Well, DIII tennis fans. We had a very eventful weekend. The regional writers have been doing a phenomenal job, and I’m sure they will do a couple recaps, but it’s time for the old man to get back into the mix. I think it’s time for another Bubble Watch.
With only a couple weeks to go in the regular season, the picture is starting to come into focus, but a few teams can still throw a wrench into things. It took about 2 hours for the previous article to get rendered obsolete by the GoldfishGateBridge, so let’s hope this one can last a little longer.
Locks
Cal Lutheran
Big Wins: #5 Williams, #7 Trinity (x2), #8 Johns Hopkins, #12 Redlands, #17 Amherst, #19 Whittier, #22 Pomona-Pitzer, #23 Mary Washington, #27 Skidmore
Significant Losses: #1 CMS, #2 Kenyon, #10 UC Santa Cruz
Remaining Matches: SCIAC tournament
So what? The Kingsmen lost to UCSC in a match that me, D3West, and everyone else with a brainstem saw coming. As close as the match was, there was no way those Slug seniors were going to lose on their home courts on senior day. Cal Lu still obviously has all wins they need to get into the tournament. As previously stated, the Kingsmen need Treacy to round back into form, but chances are he’s improving on a daily basis after coming back from injury. Even if they were to lose in the semifinals of the SCIAC tournament, they will still be the #2 or 3 seed in the California regional (depending on how the NCAAs want to interpret their loss to Cruz), which will result in a rematch with Cruz on CMS’ courts (most likely).
Middlebury
Big Wins: #10 UC Santa Cruz, #12 Redlands, #19 Whittier, #21 Bates, #22 P-P, #28 Wisconsin-Whitewater
Significant Losses: #1 CMS
Remaining Matches: #5 Williams, #27 Skidmore, #17 Amherst, NESCACs
Not much has changed in the last two weeks for the Panthers. Their match with Bowdoin was canceled, and they picked up an indirect win over Cal Lu via UCSC. If you don’t look at comparative scores with CMS, Middlebury has a very legitimate argument to be placed above both Williams and Cruz as perhaps the best team in the NESCAC, but instead of arguing about it, we can just wait until they play Williams next weekend. If the Panthers win, they will most likely take over the #4 spot in the country (at least in the court of public opinion) going into their match with Amherst. As far as Pool C goes, Midd’s wins currently have them placed ahead of every team in the SCIAC (including you, Cal Lu), and the UAA hasn’t done enough collectively to earn more than two Pool C bids this year. These guys are locks.
Amherst
Big Wins: #5 Williams, #21 Bates, #27 Skidmore, #28 Wisconsin-Whitewater
Significant Losses: #4 Cal Lutheran
Remaining Matches: #6 Bowdoin, #9 Middlebury, NESCACS
Just like that, the Lord Jeffs have pretty much punched their ticket to NCAA’s. They still only have one big win on their resume, but direct wins over Bates and Williams should be enough to get them in. Lose to Bowdoin? Who cares? Lose to Middlebury? Who cares? With Bowdoin out of post-season contention, the worst Amherst can do now is finish 3rd in the NESCAC, which would still be enough for them to avoid a rematch with Bates. Even if they pick up an indirect to Bates via Bowdoin, the direct would trump it, and the Jeffs would get in. I’m not too worried about Amherst losing to Bowdoin on their home courts, but even if the worst case scenario does happen, Amherst would still get in on the strength of that one win over Williams.
Should Be In
Redlands
Big Wins: #13 Case Western, #18 GAC, #19 Whittier, #25 Mary Washington, #26 Swarthmore
Significant Losses: #1 CMS, #4 Cal Lu, #5 Williams, #6 Bowdoin, #9 Middlebury, #10 UC Santa Cruz
Remaining Matches: #22 Pomona-Pitzer, SCIAC Tournament
The Bulldogs are sitting pretty, but their plethora of losses don’t give them much upward mobility. They can still screw this pooch by losing to Pomona-Pitzer on Saturday. A win against the Sagehens puts them in for sure, as a semifinal loss to Cal Lu in the SCIACs wouldn’t hurt them one bit. If they lose to P-P, things get a little hairier. Let’s say they lose: they would immediately move behind Case, Wash U, and CMU, and if Bates were to do something impressive, Redlands would suddenly be out in the cold. There are a ton of other scenarios, which I’ll get into later, but they should probably just take care of business on Friday.
Looking Over Their Collective Shoulder
Case Western
Big Wins: #14 Wash U, #19 Whittier, #24 NCW, #25 Mary Washington, #26 Swarthmore, #27 Skidmore, #29 Wisconsin-Whitewater
Significant Losses: #1 CMS, #6 Bowdoin, #7 Trinity (TX), #12 Redlands
Remaining Matches: UAAs
Wash U
Big Wins: #15 Whitman, #18 GAC, #19 Whittier, #30 Chicago
Significant Losses: #1 CMS, #13 Case Western
Remaining Matches: UAAs
Carnegie Mellon
Big Wins: #17 Amherst *, #23 Washington and Lee, #25 Mary Washington,
Significant Losses: #2 Kenyon, #6 Bowdoin, #7 Trinity (TX), #8 Johns Hopkins, #11 Texas Tyler
Remaining Matches: UAAs
These three teams are currently sitting at 5th, 6th, and 7th in Pool C as things currently stand. All three teams have only the UAAs remaining. Case Western put the entire UAA in a horrible position by losing to Redlands, which pretty much locked everyone behind them because nobody else thought to schedule any SCIAC or NESCAC Pool C teams. Whoops. Regardless, Case and Wash U have done enough to put themselves in Pool C already; whereas, CMU is currently clinging to the last spot on the strength of their Fall win over Amherst. Nobody else has done much to earn that last Pool C spot, but right now, CMU’s position is pretty tenuous.
Regardless, the end-of-the-year rankings will be determined almost entirely on what happens at the UAA tournament in two weeks. Wash U and Case are set for a rematch in the semifinals. The winner of that match is in. If Wash U wins that one, Case’s early season win won’t hold up because of the arbitrary “late-season strength of schedule” and “late-season winning percentage” criteria.
Carnegie will probably have to play Chicago in the quarters, which is by no means a gimme. If they lose that match, they’re probably out. Assuming they win, they will have strengthened their resume a bit. The Tartans would then play Emory in the semifinals. That’s a winnable match, but assuming they lose, they’ll have the 3rd place match against the loser of Case and Wash U. The winner of the 3rd place match is in. As we have seen, the winner of the last match almost always gets the benefit of the doubt, and CMU would move ahead of either Case or Wash U with a win there. The loser of the 3rd place match is suddenly in a very uncomfortable position (even if it’s Case). As of now, results would put the loser of that match in the 7th Pool C spot, but Bates is still in an excellent position to move up…
Control Their Destiny
Bates
Big Wins: #22 Pomona-Pitzer
Significant Losses: #1 CMS, #8 Johns Hopkins, #9 Middlebury, #10 UC Santa Cruz, #17 Amherst, #20 MIT
Remaining Matches: #5 Williams, #6 Bowdoin, #28 Trinity (TX), NESCACs
Make no mistake, Bates really screwed themselves by losing to MIT without Crampton. Their win over P-P had them at 12 in the country, and without that loss, the rankings committee never would have had enough reason to move them behind Case, Wash U, or Carnegie (they probably would have moved them behind the first two anyways). Regardless, the Bobcats are still in control of their own destiny. They lost to Amherst on the road by the exact same score Williams did, so don’t think that Williams match is unwinnable. After that, they have their big opportunity against Bowdoin. We don’t really know what the Bowdoin team that comes out of the suspension will look like, and I’m not sure how the rankings committee will be treating Bowdoin from here on out, but my thinking is that a Bates win over Bowdoin gives them indirect wins over Case and Carnegie, which would be enough to get them in over those two AT LEAST. Maybe that’s just me. Even if they don’t capitalize on either chance, they would still be entering the NESCACs as the #4 seed, which would give them another shot at (most likely) either Amherst or Middlebury. Needless to say, their best opportunity is against Bowdoin next week.
Living On a Prayer
Whittier
Big Wins: #22 Pomona-Pitzer, #26 Swarthmore
Significant Losses: #4 Cal Lutheran, #9 Middlebury, #12 Redlands, #13 Case Western, #14 Wash U, #15 Whitman
Remaining Matches: SCIAC Tournament
Pomona-Pitzer
Big Wins: #18 Gustavus Adolphus, #25 Mary Washington, #27 Skidmore, #28 Wisconsin-Whitewater
Significant Losses: #1 CMS, #4 Cal Lu, #5 Williams, #9 Middlebury, #10 UC Santa Cruz, #11 UT-Tyler, #15 Whitman, #19 Whittier, #21 Bates, #24 NCW, #26 Swarthmore
Remaining Matches: #12 Redlands, SCIAC Tournament
And with one win over GAC, the door opens a crack for P-P to sneak into the NCAA tournament. For the Hens, that would start with a win over Redlands, which would force a 3-way tie for 3rd in the SCIAC with a lot of different scenarios, so let’s break it all down.
Scenario 1: Redlands beats Pomona-Pitzer. If this happens, P-P’s season is pretty much over. Even if P-P were to beat Whittier in the SCIAC tournament then turn around and beat Redlands in the 3rd place match, I think they simply have too many losses to get in. Whittier has come so, so, close so many times this season, but they just haven’t gotten wins they needed. Another win over P-P in the SCIAC tournament won’t help them, and they’re not about to beat CMS. If they were to win against Redlands (at home) in the 3rd place match of this scenario, however, their resume would become more impressive than a 3rd place UAA’s team, and I think they would get in. A Redlands loss to Whittier probably doesn’t do enough to move them behind a 3rd place UAA team, but who can be certain?
Scenario 2: Pomona-Pitzer beats Redlands 5-4 or a close 6-3. Redlands keeps the #3 seed in the SCIAC. Pomona-Pitzer then has the opportunity to avenge their loss to Whittier. The rankings committee gives the later match precedence. P-P has three top 20 wins all of the sudden, and (considering the NCAA’s emphasis on late-season play) that resume looks a lot better than CMU’s or Bates’. P-P would then likely get a rematch with Redlands in the 3rd place match of the SCIAC. Win that one and their resume is looking pretty damn good, P-P would still be vulnerable to a Bates win over Bowdoin (which would put them in ahead of both CMU and this hypothetical P-P team), but they SHOULD get in with that. Again, a pair of Whittier wins over P-P and Redlands in this scenario would probably be enough to get them in over a 3rd place UAA team. Redlands would probably remain in with losses to P-P and Cal Lu in this scenario based solely on their direct win over Case Western, but if they were to lose in the 3rd place match of the SCIACs though, they would be out. A Redlands win over CLU in the semis obviously keeps them in.
Scenario 3: Pomona-Pitzer beats Redlands 7-2 or a not close 6-3. Whittier gets the #3 seed in the SCIAC, which comes with an opportunity to play Cal Lu on their home courts. If Whittier were to then beat Cal Lu, they would definitely be in (even over Bates with a win over Bowdoin). If Whittier loses that one, but then turns around and beats Redlands in the 3rd place match, they would also move ahead of the 3rd place UAA team (but behind Bates if they were to beat Bowdoin). Pomona-Pitzer would also probably be in if they were to beat Redlands in a rematch at the SCIACS, followed by a win over Whittier in the 3rd place match. Redlands would get knocked out with back-to-back losses to P-P. Redlands would also probably get knocked out if they were to lose to P-P, beat them in the SCIACs but then lose to Whittier in the 3rd place match.
Scenario 4: Pomona-Pitzer beats Redlands 9-0 or a not close 8-1. This scenario is obviously incredibly unlikely, but I’m gonna write about it anyways. This would give P-P the #3 seed in the SCIAC and another shot at Cal Lu. A win over the Kingsmen would then put the Hens in the tournament for sure. If P-P were to lose the match to Cal Lu, then whoever (Redlands/Whittier/P-P) wins the 3rd place match of the SCIAC tournament would get in. Redlands would get knocked out if it beat Whittier again but then lost to P-P again in the 3rd place match. Whittier would probably end up out if they beat Redlands in the semis then lost to P-P in the 3rd place match.
I’m not 100% sure I have the SCIAC tiebreakers right, but that’s kinda what it looks like. Of course, any of these teams could throw a huge wrench into things by beating CMS. The other nightmare scenario for Bates and the UAA is if the 3rd place SCIAC team beats Cal Lu and Cal Lu loses the 3rd place match. Then you potentially have three SCIAC teams with good enough resumes.
Anyways, here’s a visual summary of everything I just wrote
Pool C (If Redlands beats P-P)
1. Cal Lu
2. Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
3. Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
4. Redlands
5. Case/WashU/CMU
6. Case/WashU/CMU
7. Case/WashU/CMU
8. Bates (needs a win against Bowdoin)
9. Whittier (needs a win against Redlands in the SCIAC tournament)
Pool C (If P-P Beats Redlands)
1. Cal Lu
2. Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
3. Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Wild Cards
Swarthmore
I mentioned them last time, so I wanted to at least put these guys in here. Swarthmore just lost to Franklin and Marshall again. That’s hilarious. I have no idea what it is about F&M that gives Swat fits because they do not have good results otherwise. Swat isn’t about to beat Hopkins
Chicago
If Amherst is the most enigmatic team in DIII, Chicago certainly is a close second. They have a lot of good players on their roster, but they’ve picked up two terrible losses (at least as far as Pool C goes) in the last two weeks. I guess they could still get in with wins over CMU and Case/WashU in the UAAs, but A) I’m not sure that would be good enough, and B) that doesn’t seem to be in the realm of possibility.
(Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article was published that assumed the SCIAC tournament didn’t have a 3rd place match. Thank you, annonymous commenter)
D3West,
It appears that you completely missed the point I was trying to about the possible strategy of kicking out a team or two from a league (and I’m not sure this could just be done just for tennis, but perhaps would have to be done for all sports, making it less certain that it would make sense for any league to do). I recognize that you can be excused from apprehending what I was getting at, as I didn’t spell out what type of leagues, in general, the possible reduction in the number of league members it would make sense for, so you can be excused for that. That was my fault,
It is likely that it would not sense for a league, such as the SCIAC, to do what I suggested could be done. That league will get, and has likely gotten in past years, at least two teams in the NCAA’s via Pool C because it is such a strong league. You certainly showed that the SCIAC would get more of their teams into the NCAA’s this year via Pool B than Pool C ( (up to four using Pool B compared to the three, but more likely, two, they would get under Pool C). But maybe, and probably it is likely, the SCIAC is satisfied with getting two teams into the NCAA’s a year via Pool C and believes that is more than enough teams form its league qualifying for the NCAA’s. What they are probably more concerned about is that all of its teams that do qualify for the NCAA’s seem to be stuck playing in the West region, leaving little chance of more than one team from that league advancing to the Elite Eight.
What I was aiming at in terms of what was possible, and admittedly without looking for a league to see if it made sense (I am sure you will do your own research to find out whether it would make sense in any situation), was a league that now only gets one team into the NCAA’s, via Pool A, would not likely get an additional team in via Pool C, given the strength of of a lot of the teams in the top three leagues in the country, but would likely get an additional team in if that were possible under Pool B. That would be a 100% increase in the number of teams qualifying for the NCAA, much higher than you suggest is possible when the SCIAC was eligible to use Pool B rather than being stuck with Pool C.
Of course, there are a whole host of administrative concerns that would have to be considered before making the switch I suggested now seems to be possible under the rules. I thought that was understood and I have no intent in spending any time discussing that subject. BTW, I am not, and have not, advocated that any league make the switch to qualify more teams to come qualify for the NCAA’s, but only pointed out that the rules now seem to allow it. I think it’s always interesting to see what the rules allow, but sometimes it is also interesting to see how rules can be changed to improve an existing situation. It is possible I may comment on that in the near future.
#palm #face
D3West,
Thanks for your comment. In looking at the D3 rankings for the Pool B teams you mentioned, there are two top 10 teams listed (Trinity and UCSC), three (MIT 20, WW – 28, and TCNJ – 30) in the bottom 20, and one team, not named, which probably would not be in the top 30. When you take the average of those rankings, or just look at the bottom four, and compare them to the rankings of the teams d3tennisguy now projects to be selected in Pool C (he did that recently), I’m sure you will admit that this year, like most years (I have heard), it is much easier to qualify for the NCAA’s via Pool B than Pool C.
I will defer to the expertise of the bloggers for this site as to what rules now exist, but I thought there is a rule that tries to restrict what I am suggesting would be a logical strategy to get more teams in an existing league into the NCAA’s, via Pool B, by reducing the number of league teams, which is that once a league number is reduced to lower than seven, there is some sort of ban (perhaps two years) for all former league members of that league from qualifying under Pool B. Or something like that. If there is not such a rule, or a similar one, perhaps there should be, to prevent teams doing what I suggest is now allowed.
Love D3 Tennis,
I think you missed the point of my comment completely. What I was saying is that Pool B is pretty deep, though certainly not nearly as deep as Pool C. Going through all the trouble of kicking two teams out of an 8-team conference in all sports for the marginal gain of making is a little bit easier for a men’s tennis team to make the national tournament is not even close to do it. In fact, it is probably one of the most ridiculous suggestions I’ve ever heard.
Nevertheless, considering the situation in which the SCIAC did enter Pool B by kicking out Cal Tech and Chapman or something, Pool B would then include #4 Cal Lu, #7 Trinity (once the grace period expires or whatever), #12 Redlands, #19 Whittier, #20 MIT, and #22 Pomona-Pitzer. Pool C would then include #9 Middlebury, #13 Case Westerns, #14 Wash U, #16 Carnegie Mellon, #17 Amherst, #21 Bates, and #26 Swarthmore. The SCIAC schools would essentially be sacrificing administrative and athletic relationships with one of the best academic schools in the world to get one more team in the DIII tennis tournament, while at the same time losing Pool A bids in weaker sports like men’s and women’s basketball. Sounds like that would be worth it to me.
Would someone mind explaining the selection process for those of us who are new to the system?
Here’s the Spark Notes version.
There are three pools of NCAA qualifiers: A, B, and C.
Pool A are the conference winners. Any conference with seven or more teams gets a Pool A bid (Kenyon, Hopkins, Trinity, UT-Tyler, Whitman). There are a bunch of conferences with 0 good teams in it, so Pool A often puts teams in the tournament that really don’t deserve to be there over, say, Bates.
Pool B is a pool for “Independent” teams. I’m not sure how many bids they get this year, but in the past, Pool B has gotten about 6 bids. The pool includes teams who are truly independents, like UC-Santa Cruz, and teams in conferences smaller than 7 teams, like UW-W. The number of bids is assigned so that independent teams qualify the same proportion of teams as the conference teams (i.e. one Pool B bid for every eight or so independent teams).
Pool C is the “at-large” pool. This is for the highest ranked teams not receiving a Pool A or Pool B bid. The bottom teams in Pool B aren’t very good, so Pool C bids always go to teams from the really deep conferences. Depauw used to compete for a Pool C spot, but right now, they all go to teams from the SCIAC, the UAA, and the NESCAC. This year, Pool C has seven spots, so the highest ranked teams from those three conferences (who don’t win the conference) will get the Pool C spots.
Trinity’s (TX) conference only has only 5 schools total. Does that mean they are now in pool C?
Based only upon the above description — “The pool includes teams who are truly independents, like UC-Santa Cruz, and teams in conferences smaller than 7 teams, like UW-W,” Trinity TX is in a Pool B league.
I have heard, but not checked, that at least in D3 tennis, Pool B teams are a much weaker collection of teams that Pool C teams. If so, it would appear that there is an incentive to form and be included in a league with six or less teams, to raise the chances that there will be more than one team selected from that league to go to the NCAA via coming within Pool B rather than trying to qualify those two teams for it via Pool C.
I guess D3TG wasn’t aware that the SCAC had undergone some pretty significant realignment. I’m not sure how many Pool B spots there are this year “Love D3 Tennis,” but it looks like that pool is getting pretty crowded. Last year, Pool B was MIT, UCSC, Skidmore, Vassar, UWW, and TCNJ.
I’m pretty sure Skidmore and Vassar have moved out of Pool B because the Liberty League has expanded, but if Trinity is in Pool B, it now looks like: Trinity, UCSC, MIT, UW-W, TCNJ, and one other team (all top 30 teams for now). If the SCIAC were to drop to 6 teams, all of the sudden, Pool B would be very shallow indeed. I don’t think it’s worth throwing away years of athletic tradition to take a very small advantage in the NCAA selection process.
I think skidmore and vassar are still pool b for this year, some grace period
It is not ridiculous that F&M beat Swarthmore. What is ridiculous is that your blog has underestimated F&M and Haverford for the past 2 years. Both teams play better as the season progresses. Last year F&M beat Swarthmore 5-4, Haverford beat F&M 5-4, and then Swarthmore beat Haverford 5-4. Pretty even I would say.
Then Swarthmore graduated #s1&2 while F&M graduated nobody and added a good 4/5 player in Kaplan. Haverford graduated Sergay#(2)but gained a top player in Acaba (1/4s of Fall ITA)to take his spot behind Caulfield and another frosh (Mason) at #5.
Did you fail to notice that Haverford swept CMU in doubles back in Feb, that Acaba served for the match vs. Miller before a pulled quad did him in, while Caulfield lost to Heaney-Secord in 2 TB sets over 3 hours? 3 or 4 points the other way and Haverford wins 5-4.
Swarthmore has tremendous depth and many strong players, but based on graduation losses and incoming freshmen, I told my team that the Swarthmore/F&M/Haverford matches would all be 5-4 barnburners. Looks like I missed the Swarthmore vs. F&M result, but all 3 teams know the next 2 matches will be 5-4.
F&M and Haverford do not do well early in the season, but we are always there in April – give us some credit!!
Sean Sloane, Haverford Tennis Coach
This blog is written and administrated by people who are not paid to do it. The people who write are not omniscient by any stretch of the imagination. We’ve acknowledged that there are many programs out there on the fringe of the national rankings who are doing really great things, but we only know about the nationally ranked teams. When another team beats a team in the national rankings, they get on our radar, because those are the only teams we ever pay attention to. I’m sure both Haverford and F&M are really good tennis teams, and it seems like your team in particular is headed in the right direction, but until you actually beat a nationally ranked team, the blog’s attitude towards you will probably be pretty dismissive (with the exception of D3AS. It’s his job to give you guys credit).
It’s probably time for national rankings to be expanded. I can think of more teams now who are really close to being good than 5 or 6 years ago. Teams like Haverford, F&M, Stevens, TCNJ, Wesleyan, Coe, Earlham, UT-Dallas, etc. probably deserve some recognition, but it’s not our job to give it to them. We have never promised fairness. We have never promised professionalism. We are just a couple people with opinions.
Word.