ASouth: I’m going to write this introduction for the Guru because I simply excel at introductions and conclusions. The rest of the stuff, I’m not so good at, which is a good thing because I’m not writing this article by myself. We’ve decided to come together for a Weekend Recap Roundtable, mostly focused on the Elite 8 teams that are left. You will see some mention of other powerhouses, such as Case Western and CMU, but for the most part look away for your non Elite 8 information here. I will be doing my best to write my own NCAA Tournament Weekend 1 Recap while I try to hit on ALL the teams that played, but as you can imagine, that takes time. So, stay tuned for that. Until then, feast on some thoughts from your favorite bloggers below!
What was the most surprising thing that happened this weekend?
Guru: I’m going with Kenyon’s demolition of Case in singles. Even though the Spartans did not have Kevin Dong, I did not see this coming. Kenyon played their best match of the year at the right time and Case has fallen a long way since their Indoors 3rd place finish, particularly in singles. In their last tough matches in singles, they’ve gotten crushed by CMU, lost several matches to Brandeis and now got crushed by Kenyon. Kenyon salvages a forgettable season by peaking at the right time and gets to the Final Eight that they probably deserved last year.
Central: The most surprising thing to me was in the CMS region. Tyler not only beat Whitman, but they came out and swept CMS and were a set away from completing a huge upset. Obviously it ended up just being another 5-4 loss for them, but what it did show was weakness in the CMS doubles lineup. I thought Butts and Mork would take the top spot, but don’t expect CMS coming back from a doubles sweep in the Elite Eight as the talent is just too good. Chicago is licking their chops right now. Fortunately CMS’s singles depth can match the depth of Chicago.
Which team were you most impressed with this weekend?
Greek: Emory. I know it’s hard to be impressed with a team that everyone has such high expectations for, but for the Eagles to sweep doubles against a solid Trinity team and run away with singles was remarkable. Us bloggers felt that Trinity was one of the best 2-seeds, and Emory completely blitzed them. Come tourney time, I don’t expect such routine victories, especially with such high-caliber teams facing each other, but Emory has shown us time and time again why they are the top team in the country.
Regional: I was impressed with several teams but I was most impressed by Emory. After easily beating Washington & Lee, they took out a tough Trinity TX team by winning three tight doubles matches and dominating at the lower spots in the lineup. There is no spot in the lineup where Emory is weak, and they are very strong at so many places. They have looked like the best team in the country this entire season, and I like them a lot on the left side of that bracket with Kenyon, Bowdoin, and Hopkins.
Best recovery from a poor regular season – Wash U, Hopkins or Kenyon?
NE: We made this the poll question on the Blog’s homepage because you could make a great case for all three teams. After some thought, I think I have to go with Wash U (although the public vote does not agree). Even though Hopkins struggled a lot this year, every single one of the bloggers would have been surprised if Swat beat the Jays for the conference title. Yes, their upset of CMU was by far the best match of their season, but they’ve been dubbed the ultimate tank and tree team for weeks now. As for Kenyon, they were always going to win their conference, giving them a real shot to pull something off in the tournament. After Indoors, and losses to Case and Trinity Tx, I really thought there was almost no chance that the Bears made NCAAs, let alone their 879,041st straight quarterfinals.
Central: KENYON! I predicted early on that this team would struggle. Not only did they graduate a lot of talent, they lost a top of the lineup guy early in the season. Wash U and Hopkins have the on paper talent to turn their season around.. Kenyon really didn’t this year, but they rode Geier’s impressive season all the way to the Elite Eight. The one D3 loss that Geier had was to CMU’s Alla in a match that Kenyon lost 5-4. Coincidence? I think not. I expected Kenyon to win the NCAC, but thought it might be a battle with either Denison or Depauw after how Indoors went. It really wasn’t close. While I think the Lords were given a chance at NCAAs because Case has been an overachiever all season, they still pulled off an upset against a team that is very difficult to play. Kenyon just matched up really well against the Case lineup with Turlington over Stroup and whomever played Dong or Gruber. At that point they needed an upset and got it from Paolucci and they once again leaned on the serve and forehand of Geier to take out Krimbill. Congrats and GO LORDS!
Which team are you most disappointed in after the weekend?
Greek: Disappointed isn’t the term I’d probably use, but I’m surprised that Carnegie Mellon didn’t qualify for the Elite 8. After their fantastic performance at UAAs, the Tartans looked primed to make a run at NCAAs, much like Chicago did last year after a great UAA weekend. While we have learned from past experiences that Hopkins is not a team you should count out come tourney time, I thought CMU had reached another level. It’s disappointing that they aren’t going to be playing in Kalamazoo.
ASouth: I’ve officially appeared in this article and of course it’s for most disappointing. I’m going to echo Greek and say Carnegie Mellon. No one else should really be disappointed in their result other than this team (and maybe UMW but I’m not going to waste my breath). We can talk about how they got a poor draw and got a team that had a lot of talent and basically tanks the regular season, but the fact of the matter is Elite 8 teams win this match. CMU should have been swept in doubles here and they were outplayed at pretty much all three spots. The senior team of Alla/Kumar lost to a team that I didn’t really believe was that great at #3. I feel like every year it’s always something with the Tartans. Whether that be a bad draw at UAAs, NCAAs, or whatever, good teams win these matches. And here we are, with another CMU Sweet 16 ouster.
Of the teams still remaining, who’s stock moved the most for you this weekend, either up or down?
NE: I think the simple answer to this question is going with one of the two surprise quarterfinalists, but I’m going to say Middlebury. While Kenyon and Hopkins’ stock is certainly up, I still don’t view either team as a national championship contender. I hope I’m wrong, because it’s far more fun when upsets come to pass. I know that Midd’s two wins were over Wilkes and Skidmore, but sweeping Skid in doubles is no easy task. The Thoroughbreds were only swept once all year, and they fought back to a 5-4 loss at PP way back in March. Midd has been playing great doubles since their #1 and #2 teams flipped a few weeks ago, and I think they would be favored to take a doubles lead on any team left in the field. D3West pointed out that 4 teams (½ the remaining field!) overcame doubles deficits this weekend, that becomes significantly more difficult when you’re staring down the Farrell barrel (patent pending).
Two lower-ranked Pool A teams won against two UAA Pool C teams. Do you believe the UAA was overrated headed into the weekend?
Regional: Maybe slightly, as I think we put the top 8 on a pedestal above the rest of the country, but I still think the UAA looks pretty darn good. Emory, Wash U, and Chicago all still look great, and Emory is the big favorite to win the whole thing. I have been questioning Case’s singles for a long time now, and I’m honestly not all that surprised that they lost to a Kenyon team that has been playing much better lately. And as for CMU, yes, they lost to Hop, but we knew how talented Hopkins is and how they turn it on in NCAAs. It’s disappointing for the UAA that Case and CMU got knocked out, but to have 3 of the final 8 teams is still a terrific achievement.
ASouth: Yes, and no. Obviously, there were certain teams that were overrated (CMU and Case), but does that mean the UAA is overrated? I do not believe so. Emory blanked Trinity TX, Wash U lost like 5 games at the bottom of the lineup against UWW, and Chicago was on it’s way to a 7-2 win over Gustavus without dropping a set. I think the “UAA Debate” is actually a stupid one, because the fact of the matter is I don’t see your Williams/Tufts/Amhersts of the world beating Hopkins on Sunday either. Maybe one of them takes out a Kenyon team, but still. The only team that I think now should have been in the tournament is Wesleyan over Case Western. Unfortunately for the Cardinals, their inexperience caused them to lose a key outdoor match in the beginning of the year. But, becoming a good team takes time.
The fact of the matter is that the UAA has three really strong teams left in the tournament. This question might change totally if Chicago beats CMS or Wash U beats Middlebury next week. Then, we’ll be talking about how the UAA has two teams better than anyone in the country potentially. While the failings of CMU and Case are a dark spot, the UAA isn’t a “team.” They’re a conference that has 5 strong teams. 2 of them faltered, 3 of them are moving on. Let’s discuss this again next week.
Who’s playing the best doubles in the country right now? How about the best singles?
Guru: Midd in doubles and Emory in singles with CMS not too far behind. The Panthers and Eagles were the only teams that breezed through their regionals. I still have Emory and Midd meeting in the finals.
Who are your Final Four?
Guru: Emory, Bowdoin, Midd and CMS
NE: Emory, Bowdoin, Midd and CMS. It’s boring, but I can’t change now.
Regional: Emory, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Chicago
ASouth: Emory, Bowdoin, Wash U, and Chicago – I have Wash U in my bracket challenge and I don’t believe that CMS is as good as advertised especially after this weekend.
Great discussion but one major point is being missed…..at the end of the day the NCAA really doesn’t care about college tennis.
D3Fan. You aren’t getting it. Flights cost large amounts of money. Booking even a short flight with 4-5 days advance purchase makes most of those tickets $800-$1000 each. Multiply that by 11 and you have major expense. You are also assuming that the NCAA actually cares about D3 tennis. They get the tournament done as cheaply as possible. Strength and fairness of a regional is a distant second to cost.
CMU and case got beat by teams who played well that day. It doesn’t mean that CMU and Case did not deserve to be in the tournament. The NESCAC is a conference that hurts itself with extra rules. For years they didn’t allow their teams to even participate in the NCAA Tournament. If they want to give their teams better odds, they should change their rules. Chicago, Wash U and Emory are good academic schools and they don’t place extra rules on their teams.
UAA not as deep as people thought but Emory is VERY good! NESCAC has more depth than UAA but you are right, we will never know with the small NCAA tournament.
Wesleyan didn’t just “lose a key outdoor match in the beginning of the year” – they got smoked 5-0.
That is not to take anything away from Wesleyan — I agree that they should have been in the tournament. However in hindsight both Amherst and Williams belonged there as well (over either or both of CMU and Case). So, I do think the UAA was overrated relative to the NESCAC this year.
The lack of cross-conference play (especially between NESCAC and UAA teams) was the real problem. So long as we continue to live with the shortage of Pool C spots and the short/late NESCAC seasons, we will continue to have tournaments with skewed and flawed compositions. It is unfortunate that we have such a small number of data points to determine such an important thing.
To say “in hindsight both Amherst and Williams belonged there over CMU and Case” is extremely short-sighted. You are basically judging CMU’s whole season over a 5-3 Indoors loss to Hopkins, assuming that Amherst or Williams would have won that same match (which we don’t know at all). Let’s not forget that CMU also beat Hopkins earlier in the year. In fact, they’ve beaten 3 teams that are in the quarterfinals (Kenyon, Hopkins, and Chicago).
I’m in agreement with you that there are teams that get left out and should be in, but let’s steer the argument away from “blah blah should be in over blah blah” at this point. CMU had a great season. It just so happened that their loss was at an inopportune moment, and the same for Case Western.
I found D3Fan’s comments to be reasonable (and not just because I happen to agree with him) and I don’t follow your comment that we should “steer the argument away” from commenting on NCAA selections. Part of following a sport is debating hypotheticals, particularly since D3Fan was simply addressing one of the questions from the roundtable, namely, whether the UAA was overrated. Had his comments been petulant, that would be a different matter, but it sounds like you’re trying to police reasonable debate–which isn’t in the spirit of the open discussion you typically encourage.
*I also don’t mean to assume that D3Fan is male (apologies for a careless assumption.)
That’s fair. I didn’t mean to police something, I just feel that the question was “is the UAA overrated” and I interpreted that not as a comparison to the NESCAC but really just in general. I think opening up the Pool C argument opens up a can of worms with no answer. Also, from my perspective, CMU and Case should have made the tournament. To say that they shouldn’t have now since they lost seems extremely unfair to them and the seasons they had.
Thanks–your points are all well taken and I see your perspective (even if I don’t necessarily agree.)
If the question is “Is the UAA overrated?” then I don’t know how to answer that other than by adding “in relation to whom?”
To me, then, the obvious comparison is the NESCAC, since it was the NESCAC who had the top three teams (Williams, Wesleyan and Amherst) who didn’t make the tournament in the various later iterations of your Bracketology. Also, in the ITA rankings, four of the five highest ranked teams who didn’t make the tournament were from the NESCAC (Williams, Wesleyan, Tufts and Amherst).
So far in the tournament, Emory and Wash U have performed consistently with expectations while CMU and Case have not. I don’t think it is unreasonable to judge CMU (or Case) heavily based on the tournament performance, since there are so few data points that produce the tournament teams. I also don’t think it is unreasonable to say that any or all of Wesleyan, Amherst and Williams “deserved” to make the tournament over CMU and/or Case. That is a statement of opinion, not fact, but I do believe it to be correct.
Ultimately, we have two largely disjoint sets of teams — the UAA teams and the NESCAC teams — who have limited direct competition. This is a fault of the NESCAC rules (as The Cup correctly observes), lack of cross-conference play (which is partly a function of NESCAC rules) and the small number of Pool C spots.
Unless/until the NESCAC changes their rules and/or the NCAA admits teams like Williams, Pomona-Pitzer, Wesleyan, Tufts and Amhest (all of whom were top 15 teams in the latest ITA rankings), we will have the same problem and will be making the same arguments annually — how to select too few teams into Pool C slots with limited relevant data.
While I agree with most of the statements that have been made in regards to this argument, we must remember that even if there was an extension to the field to include more NESCAC schools that are deserving good enough to compete in the tournament, it still doesn’t change the fact that the NCAA has restrictions on flying teams to play outside of the 500 mile limit. With that in mind, including these teams really would only strengthen each east coast Regional, but yet the same Elite Eight would likely be in place. It would just be a tougher road for Middlebury and Bowdoin to get there. Just ask Pomona about how fun it is being a top 5 team last season and running up against CMS in your Regional and not getting the chance to go to the Elite Eight.
What is the 500 mile rule exactly? For example, could the NESCAC schools play in a Pittsburgh regional? It is 482 miles from Boston to Pittsburgh.
Teams greater than 500 miles from the host site have to fly. The committee does whatever it can to minimize flights, though it also takes into account how taxing a 482 mile drive would be. They would probably prefer to send a team like Tufts to Amherst or Middlebury if it didn’t have a huge impact on the fairness of the bracket.
did that answer your question?
No, I still don’t understand the issue. Let’s say that Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan all had made the tournament instead of Chicago, Case and CMU. Why couldn’t the tournament committee split the NESCAC schools across more than one region, both relatively close to one another (so they didn’t all show up in the same region)? For example, in 2012 didn’t Bowdoin and Amherst each host a regional? Why couldn’t that happen again?
Just for argument sake, I typed these schools into Mapquest. Amherst is 522 miles from Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh). Tufts is 577. Williams is 494 (phew! just made it!). Wesleyan is 464. So theoretically it could happen for at least two of the schools in the NESCAC. There is somewhat of an issue in regards to the size of the Regionals as both already have 6 teams in them which is generally considered full. Now that doesn’t imply the committee wouldn’t expand a regional to 7 or 8 as a few of the women’s regionals are that way.
The other problem is likely with host schools. You have to apply to be a host school for a regional. Carnegie is the only school that typically makes the tournament that could host any of the East coast schools that would travel to within the 500 mile radius. What happens if they decide not to host in a year that Amherst, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Wesleyan all make it?!? 5 UAA schools made it this year, so it is not out of the question that 5 NESCAC schools could make it. In that scenario, CMU likely does not get in and the NCAA is back to square one putting all the schools against one another in one or two regionals.
In your scenario (5 NESCAC schools in the tournament), Middlebury and Bowdoin would still host as top seeds. Since Carnegie wouldn’t have gotten into the tournament, that would likely make the Middlebury regional with Midd, Wesleyan, and Skidmore. The Bowdoin region would have Bowdoin, Amherst, Williams, and MIT. So my argument holds that all it would do is strengthen the regionals and not the Elite Eight. I will let GURU explain more if I am incorrect as this is his area of expertise.
In the scenario you’ve described, would all the extra NESCAC teams (Amherst, Williams, Tufts and Wesleyan in this example) be required to attend either the Midd or Bowdoin regional? Why couldn’t the committee spread them out over more than those two regionals? For example, why couldn’t some of them go to Cleveland, Chicago or Pittsburgh? Those are short flights, and the aggregate travel time wouldn’t be that much more than a 400 mile bus ride. If they were willing to fly, would the committee allow it? Or are they prohibited from traveling more than 500 miles?
Perhaps most (or all?) of your other readers know the details, but if there are many others like me, who don’t, maybe an article explaining it all would be worthwhile?