[form]

Each year teams sizeably change so human evaluation is needed as players come, transfer in/out, graduate. Ladders can change and this evolve.

But

Why do we need these regional committees for singles and doubles rankings? There is no need as the rankings can roll over year after year.

Right now:
- Take last June's final computer rankings
-- The actual NCAA/ITA list ranks more than 125. They just don't publish it.
- Edit all seniors and other players that may have left the college game
- To begin the new season, re post the 'updated' rankings 1-125 having deleted the above. Players 126-160 (or so) now become visibly ranked in the 125 as everyone slides up after the deleted seniors.
- This list is now based on past 'performance' and not regional bias or reputation.

The only need for the committee is to evaluate those 10 'top freshman' to get into All American PQ's.

January
- Run the computer factoring in all the fall tournament play.
- Freshman will now naturally blend in based on performance.
- No need for committee at any point, any year... for singles and doubles.

Hopefully someone will read this.

If you look at last years rankings, if you look at some of the regional sub rankings from last June, and then look at how some returning players 'suddenly' became well ranked yet were not even on regional sub rankings... it's a joke and clearly there is a flaw using these 'select coaches.'

This would also be the easiest thing to initiate.

They could go back to using last June's final numbers, delete grads and add all fall results. No need for manual tweaking. How easy is that?

How much more fair for # 1 and # 2 kids at mid majors vs. # 7's at those 'elites'.

And as Gouci pointed out on another thread, there are some other odd adjustments that make no sense from time to time.

Again, this is so easy that it makes sense.

What arguments would the ITA or college coaches have against this (unless trying to rank some US elite that are # 7's at the big dogs)?

[form]

19 days later, Ms. Seguso makes my point again that these 'politically motivated' coaches committee rankings don't work.

CONTINUING A RANT ABOUT POLITICS, RANKINGS AND SEEDINGS FROM ALL AMERICAN

Kristina Smith, UCI beats # 6 seed Carling Seguso, UCLA 6-3, 6-2 (Let me start: Kristina Smith is a very good little player who will be top 2 for UCI)

But let's review:
- Seguso was UCLA's # 8 last year
- Seguso did not have a national or even a regional ranking last year

Yet the ITA Committee of Coaches
- Ranked her in the 70's ahead of a lot of worthy other players in the pre season poll... ahead of other players that were regionally ranked last year... did she mysteriously jump them?
- She was thus seeded at All American PQ and lost first round badly
- She was thus seeded at SW Regionals and lost first round convincingly
- Seguso is now winless in the fall

1) Why doesn't the ITA just continue the computer rankings perpetually, take graduated players out but leaving their results so the computer values the wins, and elminate is politically stupid coaches popularity ranking?

2) Why does the UCLA # 8 get ranked UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE?

Good lord