2025 Men’s NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships
- March 26-29, 2025
- Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatics Center, Federal Way, Washington
- Short Course Yards (25 yards)
- SwimSwam Pick’Em Contest
- SwimSwam Preview Index
- Psych Sheet
- Live Results
Night one of NCAAs is finished, and it’s time to look at some very early overreactions. Who looks good after just two events and who needs some help?
It’s Not Over Until It’s Over (but this time it probably is)
Florida started the meet off with a bang, but not a good one. They first broke the 200 medley relay NCAA Record, swimming 1:20.05 to come within five hundredths of swimming under 1:20. Their post-race celebration was cut short, however, when they were disqualified for a false start on anchor leg, Scotty Buff.
Absolute heartbreak from Florida. A lot of folks wrote them off after the women’s performance, but they were seeded 2nd on paper, and with a really good opener they separated themselves from the women.
But in a field this tight, with this many quality teams, and using one of Josh Liendo‘s relay swims on that, it would be hard to overcome.
Texas and Cal Begin Fierce Battle
Texas was supposed to finish the evening in 2nd place, eight points behind Florida. Instead, they finished the night in first overall, scoring 74 points to Cal’s 72. This is a very good sign for the Longhorn team that is looking to maintain their psych sheet scoring to win the team title.
They were bolstered by huge swims from Luke Hobson splitting 1:28.90 on the opening leg of the 800 freestyle relay, and Chris Guiliano majorly stepping up on the medley to split 17.80 on the freestyle relay and again on the 800 free relay to swim 1:30.14 at 2nd.
We could be looking at some huge time and seed drops from both swimmers going into the meet, and potentially new NCAA records.
Cal is not going to let the Longhorns run away with the meet, however. They were projected to score just 56 points this evening, and they added 16 points to that total, bringing in 72 total points. 16 is a far cry from the near 200 points they need to catch Texas, but winning the 800 free relay was huge in making that goal a reality.
They also were supported by some of their veterans swimming exceptional relay splits to prove they are not going to roll over. Bjorn Seeliger has had a rather rough season so far, and he was one of a few swimmers, Hobson included, who had less than stellar conference performances. He assuaged some of his doubters this evening, however, splitting 20.57 on the opening leg of the 200 medley relay, which is almost three tenths faster than the 20.85 he went at ACCs.
They also had a very strong swims from Jack Alexy, who was 18.03 on the anchor leg of the medley and 1:30.02 opening their 800 freestyle relay.
We also can’t ignore the first sub-6:00 800 freestyle relay as a very good sign of where Cal will fall the rest of the weekend
The NCAA Needs a DQ Clinic
Florida disqualifying their 200 medley NCAA record was one of the biggest stories out of night one, but they weren’t the only relay to DQ.
Michigan, who would have finished 10th overall had their breaststroker, junior Ozan Kalafat, not had a -0.05 reaction time en route to his 23.35 split. This reaction was only slightly better than Scotty Buff‘s -0.06 RT, but was just as illegal.
There weren’t only disqualifications for false starts though. After frequent discussion during the women’s meet about the 15 meter rule, it actually came into effect this evening when Youssef Ramadan from Virginia Tech disqualified his relay for going past the mark underwater after his turn.
Indiana is Making Their Case for Team Title
We talked about Texas improving eight points from their seed and Cal improving 12, but what about Indiana adding 20 points?
Based on the psych sheets, the Hoosiers should have finished 5th place in the medley and 14th place in the 800 free. Instead, they finished 5th place in the medley and 6th place in the 800 free relay. Three of their four swimmers split 1:31, and Own McDonald had their fastest 200 freestyle split at 1:31.14, almost a second faster than his previous best of 1:32.06.
The 800 free was supposed to be their weakest relay, and a 20 point jump in one event is no joke. They were only projected 0.5 points behind Cal and at -20 points from Texas after day one, it seems they also are not going to give up easily.
I don’t think the system works. Officials get overly involved.
So Ramadan’s DQ has me curious — is this the same crew of officials as last week?
It hurts so bad
Why do we go out to the 100th on the start, but not the finish. Therefore, the reaction time would be 0.
Ummmm, in 1:20.05, the ‘5’ is 100ths
If Indiana makes 20-point gains against the psych sheet each day and puts up 130 diving points, they still need Texas to fall against the psych sheet. This meet is going to come down to placement in the 400 free relay.
Texas is probably going to fall a bit, they don’t really have room to move up (besides Hobson). The question is, by how much.
Wait, come to think of it, weren’t they seeded at high 280s? If they gain 20 points every day, that’s 80+ seed, which is around 360 swimming points. If they keep diving seed, or only lose a little, that’s still around +110-120 points, which adds up to around where Texas is seeded.
What relay is Texas going to leave Giuliano off of?
Probably the 400 medley relay
I bet you’re right.
(it never gets old)
My theory is the 4 Medley…
I agree. I think Hobson split 40 something last year and he looks to be just as good as he was last year. So if he’s able to split 40 anything, they won’t loose too much.
My guess would be keep him off the 400 Medley, Hobson can put in a solid 100 Free split. They don’t have anyone that could replace Giuliano’s 50 split for the 200 relays.
I think as of now Cal’s plan is to leave Alexy off the 400MR and go Lasco/Okadome/Rose/Seeliger, but after the way Jett and Lasco looked last night I think they should strongly consider Jett/Okadome/Rose/Lasco instead.
Lasco’s 100 Free potential is odd to me, since he split 40-point on the 400 Free Relay at 2023 NCAAs, but then he split 41-high at 2024 NCAAs despite setting a flat start PB at Pac-12s. I think he’ll be fine though, and I agree – he’s clutch in relays 90% of the time.
I never thought of moving Jett and Lasco to that relay but it could work. Jett may be able to go 43 in the back, but Lasco can probably do that too. Even though Seeliger was at his best a few years ago, there’s still a good chance he’l split 40 on the anchor. So I’m not sure if Lasco on the free makes them much faster.
They certainly have some options though.
That just seems too risky imo risky IMO. Yes, Lasco and Jett had great 200 frees, but who knows what that means for their 100s. Last year, Seeliger was 40.30 on the medley and 40.65 on the 400 free while Lasco only split 41.9 on the 400 free
I don’t know….Seeliger’s freestyle currently feels like the biggest risk based on his season (and 20-mid in 50 back doesn’t erase any concerns), but acknowledged my feeling could be proven wrong very quickly if he does well in the 50 today.
And we know from last night that Lasco’s UWs (and Jett’s) are on, which could bode well for their 100s.
The dirty little secret is that present touch pad systems are not up to accurately measuring relay takeoff reaction time splits to hundredth of a second. This can lead to unfair and controversial DQs that are not the fault of the swimmer but of the timing system. This was apparent in the BIG12 DQ of ASU in a relay and now FLA in a relay. Omega Timing recognized this in the Olympics and had video camera backup timing over each lane starting position. The problem is cost. The NCAA and major conferences have so far been unwilling to spend the money for such systems. Thus swimming is now in the same situation as when football refs would make a bad… Read more »
Why not use the timing system at the site? At WKCAC, it’s an omega anyway, but why not use the Colorado or Dak (though they are out of the swimming timing business now)?
After the ASU relay DQ in the BIG 12 Championship z few weeks ago at the same pool and presumably the same timing equipment, I did a online search to find published accuracy and calibration standards for swimming timing pads. To my surprise I was not able to find any published standards or data. There is an old saying in engineering: “If you can’t measure it, it ain’t science!” My background is in long range radar detection and calibration where we have been measuring in thousands of a second since the 1950ies. Surely there should be published accuracy standards for swimming timing systems.
They can time to the thousandth. The problem is that pools aren’t accurately built. The length tolerance makes timing to the thousandth inaccurate.
Additionally, swimming is too slow, relatively, to be measured down to the .001. Other sports finish by going THROUGH the finish. Swimming is timed by arriving at the finish. Touch + sufficient pressure are the requirements for finishing a swimming race.
I agree but has anyone seen or have any test data showing the time delay between the touch and the electronic sensor signal indicating the touch. While this time delay hopefully is consistent between pads I suspect that the position on the pad where it is touched and the strength of the touch may cause some variation in this time. Does anyone have some actual test data on this?
Skiing, bobsled, luge, skeleton, speed skating, and track cycling all go down to the 1000th (all timed by Omega on the international scale). It’s not applicable in swimming for the reasons already listed, but also because swimming is MUCH slower than all those sports. The timing in those sports all use a line-of-sight camera, which is dead straight with no significant deviation. Swimming uses two touchpads on opposite walls. The factors Walls + Touchpads + swim speeds cannot make for accuracy down to .001.
.01 in swimming could be 1-2 inches, .001 would be .2 inch, which can be the width of a touchpad that is bracketed incorrectly. .01 in skiing or bobsled, in which speeds are in excess… Read more »
I agree with what is being said below. However there still should be a way to test and certify the accuracy of a swimming timing system before a meet. Too many times i have seen cases where the published reaction time and the one shown on video replay of a race do not match
Looked like it was early anyway, there may be issues eith timing systems but a ref probably would have called that one.
The point is not whether the refs got the DQ call right or not. The problem is that swimmers and coaches need to be able to rely on timing systems that are accurate to a few thousands of a second. Such measurements are not hard or really expensive any more. Rifle ranges now often photograph bullets in flight at ten thousand frames per second. Surely we can do something similar for swimming!
There are Omega cameras over the blocks at NCAAs. They showed them last night on the ESPN + stream when discussing the DQ (18:25 mark in the replay)
Thank you for the link and information
I don’t know if they used it, but the broadcast showed they had the Omega relay cameras up for the starts.
Frank, you make a good point with the football comparison. But, not one official wants to DQ any swimmer for any reason unless there was evidence to cause a disqualification. The benefit of the doubt goes to the swimmer. That is often the last thing said in an officials briefing session prior to any meet. Also, you have some of the best officials in the country at this meet. It is awful to have this occur at a meet of this importance and I’m sad to see it happen, as I’m sure almost everyone else is too.
I am not questioning the correctness of the DQ. I am very much in favor of the Omega Cameras. I think it would good if the Omega camera evidence was made public on a DQ. Hopefully we will next year see similar camera timing systems in conference championships next year.
In 2022 at the Athletics World Championship the America hurdler Devon Allen was dq’ed for a false start. The rule is that’s not humanly possibly to react to the gun any faster than 0.100s, Allen’s rt was 0.099s…
It was infuriating to watch because there’s simply no way an apparatus in a starting block is precise to the thousandth of a second, which if we were using this data for scientific purposes we’d note that the thousandth measurement is an estimate…
Which I can think of a lot more things then just sports where it would be nice if we could acknowledged our fancy tech still has to do deal with our uncertain universe and can be erroneous…
There is a way to defeat the relay pads of at least one company’s system, that I know of. A swimmer puts a hand on the block during the time around the exchange so that the pad doesn’t detect a departure. Ive seen this happen, and I’ve seen coaches tell their swimmers to cluster around the blocks and lean on those as if they are cheering in teammates. Good officials should tell their officials team to keep everyone away from the blocks except for the swimmer on top of the block.
As an old swimmer, I would remind ALL
commenters to remember the Men’s
400M IM at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
Tim McKee (USA) and Gunnar Larsson
(Sweden) touched the wall at the same
time! The scoreboard showed a tie for
FIRST…4:31.98.
THEN, the timing system went to the
THOUSANDTHs. The tie was broken:
Gunnar 4:31.981…Tim 4:31.983.
As a result of this race, FINA changed
the timing accuracy rule…any and all
times would be recorded to hundredth.
Do not think that we would WANT to
go back?!