Kevin Hallman contributed to this report.
The coming weeks will shake up the NCAA swimming rankings significantly – but in-season swims do give us some level of data with which to project the times it will take to be invited to the 2020 NCAA Championships.
The NCAA swimming & diving invite system is a complex and confusing process. You can get a refresher on the process here, but the upshot is that the invite line usually falls between 37th and 40th in each event for women, and between 28th and 31st for the men.
Methodology
SwimSwam’s Kevin Hallman ran some numbers on in-season swims across the NCAA, comparing to last year. Here’s a high-level look at the methodology for projecting this year’s cuts:
- Comparing the 30th-ranked swimmer in the NCAA in each event right now with the 30th-ranked swimmer in the NCAA as of this date one year ago.
- Finding the percentage difference between the 30th-ranked time in 2019 vs 2020
- Applying that percentage change to last year’s NCAA invite time
The data at this point actually shows that the 30th-ranked swimmer in 2019-2020 is slower than the 30th-ranked swimmer in 2018-2019 in 19 of 26 events. Maybe that’s a factor of teams taking less rest at mid-season invites; maybe it suggests the NCAA lost more talent than usual to graduation and redshirts, leaving the league thinner than it was last year. Either way, this particular mathematical model suggests NCAA invite times will actually be slower this year than they were last year in many events. That would be pretty surprising historically, but if you buy that the Olympic year has drained the NCAA of depth this season, there might be reason to believe it could happen.
For what it’s worth, in 2016, invite times did get slower in 8 of 13 men’s events, but only 2 of 13 women’s events.
Time Change (30th in NCAA) From Feb 2019 to Feb 2020
A negative in the ‘Change’ column means a time got faster. A negative in the ‘% difference’ column also implies a faster time in 2020. A positive number in either column means 30th in the event is actually slower compared to a year ago.
Women:
| Women | 2019 | 2020 | ||||
| Event | Name | 30th Place 2/12/2019 | Name | 30th Place | Change | % difference |
| 50 Free | Goeders, Anya | 22.33 | Tucker, Miranda | 22.26 | -0.07 | -0.31% |
| 100 Free | Moseley, Stanzi | 48.61 | Leehy, Mykenzie | 48.66 | 0.05 | 0.10% |
| 200 Free | Brown, Zarena | 1:45.51 | Dupre, Cora | 1:45.51 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 500 Free | Peplowski, Noelle | 4:42.10 | Cattermole, Sophie | 4:42.41 | 0.31 | 0.11% |
| 1650 Free | Sanderson, Kate | 16:17.76 | Nguyen, Claire | 16:18.98 | 1.22 | 0.12% |
| 100 Back | Tetzloff, Alyssa | 52.69 | Moroney, Megan | 52.77 | 0.08 | 0.15% |
| 200 Back | Unicomb, Jess | 1:54.27 | Ivey, Isabel | 1:54.11 | -0.16 | -0.14% |
| 100 Breast | Kucheran, Nina | 1:00.31 | Gresser, Hanna | 1:00.34 | 0.03 | 0.05% |
| 200 Breast | Raab, Allie | 2:10.53 | Pavlopoulou, Nicole | 2:10.86 | 0.33 | 0.25% |
| 100 Fly | Kraus, Alena | 52.52 | Nogaj, Paulina | 52.45 | -0.07 | -0.13% |
| 200 Fly | Jensen, Christie | 1:56.71 | Thomas, Luciana | 1:56.74 | 0.03 | 0.03% |
| 200 IM | Kovac, Bailey | 1:57.67 | Pavlopoulou, Nicole | 1:57.84 | 0.17 | 0.14% |
| 400 IM | Kukurugya, Hannah | 4:11.20 | Sumida, Maria Eduarda | 4:11.83 | 0.63 | 0.25% |
Men:
| Men | 2019 | 2020 | ||||
| Event | Name | 30th Place 2/12/2019 | Name | 30th Place | 30th place difference | % difference |
| 50 Free | Quah, Zheng | 19.61 | Miles, Corben | 19.62 | 0.01 | 0.05% |
| 100 Free | Barna, Andrej | 42.93 | Gwo, Albert | 43.1 | 0.17 | 0.40% |
| 200 Free | Yeadon, Zach | 1:34.70 | Quah, Zheng | 1:34.91 | 0.21 | 0.22% |
| 500 Free | Olszewski, Benjamin | 4:18.61 | Johansson, Victor | 4:18.22 | -0.39 | -0.15% |
| 1650 Free | Miller, Kevin | 15:05.38 | Dal Maso, Filippo | 15:07.24 | 1.86 | 0.21% |
| 100 Back | Jiang, Alvin | 46.64 | Harder, Ethan | 46.83 | 0.19 | 0.41% |
| 200 Back | Fantoni, Gabriel | 1:42.32 | Hein, Daniel | 1:42.62 | 0.3 | 0.29% |
| 100 Breast | Walker, Benjamin | 53.29 | Myhre, Will | 53.32 | 0.03 | 0.06% |
| 200 Breast | Tolman, Scott | 1:56.34 | Khosla, Raunak | 1:56.00 | -0.34 | -0.29% |
| 100 Fly | Mota, Kayky | 46.65 | Mefford, Bryce | 46.51 | 0.03 | 0.06% |
| 200 Fly | Lamastra, Connor | 1:44.01 | Johnson, Jake | 1:44.24 | 0.24 | 0.23% |
| 200 IM | Vines, Braden | 1:45.06 | Gonzalez, Hugo | 1:45.54 | 0.48 | 0.46% |
| 400 IM | Stump, Isaac | 3:47.34 | Apel, Aaron | 3:48.40 | 1.06 | 0.47% |
Historical Invite Times
Women:
| 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
| 50 Free | 22.23 | 22.30 | 22.23 | 22.32 | 22.40 | 22.40 | 22.45 |
| 100 Free | 48.56 | 48.53 | 48.62 | 48.77 | 48.89 | 48.82 | 49.00 |
| 200 Free | 1:45.12 | 1:44.90 | 1:45.44 | 1:45.93 | 1:45.95 | 1:46.03 | 1:46.10 |
| 500 Free | 4:40.96 | 4:40.57 | 4:41.84 | 4:42.52 | 4:43.01 | 4:42.79 | 4:42.90 |
| 1650 Free | 16:14.21 | 16:12.90 | 16:16.41 | 16:17.89 | 16:17.36 | 16:20.32 | 16:19.32 |
| 100 Back | 52.46 | 52.54 | 52.65 | 52.93 | 52.97 | 53.20 | 53.21 |
| 200 Back | 1:54.01 | 1:53.64 | 1:54.00 | 1:54.47 | 1:54.66 | 1:55.19 | 1:54.79 |
| 100 Breast | 59.93 | 1:00.11 | 1:00.34 | 1:00.66 | 1:00.74 | 1:00.78 | 1:00.72 |
| 200 Breast | 2:09.77 | 2:10.14 | 2:10.55 | 2:10.89 | 2:11.23 | 2:11.22 | 2:11.44 |
| 100 Fly | 52.34 | 52.41 | 52.52 | 52.77 | 52.79 | 52.92 | 52.99 |
| 200 Fly | 1:56.18 | 1:55.99 | 1:56.60 | 1:57.02 | 1:56.97 | 1:56.79 | 1:57.59 |
| 200 IM | 1:56.76 | 1:56.76 | 1:57.66 | 1:57.90 | 1:58.13 | 1:58.13 | 1:58.51 |
| 400 IM | 4:10.00 | 4:09.75 | 4:10.86 | 4:11.05 | 4:12.31 | 4:12.63 | 4:11.92 |
Men:
| 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
| 50 Free | 19.35 | 19.36 | 19.43 | 19.53 | 19.52 | 19.46 | 19.67 |
| 100 Free | 42.53 | 42.71 | 42.76 | 43.05 | 42.94 | 42.98 | 43.14 |
| 200 Free | 1:34.21 | 1:34.44 | 1:34.20 | 1:34.67 | 1:34.54 | 1:34.71 | 1:35.34 |
| 500 Free | 4:16.04 | 4:16.08 | 4:16.67 | 4:17.73 | 4:17.15 | 4:18.31 | 4:18.70 |
| 1650 Free | 14:54.05 | 14:53.34 | 14:56.84 | 15:00.11 | 14:59.20 | 15:03.42 | 15:03.07 |
| 100 Back | 46.06 | 46.14 | 46.28 | 46.51 | 46.46 | 46.57 | 46.95 |
| 200 Back | 1:41.31 | 1:41.18 | 1:41.74 | 1:41.92 | 1:42.04 | 1:42.41 | 1:43.03 |
| 100 Breast | 52.52 | 52.75 | 52.62 | 52.92 | 52.97 | 53.23 | 53.37 |
| 200 Breast | 1:54.04 | 1:54.49 | 1:54.54 | 1:55.31 | 1:55.04 | 1:55.64 | 1:55.97 |
| 100 Fly | 45.90 | 45.89 | 46.10 | 46.46 | 46.38 | 46.56 | 46.74 |
| 200 Fly | 1:42.35 | 1:42.52 | 1:43.09 | 1:43.65 | 1:43.74 | 1:43.81 | 1:44.74 |
| 200 IM | 1:43.82 | 1:44.03 | 1:44.34 | 1:44.41 | 1:44.58 | 1:44.71 | 1:45.08 |
| 400 IM | 3:43.42 | 3:43.89 | 3:44.92 | 3:45.33 | 3:45.34 | 3:45.64 | 3:46.72 |
2020 Projections
Women:
| Event | 2019 Invite Time | % Change in 30th Rank | Projected 2020 Invite Time |
| 50 Free | 22.23 | -0.31% | 22.16 |
| 100 Free | 48.56 | 0.10% | 48.61 |
| 200 Free | 1:45.12 | 0.00% | 1:45.12 |
| 500 Free | 4:40.96 | 0.11% | 4:41.27 |
| 1650 Free | 16:14.21 | 0.12% | 16:15.43 |
| 100 Back | 52.46 | 0.15% | 52.54 |
| 200 Back | 1:54.01 | -0.14% | 1:53.85 |
| 100 Breast | 59.93 | 0.05% | 59.96 |
| 200 Breast | 2:09.77 | 0.25% | 2:10.10 |
| 100 Fly | 52.34 | -0.13% | 52.27 |
| 200 Fly | 1:56.18 | 0.03% | 1:56.21 |
| 200 IM | 1:56.76 | 0.14% | 1:56.95 |
| 400 IM | 4:10.00 | 0.25% | 4:10.63 |
Men:
| Event | 2019 Invite Time | % Change in 30th Rank | Projected 2020 Invite Time |
| 50 Free | 19.35 | 0.05% | 19.36 |
| 100 Free | 42.53 | 0.40% | 42.70 |
| 200 Free | 1:34.21 | 0.22% | 1:34.42 |
| 500 Free | 4:16.04 | -0.15% | 4:15.65 |
| 1650 Free | 14:54.05 | 0.21% | 14:55.89 |
| 100 Back | 46.06 | 0.41% | 46.25 |
| 200 Back | 1:41.31 | 0.29% | 1:41.61 |
| 100 Breast | 52.52 | 0.06% | 52.55 |
| 200 Breast | 1:54.04 | -0.29% | 1:53.71 |
| 100 Fly | 45.90 | 0.06% | 45.93 |
| 200 Fly | 1:42.35 | 0.23% | 1:42.59 |
| 200 IM | 1:43.82 | 0.46% | 1:44.29 |
| 400 IM | 3:43.42 | 0.47% | 3:44.46 |
2016 and 2020 are Olympic years, this would explain the slower times due to Olympic redshirts not swimming NCAA. I can’t be the only one who thought of this. Otherwise, cool article.
The differences from last year to this year are very small. Too small to be statistically significant.
Except it does seem that butterfly and the IM’s keep getting faster, continuing the trend of the last 7 years.
128 days to Omaha.
There’s nothin’ quite like a good ol’ SwimSwam statistical analysis. Thank you guys so much for this and keep up the great work!
Thank you Jared and Kevin for the great article. You guys are awesome!!!
Big fan of things like this! Would it be possible to perform similar comparisons after each conference meet weekend to see how each conference’s impact compares to last year?
CollegeSwim is doing swomething like this https://www.collegeswimming.com/results/166328/standards/swimmers/
My kind of article!!! LOVE THIS!!!
Who could’ve thought that Patriots lose to Miami giving with that the “buy” to Chiefs?
Who could’ve thought that the strongest playoff team lose to the weakest one opening with that the door to the super bowl for Chiefs?
Who could’ve thought that 49’s having 95% probability of winning the championship just at 8 minutes to the end of the game lose it.
Who could’ve thought?
🤷♂️
And so begins the insanity defense.
Buckle up! 😀
oh look a butterfly *chases butterfly into the distance*
It is not important at all. Numbers about sport live its own interesting life. A lot of people including me are fascinated with them. Sometimes studying and discussing them is even more interesting process than sport itself.
Why people do that? The Sport is of same unpredictability as stock market and studying historical price charts is a sure way to lose money.
DRSSL and LDKY must be hot commodities
I could’ve thought. My only concern was the Ravens. Once they lost, I figured it was in the bag.
In all seriousness, though, the Chiefs won because because the universe saw that I have a lot going on and wanted me (and probably the rest of KC) to get nothing done last week.
Mens 100 breast seems off, 2020 time is slower but % is negative
Same with the men’s 100 fly