When psych sheets for the 2018 NCAA Division III men’s and women’s swimming & diving championships were released, they were labeled “unofficial.” Those have now been replaced with the new “official” psych sheets.
The most significant change is one we already knew about, with Amherst’s men’s team being withdrawn from the meet altogether as punishment for drinking on the team bus after the conference championship meet.
That caused such a significant list of changes, including 9 new alternates being called in, that we’ll repost all of the lists below. In fact, the entirety of the listed alternates was already run-through, and the NCAA had to calculate the next-3 on the roster (after Denison’s 4 were eliminated from consideration because Denison has already hit the roster size limit).
The more unexpected changes came on the women’s psych sheets, where 4 swimmers pulled out of the meet, and several were added. The most significant scratches included Mardell Ramirez from Cal Lutheran, who was the 8th seed in the 200 free and one of only 2 female swimmers from her team; and Dana Lautenschleger from Mount Union, who was seeded 7th in the 1650 free. Margaret Herbert of Ramapo also scratched the meet as her team’s only entrant.
The 2018 men’s and women’s NCAA Division III swimming & diving championships will be held from March 21st-24th in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Updated Lists:
Where is wpi?
Worcester, Massachusetts.
I think he meant where is WPI on the pysch sheet. They are missing..
Such an interesting situation. Exciting for all the individual alternates that have been called up. Seems unfortunate that Amherst didn’t act earlier on an infraction that occurred before entries were due so that there could be more than just 14 invites in some relays.
I think the committee really dropped the ball on this. The addition of individual alternates makes sense when individuals decline an invite. The lines move up, the meet is refilled to the cap and the resulting invited swimmers still meet the rules for laying out the meet originally.
However, when a relay, or in this case 3 relays, decline, the solution is not to simply add individuals until you get to the cap. That lays out a meet that violates the rules under which the original invite for the meet is determined. If Amherst would have acted prior to the invite, the meet invite would be different with respect to relay lines. The resulting addition of individual alternates without adding… Read more »
So Amherst had 3 relays with 8 relay only swimmers. If you replaced the relays you could have 12 more swimmers added. So should the committee then de-invite 4 swimmers who now wouldn’t make the meet because of what Amherst did? It’s a lot easier to add than subtract here. That would cause a bigger uproar.. There is no perfect answer; I’m assuming Amherst went through their own due process and had to make entries before their final decision was made. You are letting maybe 8 ( exact number not known) individuals who were the 16-17th best swimmers in an event aim rather than 8 relay swimmers who just happened to be on the right team and probably aren’t as… Read more »
No one expects a perfect solution to this process, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect a better one than was given. In my opinion the process if flawed because this situation isn’t adequately addressed in the alternates selection process laid out by the committee. In future years, I hope they reconsider the process unless the NCAA gets smart and just invites the top 16 in every event and let the number fluctuate.
As to your point, I agree that you couldn’t de-invite swimmers; however, did you look at the line 16 3 relays’ swimmers that would be added or just assume that all four on each of the swimmers were relay only? Amherst’s 800 free relay was… Read more »
I tried to post last night, but for whatever reason, my post didn’t take. Not going to write at the length I did last night, but to summarize my agreement with you, T J…
Only one individual swimmer needed to be added to replace the four Amherst swimmers who were originally selected in individual events, as the other three #17s already had been selected in other events. Adding in the Carthage 400 Medley Relay (who, IMO, got the biggest hose in all of this) would add four swimmers, and two additional swimmers would completely fill all relays through the new Line 15 with two slots still remaining.
From there, the committee could have reverted to its previous process of selecting… Read more »
My two cents…
The four swimmers who were selected in individual events should have been replaced by the new #16s in those events if they weren’t already in the meet. That amounts to one slot for MIT’s Justin Chiu in the 100 Breast (other three #17s were selected in other events).
From what I looked at, Carthage was the school that really got the hose out of the Amherst removal and subsequent invites, as their 400 Medley Relay was next up, moving from Line 16 to Line 15. That would have required four slots. Two men would have been added four UWSP’s 800 Free Relay. I believe that gets all of the relays through Line 15.
From there, there… Read more »
Without a doubt the relays that landed on Line 15 should have been invited. What a botch job by this selection committee. I have read over the rules the selection committee put in place many times. and although it reads like the current tax code, it seems like the protocol was not followed. A lot of emphasis was put on not having more than one line between individual events and relay events. If the selection process is simply a guideline and not a hardfast rule, then why is the athlete cap an absolute?
While I respect the job that is upon the selection committee each February, I respectfully would like to say that they dropped the ball this time.… Read more »
S D points are spot on. When the unofficial list came out there were 15 teams on each relay. Amherst was 15th, in the 800 free, and Stevens Point was 16th. Stevens Point should have been moved up. Amherst had 4 swimmers that were relay only. Stevens Point would have added back 2 swimmers since 2 of theirs were coming already. If Carthage was the 16th then they should have moved up. All relays then would have 15 entries. I don’t think it is fair for some relays to have 15 and some 14 because the unofficial sheet was changed. I understand that maybe you cant say we are taking 16 because of the numbers but then if you are… Read more »
On the original selections, there were actually two relays that went into Line 16 – an uneven number of relays actually IS a part of the official selection process – the relays on the “next line up” are ranked in order of percentage above the B-cut in that event. So I would disagree that an uneven number of relays selected compromises the integrity of meet. HOWEVER, because they didn’t re-evaluate the situation and deem it prudent, with such a large removal of competitors, to bring in some relays to replace those of Amherst, we ended up with a large margin between the individual selection line and the relay selection line – one for which there was a pretty simple solution… Read more »