Club was going up yesterday, so unfortunately Power Rankings will be going up on a Wednesday this week. This may or may not have been a blessing in disguise, because we had two huge results last week that definitely affected the power rankings. Actually, only one of them really did but there were two good matches. The team went into emergency mode and edited the power rankings last night (or early this morning) to get the most up to date product out. Without further ado, here are the latest results and Power Rankings from yours truly. Since there were no comments about format last time around, we will be using the same format.
Latest Results
Pomona def. Amherst 6-3
Pomona def. CMU 5-4
Pomona def. Bowdoin 5-4
Pomona def. Trinity 7-2
Pomona def. Case 7-2
CMS def. Pomona 8-1
CMS def. Wash U 8-1
CMS def. Wesleyan 8-1
Wesleyan def. Kenyon 7-2
Redlands def. Wesleyan 5-4
Case def. Wesleyan 7-2
Case def. Whitman 7-2
Kenyon def. Whitman 5-4
Trinity def. Whitman 6-3
CMU def. Trinity 5-4
Bowdoin def. CMU 6-3
Bowdoin def. Whittier 9-0
Bowdoin def. Redlands 5-4
Wash U def. Trinity 6-3
Wash U def. Kenyon (8-1)
UT-Tyler def. Coe 7-2
Tufts def. Denison 8-1
Midd def. Stevens 8-1
Midd def. Brandeis 7-2
Power Rankings
| New Ranking | School | Previous Rank | D3AS | D3West | D3NE | D3 Central | D3Regional |
| 1 | CMS | 1 | CMS | CMS | CMS | CMS | CMS |
| 2 | Emory | 4 | Emory | Emory | Emory | Emory | Emory |
| 3 | Wash U | 5 | Trinity TX | Pomona | Wash U | Pomona | Wash U |
| 4 | Pomona | 15 | Wash U | Wash U | Pomona | Amherst | Trinity TX |
| 5 | Trinity TX | 2 | Johns Hopkins | Trinity TX | Trinity Tx | Wash U | Pomona |
| 6 | Amherst | 3 | Pomona | Amherst | Middlebury | Trinity TX | Amherst |
| 7 | Johns Hopkins | 6 | Amherst | Johns Hopkins | Amherst | Johns Hopkins | Johns Hopkins |
| 8 | Middlebury | 7 | Middlebury | Middlebury | Johns Hopkins | Middlebury | Middlebury |
| 9 | Kenyon | 8 | Carnegie Mellon | Kenyon | Bowdoin | Kenyon | Carnegie Mellon |
| 10 | Carnegie Mellon | 13 | Bowdoin | Case Western | Kenyon | Chicago | Case Western |
| 11 | Case Western | 9 | Kenyon | Bowdoin | Case Western | Carnegie Mellon | Chicago |
| 12 | Bowdoin | 14 | Case Western | Carnegie Mellon | Carnegie Mellon | Case Western | Williams |
| 13 | Chicago | 10 | Chicago | Chicago | Chicago | Williams | Wesleyan |
| 14 | Williams | 11 | Wesleyan | Williams | Williams | Bowdoin | Kenyon |
| 15 | Wesleyan | 19 | Bates | Bates | Bates | Bates | Bowdoin |
| 16 | Bates | 16 | Williams | Wesleyan | Wesleyan | Wesleyan | Redlands |
| 17 | Whitman | 12 | Whitman | Whitman | Whitman | Gustavus Adolphus | Whitman |
| 18 | Redlands | 18 | Redlands | Redlands | Redlands | Whitman | Gustavus Adolphus |
| 19 | Gustavus Adolphus | 17 | Gustavus Adolphus | Gustavus Adolphus | Tufts | Redlands | Bates |
| 20 | Mary Washington | 20 | Mary Washington | Mary Washington | Gustavus Adolphus | Mary Washington | Tufts |
| 21 | Tufts | 21 | Tufts | UT-Tyler | Mary Washington | UT-Tyler | UCSC |
| 22 | UT-Tyler | 22 | UT-Tyler | UCSC | UT-Tyler | UCSC | UT-Tyler |
| 23 | UCSC | 23 | UCSC | Tufts | UCSC | Tufts | Mary Washington |
| 24 | Trinity CT | 24 | Trinity CT | Trinity CT | Trinity Ct | Trinity CT | Trinity CT |
| 25 | UW-Whitewater | 25 | Stevens | Cal Lutheran | UW-Whitewater | UW-Whitewater | Cal Lutheran |
| 26 | Cal Lutheran | 26 | Cal Lutheran | UW-Whitewater | Stevens | Cal Lutheran | UW-Whitewater |
| 27 | Stevens | 27 | UW-Whitewater | Stevens | Cal Lutheran | Brandeis | Skidmore |
| 28 | Brandeis | 29 | Denison | Brandeis | Skidmore | Denison | Denison |
| 29 | Skidmore | 30 | NC Wesleyan | NC Wesleyan | Swarthmore | NC Wesleyan | Stevens |
| 30 | Denison | 28 | Skidmore | Swarthmore | Brandeis | Stevens | Brandeis |
| 31 | NC Wesleyan | 31 | Swarthmore | Skidmore | Denison | Skidmore | Swarthmore |
| 32 | Swarthmore | 32 | Brandeis | Depauw | Depauw | Depauw | NC Wesleyan |
| 33 | DePauw | 33 | Depauw | Coe | NC Wesleyan | Swarthmore | Coe |
| 34 | Coe | 34 | Coe | Sewanee | MIT | Coe | DePauw |
| 35 | Washington & Lee | 35 | Pacific | Denison | Coe | Washington & Lee | MIT |
| 36 | Pacific | 36 | Washington & Lee | Washington & Lee | Washington & Lee | Colby | Washington & Lee |
| 37 | Colby | 37 | Colby | Pacific | Chapman | Pacific | Pacific |
| 38 | Sewanee | 38 | Sewanee | Colby | Sewanee | Babson | Colby |
| 39 | MIT | 40 | Chapman | Chapman | Pacific | Chapman | Babson |
| 40 | Chapman | – | CNU | CNU | Babson | Sewanee | CNU |
| 41 | Babson | 39 | |||||
| 42 | CNU | 41 |
Things to Note and Biggest Movers:
Pomona, Up 11 Spots to #4 – Pomona had the biggest week out of any team in DIII and they rightfully make the biggest move up in the power rankings. They were sitting at #15 last time around due to their loss against Bates, but since then they’ve beaten CMU, Bowdoin, Trinity TX, and Case Western. Oh wait, they beat the former #3 in our poll, Amherst, as well. That’s five wins within the top 12 in the past week on very little rest and no breaks in between. Talk about toughness. This team is making an extreme case for the #1 seed and let’s hope that the NCAA gets their heads out of their ****** and puts Pomona as a one seed somewhere else. It’s only fair.
Trinity TX and Amherst, Down 3 Spots to #5 and #6 – Both these teams lost to Pomona within the past week. Trinity TX lost to CMU and Wash U as well, who are both in our top 10. These two seasons are very different so far, because Amherst no longer has any other important non NESCAC matches. Trinity TX has already done its thing on Spring Break and gets to go home and rest those definitely tired legs. I think we are underrated Trinity TX here but the results are the results and we can’t do anything about that. But, Amherst is a big question mark for everyone considering they have a new coach and a team that didn’t respond well to the first time out playing against a top 10 team.
Carnegie Mellon, Up 3 Spots to #10 – Carnegie Mellon was a big winner on one day last week after being the big loser for two days. However, that big win came against Trinity TX, a true national championship contender. They’ve moved up in the rankings by three spots after their big win and are looking to get healthy and finish the season strong. I’d like all to remember that this team was playing without a legit #4 player in Kenny Zheng and Kirkov was playing with an injured left hand (still won a lot at #6 though). That’s why I am bullish on CMU for the rest of the season.
Wesleyan, Up 4 Spots to #15 – Welcome to the top 15, Wesleyan. A big win over Kenyon will get you in there, but the Cards need to figure out how to do this on a consistent basis. I think they caught Kenyon at the most opportune time and took advantage, but really fell flat against Redlands and Case Western in their other opportune matches. Wesleyan has a lot of talent, but they are young and will sometimes not be ready for the moment at hand. These things take time, but a great first step for the boys from Wesleyan this week.
Whitman, Down 5 Spots to #17 – This is what happens when you finish 8th in the Stag-Hen with three winnable matches. Whitman came into Cali with high hopes, and they will need to salvage their Spring Break with a win against Bowdoin today. I think Bowdoin is more talented but they are coming off an emotional win over Redlands. Maybe Whitman can take advantage of another team’s long Spring Break and win a match that would vault them into our conversations again.
We’d also like to welcome Chapman to the top 42 in our power rankings as they’ve had a good past few weeks. Other than that, NESCAC teams are starting play and the season is about to really amp up. We have a lot planned for you guys the next few weeks and please continue to comment and provide feedback for us. We love the debate! Also, tell your teammates or friends in DIII about the site, because new viewers are always a welcome addition. That is, if they can stand my writing style. And with that, ASouth OUT.
As promised —
Division 3 leagues sorted by the number of teams in their league that have a Power Ranking. The average Power Ranking in each league is also shown, in parenthesis.
NESCAC — 9 (17)
UAA – 6 (11.2)
SCIAC — 5 (17.8)
North Coast — 3 (24)
Centennial – 2 (19.5)
Northwest — 2 (26.5)
Capital Athletic – 2 (31)
NEWMAC — 2 (40)
Southern College – 1 (5)
MIAC – 1 (19)
American Southwest – 1 (22)
Independent – 1 (23)
Liberty League — 1 (24)
WIAC – 1 (25)
Empire 8 – 1 (27)
USA South – 1 (31)
Iowa Intercollegiate — 1 (34)
Old Dominion – 1 (35)
Southern Athletic – 1 (39)
1. CMS — SCIAC
2. Emory — UAA
3. Wash U — UAA
4. Pomona — SCIAC
5. Trinity TX — Southern College
6. Amherst — NESCAC
7. Johns Hopkins — Centennial
8. Middlebury — NESCAC
9. Kenyon — North Coast Athletic
10. Carnegie Mellon — UAA
11. Case Western — UAA
12. Bowdoin — NESCAC
13. Chicago — UAA
14. Williams — NESCAC
15. Wesleyan — NESCAC
16. Bates — NESCAC
17. Whitman — Northwest
18. Redlands — SCIAC
19. Gustavus Adolphus — MIAC
20. Mary Washington — Capital Athletic
21. Tufts — NESCAC
22. UT-Tyler — American Southwest
23. UCSC — Independent
24. Trinity CT — NESCAC
25. UW-Whitewater — WIAC
26. Cal Lutheran — SCIAC
27. Stevens — Empire 8
28. Brandeis — UAA
29. Skidmore — Liberty League
30. Denison — North Coast Athletic
31. NC Wesleyan — USA South
32. Swarthmore — Centennial
33. DePauw — North Coast Athletic
34. Coe — Iowa Intercollegiate
35. Washington & Lee — Old Dominion
36. Pacific — Northwest
37. Colby — NESCAC
38. Sewanee — Southern Athletic
39. MIT — NEWMAC
40. Chapman — SCIAC
41. Babson — NEWMAC
42. CNU — Capital Athletic
D3 ASouth, love your stuff. I follow the Centennial Conference pretty avidly in tennis, and was really surprised at a result I saw earlier this week. UT-Dallas, ranked 15 in the West, played at Washington College during their spring break. Washington College won 8-1 with only one singles match conceding a set. Upon doing more research I found that the “Shoremen” appear to have some pretty good depth as well as what seems like a phenomenal recruiting class coming in next fall. What do you think of Washington College’s program and where it could be headed? Do you think they’ll prove to be better than their #19 preseason regional ranking and projected 6th place finish in the Centennial?
Washington College could definitely be an up-and-coming team! They are bringing in a great class next year (Two 3 stars, two 2 stars), but they are also losing their #1-3 singles players to graduation. They play a good schedule, and have matches aganst Haverford, Salisbury, Swarthmore, and Johns Hopkins over the course of the season, so they’ll have many chances to prove themselves. I definitely give credit to Coach Donn for going out, doing some recruiting, and putting together a good schedule. I’ll definitely have my eye on them, and I’m especially curious to see how they fair against Swarthmore.
Great stuff again. Thanks for all the work put into these.
We really appreciate the kind words!!
I’m a bit perplexed that D3AS and D3 Regional still put Trinity TX over PP… I appreciate that both of these teams played very tough schedules over the past 10 days, but 7-2 isn’t just a match that could have gone either way, it is a decisive result..
It takes seeing some of these matches to really appreciate how this season is coming together. This blog can’t be at all of these, so it parses results and comments used to support positions may have preconceived notions about players or teams. Losing 1- 8 to CMS may something about PP, but PP had taken out a number of top 10 teams, day after day, sometimes twice in a day, before heading into that match. The energy they put into their win with Trinity, may have been paid for in their match the next day. The guys looked tired (except Maassen, who looked like he could have played all day) PP has at least 3 shots at CMS this season (4 if the NCAA sticks them in the same playoff) and will most likely learn from each one.
The PP team has heart, but they also have fire. You need to watch Chuddy play to appreciate how he’s taking out players like Trinka and Zykov. He hammers away at them aggressively. While PP may have a revolving door in the bottom half of the lineup, with Maassen now focused on singles he’s also demonstrating inspired play, and showing why he was such a contributor last year. And, the revolving door is bringing in impressive wins, often coming back in the third set, and taking 5-4 scores to decisive 7-2 wins. Amherst, arguably, *adjusted* their line-ups in singles and doubles and PP still found a way to beat them, taking 2 of the dubs and 4 of the singles
It could be that Trinity and Amherst aren’t as strong as they were historically. That would be my sense from having watched these matches both years. Of PP’s recent matches, I think if Bowdoin figures out their doubles, I think they’ll be a threat to the NESCAC legacy powerhouses. As for Bates/PP … didn’t see that match so I take it at face value PP needed something to ignite the fire.
Awesome, AWESOME post! I love the feedback and the debate. Let me take you through some of my reasoning:
I personally think in a series of 10 matches on a neutral court and everyone fully rested, Trinity TX would take the match over P-P. They are senior-heavy, experienced, and have their own set of great results this year (victories over Emory, Case Western, Johns Hopkins, etc). I think this is one of the strongest Trinity teams we’ve had in years, actually. Amherst definitely not as strong, but Trinity yes. Obviously both teams played a lot of matches, but Trinity had been through multiple barn-burners in the three days prior to the Stag-Hen. They then had to go into Pomona and beat the home team with a newly minted #1 ranking target on their back. Again I don’t want to make excuses, but I don’t believe it was the best Trinity TX we saw that day. The match started with a sweep of doubles, which I don’t think happens consistently (look at your Bowdoin match). Singles was for the most part close. Trinity had a tough match with Whitman where they gave it their all (clearly) just 30 minutes before. Really tough situation and it was similar to the way GAC pulls upsets at Indoors, maybe even more dire circumstances.
You mention PP being tired the next day expending energy for TU. It’s a two-way street there, and if you take a look at Trinity’s week it was pretty emotional. Overall my feeling is this – we can’t forget the great things they did at Indoors, it was extremely tough circumstances on the road against an upstart team, and TU showed me they can really fight til the end (against Wash U). That’s my reasoning. By the way, I have seen Chuddy play multiple times and love the kid and his game. But, Krull is equally as good if not better. I love me some Sagehens, but I like the Tigers due to their team composition, coach, and experience.
Interesting NESCAC bubble forming with Williams/Wesleyan/Bates. While conference schedule will definitely answer some of those questions, it’s not making it any easier for Pool C to have so many viably even teams. (Williams being established, with Wes and Bates each having big wins over Kenyon and PP respectively.)
Since I am new to this site, I just wanted to know are these lists generated by the guys who operate this site? Are rankings based on published results or matches that people get to see in person or based on ITA or NCAA rankings? If I am asking too much and things are secretive, I get that too. Just wanted to know.
These lists are generated by us to give you a more qualitative look at the rankings. ITA rankings do not take into account injuries, schedule, etc. We do. Obviously these are by no means official rankings. They are meant to be what a typical “Power Rankings” post you’d see on ESPN would be based off of.
Don’t think I have seen the statement before that the Power Rankings are based upon qualitative factors, not more mechanical ranking rules (if the ITA actually follows their published ones). Was also happy to see a specific mention of home court advantage being taken into account, as the P-P match against TU was on P.-P’s home courts.
Since it is now clear that qualitative factors (which are largely subjective so each person can use their own) are fair game to be used for Power Rankings, they should take into account such things as “close good losses” against a significantly higher ranked team, preferably early to mid-year before there is established a significant “body of work” regarding the team’s performance. Same for a “bad loss” (not a close score) to a team ranked slightly higher or below the team that loses (a closer score should ameliorate things a bit). I still plan on trying to start a discussion of how those concepts should best be applied on a qualitative basis.
I realize this post is getting long, but I have one other thing to say. I understand the pressure to always avoid a loss and to win as big as possible, to help your team ranking. One of the bloggers mentioned that pressure a few weeks ago and I understand it. All I can say about that is that the great coaches can play down their lineup against a weaker opponent and still always, or almost always, eke out a win, because they know their personnel and their opponent’s very well and,more importantly, recognize that getting everyone ( or most everyone) a decent amount of playing time is as important as winning or rankings. Thus, an important factor for a player in deciding where to attend school is whether the coach follows a win and win big at all cost philosophy, which if it is the case will raise the odds that the player will sit on the bench for four years without any, or very little, playing time.
Very much agreed. When I can, I play two non-starters in doubles and a non-starter or two in singles against all but the strongest teams we play. Many guys carry injuries throughout the season and if you can give a guy rest when needed and let guys who put just as much effort into improving as the starters do, play, then I think everyone benefits. I keep a spreadsheet of how many matches (both official and exhibition) that each player gets so that I can try my best to give everyone as equal of a playing opportunity as I can, while still being able to pull off a victory for the team as a whole.
In my last coaching job, except due to injuries or some major event, only starters got to play. Non-starters didn’t even play exhibition matches. I personally thought it was a disservice to the non-starters who may very well be starters one day. Wasn’t my call though. It is now.
Last week, I had guys with food poisoning and injuries and was missing my #1,4,5,6,10. We played a team that finished #2 in their conference. Had 2 match points at 7-8 at second doubles that I had to piece together last minute, but we wound up losing in a tie-breaker when our opponents caught lightning in a bottle. Happens. We wound up losing 4-5. Tough loss, but our team competed and played the best they had all year. They knew they had to step it up and my subs were used to playing matches and were able to slide right in and not be as nervous as they would have been if this was going to be their one and only start of the year.
I also agree very much with your statements regarding home/away and especially good vs. bad losses regarding power rankings. I don’t know how much time it takes to do a site like this and whether this is a paid or unpaid and how much type of thing. But, it seems to me that based on how they explained their process that they are doing a better job at least than just purely going on results without factoring in injuries in losses. It would be nice to add other criteria, but that may prove too exhaustive. Obviously, this is still subjective. My team isn’t even on this list!
It takes a lot of time, as in multiple hours per week at the very least. We are unpaid. 🙂
Wait, D3AS, you spend a lot of time working on this site??? Tennisjon, literally just putting together these rankings can take multiple hours. But it’s certainly a labor of love. We wouldn’t do it otherwise!
Thanks for the information. It looks to me that my team should get into your rankings by the end of the season. I am friends with a guy who plays second singles on one of the teams on your list. He’s a great player, especially in doubles. Having played him myself and obviously having played with my own team. I can say my #1 would beat him 9 out of 10 times. My #2 8 out of 10. My #3 6 out of 10 times. So, it would seem to me that if a guy who plays #2 on a school in your top 40 and would play #4 on my team, would certainly give my team a pretty good shot at winning against this team if we were to meet up at nationals.
So, lets say for argument sake, my team makes nationals, beats the number 30th ranked school at the time, then loses to the number 15 team in the next round. But those are the only ranked teams we get to play all year. Any chance of getting ranked here? Would the scores matter? Would it take beating that #15 team?
Honestly, the only reason I really care about rankings is for recruiting purposes. I don’t need it for self-gratification. My players don’t ask or care about it. Although it is a perceived lack of respect just because we haven’t played teams on a list doesn’t mean we aren’t there yet as a team. Of course we don’t deserve a ranking until we actually go out and prove it. Just trying to figure out given our schedule for this year is our schedule. How do we do it?
When I coached for a ranked team, our exposure to recruits was significantly enhanced. We were not a nationally known school either academically or athletically, but for those 4 seasons or so, we were on the map and it very much helped in getting the quality athletes to at least give us a look.
You’d probably be ranked within the top 35 if you beat the #30 team in the country. I’m glad you are confident in your team and you believe that you will be ranked, but as the site motto states… let the rackets do the talking 🙂