NCAA Quarterfinals: By the Numbers

Welcome, boys and girls, to D3NE’s NCAA Quarterfinal preview. So far my colleagues have gone through the coaches, and a few things to watch, but I’ve decided to take a different approach. I’m going numbers heavy. This could turn out to be a very poor idea given that it’s Friday night and I wouldn’t classify myself as stone-cold sober, but here goes nothing. Below, you’ll find the quarterfinalists, grouped by their lineup spot, and listed in order of UTR. I’ve also included each player’s 2015 record vs. DIII (W-L), and his record vs. teams that are a part of the quarterfinals. Just to clarify, I am using the lineups used in the regional rounds of the NCAA tournament. Yes, I am including dual matches from the fall. No, I’m not including fall Regional ITAs, where Trinity Tx and Emory just beat up on themselves at their own ITAs. Yes, I’m including the Ojai, including playing against teammates, because it’s a cool tournament and it falls under the recent results umbrella. No, I do not really believe that Flame On is the best line from the Fantastic Four. Questions? Tweet at @d3atlanticsouth. He loves answering that stuff. Sorry about the wall of text, I just can’t bring myself to find pictures of 48 different dudes. Here we go!

#1 Singles

  1. Warren Wood (CMS) W-L: 20-3, UTR: 12.98, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 4-1
  2. Ari Smolyar (Middlebury) W-L: 16-2, UTR: 12.97, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2
  3. Michael Buxbaum (Hopkins) W-L: 10-2, UTR: 12.89, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 4-0
  4. Andrew Yaraghi (Amherst) W-L: 12-1, UTR: 12.74, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-0
  5. Adam Krull (Trinity Tx) W-L: 10-3, UTR: 12.71, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1
  6. Nicolas Chua (Chicago) W-L: 12-4, UTR: 12.59, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-0
  7. Alex Ruderman (Emory) W-L: 10-5, UTR: 12.35, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-3
  8. John Carswell (Wash U) W-L: 4-15, UTR: 11.34, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-7

Notes: To borrow a phrase from the PGA, these guys are good. Even though Carswell had the definition of a sophomore slump, it wouldn’t be totally shocking to see him come up with a big win in Mason. Look at Smolyar’s sparkling 16-2 record on the year. Both losses came to players in this group, Yaraghi and Wood. Of the #1 singles players, D3AS’ MVP, Buxbaum has the best record against the group, but ranks 3rd in UTR.

Best quarterfinal matchup: Buxbaum beat Wood indoors at Hopkins earlier in the year, but Wood has been great of late, taking home the Ojai crown for the second consecutive year. This Elite 8 matchup might not get to finish (sorry Jays), but should be a dandy.

Bottom ½ guy, ready for an upset: When in doubt, you gotta take the senior. Ruderman hasn’t had a phenomenal year, but he’s still been really good. He has a matchup vs. Carswell in the quarters where he should be favored, and has the type of grinding game that might cause Wood some issues if the rest of the Eagles can push the Stags.

#2 Singles

  1. Skyler Butts (CMS) W-L: 23-2, UTR 12.77, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 4-1
  2. Ross Putterman (Wash U) W-L: 14-5, UTR: 12.72, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-4
  3. Anton Zykov (Amherst) W-L: 10-3, UTR: 12.49, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-0
  4. Noah Farrell (Middlebury) W-L: 12-6, UTR: 12.41, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2
  5. Sven Kranz (Chicago) W-L: 6-7, UTR: 12.22, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-2
  6. Eric Halpern (Emory) W-L: 9-3, UTR: 11.78, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-2
  7. Aaron Skinner (Trinity Tx) W-L: 8-5, UTR: 11.58, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1
  8. Ben Hwang (Hopkins) W-L: 4-9, UTR: 11.07, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-3

Notes: Most of this crew has spent the majority of the year at #2, save for Anton Zykov and Ben Hwang, who recently moved up from #3. While there is a lot of talent here, there are also some questionmarks. No disrespect to any of the wonderful teams who made the Elite 8, but #2 is likely one of the weaker spots for more than one of these teams.

Best quarterfinal matchup: Eric Halpern vs Ross Putterman. Two seniors, who are more or less familiar with each other, and who will do everything they can to end their career on a high note. Slightly contrasting styles here, and I would be shocked if it didn’t go a full three sets.

Bottom ½ guy, ready for an upset: While Halpern might be an easy choice, I’m gonna go with D3West’s boy, in Skinner. The man with the sleeve has been in this spot before, coming back from deficits multiple times during last year’s tourney, and will be able to use his experience vs. the freshman Farrell in the quarters.

#3 Singles

  1. Nik Marino (CMS) W-L: 22-2, UTR: 12.82, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1
  2. Michael Solimano (Amherst) W-L: 12-2, UTR: 12:69, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1
  3. Rafe Mosetick (Emory) W-L: 14-0, UTR: 12.49, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 5-0
  4. Palmer Campbell (Middlebury) W-L: 14-3, UTR: 12.25, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2
  5. Jeremy Bush (Wash U) W-L: 12-5, UTR: 12.24, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-2
  6. Deepak Sabada (Chicago) W-L: 12-3, UTR: 11.74, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-1
  7. Jeremy Dubin (Hopkins) W-L: 8-6, UTR: 11.56, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-3
  8. Jordan Mayer (Trinity Tx) W-L: 9-6, UTR: 11.46, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2

Notes: Look at this crew. The talent at #3 for this entire group is really absurd. In my humble blogging opinion, the four guys at the top of this list are the 4 best #3’s in the country, and we have two seniors towards the bottom of this list. Any of the top 4 guys would likely play #1 for 90+% of schools around the country, but instead we might get a treat and see some fantastic semifinal matchups.

Best quarterfinal matchup: Rafe Mosetick vs Jeremy Bush. I SEE YOU RAFE. Holy cow does this kid do well when it matters most. 5-0 against this group? Wow. Rafe beat Mr. Bush 7-5 in the 3rd set way back in February at Indoor Nationals, and I can’t wait to see the rematch.

Bottom ½ guy, ready for an upset: I’m not sure I’d pick any upsets here, but Sabada has been playing well of late. Add that onto the senior’s grit and determination, and he should be one tough out.

#4 Singles

  1. Jensen Reiter (Hopkins) W-L: 11-0, UTR: 12.42, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-0
  2. Joe Dorn (CMS) W-L: 14-1, UTR: 12.35, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-0
  3. Peter Leung (Chicago) W-L: 15-2, UTR: 12.23, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-1
  4. Tyler Kratky (Wash U) W-L: 10-6, UTR: 12.15, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-4
  5. Aaron Revzin (Amherst) W-L: 13-3, UTR: 12.10, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-0
  6. Jackson Frons (Middlebury) W-L: 9-6, UTR: 12.09, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2
  7. Ian Wagner (Emory) W-L: 8-6, UTR: 11.99, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-4
  8. Charlie Curtis (Trinity Tx) W-L: 8-3, UTR: 11.20, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-0

Notes: When Hopkins submitted their lineup to NCAAs, and D3AS saw that Reiter was playing #4, he freaked out a little bit. I can’t speak as to if Reiter will be playing #4 next week, but he did take down Rosensteel (Kenyon) in straight sets in the Regional Final. Although Reiter is the top of the group according to UTR, Dorn has to be considered el numero uno here. Reiter’s UTR only carries an 80% reliability rate, due to his lack of matchplay over the past couple of years. Dorn is 3-0 against NCAA quarterfinalists, and you never know what style of facial hair he will be sporting come match-day.

Best quarterfinal matchup: Peter Leung and Aaron Revzin. I know the numbers say go with Reiter and Dorn, but I think Dorn gets the better of Jensen there. Leung has been playing his best tennis over the past few weeks, smoking Ian Wagner and taking home a tough-fought 3-set win over Wadwani (CMU). On the other side, Revzin may look like a doubles player, but Aaron has quietly put together an excellent singles year. This is a match Chicago will need if they are to pull off the upset.

Bottom ½ guy, ready for an upset: I’ve already given Engine-Rev some love, so I think I’ll go with the two hander of destiny. Curtis hasn’t lost to a DIII opponent in over two months, and was recently moved up in the lineup. I’m inclined to trust Coach McMindes, and I like Curtis over Frons on Monday.

#5 Singles

  1. Josh Goodman (Emory) W-L: 11-3, UTR: 12.23, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-2
  2. Daniel Morkovine (CMS) W-L: 20-1, UTR: 12.14, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-0
  3. Luke Tsai (Chicago) W-L: 12-3, UTR: 11.97, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-2
  4. Sean Rodriguez (Amherst) W-L: 8-3, UTR: 11.94, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-0
  5. Johnny Wu (Wash U) W-L: 14-4, UTR: 11.70, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 4-3
  6. William DeQuant (Middlebury) W-L: 12-3, UTR: 11.66, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2
  7. Noah Joachim (Hopkins) W-L: 7-6, UTR: 11.51, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-2
  8. Clayton Niess (Trinity Tx) W-L: 4-8, UTR: 10.87, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1

Notes: Wu and Goodman have yet to play each other, even though their teams played twice this year. Tsai and Rodriguez should be a fun match, and both guys’ talents are somewhat lost given the studs who play near them. It’s also important to note that after being pulled for last year’s NCAA Finals, Morkovine has come back with a vengeance. The dude is 20-1, and even though Goodman has a higher UTR is probably the best #5 in the entire country. Props to Daniel for using the benching as motivation!

Best quarterfinal matchup: Johnny Wu vs. Josh Goodman. This is now my 3rd “best matchup” between Emory and Wash U. The UAA Clash of the Century should be a fiery display of some of the best and brightest two of DIII’s most storied programs, and the freshman/sophomore battle at #5 shouldn’t be an exception. Both times that Emory defeated Wash U this year, the Bears were without a starter, and Wu moved up to beat Wagner at #4. This could be an early look at what is to come over the next 3+ years as this great rivalry adds yet another sparkling chapter.

Bottom ½ guy, ready for an upset: William De Quant. De Quant has also been outstanding this season, but his results have come from both #5 and #6. De Quant lost to Rodriguez earlier this year, but I think that if the two play again in the semis, that young master De Quant will be ready to exact a proper spot of revenge.

#6 Singles

  • Glen Hull (CMS) W-L: 16-1, UTR: 12:95, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-1
  • David Liu (Chicago) W-L: 16-2, UTR: 12.09, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-1
  • Jason Haugen (Wash U) W-L: 10-2, UTR: 11.78, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 3-2
  • Tanner Brown (Hopkins) W-L: 12-3, UTR: 11.74, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-2
  • Aman Manji (Emory) W-L: 8-2, UTR: 11.70, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1
  • Kyle Schlanger (Middlebury) W-L: 3-1, UTR: 11.59, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 0-0
  • Andrew Arnaboldi (Amherst) W-L: 8-4, UTR: 11.37, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 2-1
  • Chas Mayer (Trinity Tx) W-L: 8-4, UTR: 11.23, Record vs. the NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1-1

Notes: Brown’s win came against Macey (CMS) earlier in the year, who no longer is in the starting lineup. Even though we’ve all wanted Hull in the lineup for a year now, perhaps some Settles “strategery” is in the mix here? Could the Stag coach simply trying to pull another NCAA fast one? I don’t think so, I just think Hull is that talented. On the other side of the draw, Arnaboldi’s two wins also came against guys who are no longer in their respective lineups, Walsh (Hop), and Van Der Geest (Middlebury). While #6 is certainly a question mark for a few of our quarterfinalists, Liu has been fantastic for the Maroons, and should be favored against anyone on his half of the draw.

Best quarterfinal matchup: Glen Hull vs. Tanner Brown. Hull won the West ITA last fall, and has had a wonderful spring to boot. However, Tanner Brown is not you ordinary #6 player. The former All-American has been scary good as Hopkins’s anchor, dropping only one DIII match since February (NCW in a super after his team had already lost). Tanner is not a stranger to NCAA conditions. In Hopkins’ quarterfinal loss to CMS last spring, Brown defeated Marino in straight sets, a feat only equaled by Joey Fritz and Palmer Campbell over the past two springs. Hull can hit the snot out of the ball, and Brown will simply loop it back. Should be a fun match with contrasting styles.

Bottom ½ guy, ready for an upset: Not a big fan of any upsets here, but I guess I’ll give a tip of the cap to D3AS and take Aman Manji. In addition to having a sick name, Manji also has a sick game. While Haugen also appears to be lineup-ready, both are talented so as my man KG would say, “anything is possiblllllllleeeeeeee!”

Thanks for sticking this one out to the end. I’ve often considered writing more articles like these, with more numbers/research and fewer words. Please let me know what you think. Your feedback helps shape The Blog, so don’t be afraid to speak up.  

11 thoughts on “NCAA Quarterfinals: By the Numbers

  1. Matt

    I may be in the minority here, but I don’t find UTR particularly useful. Analytics are great in general, but I think we’re dealing with sample sizes that are way too small to glean anything meaningful. I know there’s a percentage of confidence built in, but even the larger samples are too small; this isn’t as useful as something like wins above replacement (in baseball), which draws from a much larger data pool.

    1. Hi Matt,

      Please help us out. What do you mean by “I think we’re dealing with sample sizes that are way too small…”

      UTR calcs for players include all match results reported by college coaches / teams to the ITA. Plus, all results from the ATP, WTA, ITF, USTA juniors, as well as select results from U.S. high school tennis, LTA, Tennis Canada, etc.

      The UTR system currently has ratings for more than 190,000 players from 193 countries, based on more than 2.1 million match results. Match results are added to the system every day — so we will have a larger data pool for you by tomorrow. 😉

      The Universal Tennis Team
      http://www.universaltennis.com

      1. Matt

        Hello UTR,

        My comment was motivated by the explanation you gave re: your methodology, specifically: “The ratings are calculated from match scores (games won/loss), for the most recent 30 matches played, going back 12 months.”

        For me, a 30-match sample is too small to have a great deal of predictive value, especially when many of those matches are against widely fluctuating levels of competition. The UTR system is better suited, I think, to D1 tennis, where there’s a broader body of work produced each season (against competition that is perhaps less uneven, ability-wise.) And even if we were dealing with a really large sample, I believe ability levels fluctuate so rapidly in D3 as to problematize the validity of any statistical assessment system.

        Also, just parenthetically: the authors of this website have (rightly) taken certain commenters to task for reading heavily into games won/lost. If, as your comment from earlier suggests, match scores inform the UTR instrument to a significant degree, I suspect it may be difficult to separate the signal from the noise–games won/lost can fluctuate somewhat randomly.

        My reservations may well be ill-founded, and if others find your instrument useful, that’s good enough for me. But if I want to predict who’s going to win these elite 8 matches, I think it’s most accurate to analyze players’ styles of play and how they match up with one another (as the authors of this blog do so well.)

        1. Hey Matt,

          Thank you for providing further clarification.

          Our rating system was designed to accurately describe a player’s current level of play. Our research suggests the inclusion of results beyond 30 matches describes how competitive a player once was, which is not our focus.

          When two players that are within 1.0 UTR of each other play, our system predicts that the match will be competitive — not who will win or lose — regardless of whether the players are competing in D1, D3, junior or professional events.

          For more details, please check out our website at http://www.universaltennis.com/aboutus.aspx

          Instead of debating the theory of methodology, we suggest you put our ratings to test.

          Best regards,

          The Universal Tennis Team
          http://www.universaltennis.com

          1. Matt

            “Instead of debating the theory of methodology, we suggest you put our ratings to test.”

            This sounds kind of defensive, and I don’t even know what it means to “put our ratings to test.” I debated methodology because you asked me to provide further elaboration for my stance. To my mind, your system doesn’t work for D3 tennis, and if your system is only designed to predict that a match is going to be competitive, then I don’t know why I need your system to tell me that. If others find your system helpful, then good for them.

  2. UTR?

    Can you give a quick explanation as to how this system works? Also, it’s “intriguing” that Carswell and Putterman haven’t switched spots at the top of the lineup for Wash U.

    1. Hello…

      “Can you give a quick explanation as to how this system works?”

      Sure!

      The Universal Tennis Rating system, or UTRs, provides tennis players worldwide with a common language for accurately and objectively identifying their levels of play. The system has a 16-level scale, from beginners to elite world-class professionals. The ratings are calculated from match scores (games won/loss), for the most recent 30 matches played, going back 12 months.

      Universal Tennis is the ratings partner for the ITA. Hundreds of college coaches use UTRs as part of their student-athlete recruitment and player development efforts.

      More UTR details can be found on our website at http://www.universaltennis.com/aboutus.aspx

      If you are curious, you are welcome to create a free UTR Basic account to look up player ratings at http://www.universaltennis.com

      The Universal Tennis Team

    2. D3West

      Regarding the non-switch between Carswell and Putterman, Coach Follmer is in an interesting situation. Last year, Putt couldn’t win a match at #1, and Carswell was undefeated at #2. People clamored for the switch, but Follmer stuck with the more experienced player at #1. I’m sure their UTR’s would’ve been switched at the time. This year, as you know, the situation exactly the same, but the two players traded places. In my opinion, Wash U has two guys that are excellent #2 singles players and OK #1 singles players, and this is what they would get no matter who plays #1.

  3. D3fan

    Awesome article! Would you (or someone else on the blog) do the same type of article on the women’s side? Thanks!

  4. D3Fan

    Big fan of the numbers-heavy approach, especially including UTR’s. Thanks for the hard work that went into this article.

    1. Hello

      UTR is not a good system. Look at tennisrecruiting

Leave a Comment