• The KillerFrogs

TCU Men's Tennis 2021-2022

Longfrog

Longfrog

Active Member
Jared7 said:
Good thoughts, but I just don't think they're going to change the formula.
Click to expand...
Yeah was more of a king for a day hypothetical. I do think the formula gets more accurate as the season wears on, and it only has real practical import when they do seedings at outdoors.

Plus, we know from experience that coach rankings are flawed too. And in case anyone else is a sicko like me, below is the committee that seeded us #5 at indoors. SMU, hmmm.

www.wearecollegetennis.com

ITA Division I Men's & Women's National Tournament & Ranking Committee and Region Chairs

The Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) Division I National Tournament Committee and Region Chairs.
www.wearecollegetennis.com www.wearecollegetennis.com

Men​

Niall Angus
Santa Clara
Region 1 (Northwest)

Adam Schaechterle
Pepperdine
Region 2 (Southwest)

Roeland Brateanu
Utah
Region 3 (Mountain)

Grant Chen
SMU
Region 4 (Texas)

Nick Crowell
Oklahoma
Region 5 (Central)

Gene Orlando
Michigan State
Region 6 (Midwest)

Nick Zieziula
Binghamton
Region 7 (Northeast)

Cedric Kauffman
Kentucky
Region 8 (Ohio Valley)

Jim Thompson
Virginia Tech
Region 9 (Atlantic)

Josh Goffi
South Carolina
Region 10 (Carolina)

Rahim Esmail
Samford
Region 11 (Southern)

Kenny Thorne
Georgia Tech
Region 12 (Southeast)
 
This Ain't Chopped Liver

This Ain't Chopped Liver

Active Member
Jared7 said:
But you're definitely accurate about the road W bonus thing - according to the formula, Tennessee's W over us in Ft. Worth is way more important than our W over them in Seattle.
Click to expand...
They maybe need to tweak that computer formula—seems this TCU 4-1 final championship win versus Tennessee at a neutral championship venue should more than counter an early season 4-3 Tennessee road win at TCU.

I know little, but from what I digest here the better human mind would have current #1 be either TCU or Ohio State, Tennessee falling in third.

I am likely repeating thoughts already posted so this is simply adding clutter, and thus I may delete, haha.
 
Last edited:
Purp

Purp

Active Member
I'm not calling for the rankings formula to be rewritten to accommodate little ol' TCU. That clearly won't happen and shouldn't. But I can't get past the logic of a #4 team not being close enough in the rankings to jump to #1 after beating #1 and #2 in consecutive days. If it was a freak deal where the #30 team did that I could maybe see not ranking them #1 if they had some bad losses or mediocre strength of schedule, but the #4 team in the rankings with a solid SoS and no bad losses (only 1 close loss to speak of) will just never make sense to me.

Any formula that can't (1) recognize a H2H win over tOSU as differentiating TCU over them and (2) recognize one close loss to a #1 team versus 2 losses (both blowouts) to teams ranked less than #1 as obviously superior is inherently flawed and lacking integrity. Computers think what humans tell them to think. Whoever the "genius" was who wrote this computer algorithm needs to be kicked out of MENSA. He's probably a participation trophy type guy who gets mixed up between tennis cleats and hockey shoes.
 
FrogUltimate

FrogUltimate

Active Member
Purp said:
I'm not calling for the rankings formula to be rewritten to accommodate little ol' TCU. That clearly won't happen and shouldn't. But I can't get past the logic of a #4 team not being close enough in the rankings to jump to #1 after beating #1 and #2 in consecutive days. If it was a freak deal where the #30 team did that I could maybe see not ranking them #1 if they had some bad losses or mediocre strength of schedule, but the #4 team in the rankings with a solid SoS and no bad losses (only 1 close loss to speak of) will just never make sense to me.

Any formula that can't (1) recognize a H2H win over tOSU as differentiating TCU over them and (2) recognize one close loss to a #1 team versus 2 losses (both blowouts) to teams ranked less than #1 as obviously superior is inherently flawed and lacking integrity. Computers think what humans tell them to think. Whoever the "genius" was who wrote this computer algorithm needs to be kicked out of MENSA. He's probably a participation trophy type guy who gets mixed up between tennis cleats and hockey shoes.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately in every college sport, these formulas are written to be easy to understand, and thus lack any actual sense. Also - the home/away/neutral weighting is way too big.
 
FrogUltimate

FrogUltimate

Active Member
So in a wild set of events, Zverev got kicked out of Acapulco tournament after slamming his racket against the umpires chair multiple times after losing a doubles match. He came super close to hitting the umpire. So - if Norrie beats Isner today, he will avoid Zverev.

Norrie looked tired to me in his first round last night. He won relatively easily 7-6, 6-2 but looked a step slow, which is understandable.
 
Jared7

Jared7

Active Member
Purp said:
I'm not calling for the rankings formula to be rewritten to accommodate little ol' TCU. That clearly won't happen and shouldn't. But I can't get past the logic of a #4 team not being close enough in the rankings to jump to #1 after beating #1 and #2 in consecutive days. If it was a freak deal where the #30 team did that I could maybe see not ranking them #1 if they had some bad losses or mediocre strength of schedule, but the #4 team in the rankings with a solid SoS and no bad losses (only 1 close loss to speak of) will just never make sense to me.

Any formula that can't (1) recognize a H2H win over tOSU as differentiating TCU over them and (2) recognize one close loss to a #1 team versus 2 losses (both blowouts) to teams ranked less than #1 as obviously superior is inherently flawed and lacking integrity. Computers think what humans tell them to think. Whoever the "genius" was who wrote this computer algorithm needs to be kicked out of MENSA. He's probably a participation trophy type guy who gets mixed up between tennis cleats and hockey shoes.
Click to expand...
Well, I hear what you're saying and fully agree that we're the best team in the country right now because we proved it by winning the Indoors National Championship against a tough field. And I also agree that the rankings should reflect that. But part of me also agrees with Pharm that rankings just don't matter that much at this stage of the season and I'd much rather have the hardware. And Tennessee (and everyone) knows who won that match and that title. The problem, as Chopped Liver said, is that, the Vols' road W over us in Ft. Worth, is BY FAR, the most impressive W by anyone this season according to the ITA formula which weights road W's heavily. It's getting 116.6 points in the formula while our piddly little championship W over the Vols (which is the 2nd most impressive W) is merely getting 102 points. That's a margin of 14.6 points that we just don't overcome with the margins of the other W's (on which we lead in all but 1). The formula will, however, self-tweak, as more W's are added throughout the season (starting at 4-5 and advancing to 10). So, we will have a chance to make up the difference as the season wears on. There is no H2H component and L's barely count - we have a .1 L factor; they have a .2 L factor. It is what it is. The formula was devised years ago by a committee and they won't be changing it. It's designed to encourage teams to go on the road against top teams. Last year, when we were road warriors and got the benefit of "overweighting" of road W's, we didn't complain. This year, although we've played a tough schedule, everything but the tourney so far has been at home. And we don't have a lot of road matches going forward (Illinois, UCLA, SMU and Tulane and then Baylor in conference in April) against top teams. So this situation might persist.

And as long just said, there are other rankings. We're #1 according to the USTA and CTR.
 
Jared7

Jared7

Active Member
Here are the ITA rankings. Read em and weep. And please try not to react to them the way Sasha Zverev did:

1. Tennessee (W; L)
2. The Indoor National Champion Fighting Frogs of Lil Ole TCU
3. Ohio State (W)
4. Baylor (on our schedule at least twice)
5. USC
6. South Carolina
7. Florida (W)
8. Wake Forest
9. Stanford
10. Kentucky
11. Mississippi (W)
12. Texas (W; on our schedule)
13. Harvard
14. Northwestern
15. Georgia
16. NC State
17. Virginia (W; W)
18. A&M
19. Arizona
20. Oklahoma (on our schedule)
21. North Carolina
22. Mississippi State (W)
23. Columbia
24. Florida State
25. Auburn
28. Tulsa (W)
36. Michigan (on our schedule)
47. UCLA (on our schedule)
48. Tulane (on our schedule)
50. Tech (on our schedule)

Major changes this week due to switching to the computer formula. Michigan and Illinois plummeted. Oklahoma State (and almost Tech) out of the rankings. Virginia down to 17th. In fact, many teams that we've played or will play fell. USC (and Stanford) a lot higher than anticipated. Our main threats are in the Top 10.

The margin between Tennessee and TCU is much more narrow than projected by CTR. The Vols have an average point value of 90.286; the Frogs are at 90.244. This is very close and could change easily.
 
Last edited:
E

Endless Purple

Full Member
Longfrog said:
I think if I could only make one tweak to the rankings formula it would be to incorporate the actual scores from the duals. Tenn's 2 losses were 4-1 and 4-0, and they have a bunch of 4-3 wins. They beat Columbia at home 4-3 and Columbia is predicted to be ranked #23. Our loss was 4-3 and we had a lot of one-sided wins. That should have some bearing on the rankings. If it did, I bet we'd be #1. Ohio State would probably be #2, which also seems fair since they demolished Tenn in their meeting.

You'd probably need to allow teams to play on past the 4th point for exhibition purposes, so teams don't have to worry about risking their points in allowing matches to finish. But that might be good anyways. As it is, Fearnley has a loss on his record because we defaulted him in a match he'd just started vs Ole Miss because we wanted to let 2 other matches finish.
Click to expand...
That second part is important. The matches would have to finish out and see who gets all 7 points if it was included.

Another consideration would be H2H if teams are next to each other and within a certain range in score differential, then the winner gets moved over the loser. A 1-1 situation like Tennessee would not have the move since tied overall.

Maybe
 
Jared7

Jared7

Active Member
The Frogs' winning ways hit a speed bump in the Dominican Republic today as both Chappell and Rybakov fall in the first round. Nick lost to Colin Markes, a former Longhorn 2 and 4, and Rybo lost to Filip Peliwo 3-6, 6-0, 4-6. So the only Frog left playing this week is Cam (against Isner later). Norrie is 1-2 all-time against Isner, winning in 2018 at Lyon but losing later that year in 3 sets at Vienna. Then, last year, he lost in 3 sets at Cincinnati.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top