Please feel free to discuss the new rankings in this thread.
Here is what I thought this should look like. Don’t castrate me if you don’t agree. Just provide your commentary.
1. CMS
2. Kenyon
3. CLU
4. Amherst
5. Wash U
6. Williams
7. Emory
8. Bowdoin (lol)
9. Trinity TX
10. Hopkins
11. Middlebury
12. Cruz
13. Redlands
14. Case Western
15. Carnegie Mellon
16. Whitman
17. UT-Tyler
18. Gustavus
19. Pomona Pitzer
20. Whittier
21. Bates
22. Washington and Lee
23. Mary Washington
24. North Carolina Wesleyan
25. Wisconsin Whitewater
26. Tufts
27. MIT
28. UT-Dallas
29. Wesleyan
30. Chicago
most over-rated/ over ranked teams: emory, case western
most under-rated/ under ranked teams: wash u, johns hopkins, carnegie mellon, bates
favorite for team ncaas- CMS
Biggest Dark horse- Johns Hopkins
Bubble team that could pull an upset- Carnegie Mellon
anyone know what happened to rizzolo from mary wash? hasn’t been seen in the doubles lineup with evan charles for awhile
not in school
ineligible grades? or kicked out?
Well Sprinkel’s win over Ben was his 6th match in 3 days, Ben’s 2nd. Oh, and he played Kreis, Harbart and Shkylar on consecutive days. And doubles also.
Your comment is a bit gratuitous seeing that I stated the same argument above. But overall you are correct.
Coe played 8 of the top 20 schools in the Central Region. If the Regional rankings were extended to 30, you could add another 4-6 teams. Coe played and defeated 2 D2 schools, and a CNU team ranked 11 in the AS. Not a National level schedule, but pretty darn solid regional schedule. No school can control their Conference schedule. MIAC isn’t anything special either.
Does the committee take into consideration a bad loss based upon a player being out of a line up due to an injury? UT Tyler is very good with wins over Gus, PP, Whit, & CMU. Their top 2 players are capable of beating anyone in the country and their 3-5 are also very solid. Non the less it was a good win for UT Dallas.
Only one question. Why only 30 teams ranked. DII gets 50.
Because DI has more talent and I think people would rather spend the time to see Clemson ranked #44 than Swarthmore ranked #44.
Highly debatable lol
The commenter said “D2 gets 50” not D1, D3AS. But I really think D3 is ready to rank at least 40.
^As some people may know, Browning tends to base rankings a bit off of perception. If a team has historically been ranked very high he will be hesitant to move them down, and vice-versa. I’m not making a stance either way, he just does things differently. For example, other committee members go directly off of wins/losses and the other criteria.
Very true and very well put. Your only as good as you are right then and there at that current moment. This history crap needs to get out to rest and put teams where they deserve right away!
This goes out to D3_Central mostly, but any of you D3 guys can comment.
Explain to me how the central singles ranking work?
#5 Kreis
Regional Sig. Wins: Balkin (#20), Sprinkel (#8)
Regional Sig. Losses: Harbert (#16)
Non-Regional Sig. Wins: N/A
Non-Regional Sig. Losses: N/A
#6 Sprinkel
Regional Sig. Wins: Rothstein (#24), Harbert (#16), Shkylar (#5)
Regional Sig. Losses: Karki (#17), Kreis(#9)
Non-Regional Sig. Wins: N/A
Non-Regional Sig. Losses: N/A
#7 Shkylar
Regional Sig. Wins: Drougas (#15), Smith-Dennis (#7), McMillen (#23), Rothstein (#24)
Regional Sig. Losses: Burgin (#2), Sabada (#4), Harbert (#16), Sprinkel (#8)
Non-Regional Sig. Wins: Weichert (#19 West)
Non-Regional Sig. Losses: Fritz (#24 northeast), Sun (#14 northeast)
#8 Donkena
Regional Sig. Wins: Balkin (#20), Moncada (#10)
Regional Sig. Losses: Sabada (#4), A. Putterman (#1)
Non-Regional Sig. Wins: Halabi (#14 West), T. Brown (#5 A-south), Lipscomb (#11 West)
Non-Regional Sig. Losses: Haugen (NR West), D. Brown (#10 West), Ruderman (#11 A-south), Wood (#2 West), Sabel (#16 West)
#9 Smith-Dennis
Regional Sig. Wins: Harbert (#16), Bhargava (#19), O’Connell (#22)
Regional Sig. Losses: Shkylar (#5)
Non-Regional Sig. Wins: Dorn (#7 west), Cummins (#20 west)
Non-Regional Sig. Losses: Skinner (#3 west), Ybarra (#4 west), Halpern (#3 A-south), Koenig (#5 west), Hersh (#6 A-south), Weichert (#19 west)
All the ranking of the players are from the April 11th ranking
I would have thought it would have been
#5 – Donkena
#6 – Smith-Dennis
#7 – Kreis
#8 – Sprinkel
#9 – Shkylar
Other than the fact that you’re completely biased, you are missing key matches involved in the singles rankings picture. First of all there is primary and secondary regional ranking criteria. Primary criteria would be something like, “regional record”. Secondary criteria would be, “out of region wins”. This means certain matches carry more weight. Some other rankings criteria I know off the top of my head include: last 50% of season record, direct/indirect losses, when match happened, and strength of schedule (there’s more but that should give you a decent idea). On a side note, I believe playing 1 singles every match gives you a bit of an edge when things become murky between two players (i.e. Shklyar and Mya, but more on that later).
To get to your eval of the current top 8 (which I am in agreement with):
5. Kreis- If you agree that Sabada deserves the #4 spot then you are essentially agreeing that Kreis is the #5. He is 14-1 this semester with his only loss recently to Harbert in 3 sets. You did not include Kreis’ recent win over Sabada which is really the most important thing. You keep Sabada ahead because his strength of schedule is better and his losses are better. But also, the win over Sprinkel at the end is huge because it redeems Kreis’ loss to Harbert and gets him an indirect over Shklyar. Thus, padding his resume even further.
6. Sprinkel- Sprinkel has been incredibly consistent all year. His only two losses all semester (to D3) were to Karki (12-10 in a super…) and Kreis (see above). He got the win over Harbert to somewhat rectify his loss to Kreis. He also beat Shkyar to give him the indirect win over Mya (very important). His other wins are just padding, but the win over Shklyar is the big one.
7. Shklyar- Shklyar has a win over Mya (while Amrik was at 2), and an indirect over Mya with his win over Weichert. His loss to Sprinkel doesn’t hurt him too bad. The Harbert loss does definitely hurt him and give Mya an indirect back, but the direct win is ultimately the trump card. I’ll get to the issue with Amrik below.
8. Donkena-Amrik played half the semester at 2 singles. Which means he played behind Mya for those matches. Which means he technically has to take the losses Mya accounted for. This is to prevent someone from sitting at 2 to avoid “bad losses”. I agree he has some great out-or-region wins, but those are not the “primary criteria”. Unfortunately, his in-region resume is REALLY weak (other than Moncada), and that’s why he sits at 8. As impressive as Donkena’s wins at 2 were, they were a long time ago and his recent results have been losses to Sabel (played 2 behind Weichert when Shklyar beat Weichert), Sabada, and Putterman. Ultimately, you need wins at 1… This also means the player sitting behind him in the lineup cannot be above him in the rankings…
9. Smith-Dennis- As I’ve already mentioned the firm hold Shklyar has over Smith-Dennis it should be pretty apparent why Mya sits here. Mya had a great run at ITA’s, but his only “big” win was over Moncada. After that he lost 6 out of his next 8. He did beat Harbert, Dorn, Cummins, and Putterman. All of those are great wins (the Dorn one especially), but he was demoted to 2 singles during this time, and none of those matches give him any indirects with the exception of Harbert. As I mentioned, his loss to Weichert a few matches later evens that out.
In the end, the out-of-region wins don’t carry enough weight to move Amrik and Mya ahead of Shklyar and/or Sprinkel. Shklyar’s head-to-head advantage over Mya and the fact Mya plays 2 trumps pretty much any argument… I hope that made sense, if I need to clarify anymore let me know.
What about Krimbill from Case. He spanked Harbert 6-0, 6-2 and his only in-region losses are Burgin in three sets and Adam Putterman in close two.
Hard to judge because his biggest wins are all out of region: Heaney-Secord (CMU), Bragg (Bowdoin), Seneviratne (Whittier), but at least he has an indirect over Kreis by beating Harbert.
Also, Krimbill has an indirect win over Sabada by beating Heaney-Secord. Don’t know what I’m missing here that has him outside the top 4 in the region.
Kreis also beat Harbert at conference yesterday 6-2, 6-4.
The big issue with Krimbill is that he played 3 singles to start the year. During that time Drougas accumulated losses, specifically the loss to Shklyar and Gerber lost at 2 to Balkin (a really bad loss). Both those technically have to count against Krim since he was playing behind the players that lost. It should be obvious why these losses have to count against a player, otherwise there would be shady lineup changes all the time. Other than that, Krimbill doesn’t have a good in region win other than Harbert. I know that gives him a small indirect over Kreis but Kreis just redeemed that loss in straights.
Although Krim has good wins he has a bunch of losses at the end of the year. That win over Heaney-Secord is good and is an indirect, but you have to look at overall resume not just a couple matches. Krimbill played 3 then 2 then 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 then 1. It’d be quite a stretch to say he deserves to go ahead of a guy with a better in region record and better in region wins. He doesn’t have any direct wins over the top players in the region. Therefore, there is not a enough information to compare and you have to penalize him for losses accumulated during his time at 2 and 3.
I know that I do have a bias, but I still don’t understand the system.
I have not seen the recent result of kreis beating sabada since it is not on the ITA website. I had sabada as the #4 since his only loss has been to Raz (#3) and A. Putterman (#1), not bad losses to have.
5. Kreis – beating sprinkel should not give you a huge jump in the ranking since he was only at #8 previously. Yes beating him, gives him the indirect over shkylar which could put him above Mya but not over Amrik. But then again a loss to harbert makes gives him an indirect loss to Mya. Losing to harbert should make a difference. Mya and Amrik have yet to lose to anyone ranked below them in the region.
6. Sprinkel – Again, you seem to argue that a loss that is close actually matters. I mean, a loss is a loss and a win is a win, no matter how close. Losing to karki should make a difference.While, Mya and Amrik have yet to lose to anyone ranked below them in the region.
7. Shkylar – Agreed on this issue but then again, it should not hurt Amrik since he was not affected. Amrik should be the #5.
8. Donkena – I’m sorry but I’m sure how you can say that “he technically has to take the losses Mya accounted for?” how can Amrik control who Mya beats or losses to? Amrik has done the best with the opportunities given to him. Since taking over at #1, he has beaten everyone below him in region and his only 2 losses in region have been to Sabada (#4) and A. Putterman (#1), not bad losses to have. And if you want to talk about recent results, yes the loss to sabel was not great but beating lipscomb the day before, who is currently #5 in the west (a stacked region), should more than make up for that loss. That is probably the best win among players we are discussing.
9. Smith-Dennis – I agree that he does not have any big central region wins but he also have no bad central region losses. His only loss is to shkylar (#5). If you are going to penalize him for just that one loss then shouldn’t kreis and sprinkel be hurt for their respective losses, harbert and karki? The harbert win for Mya should neutralize the loss to shkylar since shkylar lost to harbert. Also, the dorn win for Mya should be huge! That has to be the second best win out of the guys we are discussing! And that win means so many indirects over other ranked players.
Thank you for explain to me D3_Central! I do see where you and the committee are coming from. I think with the knowledge now, the ranking should still be what I mentioned before. The losses to harbert should hurt shkylar and kreis, and the loss to karki should hurt sprinkel. These 3 guys have losses in-region to players ranked below them, while Mya and Amrik don’t.
And like the other person commented, I think that Krimbill should also be a part of this discussion since “He spanked Harbert 6-0, 6-2 and his only in-region losses are Burgin in three sets and Adam Putterman in close two.”
Looking now at the Kreis win over sabada, the ranking should at least be:
#5 – Kreis
#6 – Donkena
#7 – Smith-Dennis
#8 – Sprinkel
#9 – Shkylar
To GAC Parent,
I need you to understand why, when Amrik played behind Mya, he must take the losses Mya had. At that time, Coach Valentini was saying, “Mya is our best player.” Therefore, if Mya losses the assumption is that Amrik would have lost too. This is to prevent unfair lineup changes and avoiding bad match ups for certain players. You have to have established consistency to support rankings. Although both GAC players have some nice out-of-region wins those are not weighted as heavily as in-region matches. Therefore, it is important to have signature in-region wins to help solidify your spot above people in YOUR region. Shklyar’s direct win over Mya has to affect Amrik negatively in some way. That’s why Amrik is 1 spot below him.
The other thing to point out, as D3West mentions, if all things are close the nod is given to the player who has played 1 singles the whole year. Which in this case is Shklyar over Mya. Also, the direct win is impossible to ignore. You can take into account the Weichert (Pomona) indirect Shklyar has over Smith-Dennis because technically the West region matches count towards NCAA selection. That’s a stronger indirect win then the Harbert indirect and it seems the committee prefers “big wins” to “big losses”. The most important thing is having comparative criteria. When you look at the things you can logically compare it is obvious it should go Kreis, Sprinkel, Shklyar, Donkena.
Once again, the most important thing is regional wins and losses. The out-of-region matches are great, but they need to be comparable in some way. The fact that Amrik moved ahead of Mya really hurt Mya’s chances because he has 0 good in region wins this semester. You can’t rely on the fact you won ITA’s last semester to get you in this semester. There’s no way you can say Mya should get in ahead of Shklyar, and no way you can say Shklyar gets in ahead of Sprinkel. That leaves Mya on the outside looking in.
On another note, Sprinkel was up 6-0, 5-2 on Karki (his only “bad” loss) this weekend before the match was called due to decision. Unlucky for him that he didn’t get to finish.
LOL at the biased gustie fan
LOL GUSTAVUS… SILLY PEOPLE
The actual rankings are appalling, the fact that Emory remained so high and washu remained so low makes no sense. John Browning should get off the committee.
I tend to agree the rankings should be very close between Wash U and Emory. Wash U. hasn’t lost a match in two months, losing only to CMS (#1) and Case Western (#14), who they recently played again and beat. Until last week, Emory had only lost to CMS (#1) and Kenyon (#2). And Emory clearly has two wins against teams, Bowdoin #7) and Trinity (TX) (#8) that are significantly better than Wash U’s best wins before last weekend, over Case Western (#14) and Whitman (#15).
BUT, last weekend Wash. U beat Emory at a neutral site, though the match (5 – 4) was very close. Given the closeness of their wins and losses other than against each other, I think the recent head to head winner between the two teams should be a rank or two higher than the loser of that match. That’s why I support Wash U. to be ranked one slot ahead of Emory, instead of six slots behind.
I doubt browning is allowed to talk when the committee discusses Emory
How is CLU not ahead of Amherst in the new rankings? Coming from a Cal Lu fan here.
Why is Bowdoin still in the top 10? Why aren’t they just taken our since they will not be competing in the post season?
The reason why Bowdoin has not been taken out is because although they are suspended from this season’s post-season play, their ranking this year provides them with a base next year. Just like USC Football was not eligible for bowls this year but ended up being ranked in the top 10.
For CLU, I guess they weighted Amherst’s recent wins over Williams, Middlebury, and Bates as stronger than CLU’s recent results. As you can see, I agree that CLU should be ahead.
Amherst’s recent wins over Williams, Middlebury, Bates, and Bowdoin*
Amherst’s loss to CLU came on the second day of their California trip, when presumably they were still not used to playing outdoors (an issue magnified by CLU’s home court advantage). Given CLU’s recent loss to Santa Cruz, I still think it’s reasonable to say that Amherst should leap ahead.