2016 MEN’S NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS
- Wednesday, March 23 – Saturday, March 26
- McAuley Aquatic Center – Atlanta, GA
- Prelims 10AM/Finals 6PM (Eastern Time)
- Defending Champion: Texas (results)
- Championship Central
- Live stream: Wednesday/Thursday prelins & finals, Friday/Saturday prelims / Friday/Saturday finals on ESPN3
- Live results
Thanks to Price Fishback for running the projected scoring numbers for us this week.
With an incredible four days of swimming in the books, it’s time to look back and analyze who performed beyond their expectations and who may have faltered a bit, looking at projected scores versus final scores.
The Texas Longhorns, who won their second consecutive championship last night by 190.5 points, were the team that scored the most points compared to their projected psych sheet score, outscoring the psych sheet by 73.5 in the pool to go along with 60 on diving for a combined total of 133.5. Heading into the meet Texas was projected to win by just 31 points over NC State, but with both teams going in opposite directions on actual vs psych sheet scoring, Texas was able to cruise to an emphatic meet win.
A major key for Texas was junior Will Licon who won the 200 IM after being seeded 6th, and finished 2nd in the 400 IM after being seeded 13th (despite being the defending champion). Also making a big jump up was freshman Townley Haas who dominated the 200 freestyle after being seeded 9th coming in.
Projected to place 4th, runner-up Cal had a great meet as well, outscoring the psych sheet by 72 points. They inched out Florida by 17 points for 2nd, but there were two other teams who outscored the psych sheet more than they did (not including Texas).
The 5th place Georiga Bulldogs outscored their projected score by 92.5 points, while 7th place Tennessee finished inside the top ten for the first time since 2009 on the strength of outscoring their projected score by a whopping 117 points. Projected to finish 15th, Tennessee got a big boost from both their swimmers (up 56 pts) and divers (up 61). Taking out diving, the Georgia swimmers outscored the psych sheet by the most of anyone with 90, with Texas and Cal close behind.
Biggest improvements from their projected score:
- Texas, +133.5
- Tennessee, +117
- Georgia, +92.5
- Cal, +72
- Missouri, +59
Biggest drops from their projected score:
- Auburn, -116
- Michigan, -64
- NC State, -63
- Indiana, -41.5
- North Carolina, -17
Here are the full numbers, courtesy of Price Fishback.
| Final Rank | TEAM | Final Score | Psych Score Swim Only | Final minus Psych | Diving Points | Swimming Points | Swimming Final minus Psych | Saturday Final Minus Psych |
| 1 | tx | 541.5 | 408 | 133.5 | 60 | 481.5 | 73.5 | 17.5 |
| 2 | cal | 351 | 279 | 72 | 0 | 351 | 72 | -16 |
| 3 | fl | 334 | 319 | 15 | 0 | 334 | 15 | 15 |
| 4 | ncst | 314 | 377 | -63 | 0 | 314 | -63 | -11 |
| 5 | ga | 239.5 | 147 | 92.5 | 2 | 237.5 | 90.5 | 29.5 |
| 6 | al | 225 | 179 | 46 | 0 | 225 | 46 | 25 |
| 7 | tn | 188 | 71 | 117 | 61 | 127 | 56 | 9 |
| 8 | mo | 184 | 125 | 59 | 18 | 166 | 41 | 13 |
| 9 | in | 180.5 | 222 | -41.5 | 15 | 165.5 | -56.5 | 0 |
| 10 | au | 167 | 283 | -116 | 16 | 151 | -132 | -38 |
| 11 | lou | 164.5 | 155 | 9.5 | 0 | 164.5 | 9.5 | 2 |
| 12 | mi | 158 | 222 | -64 | 0 | 158 | -64 | -14 |
| 13 | socal | 117 | 118 | -1 | 19 | 98 | -20 | 9 |
| 14 | st | 112.5 | 109 | 3.5 | 16 | 96.5 | -12.5 | -1 |
| 15 | ohst | 91 | 60 | 31 | 40 | 51 | -9 | 11 |
| 16 | az | 87 | 81 | 6 | 34 | 53 | -28 | 21 |
| 17 | socar | 71 | 40 | 31 | 5 | 66 | 26 | 10 |
| 18 | wi | 53 | 39 | 14 | 0 | 53 | 14 | 8 |
| 19 | vt | 44.5 | 60 | -15.5 | 0 | 44.5 | -15.5 | 1 |
| 20 | mn | 41 | 19 | 22 | 39 | 2 | -17 | 19 |
| 21 | byu | 40 | 23 | 17 | 0 | 40 | 17 | 7 |
| 22 | miami | 31 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | pitt | 31 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | penn | 26 | 14 | 12 | 0 | 26 | 12 | 6 |
| 25 | tam | 20 | 0 | 20 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| 26 | af | 16 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 16 | 3 | 0 |
| 27 | nc | 16 | 33 | -17 | 13 | 3 | -30 | -5 |
| 28 | va | 15 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 15 | 2 | -1 |
| 29 | cleve | 15 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 15 | 9 | 0 |
| 30 | oak | 13 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 0 |
| 31 | haw | 12 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | fsu | 12 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| 33 | gw | 11 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 11 | 10 | 0 |
| 34 | yale | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 4 |
| 35 | ut | 9 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 | -2 | -4 |
| 36 | unlv | 9 | 14 | -5 | 0 | 9 | -5 | 0 |
| 37 | pr | 8 | 21 | -13 | 0 | 8 | -13 | -8 |
| 38 | gt | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 39 | duke | 7 | 15 | -8 | 1 | 6 | -9 | 0 |
| 40 | lsu | 6 | 14 | -8 | 0 | 6 | -8 | 0 |
| 41 | io | 6 | 13 | -7 | 0 | 6 | -7 | 4 |
| 42 | ky | 6 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 43 | pu | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 44 | corn | 2 | 11 | -9 | 0 | 2 | -9 | -9 |
| 45 | asu | 2 | 5 | -3 | 0 | 2 | -3 | -3 |
| 46 | harv | 2 | 14 | -12 | 0 | 2 | -12 | 0 |
| 47 | psu | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 48 | den | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -2 |
| 49 | flst | 0 | 9 | -9 | 0 | 0 | -9 | 0 |
| 50 | nd | 0 | 6 | -6 | 0 | 0 | -6 | -6 |
| 51 | wv | 0 | 13 | -13 | 0 | 0 | -13 | 0 |
It’s interesting that Tennessee men had such a big improvement, while their women score significantly fewer points than predicted the week before. Maybe those women needed another week to hit their tapers.
I’m pretty sure the seeding or scoring projections would be way more accurate using swimmers best times rather than in-season times – nobody really thought Licon was going to finish 13th in the 400 IM, and there are many other examples like that.
Will Licon had an incredible meet and was surely in the mix for this award. However, given the other three each broke two records and also had greater relay contributions it’s hard to argue that he should have won it.
Which teams scored over their projected score by the highest % (final score/psych sheet score)?