Hello young, old, Pool C enthusiasts, and Pool A enthusiasts. Pool B enthusiasts, you’re not welcome here. Kidding. Here is another edition of our Power Rankings, which as you know happens every Wednesday. Much like previous Wednesdays, Emory is ranking at the top spot once again, despite… well despite nothing. That’s a lot of weeks at #1 for the Eagles. Expect to see them there until the end of the NCAA Tournament, where anything could happen. In the wake of the UAA Tournament, we have some significant moves in the top 10 with some great upsets this weekend. Luckily for Case, ASW has gone missing once again, so they aren’t ranked like #35 in the Power Rankings. Let’s see em.
Notable Movers
Wash U, up 3 spots to #5 – Wash U moves up due to their strong performance in the UAA Tournament. And when I say strong, I mean beating Chicago who ended up losing to CMU. If I hadn’t already posted the Power Rankings, I would go back and change my rankings to CMU over Wash U. But, I guess they did have a more convincing win against a less tired Chicago team, so let’s keep it as that. Wash U is in the NCAA Tournament and will be looking to prove some more doubters wrong by trying to make the Final 4.
CMU, up 3 spots to #6 – Just missed the top 5! My second ranked regional team gives the ASouth two teams in the top 6, which is a great thing. Too bad the rest of my teams are in the 20s. Anyways, CMU had two impressive wins this weekend over Case Western and Chicago and surpassed them in the rankings, obviously. They were also previously ranked below Williams (ugh) so they passed them too. Keep putting UAA teams below Williams people, keep doing it.
Case, Chicago, Williams, down 2 spots – This is an effect of the first two teams losing to Wash U and CMU. Pretty self-explanatory. I would like to point out that pretty much everyone except myself and Greek have Williams above Case Western. When will Case ever get the benefit of the doubt? You really can’t see Case winning two doubles, the top 2 singles, and a match at the bottom to beat the Ephs? Really?
Tufts, down 2 spots to #14 – There have been rumors out of Tufts of some players quitting the team, annoyance by some assistant coaches in matches, and general Tufts-y-ness. I’m personally glad they moved down because I don’t think they are as good as everyone thinks they are. Use that for fuel if you want, Jumbos.
Pacific, up 7 spots to #34 – A conference tournament where Pacific beats Lewis and Clark and ends up moving up 7 spots to the top 35. Nice. Pacific has been waiting for their big win all year and they get it via indirect win over Whitman. L&C just simply didn’t have the goods to keep that Whitman win in tact, and Pacific took advantage.
Acknowledging votes – Haverford, Babson – Two teams that didn’t make the rankings are Haverford and Babson. Haverford took out F&M, who is still ranked by some of the bloggers, and Babson went 5-4 against MIT going into the 3rd set. Recruiting classes be damned. However, shout-out to D3NE and D3Regional for taking some time to give these two schools some recognition.
There you have it! A quick Power Rankings session for your blogging pleasure. Now, get back to the Pool C roundtable and start arguing about Case and Williams again. That’s my hobby. ASouth, OUT.
Sorry – your algo is busted – Pacific gets a 7 spot bump in rankings for an “indirect win” against Whitman (despite losing twice to Whitman), L&C doesnt get dropped for losing to a team ranked LOWER than them (despite losing twice to Pacific this season)…and George Fox has a good Ojai…I contend you need to get your head out of your SCIAC and look around in the west – there are lots of good teams on the move if you care to look.
George Fox had a good Ojai because they didn’t even make their conference tournament and you expect us to reward them? Really? Also, you said get your head out of the SCIAC, meanwhile as you mentioned, we moved up Pacific and kept Lewis and Clark. So, that means teams moved up outside of the SCIAC.
I’m unsure of what you’re trying to prove here, or if you’re just here to complain a little. Complaining is fine, I do it sometimes as well. But I’m interested – what was your point here?
Pacific was a stronger team all year – and it took a look at the results to get past the anomaly of L&C and Whitman to realize that? My “complaint” is Pacific just beat L&C twice this season and the rationale for their late season bump is an “indirect win” over Whitman (despite those results as well?)? Shout-out to Geo Fox for a good tournament for good competitors – thats it.
Okay, I can explain the thought process.
In the beginning of the season, neither Pacific or L&C were included in our power rankings. So, when Pacific beat L&C early year, it didn’t mean much to us. Then, L&C later surprised Whitman – so we decided to include L&C in our power rankings because that was an impressive win over a top 15 team at the time. We weren’t about to include every team that beat L&C, including Pacific, because it’s completely fathomable that L&C improved and could beat Pacific/others after their win over Whitman. Also, knowing that they would play Pacific later on, more of a wait and see approach.
So, Pacific beats L&C this weekend – they move ahead of them, good job. They now have a late season win and an indirect win over Whitman. Teams are not the same all year round. They can certainly improve and get worse. This is why we decided to rank L&C and not Pacific earlier in the year. Hope that explains it for you.
As the West region writer, I can explain my thought process too:
For the last couple weeks, I’ve had Lewis and Clark ahead of Pacific, even though I figured Pacific was probably the better team because I try to reward teams for good results (even if they are a little fluky). I knew the two teams would be playing in the conference tournament, so it would sort itself out. I also saw that LC was missing a player or two in the previous loss, so I figured there was a chance that the Pios would win the rematch. After the weekend, I obviously was going to move Pacific ahead of Lewis and Clark (but not because of an ‘indirect win’ over a team they have two direct losses to). They ended up moving up a full seven spots simply because the teams ranked 30-45 have really been beating up on each other, so even though they were previously ranked 41, they were only a couple spots on a couple bloggers’ rankings from being in the top 35 anyways. It’s all very subjective.
Regarding George Fox, I’ve always paid attention to them, and they did have a nice Ojai. As a team, they weren’t strong this year, as evidenced by their two losses to Whitworth, but they did have two good players. If You hadn’t transferred, they would’ve been that much more dangerous. I hope you weren’t suggesting that they belong in the top 40 with two direct losses to Whitworth on the strength of a good Ojai and a win over Wabash.
Understood. the “indirect win” logic is tenuous and being used rampantly all over this blog – and it is based on incorrect assumptions and leads to false results. I wanted Pacific to get what they deserved through competition rather than backed into through the faulty logic of an “indirect win”! Good on them!
I am not suggesting anything for George Fox (and the NWC) other than a great weekend in Ojai! I must admit all sorts of players wish they could compete at Ojai… talk about the place where dreams are made – I will wager there are TONS of DIII and DII players that would love to get a chance to compete there if their schedules permitted. Tennis is flourishing there!
Why did Redlands walk away from their draw at Ojai?
Indirect win comment is my bad – the logic should have been direct win over Lewis & Clark, which is stronger due to their win over Whitman earlier in the year.
Most likely, they walked away because they wanted to protect their doubles teams’ chances of making nationals and give Dulle the best chance at making nationals himself by beating Yasgoor, but it also could’ve been injuries
The ITA rankings came out, and I am a little confused. Case Western is ahead of Chicago in the National rankings (case 7, chi 8) but behind them in the regional rankings (chi 2, case 3), why is that?
The ITA and the NCAA are two different entities. Therefore, there are bound to be discrepancies. Case and Chicago are so close that it is easy to flip flop them depending on who is doing the rankings. Funny thing is, I believe Coach Todd (Case) is on the NCAA ranking committee, where Chicago is higher.
EDIT: Coach Todd is actually part of the ITA committee!
Either way, the argument is so close that flip flopping depends on the arguments you bring to the table. It should be interesting who makes it in when we get to NCAA time!
Coach Wojtkowski a co-chair of the ITA National ranking committee…
Does UCSC being left off the ITA rankings impact your NCAA Regional bracket with CMS, Whitman and UT Tyler?
Since Pool B is so weak, Cruz probably still gets a bid to the NCAA Tournament and does not affect the NCAA Regional Bracket.
Can anyone explain how U of South is ranked so far below Trinity CT? U of South has a 7-2 win over Trinity CT.
Because Sewanee recently and directly lost to Oglethorpe, who has losses against Kalamazoo (7-2), Coe (5-4), Birmingham-Southern (6-3). Sewanee also has no ranked wins other than Trinity CT. So, that’s my explanation.
why did CMS move ahead of Midd?
Good question. D3AS switched CMS and Bowdoin (CMS from 3->2 and Bowdoin from 2->3), while D3West switched all three spots around (CMS from 3->2, Midd from 4->3, and Bowdoin from 2->4). I have to assume this is because CMS totally dominated the Ojai. D3West’s swapping of the NE teams is slightly more suspect, since Bowdoin beat Williams 8-1 while Midd beat Amherst 7-2. However, all three teams have beaten each other, so there is no wrong answer.