The new rankings are out and while all my calculations weren’t 100% correct they were close. I had carried over my points sheet from last year but didn’t make an adjustment for last week’s rankings which had 2 teams tied for 35th which threw off my point totals for everybody from 36 on down by 1 point.
USC is the new #1 in the men’s rankings with Oklahoma dropping to #2 after falling at Texas A&M while North Carolina stays at #1 in the women’s rankings. For the full list of both men’s and women’s team rankings, singles, and doubles scroll down the page.
I will say though that there are 3 places where the ITA Men’s Team Rankings are incorrect.
- Texas should be ranked 7th behind Georgia because Texas’s point total is really 62.62 but due to to an incorrect score entry in the ITA’s computer it showed that Texas’s home win on 1/25 over Florida State was counted as a road win thus giving them an extra 5.1 points.
- Texas A&M should be ranked 10th behind Ole Miss because Texas A&M’s point total is really 53.18 but due to an incorrect score entry it showed Texas A&M’s home win on 1/25 over San Diego was counted as a road win thus giving them an extra 4.5 points.
- Drake should be ranked 28th instead of 29th because a 1/18 road win at Louisville was keyed in as a match at Drake.
I emailed Tom Loughrey, ITA Media/Rankings Manager, with this info so I doubt it’ll get changed for these rankings but hopefully is fixed before next week.
Tom emailed me back and has updated those 2 entries in the system to show the correct location of the matches. The changes will take effect with next week’s rankings.
Men’s National Team Rankings |
|||
| Administered by the ITA | |||
| NCAA Division I Tennis | |||
| February 24, 2015 | |||
| Rank | Avg | School | Previous Week |
| 1 | 85.56 | University of Southern California | 2 |
| 2 | 83.02 | University of Oklahoma | 1 |
| 3 | 76.77 | University of Illinois | 6 |
| 4 | 70.93 | Duke University | 7 |
| 5 | 68.58 | Baylor University | 5 |
| 6 | 63.83 | University of Texas | 10 |
| 7 | 62.86 | University of Georgia | 3 |
| 8 | 55.00 | Ohio State University | 9 |
| 9 | 54.20 | Texas A&M University | 13 |
| 10 | 53.42 | University of Mississippi | 15 |
| 11 | 52.88 | University of Virginia | 4 |
| 12 | 52.58 | Wake Forest University | 19 |
| 13 | 51.98 | Columbia University | 11 |
| 14 | 45.31 | University of Notre Dame | 17 |
| 15 | 41.09 | TCU | 18 |
| 16 | 40.59 | Vanderbilt University | 23 |
| 17 | 40.02 | University of Florida | 16 |
| 18 | 35.77 | California | 14 |
| 19 | 34.68 | North Carolina | 8 |
| 20 | 32.71 | Northwestern University | 26 |
| 21 | 31.76 | UCLA | 12 |
| 22 | 31.30 | Harvard University | 25 |
| 23 | 30.92 | Princeton University | 50 |
| 24 | 30.79 | University of South Florida | 24 |
| 25 | 29.64 | Oklahoma State University | 32 |
| 26 | 26.37 | Florida State University | 31 |
| 27 | 26.19 | North Carolina State | 28 |
| 28 | 26.12 | Auburn University | T-35 |
| 29 | 25.50 | Drake University | 41 |
| 30 | 25.40 | University of San Diego | 37 |
| 31 | 25.23 | Louisiana State University | 40 |
| 32 | 24.88 | Texas Tech University | 38 |
| 33 | 24.12 | University of Minnesota | 34 |
| 34 | 23.29 | University of South Carolina | 21 |
| 35 | 22.95 | Virginia Tech | 33 |
| 36 | 22.23 | Indiana University-Bloomington | 44 |
| 37 | 21.61 | Stanford University | 39 |
| 38 | 19.59 | University of Louisville | 42 |
| 39 | 17.51 | Penn State University | 27 |
| 40 | 16.55 | University of Denver | 62 |
| 41 | 16.38 | Mississippi State University | 30 |
| 42 | 15.40 | University of Memphis | 22 |
| 43 | 14.83 | University of Oregon | 45 |
| 44 | 14.80 | University of Pennsylvania | 52 |
| 45 | 12.62 | University of New Mexico | 63 |
7 Comments | |||
I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, if you started with the Feb 17th rankings you could correctly compute all of the Feb 24 rankings ( 1 – 125). For Feb 17th there are only 75 ranked teams so you have all the information necessary to compute Feb 24 rankings. Once you have a correct Feb 24 you can accurately compute all subsequent weekly rankings. ( 1 – 125) The problem of course is obtaining all of the data and running the calculations.
Once you get down below 50 it's tougher to be as accurate as needed because you have to start doing more guesswork since you can't tell how many points to use for wins over opponents ranked below 75. The points basis for 2/24 rankings came from the 2/17 rankings and since those were done by vote instead of a computer you really don't know how far teams were off.
Bobby – Thanks a bunch for all of your hard work.<br /><br />Have you computed all of the top 125 team rankings? I know the ITA does not publish the last 50 but it would be very interesting if you would. 🙂 Thanks
I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment. Thanks for your hard work.
Bobby — That is an excellent explanation of the rankings system — using one of college tennis's best players and all-around good guys.<br /><br />And thanks to you for the correction of ITA's rankings today.<br /><br />Your blog has become a great resource for the college tennis fan. I started following the game closely 8 years ago, and I wish that I would have had the advantage of your insight back in those days. Thanks for all that you do.<br /><br />Bill McDaniel, UGA fan and college tennis fan generally (I would include my name as the commenter, but I'm not sure how that works on wordpress)
Right the formula goes off your best wins and since Mitchell Frank didn't play college events in the fall he started out in January with 0 results while Kwiatkowski had 9 good ranked wins in the fall and Shane had 6 ranked wins in the fall and has 3 more ranked wins in dual match play. Frank only has played in 4 completed matches so far with his only ranked win against TCU's Cameron Norrie. He was ahead against UNC's Schnur and Louisville's Stiefelmeyer but neither got to finish once the team match was clinched. Frank will continue to rise as the season goes along because he'll play a lot of good #1s (Lenz, Harris, Alvarez, Rubin, Stiefelmeyer, Schnur). Where you play in the lineup more or less determines whether you'll face a ranked opponent so he'll face a lot more higher ranked opponents at 1 than Kwiatkowski will at 3.
How do the individual rankings work? For example how can two Virginia players be ranked 1 and 2 when they play behind Frank? Doesn't seem to make sense but it must just be a formula correct? There is no weighting to where they play in the lineup? Thank you in advance.