2023 NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S SWIMMING & DIVING CHAMPIONSHIPS
- March 22-25, 2023
- Jean K. Freeman Aquatic Center | Minneapolis, MN
- SCY (25 yards)
- Meet Central
- Psych Sheets
- Invited Swimmers By Team
- Alternates List
- Eligible Relays
The official psych sheets for the 2023 NCAA Division I Men’s Swimming & Diving Championships were released Wednesday, along with the cut line, eligible relays, and a list of alternates should there be any scratches.
The competition is scheduled for March 22-25 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
YOU CAN SEE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HERE:
- Psych Sheets
- Invited Swimmers By Team (not including relay-only swimmers)
- Alternates List
- Eligible Relays
There were bound to be changes to our initial cut line projections on Tuesday as NC State had 19 swimmers fast enough to earn an invite to the meet, one more than the maximum roster size of 18.
The Wolfpack ended up scratching freshman Kyle Ponsler from their lineup, which bumped Auburn freshman Danny Schmidt up into the meet due to their rankings in the 400 IM.
Additionally, Auburn entered junior Evan McInerny into the meet after he was missing from the pre-selection psych sheets. This bumps Alberto Mestre, who was projected to be the last man in yesterday, out of the meet, though he remains the first alternate.
McInerny is the 19th seed in the men’s 200 fly (1:42.77), while Schmidt now ranks 31st in the 400 IM (3:42.99).
Initially, with NC State having 19 swimmers qualified, Mestre was projected to earn an invite by virtue of his 50 free ranking, as was Ponsler in the 400 IM. Now with Ponsler out, Schmidt moves up one spot in the 400 IM, while McInerny takes over the position previously held by Mestre.
Auburn will now bring a 12-man roster to Minneapolis in a few weeks, which ties them with Stanford for the sixth-most swimmers qualified.
See our previous coverage:
- NCAA reveals pre-selection psych sheets
- Projecting the cutline
- Scoring the psych sheets
- Full event coverage
Top Seeds By Event:
- 50 free – Jordan Crooks (TENN), 17.93
- 100 free – Bjorn Seeliger (CAL), 40.90
- 200 free – Grant House (ASU), 1:30.67
- 500 free – Gabriel Jett (CAL), 4:09.66
- 1650 free – Levi Sandidge (UKY), 14:31.47
- 100 back – Adam Chaney (FLOR), 44.17
- 200 back – Destin Lasco (CAL), 1:36.94
- 100 breast – Aleksas Savickas (FLOR), 50.73
- 200 breast – Leon Marchand (ASU), 1:47.67
- 100 fly – Youssef Ramadan (VT), 43.93
- 200 fly – Gabriel Jett (CAL), 1:39.27
- 200 IM – Leon Marchand (ASU), 1:37.81
- 400 IM – Leon Marchand (ASU), 3:31.57
- 200 free relay – Florida, 1:14.19
- 400 free relay – Cal, 2:45.67
- 800 free relay – Arizona State, 6:06.30
- 200 medley relay – Tennessee, 1:21.43
- 400 medley relay – Florida, 2:59.48
Adding in the five relays, 14 of the 18 top seeds belong to either Cal, Arizona State or Florida, with the Bears and Sun Devils tied for the most with five. Additionally, only one event, the 100 fly, has a top seed that doesn’t come out of either the SEC or Pac-12.
OFFICIAL ALTERNATES LIST
- Alberto Mestre, Florida – 50 free, 19.21
- Jonny Affeld, Stanford – 200 IM, 1:43.16
- Christian Bart, Oakland – 100 breast, 51.91
- Kaique Alves, Alabama – 200 free, 1:32.93
- Panos Bolanos, Nevada – 200 back, 1:40.64
- Jonah Harm, Navy – 100 fly, 45.58
- Maxwell Edwards, Virginia – 100 back, 45.72
- Haakon Naughton, Arizona – 200 fly, 1:42.60
- Robin Hanson, Cal – 200 free, 1:33.01
- Ben Dillard, USC – 200 breast, 1:53.18
The alternates list gets a bit of a shakeup after Ponsler’s scratch, with Mestre now the first alternate, a position Jonny Affeld was projected to be in yesterday. Arizona’s Haakon Naughton gets bumped from his projected place of second alternate down into eighth due to the addition of McInery in the 200 fly.
This may be a dumb question, but why are there 31 people in some events but 29 in others? I thought the tiebreaker math was supposed to resolve those ties so that there are the same number in each event?
It makes sure the same number of *lines* are hit in each event. Swimmers with the same seed are on the same line. The tiebreaker doesn’t bump the tiebreaker loser to 30th place, just bumps them below the guys they’re tied with when trying to decide where on the 29th line the cut is made.
I hope that makes sense, as I recognize that it’s a little confusing….
Also, I think when a tie *didn’t have to be broken* on the last line (like the 400 IM, where both guys were in from other events), they just listed them under the Invited line.
Schools with all five relay ‘A’ cuts
Missouri
ASU
Auburn
Cal
Florida
Indiana
Louisville
Michigan
NC State
Texas A&M
Weird, I was told multiple times A&M hAs No SpRiNtErS
Teams that got all five relays with A cuts:
Missouri
ASU
Auburn
Cal
Florida
Indiana
Louisville
Michigan
NC State
Texas A&M
Any Chance of getting the scores based on the Psych sheet? Thanks!!
https://swimswam.com/scoring-out-the-2023-mens-ncaa-pre-selection-psych-sheets-texas-in-trouble/
I don’t think it’s changed
Auburn has really improved over the last couple years. The team seems to be really cohesive and fairly happy. It seems like they are out recruiting their rivals in Alabama.
I asked this on the girls nbit am going to ask again as I am wondering…
How does all of the 5th years impact the number of freshman that get into NCAA’s (or does it) given this year is the freshman class that won’t have a chance at a 5th year for Covid they and the next coupe of classes would seem to be negatively impacted by doing the right thing for those that lost a year. Or was it last years freshman that are the first to not get a 5th year option? At any rate just wondering if there are less freshman with the impact of the extra 5th years or if that impact is just spread evenly.?
We’re going to do some research on this, but it might not come until after NCAAs. It is an interesting question, and one I’d like to know the answer to as well.
My assumption is that the presence of 5th years impacts the contributions of all other classes, but I’m curious to see if one class is impacted more than the others. Intuitively I would think it would be freshmen, on average, but maybe the data won’t validate that.
Can I ask someone who used to swim at NCAAs before this era, what did this day look like before the Internet and SwimSwam? We all sort of knew who was in before today (although at the bottom things do shift around so nothing is 100% certain), and we’ve watched the times shift around for months. Was it a lot of nail biting? How was the word spread? Did qualifying have to take place a longer period of time before the meet (so all the results could be collated)? I have only been in swimming for 10 years so I only know the MeetMobile era. Thanks, I’d love someone to reminisce and let us newer to swimming know what it… Read more »
In the 80s there as only one qualifying time (no A or B cuts), and if you made the ncaa cut, you got to the meet automatically. If you didnt have the cut. You didnt get to go. I can’t remember what the rule was for relays.
We used to rely on carrier pigeons to spread the word. It could take weeks to find out who qualified.
Going back to the 1980s, there were simply cut times. You made it or you didn’t. There were no mid season invites, so you pretty much had to do it at your conference meet. There were “last chance” and time trial opportunities.
When I swam collegiately in the 80’s, each event had a qualifying time standard. There was not a predetermined number of swimmers who qualified for the meet or for each event.
Pre-early 1990’s there was a cut time for each event – individual and relay. Make the cut, swim the event. You only swam the events you made the cut in. At some point in the late 1980’s / early 1990’s, the NCAA tasked the swimming committee with providing a solution that would establish a set number of participants = a set budget for the championships thereto the NCAA budget allocation. After a few versions and tweaks we have landed on what we currently experience.
In the late 1980’s / early 1990’s, Stanford alum Stu Corliss started Taper & Shave magazine /
newsletter. This was a faxed newsletter of a few pages with meet results, top
… Read more »
Thanks, this is what I was wondering about!! I checked and there is zero reference to Taper and Shave online that I could find. I thought I’d be able to find an old scanned/archived copy but alas, the only things I came across were old media guides from colleges that listed Stu and his publication inside them.
I use the terms “magazine / newsletter” loosely, as it was all done via fax or snail mail. Just a few sheets of paper each week. I doubt any copies exist outside of Stu’s file cabinet.
Sometime after 1987 the NCAA proposed to pay for all costs (travel, housing, perdiem) for athletes attending the Div I Championships, just like they do for basketball. Before then each school paid for all the expenses for any swimmers qualifying for the championship meet.The time standard was a hard cut as described above. Swimming said yes to the proposal and within a year or two the NCAA told the swimming committee they had to established a cap for participants based on a % of Div I swimmers in the entire country. The swimming committee was told to set the cuts so the number of swimmers at the meet would be near or under the cap.
After failing to do so… Read more »
Going back to the early 1970s, there was a single qualifying time for each event. I believe the time entered was on an honor system as there was not way for the meet committee to double check. In 1971, I got sick my freshman year and did hit the cutoff, but Coach Easterling (RIP) entered me anyway using a high school time. It is interesting that the results sheet showed a bold line across the page indicating (and shaming?) the swimmers below the line who were slower than the cutoff.
I do not believe that there ANY cutoff times for the NCAA championships until 1964. In 1963 NC State hosted the 40th annual NCAAs in their brand new pool,… Read more »
Thank you for this interesting information!
Will we see some of the Zone Diving results here as the qualifying spots fill up?
Just saw the results, thanks.