NCAA Men’s Lineup Data

I have completed the lineup data for the teams competing this weekend in the NCAA Division I Team Championships.

If you are still looking for a sleeper pick, check out some of the teams’ doubles records against top-50 competition. Of course Wake Forest and Virginia are solid there, but USC, Ohio State, TCU, Georgia and Cal are solid. A team like Michigan could get a leg up on Stanford with some solid doubles as well.

This is also a way to really look at match-ups. You can tell some teams really struggle at the middle of the lineup, while others may flourish…

Legend
S1 = singles line #1
S2 = singles line #2
S3 = singles line #3
S4 = singles line #4
S5 = singles line #5
S6 = singles line #6
D1 = doubles line #1
D2 = doubles line #2
D1 = doubles line #3
3+S = How many times won-lost at least 3 singles lines
DUBS = Record winning doubles point
T50S+ = W/L of at least 3 singles v. top-50
T50D = doubles record v top-50

2017 Men’s NCAA Lineup Data

Final Regular Season Men’s Singles Rankings

I decided to run these this morning to see how they compared to those of the ITA. Lot’s of similarities. One thing to remember is that I add all of the Futures and Challenger results where college players faced each other during the first semester. For a complete rundown on the methodology, refer to my first article on the rankings here.

 

RANK PLAYER TEAM RECORD
1 Cameron Norrie TCU 21-1
2 Mikael Torpegaard Ohio State University 33-3
3 Petros Chrysochos Wake Forest University 30-6
4 Christopher Eubanks Georgia Tech 27-5
5 Nuno Borges Mississippi State University 33-6
6 Aleks Vukic University of Illinois 23-2
7 Brandon Holt University of Southern California 33-8
8 Arthur Rinderknech Texas A&M University 24-8
9 Mike Redlicki University of Arkansas 27-10
10 Hugo Di Feo Ohio State University 29-5
11 Christian Sigsgaard University of Texas 25-15
12 Alfredo Perez University of Florida 23-10
13 Tom Fawcett Stanford University 17-9
14 Florian Lakat California 20-10
15 Thai-Son Kwiatkowski University of Virginia 24-6
16 Thomas Laurent University of Oregon 29-5
17 Juan Benitez Baylor University 21-8
18 Skander Mansouri Wake Forest University 30-9
19 Aron Hiltzik University of Illinois 19-5
20 Ronnie Schneider North Carolina 27-10
21 William Blumberg North Carolina 20-2
22 Alex Rybakov TCU 18-1
23 Strong Kirchheimer Northwestern University 27-12
24 Herkko Pollanen Ohio State University 27-7
25 Gage Brymer UCLA 22-11
26 Peter Bertran University of South Florida 32-8
27 Billy Griffith California 24-8
28 Constantin Schmitz Tulane University 23-6
29 Maxime Tchoutakian Baylor University 28-8
30 Andre Goransson California 25-11
31 Martin Redlicki UCLA 27-7
32 Borna Gojo Wake Forest University 21-4
33 Jose Salazar University of Arkansas 29-8
34 Gustav Hansson University of Mississippi 22-11
35 Jolan Cailleau Texas Tech University 24-15
36 Wayne Montgomery University of Georgia 27-17
37 Julian Cash Oklahoma State University 19-9
38 Collin Altamirano University of Virginia 15-5
39 Yuya Ito University of Texas 23-13
40 Christian Seraphim Wake Forest University 32-11
41 Emil Reinberg University of Georgia 32-14
42 Timo Stodder University of Tennessee 26-14
43 Alberto Barroso-Campos University of South Florida 25-7
44 William Bushamuka University of Kentucky 18-10
45 Jordi Arconada Texas A&M University 21-5
46 Harrison Scott University of Texas 27-10
47 Robert Kelly North Carolina 24-8
48 JC Aragone University of Virginia 32-8
49 Josh Hagar University of Notre Dame 20-15
50 Cameron Klinger Vanderbilt University 24-6
51 Spencer Papa University of Oklahoma 19-14
52 Henrik Wiersholm University of Virginia 22-1
53 Daniel Valent Vanderbilt University 23-15
54 Gabriel Friedrich University of South Carolina 25-13
55 Johannes Schretter Baylor University 20-3
56 Nathan Ponwith University of Georgia 20-11
57 Alexander Ritschard University of Virginia 21-5
58 David Biosca East Tennessee State University 26-7
59 Filip Bergevi California 18-9
60 Alex Ghilea University of Oklahoma 20-6
61 Jathan Malik University of Michigan 18-10
62 Jack Jaede University of Southern California 24-7
63 Corey Pang Cal Poly 26-7
64 Victor Pham Columbia University 22-11
65 Nicolas Alvarez Duke University 9-5
66 Walker Duncan University of Georgia 29-14
67 Alexis Galarneau North Carolina State 25-11
68 Tyler Lu Yale University 26-6
69 Shawn Hadavi Columbia University 28-11
70 JJ Wolf Ohio State University 15-4
71 Filip Vittek University of San Diego 19-8
72 Mazen Osama University of Alabama 19-13
73 Vinny Gillespie Drake University 22-7
74 Connor Curry Texas Tech University 23-13
75 Florin Bragusi University of Oklahoma 20-9
76 Jimmy Bendeck Baylor University 22-13
77 Dylan King Yale University 32-5
78 Sasha Gozun University of South Florida 17-11
79 Colin Sinclair Cornell University 29-7
80 Alex Knight University of Michigan 24-9
81 Adam Moundir Old Dominion University 24-8
82 Andrew Harris University of Oklahoma 5-6
83 Parker Wynn University of Louisville 41-10
84 Konrad Zieba Northwestern University 21-10
85 Alex Keyser Columbia University 25-11
86 Guillermo Nuñez TCU 15-6
87 Bjorn Thomson Texas Tech University 22-7
88 Jacob Dunbar University of Richmond 32-7
89 Harrison O’Keefe University of South Carolina 26-14
90 Nick Stachowiak Duke University 32-11
91 Catalin Mateas Duke University 24-13
92 Andrew Li Georgia Tech 20-13
93 Aziz Dougaz Florida State University 14-10
94 Johannes Ingildsen University of Florida 28-11
95 Nick Horton North Carolina State 19-16
96 Piotr Lomacki University of Miami-Florida 18-12
97 Rob Bellamy University of Southern California 21-6
98 Michail Pervolarakis University of Portland 23-7
99 Myles Schalet University of Michigan 23-9
100 Josh Pompan University of Pennsylvania 32-9
101 Jerry Lopez TCU 17-5
102 Lukas Finzelberg Oklahoma State University 18-11
103 Elliott Orkin University of Florida 20-13
104 Matic Spec University of Minnesota 21-16
105 Kyle Seelig Ohio State University 27-7
106 Lucas Gerch Oklahoma State University 17-6
107 Logan Smith University of Southern California 22-17
108 Sebastian Rey Tulane University 19-9
109 Joseph Di Giulio UCLA 16-5
110 Aleksandar Kovacevic University of Illinois 21-10
111 Ben Donovan Cal Poly 28-12
112 Hady Habib Texas A&M University 22-6
113 Carl Söderlund University of Virginia 13-2
114 Jack Findel-Hawkins University of North Florida 18-15
115 Niclas Braun Mississippi State University 18-11
116 Baker Newman Vanderbilt University 24-14
117 Kyle Mautner University of Pennsylvania 20-15
118 Or Ram-Harel University of Tulsa 10-12
119 Thibault Forget University of Southern California 28-13
120 Logan Staggs UCLA 19-4
121 Jan Zielinski University of Georgia 27-11
122 Lucas Poullain Florida State University 21-8
123 Justin Roberts University of South Florida 18-12
124 Leonardo Telles University of Texas 20-9
125 Adam Steryous Furman University 25-8

Sometimes You Need a Little Help — men’s bracket redux

I admit it. I screwed up some details on a few sites that do could not be due to conference rules. That was just doing it all independently and not double-checking it. Been a little busy at work, actually and staying up way too late for this.

If I had actually put the pods together, it would’ve been discovered. I was rushed.

Anything I type beyond here that is wrong I will just blame on the two Benadryl I took this evening.

Here are the updated grids

updated one-two grids

and

updated one-three grid

and

updated one-four grid

Where Do The 2-Seeds Go? And What About UW?

This is a problem. We are tied by travel distances, but in reality there are not many options. You really cannot send Florida State to Georgia for a third-straight year. You could send them to Florida again, but you can also send South Florida and Central Florida there. In the end, South Florida makes the most sense from a seeding standpoint and Georgia Tech makes the most sense going to Georgia. That being said, I won’t be shocked about anything.

So here’s the grid as I think it stands now.

Travel Grid for 2-Seeds and their projections

Now on my previous post, under the comments section, someone has raised a very good question as to if Washington can ‘jump’ one, two or even three teams? They have direct wins over USD, Portland and Utah State. San Diego is safe because they are an automatic qualifier. But can you jump one to get to the other two?

From the 2017 NCAA Pre-Championship Manual

Selection Criteria. The following criteria shall be employed by a governing sports committee in selecting participants for
NCAA championships competition [Bylaw 31.3.3; criteria for selection of participants]:
●● Won-lost record.
●● Strength of schedule.
●● Eligibility and availability of student-athletes for NCAA championships.

In addition to Bylaw 31.3.3, the tennis committee has received approval from the NCAA Division I Championships/Sports
Management Cabinet to consider the following criteria in the selection of at-large teams for the men’s and women’s tennis
championships (not necessarily in priority order):
Primary Criteria
●● Head-to-head competition.
●● Results versus common opponents.
●● Strength of schedule.
●● Wins versus teams (or individuals) already selected at time of consideration.

So what does this all mean? Also, this is directly afterwards.

Tie-Breaking Procedures
●● If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the tie-breaking procedures will be reviewed. The
following criteria listed will be evaluated in priority order: Head-to-head competition.
●● Strength of schedule.

Primary Criteria Defined
●● Head-to-head competition.
This is a one-on-one direct comparison between two teams (or individuals). The tennis committee will award a maximum
of two points for defeating the same opponent two or more times.

●● Results versus common opponents.
Other than in cases in which the common opponent analysis is unambiguous (each team or individual has played a common opponent with one team or individual winning and one team or individual losing), the tennis committee will look very closely at the comparison before deciding whether one team or individual has demonstrated a higher level of play versus a common opponent.

●● Strength of schedule.
The Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet has approved the following strength-of-schedule definition for Division I tennis: The ITA rankings will be used to represent a combination of four categories (won-lost record or percentage, strength of schedule, significant wins and significant losses). Higher-ranked teams (or individuals) will be awarded a specific number of points based on their percentage difference (using the rankings’ average point-per-match formula) over the team (or individuals) they are being compared with in the selection and seeding process. Points will be awarded on the following scale:
1 point — If higher-ranked team’s (or individual’s) average is 1-10 percent greater than the lower-ranked team’s
(or individual’s) average;
2 points — If higher-ranked team’s (or individual’s) average is 10.1-20 percent greater than the lower-ranked
team’s (or individual’s) average; and
3 points — If higher-ranked team’s (or individual’s) average is 20.1 percent greater than the lower-ranked team’s
(or individual’s) average.

●● Wins versus teams (or individuals) already selected at time of consideration.
A one-point margin is sufficient to win the category. The tennis committee will award a maximum of two points for
defeating the same opponent multiple times.

Wins versus the top 50 teams in the ITA rankings.
Wins versus the top 60 singles players in the ITA rankings for eligible/entered singles players.
Wins versus the top 30 doubles teams in the ITA rankings for entered/eligible doubles teams.

Bottom line, I think Portland may be in trouble.

If that is the case, then Washington cannot just take their place at USC. The easiest would be to send Louisville to USC and Washington to TCU.

Men’s Seeds and Where the 3 and 4 Seeds May Go

I am still working with the 1-2 mappings. It is a real issue because there are so many issues I feel are not cool to some schools because of travel maximization.

Do you send South Florida back to Florida? Do you make Florida State go back to Athens for a third-straight year? Shouldn’t Wake get Kentucky instead of South Carolina due to seeding? But if you do that, then you cannot maximize the ‘bus’ trips.

I will work on this today and get back.

Here are the seeds

1    Wake Forest University
1    University of Virginia
1    Ohio State University
1    University of Southern California
1    UCLA
1    TCU
1    Baylor University
1    California
1    North Carolina
1    Oklahoma State University
1    University of Texas
1    University of Georgia
1    Texas A&M University
1    University of Oklahoma
1    University of Florida
1    Stanford University
2    University of Michigan
2    Mississippi State University
2    Georgia Tech
2    University of South Carolina
2    University of South Florida
2    Northwestern University
2    Columbia University
2    University of Oregon
2    University of Illinois
2    Cornell University
2    University of Mississippi
2    Tulane University
2    University of Central Florida
2    University of Wisconsin
2    University of Kentucky
2    Florida State University
3    University of Memphis
3    Duke University
3    University of Arkansas
3    UC Santa Barbara
3    SMU
3    University of Minnesota
3    Purdue University
3    Rice University
3    Georgia State University
3    University of Louisville
3    Utah State University
3    University of Portland
3    University of San Diego
3    Drake University
3    East Tennessee State University
3    Valparaiso University
4    Lamar University
4    University of Denver
4    Butler University
4    University at Buffalo
4    Tennessee Tech University
4    UMKC
4    Virginia Commonwealth University
4    UNC Wilmington
4    Florida Gulf Coast University
4    University of Idaho
4    Monmouth University
4    U.S. Military Academy
4    Presbyterian College
4    Bryant University
4    Florida A&M University
4    Alabama State University

But I do have a pretty good feeling on the threes and fours and here they are.

Travel Grid for 4-Seeds. Those in BLUE are projected sites

Travel Grid for 3-Seeds. Those in BLUE are projected sites

and the threes.