2026 NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S SWIMMING AND DIVING CHAMPIONSHIPS
- Dates: Wednesday, March 25–Saturday, March 28
- Location: McAuley Aquatic Center, Atlanta, GA
- Defending Champions: Texas (1x)
- SwimSwam Preview Index
- Psych Sheets
- Preview Index
- Live Stream
- Live Results
- Live Recaps
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
With the final day wrapped up, Texas are the Men’s NCAA Swimming & Diving champions for the second year in a row, claiming the title by 29.5 points over a Florida squad who made the battle far closer than we expected, in no small part due to 58 points on the boards. Texas were +2 today, rebounding from being -37 yesterday, and kept the Gators at arm’s length.
Indiana stayed ahead of ASU for 3rd, with the Sun Devils finishing two places lower than their projection. With Indiana scoring only 4 points in diving, this was a victory for the Hoosiers made in the pool, as they were +27 today and finished 23 points ahead of ASU.
Tennessee kept hold of 5th, with Bennett Greene‘s 11 points on the Platform making the gap a little more comfortable over NC State, while California were indebted to Joshua Thai and his 13 diving points as they finished 11 points ahead of Michigan. Virginia had a huge day as they scored 82 points.
Final Standings
- Texas — 445.5
- Florida — 416
- Indiana — 351
- Arizona St — 328
- Tennessee — 272
- NC State — 258.5
- California — 231
- Michigan — 220
- Virginia — 192
- Stanford — 136
- Virginia Tech — 86
- Louisville — 82
- Ohio State — 72
- USC — 69
- Georgia — 64.5
- LSU — 61
- Auburn — 55
- Kentucky — 52
- UNC — 50.5
- Pittsburgh — 48
- Miami (FL) — 46
- Princeton — 45
- SMU — 44
- Alabama — 41
- Florida St — 40
- Northwestern — 39
- Arizona — 35
- Missouri — 32.5
- Purdue — 32
- Texas A&M — 28
- Minnesota — 22
- Wisconsin — 19
- U.S. Military Academy — 17.5
- Yale/Utah/Georgia Tech — 17
- —
- —
- Notre Dame — 16
- Delaware — 12
- Harvard — 9
- IU Indianapolis — 6
- Penn State — 5
Now that we have the overall picture out of the way, it is important to look at how all of the projected and actual scoring teams fared relative to their seeds. While small point margins might not appear to make a difference, it can be a huge factor in momentum as the meet continues.
You can see the scored psych sheet here, including an event-by-event breakdown.
Day 4 Scoring
| School | Projected | Swimming Points Scored | Diving Points Scored | Difference vs seed |
| Texas | 103 | 105 | 0 | +5 |
| Indiana | 66 | 93 | 4 | +27 |
| Arizona St | 99.5 | 83 | 0 | -16.5 |
| NC State | 87 | 83 | 0 | -4 |
| Virginia | 63.5 | 82 | 0 | +18.5 |
| Florida | 77 | 69 | 16 | -8 |
| Tennessee | 51 | 62 | 11 | +11 |
| Michigan | 64 | 57 | 0 | -7 |
| Arizona | 24 | 33 | 0 | +9 |
| California | 27 | 32 | 13 | +5 |
| Pittsburgh | 18 | 29 | 0 | +11 |
| Stanford | 37 | 22 | 19 | -15 |
| Princeton | 21 | 20 | 0 | -1 |
| VA Tech | 21 | 19 | 0 | -2 |
| LSU | 32 | 17 | 15 | -15 |
| Minnesota | 3 | 15 | 7 | +12 |
| Georgia | 15 | 14 | 0 | -1 |
| Alabama | 16 | 14 | 0 | -2 |
| Florida St | 39 | 14 | 1 | -25 |
| UNC | 20 | 12.5 | 9 | -7.5 |
| Auburn | 0 | 11 | 0 | +11 |
| Louisville | 5 | 10 | 0 | +5 |
| Northwestern | 5 | 10 | 0 | +5 |
| Ohio St | 11 | 9 | 0 | -2 |
| Missouri | 0 | 6.5 | 6 | +6.5 |
| USC | 3 | 5 | 12 | +2 |
| SMU | 0 | 3 | 0 | +3 |
| Notre Dame | 9 | 0 | 0 | -9 |
| Texas A&M | 6 | 0 | 20 | -6 |
| Wisconsin | 6 | 0 | 0 | -6 |
| UNC Wilmington | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 |
| Purdue | 0 | 0 | 22 | 0 |
Texas were the only team to crack 100 points today, scoring 105 to come in two above their projection. Scoring swims this morning from Cooper Lucas, Kyle Peck, Rex Maurer, and Garrett Gould were key to outperforming their seeded points.
Indiana were +27 as they put three in the 200 IM ‘A’ final and had Kai van Westering move from outside the top 16 to place 4th in the 200 back. Virginia were +18.5 for the day as they had Maximus Williamson (1st), Thomas Heilman (2nd) and David King (3rd) make individual podiums.
Auburn moved up from 0 points thanks to Abdalla Youssef making the 200 fly final, and Minnesota’s Jacob Johnson moved up from 14th to place 4th in the 200 fly. Pitt’s strong 400 free relay helped them to go +11 today.
On the flip side, ASU were -16.5 today against seed, as Adam Chaney moved from 4th to 28th in the 200 back, and Remi Fabiani missed the 100 free ‘A’ final in 9th. They did get maximum points in the 400 free relay, winning their fourth relay from five this week. Stanford were -15 with Gibson Holmes missing the 200 fly scoring after being ranked 8th. LSU missing the scoring in the 400 free relay and Jere Hribar moving down from the top seed in the 100 free saw them go -15.
The biggest faller though was FSU, who were DQed in the 400 free relay to see them go -25 for the day. Even without the DQ, they would have finished 17th and outside the points having been seeded for 22.
Total Meet Scoring
| School | Individual (Projected) | Individual | Relay (Projected) | Relay | Diving | Total (Projected) | Points | Difference vs Seed |
| Texas | 303 | 258.5 | 147 | 161 | 26 | 450 | 445.5 | -30.5 |
| Florida | 196.5 | 226 | 138 | 132 | 58 | 334.5 | 416 | 23.5 |
| Indiana | 181 | 229 | 119 | 118 | 4 | 300 | 351 | 47 |
| Arizona St | 159 | 146 | 182 | 182 | 0 | 341 | 328 | -13 |
| Tennessee | 101.5 | 114 | 86 | 105 | 53 | 187.5 | 272 | 31.5 |
| NC State | 145.5 | 128.5 | 114 | 130 | 0 | 259.5 | 258.5 | -1 |
| California | 105 | 110 | 112 | 108 | 13 | 217 | 231 | 1 |
| Michigan | 115 | 90 | 105 | 130 | 0 | 220 | 220 | 0 |
| Virginia | 67.5 | 108 | 44 | 84 | 0 | 111.5 | 192 | 80.5 |
| Stanford | 61 | 60 | 70 | 48 | 28 | 131 | 136 | -23 |
| VA Tech | 33.5 | 42 | 40 | 44 | 0 | 73.5 | 86 | 12.5 |
| Louisville | 19 | 36 | 40 | 42 | 4 | 59 | 82 | 19 |
| Ohio St | 57 | 40 | 36 | 32 | 0 | 93 | 72 | -21 |
| USC | 8 | 12 | 0 | 14 | 43 | 8 | 69 | 18 |
| Georgia | 41 | 56.5 | 52 | 8 | 0 | 93 | 64.5 | -28.5 |
| LSU | 41 | 24 | 66 | 22 | 15 | 107 | 61 | -61 |
| Auburn | 6 | 16 | 20 | 36 | 3 | 26 | 55 | 26 |
| Kentucky | 26 | 28 | 26 | 24 | 0 | 52 | 52 | 0 |
| UNC | 34 | 29.5 | 0 | 12 | 9 | 34 | 50.5 | 7.5 |
| Pittsburgh | 18 | 28 | 12 | 20 | 0 | 30 | 48 | 18 |
| Miami (FL) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46 | 0 | 46 | 0 |
| Princeton | 29 | 29 | 14 | 16 | 0 | 43 | 45 | 2 |
| SMU | 0 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 37 | 6 | 44 | 1 |
| Alabama | 28 | 39 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 28 | 41 | 13 |
| Florida St | 50 | 17 | 74 | 22 | 1 | 124 | 40 | -85 |
| Northwestern | 22 | 19 | 8 | 20 | 0 | 30 | 39 | 9 |
| Arizona | 27 | 21 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 29 | 35 | 4 |
| Missouri | 4.5 | 6.5 | 11 | 0 | 26 | 15.5 | 32.5 | -9 |
| Purdue | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 | 0 |
| Texas A&M | 6 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 6 | 28 | 2 |
| Minnesota | 3 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 22 | 12 |
| Wisconsin | 17 | 1 | 26 | 18 | 0 | 43 | 19 | -24 |
| U.S. Military Academy | 27 | 17.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 17.5 | -9.5 |
| Yale | 30 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 17 | -13 |
| Utah | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 0 |
| GT | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 0 |
| Notre Dame | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 16 | 0 |
| Delaware | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Harvard | 16 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 | -7 |
| IU Indianapolis | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Penn State | 18 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 5 | -13 |
| Penn | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | -4 |
| South Carolina | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| UNC Wilmington | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
The biggest risers by far this week were Virginia, who went +80.5 thanks to an almost equal rise of +40.5 individually and +40 on relays. Indiana (+47) and Tennessee (+31) moved up thanks to exceeding their projections, with Tennessee’s 53 points on the boards the difference between finishing 5th and finishing 8th.
Cal needed Joshua Thai‘s 13 points on the Platform to finish above Michigan, as he outscored the entire swim team on day 4. Auburn were +26 for the meet to double their projections and finish 17th.
LSU had half their projection, losing big points on relays and due to Jere Hribar‘s DQ in the 50 free. Florida State were the biggest movers of anyone, either up or down, as they lost 85 points against their seed positions.

The grammar for sentences about each school should be was not were. A university is a singular not a group.
Hi Jim, Sam is British. In British English, they traditionally use collective verbs when team is the subject.
Take note Todd DeSorbo. The University of Texas won a NCAA DI Men’s title without a single point in the 1650 FR. Time for Cavan Gormsen to strictly focus on the 200 FR & 500 FR should the 1650 FR remain on the Day 1 schedule.
Give it a rest dude
And UVA did it without any divers or diving coach, so does that mean Texas should get rid of divers?
Texas did enough. I am not a fan but it shows how much quality they have that they could swim the way they did and still win.
If Kos and Maurer were appropriately seeded in the 100 fly / 200 back they would have been more like -55 from seeds.
You have to swim well during the year to even be in that position though.
For top 10 teams it would be interesting what their total payroll is for their swimmers. Would it equal about $2000 per point scored? Could get a look at which program has best return on investment. Don’t know if NCAA or schools have to disclose that info.
They don’t, and they won’t. All we have is anecdote and rumor.
FSU the big time winner of the Reverse Donkey Riding Competition with – 85 based on seed.
The VT men’s team have done well to get 11th considering they lost some big names from last year, I think they were predicted to get 25th at the start of the year
Swimswam didn’t rank VT even in top 25 until after ACCs.
https://swimswam.com/2025-26-ncaa-mens-power-rankings-pre-conferences-edition/#comment-1667278
VT did amazing with 1 returning scorer/relay swimmer from 2025 – a total rebuild – sophmores scoring who didn’t even qualify last year, unranked freshman qualifying, 2 freshman splitting 18s on the free relay, 4 scoring relays (3 team records). And they went all out at ACCs to get those qualifiers and followed up with strong NCAA to move up from seed.
Great showing by UVA. Interesting that the men dropped a tonne of time at NCs whereas the women seem to be able to swim pretty fast all year. Any idea why that would be? (This is a genuine question rather than a criticism given that the same coach heads up both men and women)
I think it’s physiology, and something that maybe the Virginia coaches learned from and tweaked from last year where they didn’t swim well at NCAAs.
I’m not that good at keeping up with best times, but it seems like some of the stars were pretty far off their lifetime bests in the psych sheets. I’m sure that is true for many schools that recruit well. It would be an interesting analysis to look at a scored meet using lifetime bests as the entries rather than the seed times. I just wonder how that would change our impression of who did well and who just got back to where they already were. I was just thinking about how a team that recruits superstars can look great at the big meets, but the question is still, how much did they actually improve. This is just curiosity. And… Read more »