Talk:Lucky loser

Other Sports
This page seems only to be about tennis. What about Lucky Losers in other sports, e.g. skiing where there are places reserved for the fastest losers? Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in the rules
It seems that the rules have been changed this year: "The order of the two (2) highest ranked players shall be randomly drawn, thereafter the order shall follow the players’ rankings, unless there are two (2) or more withdrawals at the time the Qualifying competition is finished in which case the size of the random draw will be the number of withdrawals plus two (2)." See also here. Should this be added to the article, or is the simplified version given there sufficient? --Kompik (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The still mentions draw only in the case of Grand Slam tournaments. However, it seems that it is now also used in ATP and WTA tournaments. See, for example, here. --Kompik (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

LL tournament winners
The current revision of the article says that: It is rare for a lucky loser to win an Association of Tennis Professionals tournament... In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010. But the seven winners are neither listed nor any reference for this claim is given. previous version had two links, which are now defunct. I was able to find in Internet Archive an older version which seems relevant to the article. Nevertheless, I have been only able to find sources mentioning 6 names; like here. Does anybody know who is the seventh winner? Or any reputable source saying that this list is complete? (In which case the article should be corrected.) --Kompik (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add that now some discussion about this started here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis --Kompik (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion has been moved here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_15. --Kompik (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure whether a Stack Exchange site (at least if it is one of smaller sites still in beta) is worth considering for adding into external links. (I guess adding it as a reference might be a stretch). But I'll mention at least here that there is this post: Has a “lucky loser” ever won an ATP or WTA tournament? At the moment it has one answer that list LL winners in ATP tournaments. --Kompik (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Jaeger
The of the article says that: "Andrea Jaeger, 1980 Las Vegas, is the only lucky loser to win a WTA title." On WTA website you can find conflicting information. In Serena Wins Stanford, Ties Venus' 43 Titles (Internet Archive) it is mentioned that: "Only one lucky loser has ever won a WTA title, that being Andrea Jaeger at Las Vegas in 1980." But the recent article Danilovic claims first title in Moscow after all-teen tussle (Internet Archive) we can read that: "Danilovic ... to become the first player born in the 2000s to win a WTA singles title, and the first lucky loser to ever hoist a WTA singles trophy." So which of the two contradictory claims is correct? --Kompik (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That WTA article you sourced is interesting, because it is contradicted by another WTA article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am having the same problem as you. It's unusual, in 1980 WTA Tour January Las Vegas tournament is there. It was Jaeger's maiden title, thus WTA counted in statistics Youngest winners of a singles title. I don't see why Danilovic should be the first?--Kacir 23:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Now to add a bit more confusion, in a discussion on TennisForum there is a claim that the first lucky loser WTA winner was in fact Kay McDaniel.--Kompik (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Kay McDaniel may have won a professional event as a luck loser, but she did not win a main tour WTA event as a lucky loser. She won a minor league WTA/ITF event... so the WTA doesn't recognize it. And that event from January Las Vegas... not a main tour WTA event either... that Italian site has it WRONG. That was a separate circuit of minor league events. Jaeger did win a main tour WTA Vegas event that year but it was in September. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The Jaeger info put out by the WTA has never been able to be sourced to a tournament, so it's very iffy. Yes we have newspapers and the WTA saying it, but it's based on no tournament proof. McDaniel did win a minor league (challenger level) event in March which can be sourced. but the WTA does not recognize it. I have changed the wording in the article to show the proof we have, and no more no less. Perhaps one day the WTA/ITF will rule differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for information, but in the article is a little problem. You mentioned September Las Vegas 1980, but Jaeger didn't play there as lucky loser, in reality she was seeded No. 6 (draw September Las Vegas 1980).--Kacir 03:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It will be probably January Las Vegas 1980.--Kacir 03:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per sources, she played nowhere as a lucky loser. Only the WTA says she was a lucky loser for playing in Vegas sometime in 1980. The Feb Vegas event is not a main draw WTA event so they have never recognized it. Plus in that event, Jaeger set a record for winning every match in pre-qualifying, qualifying, and the actual minor league tournament. No loses and we have the documentation. Seeding has nothing to do with being a lucky loser. Newspapers have said that Jaeger was not drawn into the Sept Vegas event until Evert withdrew at the last second. She had been doing well lately so when she luckily got in, they gave her a No. 6 seed. Supposedly she was not a lucky loser there either, but she definitely was not in the Vegas event early in the year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I found "some pretty discussion" on www.tennisforum.com to this point (Jaeger, McDaniels as LL) :). Maybe you've read it. Kacir 22:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read it, and it's pretty much what we have here. The WTA officially tells us Jaeger is a lucky loser, but with no facts to back it up. The WTA tells us that the events in Vegas in Feb and the one with McDaniels, are minor league events and not part of the main WTA tour, so they don't count in any WTA records. The WTA even goes so far as to call them ITF events. The WTA in the last month has called Jaeger the first Lucky Loser and Danilovic the first lucky loser... in different WTA articles on the official WTA website. It's screwy as heck, and all we can do at wikipedia is present the facts as sourced. That's what I tried to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right, we should present the facts as sourced. Just only one note. You write: "The WTA tells us that the event in Vegas in Feb ... [is] minor league event and not part of the main WTA tour, so they don't count in any WTA records. However, if you look at the WTA Record: Youngest winners of a singles title, there is Jaeger as champion of Las Vegas Valley 1980 in age of 14 years, 7 months, 14 days. So, it seems that Feb LA 1980 is being counted in WTA records.--Kacir 00:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And that same WTA has Jaeger's records, right here, where in 1980 it is specifically stated that Jaeger won an ITF event, not a WTA main tour event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

College basketball
With all the attention Fairleigh Dickinson got for its win in the 2023 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament, a Wikipedian added a college basketball section to the article and noted Fairleigh Dickinson as a lucky loser. The references were mainly to the Fairleigh Dickinson Athletics website, and it may have been a fan of the team who added the section.

The editor apparently did not know that this isn't the first time something similar happened in college basketball. In 2022, Jacksonville State lost in the ASUN tournament semifinals. The teams that met in the ASUN final were Jacksonville and Bellarmine. Had Jacksonville won the ASUN tournament, it would have automatically qualified for the NCAA tournament. However, Bellarmine was ineligible for the NCAA tournament, because it was a transitioning school and not considered a full Division I member. The ASUN's rules state that if an ineligible team wins the conference tournament, the conference's automatic bid goes to the regular-season champion. Since Bellarmine defeated Jacksonville in the final, Jacksonville State was awarded the automatic bid, becoming a lucky loser.

Since the current format of the NCAA tournament comprises 68 teams of which 32 qualify automatically and 36 are selected at-large by a committee, one could stretch the term and deem the tournament to contain 36 lucky losers every year. In fact, UConn, the champions of the 2023 NCAA tournament, could be called a lucky loser, since they lost in the Big East semifinals and had to rely on an at-large berth granted by the committee. However, the element missing to make this a lucky loser is that UConn did not taking the place of an ineligible team. At the time they lost their Big East semifinal game, it was clear they were going to get an at-large berth anyway.

The same cannot be said of Jacksonville State's loss in the 2022 ASUN semifinals. We can never know with certainty that, had Jacksonville won the 2022 ASUN tournament and secured the automatic bid, Jacksonville State would (or would not) have received an at-large bid. The consensus is that they would not have, which is what makes them a legitimate lucky loser.

In the case of Fairleigh Dickinson in 2023, their status as a lucky loser is murky. When they tipped off their Northeast Conference semifinal game, Merrimack had already won and advanced to the final. Since Merrimack was an ineligible transitioning team, the winner of the semifinal between Fairleigh Dickinson and Saint Francis (PA) could do no worse than finish as the NEC tournament runner-up. NEC rules state that if the tournament is won by an ineligible team, the tournament runner-up gets the conference's automatic bid. So, once Fairleigh Dickinson won their semifinal game, they celebrated their qualification for the NCAA tournament. Three days later, Fairleigh Dickinson lost to Merrimack to become a "retroactive" lucky loser, if there is such a thing. Fairleigh Dickinson didn't lose a "knockout" game; their bid to the NCAA tournament was already assured. So, are the 2022–23 Fairleigh Dickinson Knights truly a lucky loser?

Just as with every other NCAA Division I basketball team, Fairleigh Dickinson could technically have received an at-large bid had they failed to automatically qualify, i.e. had they lost to Saint Francis (PA). However, the selection committee has never awarded an at-large bid to a Northeast Conference team. So, the odds that this would have happened are less than remote.

The fact that I found it necessary to explain how qualification for the NCAA tournament works and how Fairleigh Dickinson acquired lucky loser status retroactively (and let the reader decide whether they are truly a lucky loser) causes me to question whether Fairleigh Dickinson actually belongs in the article at all. So, I'm seeking feedback from other editors. I've put a lot of background information in this note for the benefit of the many I expect might follow this article but not follow college basketball closely. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)