2026 NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships
- Wednesday, March 18 – Saturday, March 21, 2026
- McAuley Aquatic Center, Atlanta, GA
- Championship Central
- Live Results
- Live Recaps
With the 2026 Women’s NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Championships in the books, Virginia has won their 6th-straight title. Here is a look at the final scoring breakdown:
Final Scores
| Team | Total | Individual Swim Points | Relay Points | Diving Points | Individual Score Count | Relay Score Count | Diving Score Count | |
| 1 | UVA | 589 | 389 | 200 | 0 | 38 | 5 | 0 |
| 2 | Stanford | 380.5 | 205.5 | 145 | 30 | 19 | 5 | 3 |
| 3 | Texas | 376.5 | 191.5 | 142 | 43 | 19 | 5 | 3 |
| 4 | California | 303 | 187 | 116 | 0 | 16 | 4 | 0 |
| 5 | Tennessee | 301.5 | 136.5 | 134 | 31 | 10 | 5 | 2 |
| 6 | Michigan | 296 | 141 | 144 | 11 | 13 | 5 | 2 |
| 7 | Indiana | 258 | 114 | 130 | 14 | 12 | 5 | 2 |
| 8 | Louisville | 201.5 | 108.5 | 93 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | NC State | 196.5 | 98.5 | 98 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
| 10 | Florida | 125.5 | 63.5 | 36 | 26 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| 11 | Alabama | 100.5 | 32.5 | 68 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| 12 | Ohio State | 87 | 36 | 26 | 25 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 13 | Wisconsin | 70.5 | 40.5 | 30 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| 14 | USC | 66 | 26 | 40 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| 15 | Georgia | 63 | 39 | 24 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| 16 | Minnesota | 55 | 6 | 0 | 49 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 17 | PITT | 55 | 41 | 14 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| 18 | Miami (FL) | 48 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | South Carolina | 41 | 0 | 4 | 37 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 20 | UCLA | 39 | 28 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | LSU | 35 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| 22 | Duke | 35 | 25 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 23 | Purdue | 35 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | UNC | 33 | 11 | 6 | 16 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 25 | Kansas | 25 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | Auburn | 25 | 0 | 14 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 27 | Nebraska | 24 | 18 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | Arkansas | 23.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | Arizona | 21 | 5 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 30 | Texas A&M | 19.5 | 4.5 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 31 | Florida St | 16 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | Cincinnati | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | ND | 9 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 34 | Akron | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | Nevada | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | Northwestern | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 37 | Penn | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 38 | Arizona State | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 39 | VT | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 | SIU | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 41 | Rutgers | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 42 | Washington St. | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 43 | Indiana State | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 44 | Fresno State | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 45 | Princeton | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 46 | East Carolina | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 47 | UCSD | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 48 | North Texas | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Now, here is a look at the day 4 scoring breakdown for each of the top 20 teams. This table will show how each team performed versus their projected score for day 4 based on the psych sheet. This analysis take diving points out, as they can’t be projected based on the psych sheet. This table is sorted based on the difference between actual score versus projected score, from highest to lowest.
| Team | Projected Day 4 | Actual Day 4 (No Diving) | Difference |
| Stanford | 82 | 112 | +30 |
| California | 91 | 104 | +13 |
| Georgia | 0 | 9 | +9 |
| Alabama | 18 | 26 | +8 |
| Pitt | 19 | 24 | +5 |
| Wisconsin | 18 | 23 | +5 |
| Texas | 86 | 90.5 | +4.5 |
| UCLA | 13 | 16 | +3 |
| Miami (FL) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NC State | 56 | 55 | -1 |
| Virginia | 153.5 | 151.5 | -2 |
| South Carolina | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| Michigan | 70 | 68 | -2 |
| Ohio State | 13.5 | 10 | -3.5 |
| Indiana | 77 | 73 | -4 |
| Tennessee | 66 | 61 | -5 |
| USC | 19.5 | 13 | -6.5 |
| Louisville | 70 | 57 | -13 |
| Florida | 19.5 | 1 | -18.5 |
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from day 4 of the meet from a scoring standpoint is that Stanford was the leading team in terms of points over projection. The Cardinal racked up 30 more points than they were seeded to, which was a huge reason they were able to move into 2nd in the team standings. While it’s not accounted for in the table above, it’s worth noting that Stanford also accumulated 26 points in platform diving, which was critical to the team race as well.
Cal was another one of the biggest winners on the final day of the meet, overperforming their seed by 13 points. It’s no coincidence that Cal, like Stanford, moved up in the standings today. The Golden Bears went from 6th to 4th in the team race on Saturday, marking a huge team performance for the program.
On the other end of the spectrum, Florida was the biggest loser of the day, taking in 18.5 less points than they were supposed to. It could be viewed as a bit of a return to Earth for the Gators, as they has been one of the top overperformers of the meet up until day 4. Even with the final day slip, Florida managed to finish in the top 10, which was great for the program.
Michigan had a fine day, scoring just 2 points less than they were projected to. While that’s not a bad performance at all, it did cost the Wolverines very directly, as they slipped to 6th in the team standings, and were just 5.5 points behind 5th and 7 points behind 4th. A small overperformance as opposed to a small underperformance would have boosted Michigan into the top 5.
Once again Virginia was right on their projection, also scoring 2 points less than their projection. While that’s technically an underperformance, it really speaks more to to the dominance of UVA, as they were projected to score a whopping 153.5 points on day 4, The Cavaliers still managed to score 151.5 points, which would have been enough for a top 10 team finish in itself.
