2018 WOMEN’S NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS
- Wednesday, March 14th – Saturday, March 17th
- McCorkle Aquatic Pavillion — Columbus, OH
- Prelims 9AM/Finals 5PM (Eastern Time)
- Defending Champion: Stanford (results)
- Live stream: Wednesday/Thursday Prelims & Finals, Friday/Saturday Prelims / Friday/Saturday finals on ESPNU
- Championship Central
- Event-by-Event Previews
- Psych Sheet
- Saturday Prelims Heat Sheet
- Live Results
With the 2018 NCAA D1 Women’s Championships wrapping up Saturday night, let’s take a look at how SwimSwam’s power rankings compare to the actual finish.
- First edition: Preseason
- Second edition: Pre Winter Invites
- Third edition: Post Winter Invites
- Fourth edition: Pre-Conference
Overall, we fared pretty well. Only a few differences stand out:
- We underestimated Minnesota, especially on diving. Sophomore Sarah Bacon won the 1-meter board, and took 8th on the 3-meter. Sophomore Kristen Hayden also took 12th on the 3-meter board. Hayden also took 11th in platform diving, and junior Morgan Justus took 12th. Minnesota scored right-at their seeds in swimming (113.5 seeded, 110 scored), and 47 dive points pulled them into 10th for the 2nd-straight year.
- We overestimated USC. Riley Scott missed finals in the 100 breast after entering the meet as the 6-seed; Maggie Aroesty entered the meet 12th in the event and also missed finals. Marta Ciesla also did not score in the 50 free after entering the meet as the 15-seed.
- We had Tennessee picked for 6th, which might have happened if not for relay DQ and Erika Brown’s miss-swim.
- UNC, who we had predicted to finish 19th, finished 25th. They scored 25 of their 32 total points on day 1, thanks to their sprint group, including an 8th-place finish for Caroline Baldwin in the 50 free.
- Aside from UNC, we had the right teams in the top 20, in some order (Arizona and South Carolina tied for 20th). USC’s drop and Minnesota’s rise were the only positions where we missed by more than 2 spots.
Points generally lined out differently from last year. Because Stanford scored so high, as did the rest of the top 4, a lot of mid-range scores got a higher placement than they would have with same points last year. For reference, the top 4 teams last year scored 1437.5, while this year they scored 1532.
|Place||Actual Finish||Rise/Drop vs. Predicted||Our Final Power Ranking|
|1||Stanford – 593||0||Stanford|
|2||Cal – 373||0||Cal|
|3||Texas A&M – 299||0||Texas A&M|
|4||Michigan – 267||0||Michigan|
|5||Louisville – 232||0||Louisville|
|6||Texas – 221.5||2||Tennessee|
|7||Tennessee – 180.5||-1||USC|
|8||Indiana – 169||1||Texas|
|9||Virginia – 161||2||Indiana|
|10||Minnesota – 157||5||Georgia|
|11||Georgia – 135||-1||Virginia|
|12||USC – 127||-5||Kentucky|
|13||Ohio State – 123||0||Ohio State|
|14||Kentucky – 97||-2||Missouri|
|15||Missouri – 86||-1||Minnesota|
|16||Auburn – 82.5||0||Auburn|
|17||Wisconsin – 78||1||NC State|
|18||NC State – 70||-1||Wisconsin|
|19||Purdue – 51||1||UNC|
|20||Arizona – 46||NR||Purdue|