Ranking 2012-3 - Page 9 - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #121 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 17th, 2013, 08:24 PM Thread Starter
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Let me just add what they achieved at INDOORS...Indoors is fast so it might be bad for defensive teams, no?

11/11/2012 USTA/ITA National Indoor Intercollegiate Championships Final #2 Kaitlyn Christian
Sabrina Santamaria #34 Li Xi
Stephanie Nauta #17 University of Virginia Win 6-0, 6-0
11/10/2012 USTA/ITA National Indoor Intercollegiate Championships Consolation #2 Kaitlyn Christian
Sabrina Santamaria #6 Alexa Guarachi
Mary Anne Macfarlane #8 University of Alabama
Win 6-2, 6-3
11/9/2012 USTA/ITA National Indoor Intercollegiate Championships Quarterfinals #2 Kaitlyn Christian
Sabrina Santamaria #31 Ashley Dai
Whitney Kay #1 North Carolina Win 8-3
11/8/2012 USTA/ITA National Indoor Intercollegiate Championships Round of 16 #2 Kaitlyn Christian
Sabrina Santamaria #47 Ellen Tsay
Stacey Tan #12 Stanford Win 8-4

It's called DOMINANCE
fantic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 17th, 2013, 09:14 PM
Senior Member
 
tucker1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,631
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Definitely impressed by their play this year, like I said, very excited to see how it all unfolds at NCAA's, would be a fantastic achievement for them to win all 3 slams in one year
tucker1989 is offline  
post #123 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 17th, 2013, 09:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 124
 
Re: Ranking 2012-3

someone hurt on that team for them to not play in April?
3gtennis is offline  
post #124 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 17th, 2013, 10:55 PM Thread Starter
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Here is Colette Lewis' take on the dbls #1

"The limitations of the rankings are spotlighted in the women's doubles this week. Kaitlyn Christian and Sabrina Santamaria of USC, who have won the two collegiate majors in the fall and are 25-0 overall, are no longer No. 1. They have been passed by Georgia's Silvia Garcia and Kate Fuller, who are 20-1, but do not have the fall tournament results to bolster their case, with Garcia a January freshman."

I think I've posted too much already about this 'issue', so this will be my last post of it
fantic is offline  
post #125 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 01:21 AM
Senior Member
 
2nd_serve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,248
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantic View Post
Here is Colette Lewis' take on the dbls #1

"The limitations of the rankings are spotlighted in the women's doubles this week. Kaitlyn Christian and Sabrina Santamaria of USC, who have won the two collegiate majors in the fall and are 25-0 overall, are no longer No. 1. They have been passed by Georgia's Silvia Garcia and Kate Fuller, who are 20-1, but do not have the fall tournament results to bolster their case, with Garcia a January freshman."

I think I've posted too much already about this 'issue', so this will be my last post of it
You are right

But I still want to call you out for saying the article about alternate ranking systems using Mallory Burdette was in the wrong thread. There should be more discussion on alternate ranking systems.
2nd_serve is offline  
post #126 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 01:26 AM Thread Starter
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd_serve View Post
You are right

But I still want to call you out for saying the article about alternate ranking systems using Mallory Burdette was in the wrong thread. There should be more discussion on alternate ranking systems.
Yes but Mal is at pro now.... I thought this was a college thread
fantic is offline  
post #127 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 01:38 AM
Senior Member
 
2nd_serve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,248
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantic View Post
Yes but Mal is at pro now.... I thought this was a college thread
Yeah, maybe I'm hanging on to the glory of surrounding Mallory since USC outplayed Stanford.
2nd_serve is offline  
post #128 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 01:50 AM Thread Starter
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd_serve View Post
Yeah, maybe I'm hanging on to the glory of surrounding Mallory since USC outplayed Stanford.


Don't worry, Stanford will rise again, they're too good not to.
fantic is offline  
post #129 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 05:53 AM
Senior Member
 
tie_breaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,227
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Alternative Ranking System

This is just simple math to determine team rankings.
The criteria is based on the team with the highest # of ranked players.
Next is the average ranking based on those ranked players.

With 6 ranked players, U of F is ranked #1, although their ITA ranking is #2.
Ironically, USC's ranking of #4 is the same for both systems.

Oh...what do we have here...Stanford is ranked #2, although ITA's flawed ranking has the team ranked at #12.


Team---# Ranked Players---Ave Rank---ITA Rank

1: University of Florida---6---68---(2)
2: Stanford---5---48---(12)
3: UCLA---5---72---(7)
4: University of Southern California---4---29---(5)
5: California---4---32---(9)
6: North Carolina---4---34---(1)
7: Duke University---4---72---(11)
8: University of Alabama---4---75---(8)
9: Clemson University---3---27---(13)
10: University of Georgia---3---36---(3)
11: Texas A&M University---3---49---(4)
12: University of Michigan---3---60---(6)
13: University of Miami (Florida)---3---83---(10)
14: Florida State University---3---91---(32)
15: University of Tennessee---2---28---(29)
16: University of Texas at Austin---2---37---(26)
17: University of Virginia---2---45---(17)
18: Pepperdine---2---50---(71)
19: Rice University---2---57---(20)
20: UNLV---2---60---(61)
21: University of Arkansas---2---61---(50)
22: TCU---2---73---(25)
23: Vanderbilt University---2---75---(18)
24: North Carolina State---2---81---(44)
25: Northwestern University---2---86---(16)
26: Yale University---2---88---(35)
27: Georgia Tech---2---92---(23)
28: University of South Carolina---2---94---(30)
29: University of Illinois---2---106---(47)
30: Indiana University-Bloomington---2---108---(34)
31: Baylor University---1---10---(28)
32: University of Nebraska---1---11---(14)
33: University of Tulsa---1---14---(24)
34: Kansas State---1---16---(52)
35: Saint Mary's College of California---1---19---(40)
36: Arizona State University---1---21---(22)
37: University of Kentucky---1---22---(42)
38: Auburn University---1---23---(19)
39: Santa Clara University---1---28---(58)
40: University of Notre Dame---1---39---(21)
41: Georgia State University---1---41---(0)
42: University of Mississippi---1---44---(39)
43: Univ. of Memphis---1---48---(33)
44: San Jose State University---1---51---(72)
45: Tulane University---1---58---(46)
46: Penn State University---1---60---(43)
47: Ohio State University---1---62---(62)
48: Oklahoma State University---1---63---(37)
49: Columbia University---1---64---(65)
50: University of Arizona---1---65---(67)
51: University of Oklahoma---1---69---(36)
52: Virginia Commonwealth University---1---72---(38)
53: SMU---1---74---(51)
54: University of San Diego---1---78---(54)
55: Univ. of San Francisco---1---80---(0)
56: Univ. of Missouri, Columbia---1---81---(56)
57: DePaul University---1---84---(0)
58: UC Irvine---1---87---(31)
59: University of Utah---1---92---(53)
60: Texas Tech University---1---93---(15)
61: University of Iowa---1---96---(0)
62: Wake Forest University---1---99---(0)
63: University of South Florida---1---103---(57)
64: College of William and Mary---1---116---(49)
65: Louisiana State University---1---117---(64)
66: Stony Brook University---1---118---(0)
67: UC Davis---1---121---(0)
68: University of Central Florida---1---124---(0)
69: Princeton University---1---125---(73)
tie_breaker is offline  
post #130 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 06:09 AM
Senior Member
 
tie_breaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,227
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Here's another look, but this time to make it a more level playing field, I took out Florida's 5th and 6th ranked player, Stanford's 5th ranked player, and UCLA's 5th ranked player, so we could see the highest average ranking of the top 4 ranked players.

No surprise seeing USC at #1. Both Cal and Stanford make the biggest jumps by climbing 7 spots.




Team---# Ranked Players---Ave Rank---ITA Rank

1: University of Southern California---4---29---(5)
2: California---4---32---(9)
3: North Carolina---4---34---(1)
4: Stanford---4---37---(12)
5: University of Florida---4---41---(2)
6: UCLA---4---62---(7)
7: Duke University---4---72---(11)
8: University of Alabama---4---75---(8)
9: Clemson University---3---27---(13)
10: University of Georgia---3---36---(3)
11: Texas A&M University---3---49---(4)
12: University of Michigan---3---60---(6)
13: University of Miami (Florida)---3---83---(10)
14: Florida State University---3---91---(32)
15: University of Tennessee---2---28---(29)
16: University of Texas at Austin---2---37---(26)
17: University of Virginia---2---45---(17)
18: Pepperdine---2---50---(71)
19: Rice University---2---57---(20)
20: UNLV---2---60---(61)
21: University of Arkansas---2---61---(50)
22: TCU---2---73---(25)
23: Vanderbilt University---2---75---(18)
24: North Carolina State---2---81---(44)
25: Northwestern University---2---86---(16)
26: Yale University---2---88---(35)
27: Georgia Tech---2---92---(23)
28: University of South Carolina---2---94---(30)
29: University of Illinois---2---106---(47)
30: Indiana University-Bloomington---2---108---(34)
31: Baylor University---1---10---(28)
32: University of Nebraska---1---11---(14)
33: University of Tulsa---1---14---(24)
34: Kansas State---1---16---(52)
35: Saint Mary's College of California---1---19---(40)
36: Arizona State University---1---21---(22)
37: University of Kentucky---1---22---(42)
38: Auburn University---1---23---(19)
39: Santa Clara University---1---28---(58)
40: University of Notre Dame---1---39---(21)
41: Georgia State University---1---41---(0)
42: University of Mississippi---1---44---(39)
43: Univ. of Memphis---1---48---(33)
44: San Jose State University---1---51---(72)
45: Tulane University---1---58---(46)
46: Penn State University---1---60---(43)
47: Ohio State University---1---62---(62)
48: Oklahoma State University---1---63---(37)
49: Columbia University---1---64---(65)
50: University of Arizona---1---65---(67)
51: University of Oklahoma---1---69---(36)
52: Virginia Commonwealth University---1---72---(38)
53: SMU---1---74---(51)
54: University of San Diego---1---78---(54)
55: Univ. of San Francisco---1---80---(0)
56: Univ. of Missouri, Columbia---1---81---(56)
57: DePaul University---1---84---(0)
58: UC Irvine---1---87---(31)
59: University of Utah---1---92---(53)
60: Texas Tech University---1---93---(15)
61: University of Iowa---1---96---(0)
62: Wake Forest University---1---99---(0)
63: University of South Florida---1---103---(57)
64: College of William and Mary---1---116---(49)
65: Louisiana State University---1---117---(64)
66: Stony Brook University---1---118---(0)
67: UC Davis---1---121---(0)
68: University of Central Florida---1---124---(0)
69: Princeton University---1---125---(73)
tie_breaker is offline  
post #131 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 06:15 AM Thread Starter
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

I've done the same as you, counting the # of players on each team, but didn't actually think to make a ranking based on this, nice work!

I think I like yours more, since Pac 12 really rules by your system and especially the 2nd one since USC is #1

Last edited by fantic; Apr 18th, 2013 at 03:45 PM.
fantic is offline  
post #132 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 03:02 PM
Senior Member
 
gouci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,111
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by tie_breaker View Post
Oh...what do we have here...Stanford is ranked #2, although ITA's flawed ranking has the team ranked at #12.
Let's get something straight.

The ITA computer doesn't rank teams based on potential but based on actual results as it should be.

Stanford is ranked #12 not because the ITA computer thinks they're the 12th best team in the country, but because the computer thinks they have the 12th best record/resume.

The ITA ranking is not flawed here. The only thing flawed is tie_breaker's comprehension of the rankings.


P. S.
tie_breaker I don't have a beef against you so stop your sniping on other threads.
My advice is don't pick a fight that you can't win.
gouci is offline  
post #133 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 250
 
Re: Ranking 2012-3

[QUOTE= Tie breaker]Here's another look, but this time to make it a more level playing field, I took out Florida's 5th and 6th ranked player, Stanford's 5th ranked player, and UCLA's 5th ranked player, so we could see the highest average ranking of the top 4 ranked players.

No surprise seeing USC at #1. Both Cal and Stanford make the biggest jumps by climbing 7 spots.





Ummm, then we should just eliminate team scoring? Ask Pepperdine how that's working out this year.

This is THE DUMBEST most stuck up thing I have ever read.

Under this theory, the LA Lakers are # 2 in the country behind Miami as they have the 2nd most superstars and 2nd highest payroll. How has that worked out. You have to PLAY THE GAME/MATCH.

The thing most flawed is the ITA individual rankings. One fluke win and you are ranked (opponent is ill, just not feeling it one time or gets hurt). UC Davis' # 1 is not good... but has two Top 60 wins... they both RETIRED so she is ranked. NOW THAT IS A FLAWED SYSTEM.

Quite frankly with so many schools now pulling their players after they get to 4 points, the individual rankings are a mess anyway. My guess is that the NCAA will eventually dump the individuals to shorten match length and save money. Stupid idea too but you have to play all the matches.

And sadly for some 'power schools' who have crappy bottom ends and can't post 4 points, those poor pathetic non-football schools will continue to outrank your brand.

I can't believe someone actually posts this. It's the final score, not your super star. Ask Kobe Bryant.

Gouci.. I'm scared. We agree.

Last edited by beachman49; Apr 18th, 2013 at 03:23 PM.
beachman49 is offline  
post #134 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 03:48 PM Thread Starter
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by gouci View Post
Let's get something straight.

The ITA computer doesn't rank teams based on potential but based on actual results as it should be.

Stanford is ranked #12 not because the ITA computer thinks they're the 12th best team in the country, but because the computer thinks they have the 12th best record/resume.

The ITA ranking is not flawed here. The only thing flawed is tie_breaker's comprehension of the rankings.


P. S.
tie_breaker I don't have a beef against you so stop your sniping on other threads.
My advice is don't pick a fight that you can't win.
[QUOTE=beachman49;26884770]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tie breaker
Here's another look, but this time to make it a more level playing field, I took out Florida's 5th and 6th ranked player, Stanford's 5th ranked player, and UCLA's 5th ranked player, so we could see the highest average ranking of the top 4 ranked players.

No surprise seeing USC at #1. Both Cal and Stanford make the biggest jumps by climbing 7 spots.





Ummm, then we should just eliminate team scoring? Ask Pepperdine how that's working out this year.

This is THE DUMBEST most stuck up thing I have ever read.

Under this theory, the LA Lakers are # 2 in the country behind Miami as they have the 2nd most superstars and 2nd highest payroll. How has that worked out. You have to PLAY THE GAME/MATCH.

The thing most flawed is the ITA individual rankings. One fluke win and you are ranked (opponent is ill, just not feeling it one time or gets hurt). UC Davis' # 1 is not good... but has two Top 60 wins... they both RETIRED so she is ranked. NOW THAT IS A FLAWED SYSTEM.

Quite frankly with so many schools now pulling their players after they get to 4 points, the individual rankings are a mess anyway. My guess is that the NCAA will eventually dump the individuals to shorten match length and save money. Stupid idea too but you have to play all the matches.

And sadly for some 'power schools' who have crappy bottom ends and can't post 4 points, those poor pathetic non-football schools will continue to outrank your brand.

I can't believe someone actually posts this. It's the final score, not your super star. Ask Kobe Bryant.

Gouci.. I'm scared. We agree.
Why such hostile reactions

tiebreaker didn't base the ranking on 'reputation', he based it on the individual ranking, so it's not totally subjective here:

I thought it was a fresh approach
fantic is offline  
post #135 of 217 (permalink) Old Apr 18th, 2013, 11:56 PM
Senior Member
 
tie_breaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,227
                     
Re: Ranking 2012-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by gouci View Post
Let's get something straight.

The ITA computer doesn't rank teams based on potential but based on actual results as it should be.

Stanford is ranked #12 not because the ITA computer thinks they're the 12th best team in the country, but because the computer thinks they have the 12th best record/resume.

The ITA ranking is not flawed here. The only thing flawed is tie_breaker's comprehension of the rankings.


P. S.
tie_breaker I don't have a beef against you so stop your sniping on other threads.
My advice is don't pick a fight that you can't win.
You and beachman take the rankings way too seriously...lighten up and go easy on the coffee
tie_breaker is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome