranked inside the top 50 recently that will fall out.

Women's Movement:

Ohio State and Michigan up to #2 and #3.
Syracuse coming up 35 spots from 62 to 27.
Kansas coming up 30 spots from 54 to 24.
Tulsa coming up 20 spots from 34 to 14.
South Carolina coming up 20 spots from 37 to 17.
Washington coming up 14 spots from 33 to 19.
Clemson dropping 16 spots from 21 to 37
USC dropping from #11 to out of the top 40 - probably around 42 or so.

I only ran the numbers on about 60 teams so it's possible that someone I didn't run the numbers on could creep into the top 40. As the season goes on I'll add more to try and get closer to the top 75.


MEN

RankSchoolPointsPrevious
1North Carolina94.051
2Virginia84.882
3Ohio State73.906
4UCLA71.434
5Wake Forest66.865
6Texas Tech65.3710
7Texas A&M 65.207
8TCU62.003
9Oklahoma State60.5915
10California53.0018
11Illinois51.2812
12South Florida 50.2114
13Oklahoma49.918
14USC49.769
15Northwestern48.81T20
16Georgia45.2311
17Memphis42.6728
18Ole Miss33.7319
19Kentucky33.5647
20Columbia 31.2516
21Oregon31.1637
22Penn State30.8044
23Tulsa30.5529
24San Diego29.9817
25NC State28.1330
26Texas26.5624
27UC Santa Barbara26.5342
28Rice26.4749
29Baylor26.2013
30Michigan26.00T45
31Stanford25.5622
32Florida State25.3325
33Washington24.2948
34Harvard23.5036
35Tulane23.3827
36Wisconsin22.43T56
37Dartmouth21.4940
38LSU*20.98T33
39Florida19.9523
40Purdue18.0264

WOMEN

RankSchoolPointsPrevious
1Cal88.631
2Ohio State81.275
3Michigan71.438
4Vanderbilt70.626
5Georgia69.224
6North Carolina67.212
7Florida59.653
8Texas Tech58.7810
9Duke57.057
10Pepperdine52.07T15
11Oklahoma State47.2314
12LSU42.2819
13Miami41.5212
14Tulsa40.8534
15Kentucky33.8620
16Stanford33.7013
17South Carolina33.3237
18Virginia32.329
19Washington31.9433
20Ole Miss31.9018
21Texas A&M31.16T15
22Wichita State28.7231
23Arizona State28.3727
24Kansas26.00T54
25Mississippi State25.2425
26Fresno State25.2128
27Syracuse24.1062
28UCLA24.0022
29Alabama*23.0417
30Wake Forest23.0043
31Notre Dame21.0832
32Arkansas19.8542
33Dartmouth18.9241
34Rice18.8529
35Oregon18.3546
36Arizona18.18T54
37Clemson*17.0821
38Columbia16.9350
39Florida State16.0236
40Georgia Tech16.0224

*means a team doesn't have 4 wins yet

Team and Singles/Doubles Demo 


TEAM DEMO


SINGLES DEMO


18 comments:

Moacir Soares said...

Amazing! very nice job!

Anonymous said...

Hello Bobby, after last week's discussion I was very curious. I went through your top 25 and looked at UTR to see which schools were winning with American talent. I looked at their top 6 based on UTR to grade them A-F and their top 8 to determine whether they got a + or a -. There was only one perfect 8/8 (Northwestern) and only one perfectly horrible 0/8(Olk St)
The grades based on UTR
(A:5 or 6 American starters)
A+ Northwestern
A UVA,UGA,Duke,Florida
A- UNC,Columbia,UCLA
(B:4 American starters)
B. Illinois
(C:3 American starters)
C+ FSU,TCU,
C. USC
(D:2 American starters)
D+ Wake,USD,Texas AM,Ohio St
D. Cal,Baylor,Va Tech
(F:1 or 0 American starters)
F+ Oregon,Ole Miss,Oklahoma,Tex Tech
F. USF
F- Oklahoma State
I have to give credit to Bobby as all the coaches he recommended except Tucker and Smith received A ratings.

Jeff said...

So you are judging teams strictly on if they have Americans? Foreigners make college tennis better. I am glad they come to the USA in big numbers to compete.

Anonymous said...

Good to see 3 of the top 4 projected are doing it with stateside talent.

Anonymous said...

Northwestern? They play Baez from Norway and Horov from Turkey at 3/4. They can't be 8/8, Uva plays Conish from Great Britain, Aragone from Latin America as his junior play is wholly foreign, and Reinhart from Swtzerland. Your list is not entirely accurate.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jeff, weren't you the apologist for NC State having 0 Americans in their starting line up? Foreign players definitely have a place in college tennis. It just shouldn't be every place in the line up.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,
I went strictly off of UTR. For any inaccuracies I apologize.

Anonymous said...

From a world tennis view. There are only 2 or 3 teenagers in the world top 100. The average age of a top 100 player is around 26-27. If a coach is a good developer of talent whether it's American or international, he has 4 or 5 years of their best development years. If they have any talent as a coach, they should be able to work with both local and international players. The easy way out is to make excuses.

Jeff said...

Yes I was because that was inaccurate portrayal of the NC State tennis program. And you are rating coaches based on how many Americans they have and not on their coaching ability. Why is it more impressive to develop an American than develop a foreigner. Many foreign players turn into busts in college tennis so it is a good coaching job to have a team of foreign players be good.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jeff, through my son's junior tennis we have met a number of the southern junior players and coaches. I reached out to one of the junior coaches from Raleigh who has had a number of ACC players. In his opinion, NC State recruits local players and it would be unfair to say that they only recruit foreign players. So that was good to hear. He however also said that he wouldn't let his dog play for that coaching ataff and he wasn't the only southern coach who felt that way. He felt that was more the reason as the foreign players wouldn't know any better.
I think I am not the only tennis parent sensitive to this issue of having a balance of opportunity for American players and the influx of international talent.

Anonymous said...

why does the ITA allow you to do this?

AR Hacked Off said...

So Bobby on the singles rankings, I am guessing the use matches from the fall to calculate rankings, I know at least one player in Women's Rankings who has not played a match this spring and is RS, but went from UR to ranked.

Bobby said...

Right all matches from the fall are used as well as the dual-matches in the spring

AR Hacked Off said...

thanks, little weird though, one would think there should a requirement of having played at 2-3 matches in spring in order to get a ranking.

Bobby said...

The formula for the rankings is available to the general public and people are interested to know in advance. Thanks

Bobby said...

Right all matches from the fall are used as well as the dual-matches in the spring

Daniel said...

These were slightly off. What is the reason? ITA changed the formula?

Bobby said...

First ones I do are usually a little rough because a lot of teams don't have enough ranked wins so I have to make an educated guess on where the unranked team falls. All teams ranked from 126 to 262 count the same but teams ranked from 76 to 125 carry higher point totals. It's tough to know what the ranking committee was thinking - some teams were ranked two weeks ago so I figured they were still probably in the 76 to 90 range but turns out they had all dropped below 125.

There were a couple of computer errors on my end and a couple on the ITA's end. If a team keys in a result incorrectly in the ITAs computer and it doesn't get fixed that throws things off as well. There were a couple of teams that keyed in home/neutral wins as road wins so they got the extra bonus that they shouldn't have.

Post a Comment