What’s up, folks! It’s been exactly a week since our last edition of Power Rankings… which means that it’s time for some more Power Rankings! Repetitive, right? Anyways, we’ve had some good discussion on Rankings in general the past few times out and some more people are joining in on the party. Thanks to all who have emailed me as well with your thoughts or even just letting us know that you appreciate what we do. Appreciation is tough to come around these days, so it really helps that y’all are enjoying enough to show some love! As always, the team has had our google document pow-wow to bring you the ever-changing and always imperfect Power Rankings, where we debate about whether Trinity TX would beat Pomona more than half the time. All we know is that CMS is at the top, where they belong. Power rankings and latest results, below:
Latest Results:
Pomona def. Amherst 5-4
Pomona def. Trinity (CT) 7-2
Pomona def. Tufts 5-4
Pomona def. Skidmore 5-4
Bowdoin def. Redlands 5-4
Bowdoin def. Whitman 5-4
Bowdoin def. Trinity Ct 6-3
CMS def. Hop 7-2
Tufts def. Denison 8-1
Tufts def. Cal Lu 6-3
Trinity Ct def. Denison 6-3
Trinity Ct def. Sewanee 8-1
Trinity Ct def. Cal Lu 8-1
Skidmore def. Cal Lu 6-3
Amherst def. Skidmore 7-2
Midd def. Chapman 6-3
Midd def. Whittier 9-0
Midd def. Pacific 9-0
Midd def. Cruz 6-3
Hop def. Bates 8-1
Sewanee def. Denison 6-3
Sewanee def. CNU 5-4
Sewanee def. Washington and Lee 6-3
NCW def. Bates 7-2
Swarthmore def Depauw
Kenyon def. Swarthmore 9-0
UMW def Bates 6-2
| New Ranking | School | Previous Rank | D3AS | D3West | D3NE | D3 Central | D3Regional |
| 1 | CMS | 1 | CMS | CMS | CMS | CMS | CMS |
| 2 | Emory | 2 | Emory | Pomona | Emory | Emory | Emory |
| 3 | Pomona | 4 | Trinity TX | Wash U | Wash U | Pomona | Wash U |
| 4 | Wash U | 3 | Pomona | Trinity TX | Pomona | Wash U | Pomona |
| 5 | Trinity TX | 5 | Wash U | Emory | Trinity TX | Trinity TX | Trinity TX |
| 6 | Amherst | 6 | Amherst | Amherst | Amherst | Johns Hopkins | Amherst |
| 7 | Johns Hopkins | 7 | Johns Hopkins | Johns Hopkins | Johns Hopkins | Amherst | Johns Hopkins |
| 8 | Middlebury | 8 | Carnegie Mellon | Middlebury | Middlebury | Kenyon | Middlebury |
| 9 | Kenyon | 9 | Bowdoin | Kenyon | Bowdoin | Middlebury | Carnegie Mellon |
| 10 | Bowdoin | 12 | Middlebury | Bowdoin | Kenyon | Chicago | Case Western |
| 11 | Carnegie Mellon | 10 | Kenyon | Case Western | Case Western | Bowdoin | Chicago |
| 12 | Case Western | 11 | Case Western | Carnegie Mellon | Carnegie Mellon | Case Western | Williams |
| 13 | Chicago | 13 | Chicago | Williams | Chicago | Williams | Wesleyan |
| 14 | Williams | 14 | Williams | Chicago | Williams | Carnegie Mellon | Kenyon |
| 15 | Wesleyan | 15 | Wesleyan | Whitman | Wesleyan | Whitman | Bowdoin |
| 16 | Whitman | 17 | Whitman | Redlands | Whitman | Redlands | Whitman |
| 17 | Redlands | 18 | Redlands | Wesleyan | Redlands | Wesleyan | Redlands |
| 18 | Gustavus Adolphus | 19 | Gustavus Adolphus | Gustavus Adolphus | Tufts | Gustavus Adolphus | Gustavus Adolphus |
| 19 | Tufts | 21 | Mary Washington | Mary Washington | Mary Washington | Mary Washington | Tufts |
| 20 | Mary Washington | 20 | Tufts | Tufts | Gustavus Adolphus | Tufts | UCSC |
| 21 | UT-Tyler | 22 | Trinity CT | UT-Tyler | UT-Tyler | Trinity CT | UT-Tyler |
| 22 | Trinity CT | 24 | Bates | UCSC | UCSC | Stevens | Mary Washington |
| 23 | UCSC | 23 | UT-Tyler | Trinity CT | Trinity Ct | Bates | Bates |
| 24 | Bates | 16 | UCSC | Stevens | Bates | UT-Tyler | Trinity CT |
| 25 | Stevens | 27 | Stevens | NC Wesleyan | Stevens | UCSC | Cal Lutheran |
| 26 | Skidmore | 29 | UW-Whitewater | Bates | NC Wesleyan | UW-Whitewater | Skidmore |
| 27 | NC Wesleyan | 31 | Swarthmore | Skidmore | Skidmore | NC Wesleyan | Stevens |
| 28 | Cal Lutheran | 26 | Brandeis | Cal Lutheran | Swarthmore | Skidmore | NC Wesleyan |
| 29 | Swarthmore | 32 | Skidmore | Brandeis | Brandeis | Cal Lutheran | Swarthmore |
| 30 | UW-Whitewater | 25 | Cal Lutheran | Swarthmore | Cal Lutheran | Swarthmore | UW-Whitewater |
| 31 | Brandeis | 28 | Denison | Sewanee | UW-Whitewater | Brandeis | Brandeis |
| 32 | DePauw | 33 | NC Wesleyan | UW-Whitewater | Sewanee | Sewanee | DePauw |
| 33 | Sewanee | 38 | DePauw | Depauw | MIT | Depauw | Coe |
| 34 | Denison | 30 | Coe | Denison | Depauw | Washington & Lee | MIT |
| 35 | Coe | 34 | Sewanee | Chapman | Denison | Denison | Sewanee |
| 36 | Chapman | 40 | Pacific | Coe | Chapman | Coe | Denison |
| 37 | Washington & Lee | 35 | Colby | Pacific | Coe | Chapman | Washington & Lee |
| 38 | Pacific | 36 | Washington & Lee | CNU | Washington & Lee | Colby | Chapman |
| 39 | MIT | 39 | Chapman | Babson | Pacific | Pacific | Pacific |
| 40 | Colby | 37 | Babson | Colby | Babson | Babson | Colby |
| 41 | Babson | 41 | |||||
| 42 | CNU | 42 |
Movers & Shakers
Bates, down 8 spots to #24 – Yes, Bates has moved down. This early season feel-good story (that poll will come back by the way) has become more of a flash in the pan as Bates has now lost consecutive matches to NCW, Mary Washington, and Hopkins. Without a key freshman as well as trying to find some consistent lineup wins has brought this Bates team down to Earth. They showed that they could beat a top team in the nation on that lovely day in Claremont, but it takes more than that to get into a 5-team Pool C universe. Let’s raise our glasses of wine in the hopes of seeing this Bates team fight back from some probably expected mid-season turmoil.
Stevens, up 2 spots to #25 – Here’s a mean tweet for you Stevens, you don’t belong here. Kidding. Stevens has done a ton of their program and have now continued their move up into the top 25! Unfortunately, these aren’t official rankings so they can’t post it on their site… but I guess other teams have posted things of ours to their wikipedia page before. Seriously. Stevens has become more than a one man wonder team (Heinrich) and now has depth and spunk to go with some of their talent. I think this is where they tap out in the Power Rankings, give or take a few spots, but Top 25 is nothing to scoff at. Great job by Stevens as they took out UWW this past week.
UW-Whitewater, down 5 spots to #30 – Whitewater lost to Stevens on Spring Break, and they fall in our rankings to just inside the top 30. This was a program that was on the rise a few years ago but it looks like they have leveled out and will consistently be in the 24-30 range for the time being. Whitewater does benefit by playing in a not that great conference so they will make the tournament, but a top team will no longer be a tad bit scared if they draw UWW as a seed in their region.
I wish I had more exciting moves for you this time around, but it looks like that’s all folks. Yeshiva is still not in the rankings, as we will be so reminded (had to) and neither is George Fox. Also, I do want to put out a PSA – if there is anyone really good at graphic design in the terms of making a cool website, particularly for DIII Tennis with the same domain name, please email me at d3atlanticsouth@gmail.com. If you’re willing to help, of course. Until next time, where we will have many articles coming out within the next week (god forbid I stay up until 2AM) and there really is a lot to come regarding Scoring Formats, Pool C, General Previews and Recaps, and of course, the ongoing poll for the Tufts music videos. Vote 2014 people. That was legit. ASouth, OUT.
Hey D3 Regional,
Just wanted to get some information. I have posted here a few times before as you probably know. As a three star recruit now heading into my sophomore year I have led the team to a 6-0 start which is the best in 7 years for our program. We are currently regionally ranked and don’t seem to featured here in the power rankings. Can you give me a couple reasons why? I feel we have the potential to take down most of the top schools in our conference Swarthmore, Hopkins included. You said you would give the lower ranked schools a fair chance but I don’t see that happening here. Also I appreciate the shoutout you gave me at ITA’s.
Thanks for everything you do for the D3 Community!
Regional is going to write a great article topic with this information so definitely be on the look out for that. I am excited for his idea and thoughts on it. To answer your question in regards to this year, we have already hit on this quite a bit with Yeshiva as the team in question. Your team, Washington College, has the same issues in that you have played a very weak schedule so therefore are not even on the radar for national ranking consideration. A regional ranking in the Atlantic South is a good start, but doesn’t hold a ton of weight because that region is probably the weakest out of the 4. The Central region used to be extremely deep, but this season is probably on par with the ASouth in that there are 5 or 6 really strong teams at the top, but the rest are only solid regional teams not competing against the big boys. Until you get that signature win, an unblemished record will only be exciting on a regional scale and not on a national level. I think it’s great that you feel slighted in the rankings because it will give you the drive to knock off someone that will make people notice. What needs to happen for next season is to schedule a team like Washington and Lee or NC Wesleyan that range between 25-40 and would be a realistic match for you to pull off. A win over Hopkins or Swarthmore this year would do it, but I don’t think you guys are quite there yet. With the core group you are returning next season and the solid recruiting class, your coach needs to tailor the 2016 schedule to get you the ranking you feel like you deserve.
Hey Jeremy – I agree with everything Central said. Even though I do think you guys are improving, we have to see your results against other top 40 teams to really know for sure how good you are. Luckily for your squad, the Centennial Conference is a good conference and you guys will get cracks at Swarthmore and Hopkins every year. Last year, you guys lost to Swat, Hopkins, Franklin & Marshall, and Haverford all in your conference. There is no doubt you guys are off to a good start this year, but if you take out Haverford and F&M, you’ll get on our radar, and put yourselves in a good spot for next year, where I agree you have a great class coming in.
Jeremy, you were most definitely a 2 star recruit. Not that I disagree with the point you were making about your team or anything else you said. just that.
http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player.asp?id=729438
Hey D3 Regional/Central,
That first post wasn’t Jeremy Novick. Just some alumni that was goofing around using his name! As for the post itself I think they have a very strong team and some strong points were made. Hopefully some day they will feature in the power rankings. The team and him have been making very strong progress and I look forward to seeing how they play out in the season! Definitely Centennial Conference contenders.
Thanks guys!
Mr. Novick (or whomever you are claiming to be),
In a world of advanced technology, you might want to consider that we are able to see that both of your posts came from the same IP address therefore showing that the same person wrote them. While I applaud your effort to disguise your selective choice of misinformation in the first post (i.e. two stars vs. three) and continued support for Washington College, it doesn’t change the fact that you have yet to beat any team of any significance and are far from Centennial Conference contenders. I was very cordial in my first response out of respect for you and your program, but get back to us when you actually beat someone worth talking about.
Friends forever,
D3 Central
I think this person was saying that he was actually the alumnus posting as Novick… i.e. neither was the infamous Novick from last year. Could always check the comments from way back.
Jeremy, your points are not bad ones, but take the perspective of these writers from around the country. The teams you’ve played so far have been nowhere near the top 40 in the country, and while your regional ranking in tomorrow’s ITA release will probably be solid, the number of ASouth teams that will be nationally ranked are in the single digits. The blog’s extended coverage of “regional teams” has been significant, but for teams that have somewhat of a reputation /outside/ of its region as well. Wash College has a prestigious history in D3 tennis, but thus far does not have any of the results to earn that stature – though maybe you can reach it in the future.
I would add that humility is an extremely admirable asset in D3 sports. Claiming that you “led” the team from #4 singles – it’s a team sport, after all!
On a separate point – Emory is having a pretty unique season. Their only significant D3 match outside of UAAs and National Indoors will be Middlebury next month, yet they’ve (almost by default) become #2 in the nation! They’ve yet to fall into this year’s new black hole – the #3-15 range – but it will be interesting to see how they fare in the postseason having played a D3 schedule consistently entirely of the big tourneys.
You bring up an interesting point about Emory, their schedule, and their ranking. I’m curious about the structure and requirements of the UAA, and other conferences for that matter. It looks like the UAA doesn’t require their member schools to play all the other member schools in the conference like other conferences do.
Emory played CMU and Wash U, but don’t appear to play Chicago or Case unless they meet in the UAA Championship. On the surface, their schedule seems a little “light” when compared with other top 10 teams. If this is all up to the coach, can a coach ride their previous year’s rank and avoid a lot of direct competition until they are at the end of their season? This seems to work against teams like Chicago and Bowdoin who are strong but young, and have to work hard outside their respective conferences to get get a shot at the top 10.
Some teams have incredibly heavy schedules, packed with top 30 matches, while others seem to prefer to play outside of D3 altogether. Are there any D3 rules?
I realize I’m jumping into the middle of your post and you may not know the details but maybe others can chime in… I’d guess I’m not the only one curious about how all this works.
Excellent questions
1. The rules for conference competition vary from conference to conference. Very spread out conferences like the UAA and the ASC don’t require their teams to play each other and usually base tournament seeds on national-regional rankings, while close together teams like the SCIAC play a round robin.
2. Yes, teams can rest on their laurels a little bit if they had a strong ranking to begin with, but this poses some dangers. If, for example, Emory had lost all three of their matches at Indoors, they would have 0 good DIII wins right now and may be ranking in the low teens and have to do something in their conference tournament to make the post season. Younger teams tend to have to win their way up the rankings. Established teams tend to have to lose their way out of them.
3. There aren’t many rules regulating who you have to play and how many matches you have to play. Heavy and light schedules each have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, Emory, with a light schedule, is basically riding their two good wins to the #2 rankings, but if they had lost those matches, they would’ve been screwed. Pomona-Pitzer, with their ridiculously heavy schedule, put themselves at risk to lose a match that they probably shouldn’t have (their loss to Bates), but they also had plenty of matches to make up for that loss, which they subsequently did.
Hopefully that answered your questions. Feel free to ask more.
Just saw the new ITA rankings. On the surface it looks like CMS, Emory and Wash U should all thank Pomona Pitzer for doing the heavy lifting of clearing NESCAC out of the top 4. The way these rankings move seems to be an interesting mix of current year results (the direct win delta) and previous year standings (the initial positions).
In other words, Emory at #2, is supported by direct win over Wash U at #3
Wash U at #3, is supported by direct wins over Trinity #7, JHU #10, and Kenyon #11
Neither of these teams have played any NESCAC competitors so you have to accept their placement vis-a-vis Pomona Pitzer, which is supported by direct wins over Amherst #5, Midd #6, Trinity #7, Bowdoin #8, and CMU #9.
CMS seems clear at #1, supported by direct 8-1 wins over Wash U #3, and Pomona Pitzer #5, and JHU (score 7-2) at #10.
If any of the initial placements were incorrect, the supports are much less relevant (versus those earned by a direct win) and the ladder kind of comes apart. Guess that’s why the ranking committee earns the big bucks.
You are absolutely correct. That’s basically how it’s done. We take a little liberty with the Power Rankings, which is why you’ll see that I have Emory down on my personal rankings, but the committee doesn’t like to knock teams down unless they lose a match, so previous rankings end up mattering a lot when a team doesn’t play any big matches for a while.
What has happened to NYU? Just the other week they were top 35 power ranked.
3/17 power rankings we did not have NYU ranked
3/10 power rankings we did not have NYU ranked
3/03 power rankings we had NYU at 41
2/24 power rankings we had NYU at 40
Other teams have gotten some great wins (Chapman, Sewnaee, Pacific) and NYU has only played two matches, and although the match vs Swarthmore was really close, they were pushed off by other teams.
Didn’t stevens lose to Denison?
Indeed they did.
Since then, Denison lost to Tufts, Trinity CT, and most hurtful, Sewanee.
Since then, Stevens has beaten UWW, Swarthmore, RPI, and Brandeis.
We believe Stevens is on the way up.