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)
- Championship Central
- Psych Sheets
- Live Results
- Live Video
- Scored Psych Sheets
The official psych sheets for the 2026 Men’s NCAA Division I Swimming & Diving Championships have dropped.
The selection entries, along with the list of alternates, eligible relays and entries by team, were released on Wednesday after the pre-selection psych sheets came out on Tuesday.
You can see all the documents here:
Yesterday, we projected the cutline to fall two spots into Line 29, which was the 24th-seeded swimmer in the men’s 200 back, Northwestern’s David Gerchik, while Texas’ Alexey Glivinskiy was projected to be the first alternate as the 26th seed in the 200 free.
Gerchik has qualified and Glivinskiy is the first alternate, but two swimmers we had on the outside looking in yesterday, Florida sprinter Alex Painter and Stanford breaststroker Go Nagaoka, have both made the cut.
On the other side, Wyoming’s Jack Boysen and Old Dominion’s Zach Redding no longer appear on the psych sheets after they were penciled in as qualifiers yesterday.
Both swimmers were listed as automatic qualifiers, Boysen in the 50 free and Redding in the 100 free, but neither won the event at their respective conference championship meet, meaning there was an error in the pre-selection psych sheets.
Additionally, Oakland’s Christopher Palvadre was listed as an automatic qualifier and conference champion in the 200 breast in the pre-selection psych sheets. Although Palvadre won the Horizon League title in the 100 breast and still qualifies for the meet, his removal from the 200 breast bumped Nagaoka up to Line 29 and into the meet.
With these changes, Florida moves up into a tie for the fourth-most swimmers qualified with Arizona State at 11, while Stanford makes it six teams with 10-plus qualifiers.
Teams With Most NCAA Qualifiers (Swimmers Only)
- Indiana – 16 swimmers
- Texas / Cal – 13 swimmers
- –
- Arizona State / Florida – 11 swimmers
- –
- Stanford – 10 swimmers
- Georgia / NC State – 9 swimmers
- –
- Michigan / Tennessee – 7 swimmers
- –
ALTERNATES LIST
Glivinskiy maintains his place as the first alternate, while fellow Longhorn Garrett Gould, who not even in the top list of alternates in yesterday’s projection, gets bumped up to the #2 spot due to Redding being removed from the meet and Painter getting added in.
| Alternate | Row Number | Swimmer | Team | Event | Entry Time | Standard | Percent Rank | Secondary Event |
Secondary Percent Rank
|
| 1 | 29 | Glivinskiy, Alexey | Texas, University of | 200 FR SCY | 1:32.23 | QS | 1.018099 | 100 FR SCY | 1.016216 |
| 2 | 29 | Gould, Garrett | Texas, University of | 100 FR SCY | 41.82 | QS | 1.017156 | 50 FR SCY | 1.027792 |
| 3 | 29 | Pishko, Jacob | Louisiana State University | 1650 FR SCY | 14:52.88 | QS | 1.015133 | — | — |
| 4 | 29 | Oktar, Sanberk | University of Southern California | 200 IM SCY | 1:42.78 | QS | 1.012965 | 400 IM SCY | 1.009196 |
| 5 | 30 | Jones, Charlie | Wisconsin, University of, Madison | 200 FL SCY | 1:40.84 | QS | 1.028423 | 500 FR SCY | 1.003294 |
| 6 | 30 | Graham, Rian | Louisville, University of | 100 FL SCY | 44.93 | QS | 1.025591 | 100 BK SCY | 1.013394 |
| 7 | 30 | Johnson, Connor | VA Tech | 200 BK SCY | 1:39.64 | QS | 1.024476 | 100 BK SCY | 1.009721 |
| 8 | 30 | Witmer, Cole | University of Alabama | 200 BK SCY | 1:39.64 | QS | 1.024476 | 100 BK SCY | 1.003672 |
| 9 | 30 | Taivassalo, Brayden | Arizona State University | 200 BR SCY | 1:52.33 | QS | 1.022793 | 100 BR SCY | 1.002092 |
| 10 | 30 | Healy, Ryan | Michigan, University of | 400 IM SCY | 3:41.40 | QS | 1.021177 | — | — |
CUTLINE PROGRESSION
With the addition of automatic qualifiers via the conference championships, it’s less cut and dry what the “invite time” is this season—the 2026 invite times below indicate the time produced by the last invited swimmer who was not an automatic qualifier.
Only two events, the 200 IM and 1650 free, were slower than last year, while several events got significantly faster, most notably the 50 free, which dropped by more than two-tenths. The 100 back and 100 fly also dropped under 45 seconds for the first time, while the 200 back went sub-1:40.
| EVENT (SCY) | 2020 INVITE TIME | 2021 INVITE TIME | 2022 INVITE TIME | 2023 INVITE TIME | 2024 Invite Time | 2025 Invite Time |
2026 Invite Time
|
| 50 free | 19.32 | 19.46 | 19.28 | 19.21 | 19.13 | 19.02 | 18.81 |
| 100 free | 42.57 | 42.88 | 42.34 | 42.32 | 42.19 | 41.95 | 41.81 |
| 200 free | 1:34.07 | 1:34.04 | 1:33.08 | 1:32.85 | 1:32.93 | 1:32.27 | 1:32.13 |
| 500 free | 4:16.49 | 4:16.75 | 4:14.96 | 4:14.36 | 4:14.90 | 4:14.13 | 4:13.85 |
| 1650 free | 14:57.07 | 15:01.33 | 14:55.21 | 14:53.54 | 14:54.92 | 14:48.80 | 14:52.80 |
| 100 back | 46.22 | 46.37 | 45.87 | 45.70 | 45.56 | 45.26 | 44.82 |
| 200 back | 1:41.49 | 1:41.81 | 1:40.92 | 1:40.62 | 1:40.62 | 1:40.13 | 1:39.53 |
| 100 breast | 52.46 | 52.40 | 52.20 | 51.90 | 51.89 | 51.58 | 51.51 |
| 200 breast | 1:54.03 | 1:54.28 | 1:53.23 | 1:52.94 | 1:53.12 | 1:52.89 | 1:52.29 |
| 100 fly | 45.97 | 46.29 | 45.57 | 45.57 | 45.37 | 45.12 | 44.91 |
| 200 fly | 1:43.18 | 1:43.47 | 1:42.42 | 1:42.57 | 1:42.10 | 1:41.45 | 1:40.77 |
| 200 IM | 1:43.79 | 1:44.15 | 1:43.36 | 1:43.14 | 1:43.05 | 1:42.65 | 1:42.69 |
| 400 IM | 3:44.36 | 3:45.67 | 3:43.50 | 3:42.99 | 3:42.93 | 3:41.61 | 3:41.34 |
So Hubi Kos won’t be able to swim the 100 fly because he’s below the cutline??
No. Anybody who’s on the official sheet can swim the event. The line just indicates who was invited in that event and who can swim it as a bonus event.
Anybody who’s not in the meet (in general or in an event) was dropped on this version of the sheet.
how tough the mile was last year…. 4 seconds faster
UF also got three divers qualified. Two on all apparatus, and one on both springboards (he wasn’t entered in platform). Not easy to do considering the depth of the zone they are in. Swimming isn’t the only sport getting better athletes – last year’s winning score on the 1 meter would have been 11th this year. Diveflation?
Painter sneaking in is potentially a very good thing for UF, 14 points last year. They didn’t swim very well at SECs would be interested to see how they do at NCs
We just took the one of the most objective sports at the most objective meet and flipped in upside down. No disrespect to any of these athletes. They didn’t make the rules, and I hope they have a great meet. But how can some of these entries be justified when swimmers 4.5 seconds faster are staying home? Sad state of affairs.
I think I saw this in another article about the number of athletes invited per team compared to last year and how it’s down with the exception of a few schools like Indiana. I feel like the changes this year (auto qualifiers, relay sessions) really caters to the top 1-8 schools as well as conference winners in mid-majors but hurts other programs that are now qualifying less individuals. Just an idea, but what about lowering the number of athletes that can come from each school? I realize if you’re a Texas or Indiana fan then you probably don’t like this idea, but I think lowering the number of athletes from each school to 10 or 12 could maybe help prevent… Read more »
That could further widen the talent gap. With only 10-12 NCAA spots to score points with, top teams may take on even fewer development/domestic recruits and just throw money at established older Europeans or transfers who could be a guaranteed A finalist for a year or two.
They are
I don’t know if that would happen. I think it would spread the talent to more schools because those guys who think they might be #11 at Texas would decide to go elsewhere. Maybe those 4-5 schools that typically take more than 10 would recruit more European athletes (I also think there should be a limit on international athletes) but then the other American guys that they’re passing up are going to other programs where they can still develop. Let’s give some of these schools some credit for developing fast swimmers. It’s not just Texas and Indiana that can develop talent.
The list of schools that can develop elite tier talent is very low
Correct – To develop elite tier talent commands great coaching, training partners, financial and support resources beyond what about ten institutions can muster.
To an extent, that’s what you’re already seeing in the SEC with a men’s roster cap of 22 between both swimming and diving.
I think Texas will end up getting 1 or 2 more swimmers into the meet.
And he’s an olympian
This was meant for the comment below
Any guesses who?
How?
1:32.23 200 free stays home. I am living on a different planet from the one I was born on.
yup, me just trying to get my boys below 1:50 at champs this weekend
My goodness are these times fast!