BLIND RESUME TEST: 2019 NCAA Individuals Singles At-Large Selecitons

You might have missed it amongst all the NCAA coverage this week, but the NCAA released its selections for the Individual Singles and Doubles Tournaments held in the days after the completion of the team tournament. There were more than a couple outbursts about the players selected (or not selected as the case may be) so we’ve brought back our tried and true method of blind resume testing! We have compiled the wins and losses of each of the four at-large selections and then NewRegional and I decided on the next eight most deserving candidates. I randomized the players and their W-L records so NewRegional and AVZ (our resident individual rankings expert) wouldn’t be influenced by their rampant biases. There are a lot of weird symbols next to the rankings in the table below. Please use the following key to distinguish between all the symbols. In addition, we are using the NCAA rankings in the below table. This isn’t the ideal method, because it only ranks 12 players from each region; however, while the ITA goes much deeper, its results are also two weeks out of date which renders them far more useless at this point. The four players selected for at-large bids by the NCAA were Noah Farrell (Middlebury), Bernardo Neves (Wash U), Jordan Pitts (Trinity Tx), and Jeremy Yuan (Chicago). Who are your blind resume selections? The answer key is at the bottom!

AVZ SELECTION PROCESS

I can immediately eliminate Player D, Player E and Player J. They have too many losses to unranked players and neither D or J have a notable win that would excite the committee. I am going to add player A to the not so great list as they have too many unranked losses and the only big notable wins are over players ranked 8 or higher. When the selection committee is looking at the top 7 regionally and then a wildcard, I wouldn’t expect that would be enough. The nice thing for player A is that his three wins are against other guys in consideration.. Player L has 3 good wins including two against other competition on this list, but two losses against the same unranked player really hurts him here. Player B just doesn’t have enough matches to get a good idea of where he belongs. Not to mention he has zero in region wins against top opponents. Give this guy more top matches and he could have proven himself as the top choice. Two out of region losses hurts Player I’s resume. He has two major wins out of region which gets him higher on the list, but I need more than just that to be near the top of my list. Player G, F, and H have almost identical resumes with only one bad loss to an unranked opponent. Player F has slightly bigger wins and a little less hurtful losses so he gets the edge. I have sandwiched Player H in between the two as while he has a few bigger losses, the two unranked ones occurred in the fall and one was a default. Player H also has the biggest win of anyone on this list which should not go unnoticed. The two standout resumes in my head are Player K and Player C. Both have played a number of top ranked guys to have a body of work. The reason I put player K at #2 on my list is because he has two losses against competitors on this list. That would hurt him (depending on who they are). Player C has two losses to unranked opponents, but one was in the fall so I am discounting that a bit. Player C has slightly better wins and even a win in region to help. Player K only has wins against out of region competition. Overall, both deserve to get in and would with two of the four at large spots I would have to give.

12) J

11) D

10) E

9) A

8) L

7) B

6) I

5) G

4) H

3) F

2) K

1) C

NewRegional SELECTION PROCESS

1. B. This player doesn’t have the assortment of wins that other players on this list have, but it’s a very clean resume, and there’s nothing keeping him out of the tournament. I’m willing to overlook a fall loss in favor of a 2-1 record against top 10 opponents in the spring. Avoiding losses while picking up two good wins makes for a pretty complete resume, and this player should be given a chance to prove himself at individuals.
2. K. This player has 4 wins against players that are in the top 7 in their region. That means they have a 4-4 record against players that are firmly in the tournament. Direct, in-region losses to two other players on this list definitely hurts him, but this is an at-large spot, which means out of region wins should count just as much. With only one bad loss, this player should be able to ride his good wins to an at-large spot.
3. C. This player also has 4 wins against players that are top 7 in their region, and has a 4-3 record against players that are firmly in the tournament. An in-region loss to the #9 player, and two in-region losses to unranked players (one in the fall) are likely the reason this player finds himself on the bubble. At the end of the day, spring, out-of-region wins over the #3 and #4 players in, and the #7 player in his own region is too strong a resume not to include.
4. H. This was a tough one, and I think there were 4 players that have a case for this spot. However, Player H has a signature win over an out-of-region #2 player, and he’s avoided bad losses this spring. I’m going to ignore the default to an unranked player in the fall, which makes his resume pretty identical to Player F. I think wins over players ranked #2, #6 and #11 is slightly more impressive than wins over players ranked #3, #8 and #8. Comparing losses is what makes this one a coin toss, as Player H’s losses to #1, #5, #9, and an unranked player are a little worse than Player F’s losses to #1, #2, #8 and an unranked player. I really wouldn’t be too upset with either choice here, but Player H has the better wins, which is why I’m going with Player H over Player F.

First 3 Out

Players F, G and I. I touched on player F above, but leaving out Player G and Player I were also  difficult choices. For Player G, his resume was similar to Player F, but the quality of Player F’s wins are just a little higher than Player G, with an out-of-region win over the #3 player being his signature win. In terms of losses, an in-region spring loss to an unranked player hurts him more than Player H’s losses. For Player I, 2 out-of-region wins against the #2 player should guarantee this player a spot, but those wins are offset by losses to unranked players. With just one loss to an unranked player, I probably put him in, but I find it hard to justify giving a spot to a player with two bad losses in the spring when we have players that have avoided those bad spring losses.

AVZ’s LIST:

1. 1. Noah Farrell – Midd
   2. David Aizenberg – Brandeis
   3. Jeremy Yuan – Chicago
   4. Tyler Barr – MIT

——–

     5) Jordan Pitts – Trinity Tx

     6) Bernardo Neves – Wash U

     7) Austin Diehl – Kenyon

     8) Joshua Bode – Concordia Tx

     9) Josh Quijano – Bates

     10) Alexis Dimanche – Southwestern

     11) Vishnu Joshi – Johns Hopkins

     12) Luke Lemaitre – George Fox

NewRegional’s LIST:

1. 1. Austin Diehl – Kenyon
   2. David Aizenberg – Brandeis
   3. Noah Farrell – Midd
   4. Tyler Barr – MIT

Just missed the cut: Jeremy Yuan (Chicago), Jordan Pitts (Trinity Tx), Bernardo Neves (Wash U)