UAA tournament preview

Sanlando Park is the site of this year's UAA tournament. Sorry, NESCAC. Having four teams in the top 10 won't change New England's weather.

The UAA has taken a little bit of a hit this year with the momentary decline of Wash U, but they are still the 3rd best conference in the country (at least), and their conference tournament deserves a little special attention. As I’m sure we are all aware, the conference is extremely spread out, so, this year, they have agreed to meet in Florida for their conference tournament. Sounds like a fun time.

Thursday

#1 Emory vs. #8 Rochester

I don’t think I could possibly write more than two sentences about this match. Emory would win 9-0 with their C lineup.

#2 Carnegie Mellon vs. #7 NYU

NYU is much stronger than Rocherster, but they still have no business beating CMU. At least Carnegie’s starting lineup will get some work in, though I still expect them to win 9-0 or 8-1.

#3 Wash U vs. #6 Brandeis

Brandeis has pulled off at least one stunning upset in the UAA tournament, and I think they’re going to do it again this year…. just kidding. Wash U is playing extremely well right now, and they’re not about to get knocked off by the Judges. Though they might lose a doubles match, as they always seem too, they will make quick work of Brandeis and win 8-1.

#4 Case Western vs. #5 Chicago

This is the only first round match actually worth previewing, but it’s lost a little bit of it’s luster in the UAA this year. Usually the UAA #4 has a chance to make the NCAA tournament with a big performance in the conference tournament, but that’s not the case this year. Even though neither team has much to play for, the Case Western guys have enough heart to come out and play hard anyway.They will have to know not to feel comfortable after their closer-than-the-score-indicates 7-2 win victory. I think the Spartans will come out fast in doubles and hold on for a 5-4 victory.

Friday

Friday is the day with the only match that really matters, but I’ll preview the Case/Emory match anyways.

#1 Emory vs. #4 Case Western

Emory has shown themselves to be one of the elite teams this year, so they shouldn’t be tested much by the Spartans. Even if they play the uber-talented Maroons, they will dominate. Their singles lineup is just too strong to lose a match to the Spartans, but I could see Case taking #2 doubles on a good day. Not many teams are focused enough top-to-bottom to come out and blank a top 25 team, so I’m going to say that Case wins a match somewhere in here. Emory 8-1

#2 Carnegie Mellon vs. #3 Wash U

Carnegie Mellon’s ranking is really inflated by one big win over an NCW team that nobody really knows much about. Outside of that one win, they have narrow 5-4 wins over Mary Washington and Denison, and they were killed by both Bowdoin and Johns Hopkins. Despite their near miss against Kenyon, I’m not really convinced of their worthiness.

Wash U is a different story entirely. They came into the year in the top 5, and then they kept finding ways to lose close matches. Their loss to Cruz was a head-scratcher, but then they lost to Kenyon and Bowdoin and Hopkins, and before we knew it, they were outside of the top 15 with no real chance to make the NCAA tournament. Then, the NCAA three them a bone with this 7th Pool C bid, and they will probably get in if they can beat the Tartans. Every single time they lost this season (with the exception of their match against Bowdoin), I thought, “How did they mess that up?” If they lose this match, it will complete one of the most disappointing seasons any team has had in recent memory. As it is, they can still salvage their season. If they win this match, they will probably get a chance to host a region with a weak #1 seed like Trinity or Whitman and will probably end up making the Elite Eight (even though they should be forced to go play 2-seed to a stronger team like Kenyon because they absolutely don’t deserve to host a season with the season they’ve had).

The Bears definitely have the more talented lineup, and I think they are pretty much a lock to take 4 of the singles matches. Carnegie loves the underdog role, and they will put up a hell of a fight. I would expect them to take 2 of 3 doubles, but as long as Wash U wins one, they should win the match. The Puttermans have had their troubles this year, and the Duncan/Miller combo has been phenomenal, so I’ll take CMU at #1 doubles. The Carnegie Mellon #2 doubles team has been really up and down, but they’ve been able to come up with victories in big matches, so I’ll pick them at #2 as well. Wash U’s has had a revolving door at #3 doubles, but whoever they put there will definitely be good, and I think they will help the Bears avoid the sweep. After that, Putterman is the clear favorite at #1. Heany-Secord is a very strong #2, but Parizher has been nearly unstoppable for the Bears all year, and I think his experience will carry him to a narrow victory there. The younger Putterman has struggled in big matches this year for the Bears, and Duncan has been Carnegie’s most consistent point-getter, so I’ll take Duncan there. Wash U has to be favored at the bottom three positions, and I think they will take two of them in straight sets to clinch the match 5-3.

#5 Chicago vs. #8 Rochester

This is also no contest. 9-0 Chicago.

#6 Brandeis vs. #7 NYU

The Judges have already beaten NYU this year, and they will do it again in this back draw match. 6-3 Brandeis.

Saturday

I’ll wait to see what actually happens before previewing the final day. I would hate to try out a match-by-match preview of a final only to have CMU win the semi. Check back on this post later for more.

12 thoughts on “UAA tournament preview

  1. anonymous

    Um, can we go back to talking about the UAA Tournament? Did Carnegie really almost lose to NYU?

  2. D3TennisAlumni

    Does UAA play matches to completion or to decision? I think some other conferences play to decision.

    1. d3tennisguy

      Decision. My bad.

      1. anonymous2

        No, looks like completion. Case 6-3 over Chicago, Wash U 8-1 over Brandeis, etc.

  3. Anonymous

    I would lke to bring up a point completly off topic. And that is recruting.
    I noticed that Amherst has the 19th rated recruiting class in all of college tennis. (not just D3) Amazing! Congrats to them!
    This is in no way a slam against them, just a point to potential recruits considering college. If you want a great education and a great tennis expierence, think about D3. The competition is all that you could ask for, and your education will be top notch. Not to mention, the coaches for the most part are very good developing players.
    When choosing a school, how many players are on the roster? If there are alot, can my game really be developed? Will I get playing time my freshman year? Will I get into enough matches to develope a competitive rythym?
    While Amherst is obviously a fantastic school, there are many others that are great too, and you can get playing time right away. Just because you are a 4 star or 5 star, that does not mean that you will start at Amherst right away. You could start must likely at Bowdoin, Trinity, Bates, CMS, Redlands, Mary Washington and many others with fantastic coaches. And not rosters of 27 to compete with.
    Again, I just wanted these recruits to really understand what they are getting into when they arrive at the tennis courts for the first day of practice Freshman year.

    1. d3tennisguy

      First off, my guess is that the 4 and 5-stars Amherst recruits will definitely get a chance to at least practice with the main team and develop their first year. Second, they would probably rather play for Amherst than those other teams you mentioned because Garner can sell them on the, “You will win a national championship” line, which is something Bowdoin, Trinity, Bates, Redlands, and Mary Washington can’t legitimately claim. (CMS can, but they have a roster as big as Amherst’s). Finally, Amherst is graduating three (maybe four. I don’t know about Rattenhuber) starters this year, so I’m sure those 4 and 5 stars feel confident about getting a chance to play in the starting lineup. I think the Jeffs do have a 4-star or two on the bench right now, but I it’s basically assured that they get in the lineup at some point during their career.

      That being said, I have no idea why a three-star would ever choose Amherst. If you’re a lower-ranked three-star, there’s a legitimate chance that you go four years without playing at schools like Amherst, CMS, and Emory. Thanks for the post. I think a lot of high school seniors and juniors are starting to recognize that the level of competition in D3 tennis is absurdly high compared to other D3 sports, and the calibre of schools in D3 just can’t be touched by D2

      1. Anonymous

        Here is something that I cannot stand when people are talking about recruiting: “I have no idea why a thre star would ever choose Amherst”. I’m sorry, but that statement is absurd. Foregoing all of the scholastic reasons and speaking strictly on a ranking basis, there are several reasons why a three star may potentially choose Amherst. First of all (and I am from Texas so I know the Texas teams well), Max Frey was a 3-star and is one of the top number 1 players in the country. Ryan Spencer his doubles partner (UT Tyler) are sitting at 3 in the West Region, a highly contested region if I may add, and we’re both 3-stars or even less. Cory Kowal and Bobby Cocanougher from Trinity were NCAA finalists, 4-time all Americans, and ITA doubles champions and were both 2-stars!

        This brings me to my next point: maybe some of these 3-stars are actually in fact magnificent doubles players. A glaring flaw in the tennis recruiting website system. And lastly, international players. I’m not 100% sure about the following statement but I am sure that they are not ranked unless they have competed in the US, but weren’t Rattenhuber and Chafitz both internationals? They were technically 0 stars and they chose Amherst. I dont know but when someone immediately disregards a player based soley on their number of “stars” I think is a little ridiculous.

        Apologies for the rant but it seems like a reasonable point of view

        1. d3tennisguy

          I can understand your resentment over a blanket statement like that, but I don’t think you really understood its meaning (or if you did, you did a less-than-stellar job arguing against it). I wasn’t disregarding the athletic merits of three-stars at all. If you look at the national rankings, they are littered with 3-, 2- and 1- stars who have extremely successful college careers:

          #7 Andrew La Cava was a 2-star
          #8 Amarik Donkena was a 3-star
          #12 Alex Johnson 3-star
          #13 C.J. Williams 3-star
          #14 Nick Ballou 3-star
          #23 Jeff Lotz 2-star
          etc. etc. etc.

          I absolutely believe that Division 3 is the best place for any 3-, 2-, or 1-star player who is passionate about the game (and is is often the best place for higher ranked players). The reason I think it’s silly for a 3-star to choose Amherst is because there’s a chance they never see the starting lineup there. The Amherst starting lineup currently consists of 5 four-stars (Chafetz, Dale, Kahan, Jung, Waterman), a five-star (Fritz), an international player and D1 transfer (Rattenhuber), and one three-star who plays doubles (Sorrel). What happens to all these other guys who are on their roster? The Jeffs have several 3- and 4-star players on their bench! And these are guys who could and would be stars at several other top 10 schools!

          There’s a chance that a three-star who choses Amherst and works his ass off eventually makes the starting lineup, but that is a huge challenge because every time they graduate a few players, they just bring in three more 5-stars! A 3-star at Amherst will also basically never get the opportunity to excel individually like a Max Frey. I just believe that three-stars would be much better off at a school like Trinity where they can start their freshman year, get great competition, and become one of the best players in the country by their junior year (like Frey). If academics are important, there are several great academic schools with good tennis teams that could really use a couple three-stars: Pomona, Bowdoin, and Whitman are top-10 teams that come to mind. If a player is willing to dig a little deeper in the rankings, there are tons of great schools: Swarthmore, Carleton, Haverford, Bates, Vassar, Depauw, and tens of other schools that I’m too lazy to mention. These are all places where a 3-star could have a prolific college career, still compete for a national championship, and still walk away with a degree from a great school. All things considered, I just think that Amherst is a poor choice for some of these kids.

          1. Anonymous

            I understand what you’re saying it just seems like you’re assuming that just because someone is a four or five star player, they are automatically better than a 3star player. If this is your point then I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is not, then that is what you seem to be implying. All I’m saying is that there are great 3 star players, which you listed, and these three star players are arguably better than many 4 or 5 star players. For example, from the Amherst players you listed, Dale, Jung and Waterman, although great players, are not nearly as good as some of the players you listed above. I don’t really want to go into detail and break everything down, I just think that no matter what a player is rated, if they are good, they are good. A certain number of stars does not dictate that. All those stars say is how many points they gathered from playing tournaments; either many points from few tournaments, or few points from many many tournaments. In both situations, one could become a 4 star. Which is obviously bogus for the player getting that rating in the latter method previously mentioned.

          2. Anonymous

            Actually, the last poster is dead wrong about the star system. It has NOTHING to do with points garnered at tournaments. It is all about who you beat and who you loose to. (check FAQ’s at tennisrecruiting.net) I totally agree with D3 blogger (that is a first) that a 3 star has very little chance of starting for Amherst. Which brings me back to my original point……
            Recruits,
            If you are a 3 or 4 star, look at the lineup, if you feel you have a chance to play right away, go for it. If not, don’t be blinded by the fact that you may win a D3 championship. College tennis is about the expiernce you will have with your teamates and the school. Also, look at how many a team will keep on the roster. Does the coach have enough one on one time for me to help me develop?
            These are just a couple of things that every recruit should look at.
            Recruits, go make your own National Championship!!

          3. d3tennisguy

            Also, in my defense, I know that a three-star isn’t automatically going to be worse at tennis than a 4- or 5-star. No ranking system is going to be perfect, especially when it boils down players to five or six qualitative categories. In general, however, the folks at TRN do a great job, so it’s a pretty safe assumption to say that a 4-star is going to be better than a 3-star more often than not.

            I think the players that have been more successful as 3-stars than Amherst’s or Williams’ 4-stars in D3 do so because they got the chance to start and play against top-notch competition in their first year. For instance, Asokaraj, from Amherst, was probably better than Frey when they entered college, but that’s not the case not. It also obviously has a lot to do with the different players’ games, and who has more upside, and who’s working harder, etc. Point is, I still believe it’s foolish for a 3-star to go to Amherst, unless they have a ton of confidence that they can outcompete the other recruits that are coming in with them in the same class.

  4. Anonymous

    Pretty sure this will be a Wash U vs. Emory final. Wash U. may have a couple of bumps in the road getting there, but they will be there. In the final, it could get very ugly for Wash U. Emory has too much in doubles and the top three. Emory 7-2.

Leave a Comment