Internal · asset previews · September 2026
New assets for the briefs before they go into any page: three charts built from real league data, and the first two action clips. Nothing here is final — tell me what to change.
Brief upgrades plan · items 2 and 4
■ Chart A
The argument in one picture: INTENNSE is a season, and the other team events are weekends. Eight playing weeks, in the middle of the summer, ending before the US Open swing peaks.
| Event | Dates 2026 | Days |
|---|---|---|
| INTENNSE season | 5 Jun – 1 Aug | 58 |
| World Team Tennis | 1 – 15 Dec | 15 · 6 match nights |
| United Cup | 2 – 11 Jan | 10 |
| Davis Cup Finals | 24 – 29 Nov | 6 |
| Laver Cup | 25 – 27 Sep | 3 |
Open: 2027 dates aren’t published yet — the chart shows 2026. Send me the 2027 window and I’ll redraw it.
■ Chart B
The top three men and three women from each 2026 roster — the shape every team carries in 2027 — sorted by career high. The yellow dot is the career high; the open dot is where they stand today. Names in yellow are the players who came straight out of college. The blue diamond on each row is something else entirely: where that player finished in the league’s own MVP race, on its own scale along the bottom.
Rank on tour did not decide rank in the league. The rows are sorted by career-high ranking, so if tour level carried over, the blue diamonds would fall in a neat diagonal. They don’t. Raul Garcia, whose career high is #1248, finished second in the MVP race among the men here; Carson Tanguilig, career high #580, finished second among the women. Several of the strongest tour résumés finished mid-table.
The second scale is the league’s published MVP race, whose season score is the average of each player’s best six completed rounds out of eight — so a big night in a single Arc can’t carry anyone. Players are ranked only against the others on this chart; four of the 39 didn’t complete enough rounds to appear in the race, and so carry no diamond.
This chart covers the 60 players taken in rounds 1–3 — three men and three women per team, which is the roster shape from 2027 onward. Of those, 39 have both a career high and a current ranking; the rest have never held a professional ranking at all. Across the full 80-player roster, 24 have never been ranked — checked against a full index of 79,580 ranked players, so that is a finding rather than a gap in the data.
Career highs run from #88 (Aliona Bolsova) to #1906, with a median of #671. One player has been inside the top 100; thirteen have been inside the top 300.
Five of these sixty came straight from a college program at 23 or younger — Carson Tanguilig (North Carolina), Naomi Cheong (USC), Jamilah Snells (Louisville), Jamie Connel (Florida State) and Ellie Schulson (Furman). Their names are in yellow. Six more were drafted in round four, including Kate Sharabura, the Georgia Tech All-American who played for Team Tampa in 2025.
Only 8 players have a true 2026 season high on the public record, so the open dot is each player’s current ranking in September 2026. A real season-high for everyone needs week-by-week ranking history — or our own draft board.
Open: the draft board carries proSglBest and utrBest for all 160 drafted players. One export turns every estimate on this page into the league’s own numbers.
■ Chart C
The same argument in the rating system that covers everyone, professional or not. Our players sit at ITF level and just below Challenger — the band the tour cannot absorb.
Rather than cite someone’s rule of thumb, the bands come from UTR’s own data: 286 players who carry both a published rating and their tour ranking on the same record, grouped by ranking tier and cut at the 10th and 90th percentiles. The curve is cleanly monotonic from ITF to Challenger to main draw, which is itself a check that it is real.
The ITF band is the Futures circuit — renamed the World Tennis Tour in 2019, but the same M15/M25 and W15/W35 events. The league’s draft board also carries each player’s World Tennis Number, so a WTN version of this chart is possible; UTR is used here because the tour bands are derived from real UTR-and-ranking pairs, and because UTR is the number college and agency audiences read fluently.
Men’s and women’s UTR are not comparable — the scales sit about three points apart — so the chart is split by gender and never mixes them.
These are the league’s own numbers, limited to the top three picks of each gender per team. Medians for that group: 13.20 for the men and 10.60 for the women, against career-best medians of 13.60 and 11.20. Including fourth-round picks pulls both figures down — 12.85 and 10.25 — which is why the chart shows the roster shape the league actually carries from 2027.
Open: the two college bands are still off this chart — a real “top college” band needs in-season college UTRs, not our players’ post-college ratings. The draft board also carries WTN and doubles ratings if either is worth a chart.
■ Clips
One from the net, one from the low camera. Each is about twenty seconds, and each one changed the scoreboard — with the Match Center a click away.
The last play of the Bolt from the low camera: a two-pointer that takes the Sting from 86–87 to 88–87. 22 seconds.
Match Center ↗Dalayna Hewitt’s two-pointer in the closing seconds against Rise, 15 July — 156 to 158, level. 18 seconds.
Match Center ↗Two Arcs that finished a point apart. Each clip picks up in the closing minutes, with the full Arc a click away.
The final three minutes of Freeze v Rise, 20 June. The clock runs out with the teams tied, and the next point decides it: 143–142.
Match Center ↗The final minute of Outriders v Inferno, 25 June. It finishes 150–149, with the winner’s cheque on court.
Match Center ↗Open: the two hosted clips both point at the 15 July Match Center — the low-angle Bolt needs its own Arc id. Tell me which sections of the briefs each clip should live in, and send any further footage (a singles point, and a net-level angle).