The WAC champion Northern Arizona women have picked up another verbal commitment, this time from the YMCA Westside Sliver Fins’ Sam Seiber. A native of Arizona, Seiber will be staying in state next season when she travels to NAU. She’s currently a senior at Liberty High School.
Last season, Seiber was a championship finalist at the 2016 Arizona Division 1 State Championships. There, she placed 6th in the 100 breast with a personal best 1:06.17. She also swam the 200 IM at that meet, placing 29th overall.
Seiber then went on to comete at the 2016 short course Arizona Senior State Championships. At that meet, she broke the 2:30 barrier for the first time in the 200 breast with her 2:29.16. She also swam new personal best times in the 200 IM (2:13.64) and 100 free (55.14).
Seiber’s Top Times:
- 100 breast- 1:06.17
- 200 breast- 2:29.16
- 200 IM- 2:13.64
- 50 free- 25.03
When she arrives at NAU, Seiber could be an immediate factor for the team at the Western Athletic Conference Championships. Her time in the 100 breast is already fast enough to have qualified for the C-final at the 2016 WAC meet.
When she gets to campus, Seiber will join a training group that includes now-junior Audrey Mann, who placed 12th in the 100 breast and 17th in the 200 breast at 2016 WACs.
If you have a commitment to report, please send an email to [email protected].
Final C in WAC is a bonus final (No points scored)
Hi. If you’ll refer to the article, you’ll see that it says she could be an immediate factor. While the article states she would’ve qualified for the C-final, it wasn’t meant to imply that the C-final is scored. However, her times are good enough that she COULD be a scorer with marginal improvements.
Hi Lauren, I’m guessing the original comment was referring to your ORGINAL wording which read had the word “should” instead of “could”. Which gives the sentence a very different meaning and is likely why the person commenting made that comment.
Wouldn’t it have been easier (let alone more honest) to just acknowledge the mistake, rather than go with the “could” explanation and trying to imply that the commenter misread your original post?
Hi Steve. I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I have explained what I meant in the article. I may have edited it at some point, or another writer may have edited it to make things more clear after reading the comment. I’ve written several articles, and some of them get edited. I do not remember which ones, but it is possible that a change was made.
I’ve explained above what was meant by the article, and there did appear to be a misunderstanding. There were no dishonest intentions. Thanks for understanding.