Scott Turns Pro; Pepperdine's Lahey and USC's Cukierman Top ITA Fall Rankings; Bryan Brothers Announce 2020 Retirement
The ITA published their final singles and doubles rankings for the fall season today, and once again they are demonstrating the problem with the method currently used to determine the rankings. Last season's final women's singles ranking had Katarina Jokic of Georgia at No. 1 and NCAA champion Estela Perez-Somarriba of Miami at No. 2, even though Perez-Somarriba was the No. 1 seed going into the NCAA singles championships and beat No. 2 seed Jokic in the final. If the algorithm doesn't account for that scenario properly you have to wonder about its efficacy, and today's rankings just add more fuel to that fire.
Yuya Ito of Texas won the ITA All-American Championships and the Oracle ITA National Fall Championships, two of the individual majors in Division I College tennis, (the NCAA championships are the third), and he is not No. 1 in the rankings. Daniel Cukierman of USC, who lost in the quarterfinals of the Fall Nationals and did not play the All-American tournament, is at the top of the rankings, with Ito in second place.
In the women's doubles, Anna Rogers and Alana Smith of North Carolina State are No. 1, with Elysia Bolton and Jada Hart of UCLA No. 2, despite the fact that Bolton and Hart defeated Rogers and Smith 6-4, 6-3 in the Fall Nationals final.
The evidence is mounting that the current ranking procedure is producing flawed outcomes, and the ITA needs to recognize this and begin investigating ways to remedy it sooner rather than later.
Click on the headings to go to the full rankings.
Women's Division I Singles Fall Top 10:
1. Ashley Lahey, Pepperdine
2. Cameron Morra, North Carolina
3. Estela Perez-Somarriba, Miami
T4. Sara Daavettila, North Carolina
T4. Anna Turati, Texas
6. Abigail Forbes, UCLA
7. Michaela Gordon, Stanford
8. Alexa Graham, North Carolina
9. Jada Hart, UCLA
10. Kelly Chen, Duke
Women's Division I Doubles Fall Top 5:
1. Alana Smith and Anna Rogers, NC State
2. Elysia Bolton and Jada Hart, UCLA
3. Rebeka Stolmar and Marie Mattel, Central Florida
4. Jessie Gong and Samantha Martinelli, Yale
5. Cameron Morra and Makenna Jones, North Carolina
Men's Division I Singles Fall Top 10:
1. Daniel Cukierman, USC
2. Yuya Ito, Texas
3. Valentin Vacherot, Texas A&M
4. Sam Riffice, Florida
5. Richard Ciamarra, Notre Dame
6. Jack Lin, Columbia
7. Keegan Smith, UCLA
8. Joseph Guillin, UC Santa Barbara
9. Mor Bulis, USC
10. Hady Habib, Texas A&M
Men's Division I Doubles Fall Top 5:
1. Matej Vocel and Dominik Kellovsky, Oklahoma State
2. Robert Cash and John McNally, Ohio State
3. Jackie Tang and Jack Lin, Columbia
4. Christian Sigsgaard and Yuya Ito, Texas
5. Andrew Fenty and Mattias Siimar, Michigan
Mike and Bob Bryan announced today that they are retiring after the 2020 US Open. The twins, now 41, made their debut at the US Open in 1995 after winning the Kalamazoo 18s title, and have played that slam 25 times, with Bob winning five men's doubles title there and Mike six. There is little disagreement about their place in tennis history and they are certain to be inducted into the Hall of Fame as soon as they become eligible. For more on all their accomplishments and their plans for 2020, see this article from usopen.org.
10 comments:
Has anyone heard the ITA provide an explanation of their ranking methodology? Those results are nonsensical, comical, and credibility-destroying.
either way I'm fine with doubles, it's rather similar to Jokic and EPS. The point difference is minuscule anyway, and NCSU did play more, for example won a tough Carolina Regional. They also beat AA finalist UT team very early, and beat #3 UCF team at NFC as well.
So NCSU 11-2, UCLA 8-2 and UCLA did lose to a lower ranked team, #22 NCSU team Daniel/Reami at AA MD Consolation final. NCSU lost to #12 VU team at AA 2nd rd.
In fact one could argue about UCF ranked ahead of Yale, which actually won AA and made NFC Consolation final, but UCF also, like NCSU won the (SE) Regional, and also did go deep in both slams, AA and NFC.
It's a pretty simple formula. Just need to look at where the players they beat were ranked in the Sept. rankings. Their top 5 wins are considered and all losses. Daniel Cukierman's 5 best wins were a little better than Ito's. 5 wins aren't a lot, but if you look at the top 100 there aren't a ton of players with more than 10 wins, so it's a pretty decent number to factor at this point in the season.
Bonus points for wins in tournaments were done away with about 20 years ago because coaches felt they skewered the rankings and the NCAA committee also didn't want to factor that into seeding (this was back when there was a clay court championship not everyone played, etc)
The formula is available on the ITA website
file:///C:/Users/cangle/Downloads/Desktop/2019-2020%20DI%20Rankings%20Manual.pdf
I am thinking that a bonus that results in college players participating in ITA Majors might be a good idea.
Its not really turning pro since anyone can turn pro and play for money. All they have to do is pay the entry fees. Katrina Scott will turn pro when she makes a profit playing tennis. The top 120 make a profit playing tennis. That is why the ITF is trying to limit the numbers of pros since pretty much anyone can say they are a pro tennis player if they enter tournaments. As of this point Katrina is no more a pro tennis player than 2000 others who pay the fees and make zero profit in tennis.
I have no information on Scott's specific situation, but signing with an agency often indicates that a player has received money, whether from endorsements or the agency itself. Most players are well aware of what they are giving up financially when they forgo a college scholarship.
I just watched the Michael Mmoh disqualification from the Charlottesville Challenger. He should be Disqualified from the 2020 Australian Wild Card Challenge as well. USTA needs to follow the path of the NFL ( the Myles Garrett incident) and make a Loud and Clear Statement dealing with these situations.
How can you compare Mmoh throwing his racket in disgust and accidentally hitting a line judge, with Garret late hitting a QB, ripping his helmet off and hitting him in the head with the helmet??? Mmoh immediately showed remorse, obviously a terrible look but this has happened to multiple players mostly hitting balls that hit line judge or spectator.
Tolerant.... perfect for being from California. It’s comparing the incident within the sport. NFL is violent.. but there is a line you can not cross and they the governing body has to react accordingly and the NFL did so. Tennis..a gentlemen’s and ladies game.. there is a fine line you don’t cross..it’s more than racquet abuse, it’s more than verbal abuse. Years ago the USTA gave point penalties and a gathering of 10 points within a certain time would give a player a 3 month ban from tournaments. Depending on the section of the country, a simple “ oh my god” would give you a point penalty. Speed to the present and you see a “Pro” throw his racquet and hit a line judge. Throwing a racquet and hitting anyone let alone a lines judge is equivalent to an NFL player taking someone’s “equipment” and using said equipment to show his displeasure. Oh, sure... Michael apologized right away but it doesn’t take away the fact he acted the way he did. It’s called behavior consequences... for Goodness sakes... you are a “Pro” .. Act like It! It doesn’t help you want to be “Tolerant” with the action. That just defines the USTA stance on this type of situation. It all depends on the individual ( and his closeness to the USTA) demonstrates how the USTA will respond. Maybe Michael should have taken “3 months” off during his junior career.
Actually, the agency would not pay a lower level prospect like Scott and endorsements would be limited to discounts on racquets and apparel. The likely scenario is Scott, her parents, her coach petitioned the agency. Many times a coach has a relationship with a low level agent at the agency and can broker a deal that does not take much from the agency. The agency checked out her stats and went with a standard low level agreement. If she happens to beat the odds and make money in tennis, they get a percentage. If not, they would have done a very limited bit to promote her. In the business, the agency scattershoot a bunch of players and hope a few make it.
But the fact remains, anyone can say they turned pro but until they make a profit from tennis, they are not true pros. Until Scott reaches the top 120, she is losing money in tennis and her agency is making anything from her. The agency will not spend much at all on her unless she shows fast results. At this point her parents or someone is footing her bills, whether an agency signs her to a standard low level deal or not.
Post a Comment