Sponsored by IMG Academy

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

North Carolina Women Move to No. 1 in ITA Rankings; Men's D-I Team Indoor Draw Released; Bellis Defeats Keys in Doha

The new ITA women's team rankings reflect the results of the recently completed Team Indoor Championships, with winner North Carolina taking over the top spot and finalist Pepperdine moving to No. 2.  Florida dropped all the way from 3 to 18, while Wake Forest moved from 21 to 11.

ITA Women's Division I Top 10 Feb 14 (previous ranking in parentheses):
1. North Carolina (5)
2. Pepperdine (6)
3. Vanderbilt (2)
4. Duke (9)
5. Georgia (4)
6. Stanford (1)
7. Georgia Tech (7)
8. Texas Tech (8)
9. Ole Miss (15)
10. UCLA (13)

There were no new ITA individual rankings this week, and the with the Men's Team Indoor Championships beginning Friday, men's team rankings were not released, but the seeds reflect the rankings, particularly with all the top men's teams playing.

The men's Team Indoor seeds:

1. Wake Forest
2. Ohio State
3. North Carolina
4. Georgia
5. Stanford
6. Texas A&M
8. USC
9. Oklahoma State
10. Illinois
11. Florida
12. Baylor
13. Columbia
14. Notre Dame
15. Duke
16. Washington (host)

The pairings and times for Friday's first round:

9 a.m. (Pacific)
Ohio State[2] v Duke[15]
UCLA [7] v Illinois [10]

North Carolina[3] v Notre Dame[14]
Texas A&M[6] v Florida[11]

3:30 p.m.
Georgia[4] v Columbia[13]
Stanford[5] v Baylor[12]

6:30 p.m.
Wake Forest [1] v Washington[16]
USC[8] v Oklahoma State[9]

The USTA weekly rankings were also released today, with Ohio State holding on to its top spot in the men's rankings.

USTA Men's Top 10 rankings Feb. 14 (last week's ranking in parentheses):

1. Ohio State (1)
2. North Carolina (2)
3. Wake Forest (3)
T4. Georgia (4)
T4. Stanford (5)
6. Texas A&M (6)
7. USC (7)
8. UCLA (8)
9. Illinois (9)
10. Oklahoma State (10)

The USTA women's rankings also changed based on the results from the Team Indoor.

USTA Women's Top 10 rankings Feb. 14:

1. North Carolina (3)
2. Pepperdine (4)
3. Vanderbilt (1)
4. Georgia (2)
5. Duke (8)
6. Stanford (5)
7. Texas Tech (6)
8. Georgia Tech (7)
9. Wake Forest (T12)
10. Mississippi (T12)

At the WTA event in Doha, a couple of young qualifiers picked up big victories in the second round.  Nineteen-year-old Anna Blinkova of Russia beat No. 11 seed Kristina Mladenovic of France 6-3, 6-3, and 18-year-old CiCi Bellis beat No. 12 seed Madison Keys 2-6, 6-3, 6-0.  Blinkova will play No. 7 seed Caroline Garcia of France in the round of 16 Thursday, with Bellis taking on No. 5 seed Karolina Pliskova of the Czech Republic.  Comments from Bellis can be found in this recap of today's action from the WTA.


Washington host said...

How in the heck did Washington get to host the NCAA Men's Indoors this year?! The draw is supposed to represent the top 16 teams in the nation and Washington does not even have ANY ranking, let alone a top 16, or top 25 one. In fact, Washington didn't even have a ranking at the end of the past season when there were 50 teams ranked which means Washington wasn't even in the TOP 50! There must be, or should be, a rule that a team ranked this low should not be allowed to host the tournament because the teams who get invited should be merit based, not some sort of gift to be handed out to an unworthy team. I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 odds that there has never been a team ranked this low who was allowed to host this event in college tennis history, and I challenge anyone on this blog to prove me wrong. Where is the outrage?! As just a few examples: Florida State ranked #13, Texas ranked #15, Michigan ranked #17 and TCU ranked #18 don't get in, but Washington who doesn't even HAVE a ranking this year OR last year, gets to play because some incompetent and/or corrupt NCAA or ITA official apparently just handed Washington the gift of hosting? Can someone offer an explanation for this?

Midwest said...

Wisconsin hosted the Women's event - where was your outrage last week?

Wisconsin got the invite, in fact how did they draw #8 seed Florida in the first round, gifting Florida a win instead of playing the Top seed first?

Wisconsin has held the Women's Championships multiple times.

If you look at the NCAA draw in May, that's not the Top 64 teams in the Country either. Neither is the NCAA basketball tournament.

Overblown said...

UNC Women Tennis is claiming they won the National Championship. There is ONLY 1 National Championship and that's in May. Some teams don't play, like Stanford, because it's a weaker event. They are also claiming Kalbas has as many Championships as Roy Williams! lol.

STOP the MADNESS. All other sports has one National Championship - and tennis should be the same! Congrats to UNC for winning but its disgusting to advertise a false narrative.

Washington Host said...

@Midwest. To answer your question, the only reason that I didn't mention Wisconsin hosting the Women's NCAA Indoors is that I wasn't aware of it because I don't happen to follow women's college tennis very closely. But thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. I do agree that this is also outrageous, so there is my outrage about that horrendous decision as well. This is really a disgrace. It's one thing to allow teams to host who aren't necessarily one of the top 16 ranked teams, but these teams aren't even in the top FIFTY and don't even have ANY ranking.

Just Sayin’ said...

Overblown, all the best teams play the indoors except the Stanford Women. The Stanford Men play. The women say they need to study. Absolutely, May is the most important event. But, the Indoors is every bit a big time event with all the top teams (again except the Stanford women who play by their own rules). It’s especially important to teams in cold weather locations who don’t get to play outdoors all year round. Until, the 2000s, only warm weather teams were good. Now you have Illinois and UVA (two schools who play a lot of indoor tennis) win Titles. Ohio St. has basically all the long term success of those two except the actual title. Last year’s NCAA women’s champ plays for Michigan and the best girl last year Di Lorenzo went to OSU, both schools that play mostly indoors.

While it’s not the Most important event, to downplay it suggests you don’t follow college tennis that closely or at least live in a warm weather state.

College Fan said...

Washington host, Washington has hosted the event multiple times. They used to be a perennial top 25 team. My guess is that the ITA wants the event on the west coast every so often and Seattle is one of the only sites out West that can host it. Yes, they are not deserving of playing this year, but I don’t think it’s a deal breaker. UVA is likely the best location. All 12 indoor courts are at the same location and all teams stay at a resort on site. However, I’m sure an unranked UVa is thankful they are not hosting this year.

Washington Host said...

@College Fan, thanks for agreeing that Washington is not deserving of playing this year, but your statement that Washington used to be a perennial "top 25" team is incorrect. Perhaps they were once a perennial top 35 team, but even that was a long time ago. They have not been even a top 35 team for 6 years and that was in 2012 (I just looked up the stats to confirm this).

Brent said...

Predictions for National Indoors...

1 Wake Forest d. 16 Washington 4-0
8 USC d. 9 Oklahoma State 4-2
5 Stanford d. 12 Baylor 4-1
4 Georgia d. 13 Columbia 4-1
3 North Carolina d. 14 Notre Dame 4-2
6 Texas A&M d. 11 Florida 4-3
10 Illinois d. 7 UCLA 4-3
2 Ohio State d. 15 Duke 4-0

1 Wake Forest d. 8 USC 4-1
4 Georgia over 5 Stanford 4-3
6 Texas A&M over 3 North Carolina 4-3
2 Ohio State over 10 Illinois 4-2

1 Wake Forest over 4 Georgia 4-3
2 Ohio State over 6 Texas A&M 4-1

2 Ohio State over 1 Wake Forest 4-3

College Fan said...

Washington Host, Recheck your rankings and information regarding the Indoors event. UW has won at least 1 match every time they have hosted the top 15 teams in the country. How is that not deserving? I knew that Washington at home indoors used to regularly beat many top 15 teams, so I assumed that was deserving of a top 25 level ranking. Here are there year end rankings of the years they hosted: 1999 #25, 2001 #17, 2003 #12, 2006 #18, 2008 #36, 2011 #25, 2013 #36. That's a fairly regular top 25 team.

Washington hosted the event 5 times between 1999-2008 and 7 times overall. They haven't hosted since 2013. Here are their results and ranking during the tourney.
1999 Beat Miss. St. first round, lost to eventual champ UCLA 4-3 in the Qtrs.
2001 Ranked #19. Beat #4 UGA, lost to #5 Duke, beat #8 Florida. Finished 5th.
2004 #11 seed lost to #7 Ole Miss 4-3, Beat #15 Boise 4-0, Beat #14 Harvard 4-2
2006 #12 seed, beat #6 UVA, lost to #3 Illinois, lost to #7 UCLA
2008 #15 seed, lost to #2 UGA, beat #10 Bama, lost to #11 Illinois
2011 Ranked #29, lost #1 UVA, beat #10 A&M, lost to #13 UK
2013 Ranked #24, lost to #1 UVA, lost to #8 OU, beat #11 Florida

Robert Mueller said...

Great Infomation "College Fan"! ...
Go Huskies!..Betty White wanted to mention... the Russians had No Involvement with the NCAA's Men's National Team Indoors this Year, and to Go Out and Support the Olympics by Eating a Snickers":).

Washington Host said...

@College Fan, that was a completely worthless post that you just submitted. Your post claimed to refute my post but it did not refute it in any way. Every single thing that I said in my post was completely accurate and so I don’t need to recheck anything. Since my post was entirely accurate, you apparently had no choice but to lamely attempt to completely change the subject. I said that Washington was not even a top 35 team since 2012, which was 6 years ago, and you did not contradict that statement in any way. Instead, you completely changed the subject by trying to confine the entire conversation to how they did during the tournament many years ago where they were the host and had home court advantage over every other team. And, confining your entire analysis to how a team did during one tournament when they hosted the tournament years ago is not a fair and accurate way to evaluate a team and analyze who deserves to play in a tournament this year, many years later when recent rankings are a much more fair and accurate way to evaluate a team’s qualifications.

Even your most recent data point, the 2013 indoor tournament, involves a team where NOT ONE SINGLE PLAYER on that roster still plays tennis for Washington (or any other college team for that matter because they all graduated from college a while ago.) And even that year (2013) that you cherry pick as a good year, the team still finished the year ranked a lowly #36.

Let’s look at the team’s recent performance which is a lot more relevant for evaluation purposes than ancient history. After their 2013 ranking of #36, the next year, in 2014 they did much worse, ending the year at #66. The next year, 2015, they did even worse than 2014 because they ended that year not ranked at all. 2016 they were #39, and last year (2017) they ended the year again not ranked at all.

Even in during the best period of the team’s history they were still not a “perennial top 25 team” as you described them because they were ranked #36 in 2008 and #35 in 2007. (The fact that you conspicuously retreated from originally describing Washington in your first post as a "perenial" top 25 team to describing them in your most recent post as a "fairly regular" top 25 team" was not lost on me or anyone else.)

I encourage you to try again. That was a complete swing and a miss. And next time I might take you more seriously if you actually refute what I said rather than completely change the subject with a brand new and narrow analysis of ancient history.

Alex Ho said...

Dude, they hosted so they got in and lost first round. Get over it

NCAA Think Tank said...

Great Facts and Advice, Alex! Ditto!

NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance said...

@Ho, did you think about that nonsensical post for even 3 seconds before you wrote it?! This is an NCAA tournament, not some joke. Tell that "advice" to all the players and coaches of the teams that were much more deserving to get in to compete and were instead put out in the cold that they should just should "just chill out and get over it." Under your logic nobody should ever file a grievance or stand up for their rights under any circumstances, even if they've been treated unfairly, whether they didn't get into law school, med school, the year-end NCAA tournament, didn't get the job they deserved, were wrongfully convicted, assaulted, discriminated against, etc. they should just get over it no matter what it is. Of course Washington lost in the first round (4-0); that was guaranteed to happen because they didn't deserve to even be there, that was the whole point.

I recall seeing previous posts on this blog from someone also named Alex Ho which seemed at least somewhat logical and thoughtful, but that was either another person or you just had a really bad day today. Hopefully you'll be able to just chill out and get over that...dude.

@"NCAA Think Tank, you should change your handle to "No-Think" Tank because Ho did not offer any relevant facts, just worthless, impractical and bad advice.

Thank You said...

The NCAA and the Collegiate Tennis World would like to Thank the University of Washington, for Hosting the 2018 ITA Division I National Men's Team Indoor Championship at the Seattle Tennis Club in Seattle, WA. Go Huskies!

Eagles said...

Sounds like there are other issues on your plate other than an Indoor Tennis Tournament. "Get over it"

Phred said...

@NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance, sounds like you are advocating that all players should receive participation trophies so they don't get their feelings hurt. Geez, get over it. The last time I checked, all teams, except for the host institution, has to work their way into the Indoor Nationals.

NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance said...

@Phred, that was one of the most asinine posts ever submitted on this blog. The theme of my post was completely THE OPPOSITE of your insinuation. My whole point is that getting into the tournament should be merit based and so the teams that have achieved the higher ranking should get in, not the team that was given the opportunity to host despite their very weak record and ranking. So, it is the team that got in by being handed the host role that is getting the participation trophy because they didn't earn the invitation. Either you're in the second grade of elementary school, or you need remedial help on your reading comprehension skills.

P.S. And what was that irrelevant garbage about getting their feelings hurt? Never mind, the less we hear from you the better.

College Tennis said...

Wake Forest Wins the National Team Div 1 Men's Indoors over UCLA, 4-2.
Congrats to Wake Forest and the Tournament's Host, University of Washington, for a Great Tournament!

Scanlon said...

Yup, it must be an “incompetent and/or corrupt NCAA or ITA official” responsible for Washington hosting the event. I’m sure Washington’s successful track record of having hosted the event 7 times previously had absolutely nothing to do with the decision. The outrage!

Wait, let’s have 16 (not 15!) teams qualify from the Kick-Off Weekend, then ask one of them if they’d like to host the Indoors in a few weeks. I’m sure one of them could throw something together last minute. Yeah, let’s do that. Much better from a “merit-based” perspective.

Or let’s choose a host well in advance who has a solid, “merit-based” ranking. Then if their ranking should fall below, say, 25 in the weeks leading up to the tournament, we’ll tell them they are no longer worthy of hosting. Too bad, only the cream of the crop! We’ll find a more suitable host who deserves the honor who can throw together a National Championship event in the nick of time.

Pick Higher Ranked Host Next Time said...

@Scanlon, the next time you take the time to post 3 paragraphs on this blog, I strongly recommend that you first prepare just a little bit to learn the facts. Your complete argument goes entirely out the window because your premise is demonstrably false. You write:

"Or let’s choose a host well in advance who has a solid, “merit-based” ranking. Then if
their ranking should fall below, say, 25 in the weeks leading up to the tournament, we’ll tell them they are no longer worthy of hosting."

The problem is that Washington DOES NOT HAVE a "solid merit based ranking" nor a ranking that "just fell below 25 in the weeks leading up to the tournament." They are currently NOT
RANKED AT ALL, have not been ranked this entire season, and finished last season with no ranking at all (so not even in the top 50). Furthermore, they have not been ranked in the top 25 since 2011 which was 7 years ago, and haven't been ranked in the top 15 since 2005 which is 13 years ago. Most of this was already discussed in detail in recent posts above over the past couple of days on this same topic, but you apparently didn't read or didn't comprehend them.

No one would complain if the host was ranked in at least the top 25 within the past few years, but Washington's performance has been nowhere near this for 7 years, which should have given the NCAA and ITA plenty of time to pick a more appropriate host.

And, let me just say that I don't blame Washington because it wasn't their decision, I blame the ITA and NCAA. (Just fyi, the host just finished the tournament with three lopsided losses and no wins which was entirely predictable based on their recent performance.)

Phred said...

It's obvious @NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance is clueless on what it takes to run a national event. The only other alternative would be to hold the tournament at a neutral non-collegiate site which would ensure that only "qualified" teams would be playing. Unfortunately, the world is round and life goes on... so get over your rampage and let's allow a bone to be thrown to a school willing to spend time and money hosting the event.

P.S. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings too bad, but then again, I could care less (but not much less)!

NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance said...

@Phred, you are obviously incorrect again. At least you're consistent about being wrong. The solution is easy and obvious, and I've already suggested it several times in my posts but you seem to have difficulty grasping basic concepts. All the ITA and NCAA authorities need to do is not pick a host team that has not been ranked in the top 25 during the most recent year of results before the choice of host is made. In that case at least the host will have a reasonably acceptable recent record. Even if it's ranking dips below top 20 by the time of the tournament, while not perfect, at least this is reasonable and acceptable, and won't be as unnacceptable of a choice as this year. This year was an unusually bad choice when the team they chose as host has not even been in the Top 50 within the past year and has not even been in the Top 25 in 7 years. That's why there have been so many complaints this year, when I don't recall any major complaints over the past 10 years prior to this year.

"my rampage?" Nice try. Not even close. And, I can't get my "feelings" hurt from someone like you who I don't respect based on the low quality and lack of logic in your two pitiful posts. You're grammar is also incorrect: it is "...hurt your feelings too badly" not "too bad." It should be an adverb.

5.0 Player said...

That is an excellent and obvious solution proposed by NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance, and it's a process that the ITA and NCAA should have adhered to the first time it selected the host. Just good plain and obvious common sense, something they are clearly lacking.

Scanlon said...

“All the ITA and NCAA authorities need to do is not pick a host team that has not been ranked in the top 25 during the most recent year of results before the choice of host is made. In that case at least the host will have a reasonably acceptable recent record. Even if it's ranking dips below top 20 by the time of the tournament, while not perfect, at least this is reasonable and acceptable, and won't be as unnacceptable of a choice as this year.”

What if a team that had a peak ranking of 25th, chosen as host (by your method), drops to 35th by the time the event rolls around? What if they drop to 55th? What if this team wouldn’t have made as good of a host as Washington?

Conversely, what if a team that had a peak ranking of 60th, and was out of the running to host (by your method), rises to 25th in the months leading up to the event? What if this team would have made an excellent host, like Washington, and you barred them from hosting because their ranking wasn’t high enough at the time?

I’ve got a better idea: the ITA should just ask “Clueless re Seattle” which teams he would like to see in the tournament.

timesup said...

If you host a World Cup you automatically get in. Same for an Olympics. So this national indoors issue, come on.. Seriously.

This is as dumb as everyone from UCF football saying they are "national champions" LOL

NCAA Tournament is the Big Dance said...

@Scanlon, I see from your new post that you haven't improved your analytical skills much from your previous post that was thoroughly slammed. First of all, you say that Washington was an "excellent" choice to be chosen as host this year but they lost all 3 matches in a lopsided manner (4-0, 4-1, and 4-1) despite having home court advantage. They also have NOT BEEN RANKED AT ALL this season, and were NOT RANKED AT ALL at the end of last season. So, there is no way that a team with a weaker record could have been chosen under the "top 25" criteria selection process that I suggested and that 5.0 Player supports.

Let me also remind you that I don't blame Washington (I blame the ITA and NCAA) because it wasn't their decision to get picked for the hosting honor and they tried the best they could. I'm also sure that they are all great people. And, they are not alone in that UNRANKED Wisconsin should similarly have not been chosen for the Women's indoor tournament. My entire complaint is that the NCAA and ITA host picking process is currently broken and unfair to all the teams as a whole.

Colette Lewis said...

There seems to be an assumption in this discussion that other schools want to host the Indoor Championships. From what I've heard over the years, that is not the case.

5.0 Scanlon said...

Those are excellent and obvious considerations proposed by Scanlon.

slow down said...

Been a while since I've seen a thread like this on the site. Some pretty rough takes on this. Colette is correct, and from seeing this process first hand in the past, very few schools actually bid on this event due to: a) costs, b) the time involved to plan and host and/or c) they don't have the facilities - 12 indoor courts/access to a second site (and some of the top coaches also don't want the distraction hosting can bring). And some schools that do want to host don't want to host every year and welcome a rotation. It's amusing how someone with no idea of how the process works has a hot take on it, then it snowballs from there. How about starting with this: "I'm surprised to see UW as host, but I have no idea how the bid process works for an event like - does anyone know how the ITA selects host sites?"
And as far as history. Kentucky hosted this event for years. Most years it was top 20, a couple times it may not have been. Wisconsin hosted it in the 70s and wasn't always highly ranked. It's just been last 15 or so years where Illinois and UVA has been top 10 ranked hosts. Washington was also very strong when it first became part of the hosting rotation. On the women's side Wisconsin has hosted a lot and was never highly ranked.
I'll admit it has changed a bit over the last 10 years with addition of the kick-off and teams "earning" a spot in draw. But the thinking has always been a school would never want to host if they had to play in kick-off and have a chance of not actually making the national event.

Bruce Hornsby said...

Slow down, thank you for the sanity. Whenever there are posts like this it is obvious that the original discontent is from the parent of a player on the team that just missed getting that last spot on the entry line. Same thing with complaints about individual draws. Or the "why isn't there video of this or that event?" Cause no one cares except that one affected by it. Oh the injustice. For a player to get all the things they see other people getting.....they just gotta win people, they just gotta win.

Selection said...

@slow down, while your post and perspective are appreciated, there should at least be some effort to pick a host that at least has some recent history of a decent ranking. For example, when Washington used to regularly host they were almost always at least in the top 35 and so nobody complained in any of those years. However, it's a whole different story when the host was not even ranked AT ALL for an entire year, and is still not ranked with the new rankings that just came out. I challenge you to pick a year in the entire history of the men's indoor tournament where a host had a weaker lower/weaker recent record than this.

Slow down said...

@Selection - I don't disagree if you have multiple bids w/ good facilities, the schools with the higher rankings should be selected. The larger point is that I, and pretty sure everyone else commenting, have no idea who bid for it. There's just a lot of guessing and ugliness. Again, the reality is that there is a limited amount of schools that are interested and have the indoor facilities/access to second site and/or want to spend the $$$ to host and/or want to put the time in to host.

Selection said...

@Slow down. Thanks for your post. That is fair enough.