The NCAA released the pre-selection psych sheet today. While this isn’t the final official psych sheet, the cut line will fall well below the scoring swimmers at 16th place and any event changes will be minor. Therefore scoring out this psych sheet gives a fairly valid impression of where teams stand heading into the meet. The biggest missing variable here is diving which isn’t one the pre-selection psych sheet.
Unsurprisingly, season long #1 Stanford has a large lead over California 551 to 400. There are a large number of teams that are competitive for the 3rd spot. USC, NC State, Texas, Georgia, and Texas A&M are all seeded within 38 points of each other.
Stanford has 4 of the top 5 swimmers by individual seeded points. Kathleen Baker of California with 54 points was the non Stanford able to break into the top 5. The complete individual swimmer points are below.
The highest single event score from a single team is Stanford with 54 in the 200 free. The event by event scores for each of the top 10 ranked teams are below.
Team Psych Sheet Points
| Team | Score | |
| 1 | Stanford | 551 |
| 2 | California | 400 |
| 3 | Southern Cali | 246 |
| 4 | NC STATE | 223 |
| 5 | Texas | 217 |
| 6 | Georgia | 208 |
| 6 | Texas A&M | 208 |
| 8 | Virginia | 189 |
| 9 | Michigan | 155 |
| 10 | Louisville | 129 |
| 11 | Wisconsin | 128 |
| 12 | Indiana | 126 |
| 13 | Arizona | 102 |
| 13 | Minnesota | 102 |
| 15 | UNC | 91 |
| 16 | Tennessee | 85 |
| 17 | Ohio St | 77 |
| 18 | Kentucky | 55 |
| 19 | Auburn | 39 |
| 20 | UCLA | 33 |
| 21 | Arizona St | 29 |
| 22 | Missouri | 27 |
| 22 | UMBC | 27 |
| 24 | Florida St | 23 |
| 25 | Virginia Tech | 16 |
| 26 | Cincinnati | 15 |
| 27 | SMU | 13 |
| 28 | Boise St | 12 |
| 29 | Purdue | 9 |
| 30 | Duke | 5 |
| 30 | Iowa | 5 |
| 32 | Air Force | 4 |
| 32 | Florida International | 4 |
| 32 | South Carolina | 4 |
| 35 | Penn St | 3 |
| 35 | Alabama | 3 |
| 37 | Northwestern | 1 |
| 37 | Denver | 1 |
Individual Swimmer Points
| Name | Team | Seeded Points | |
| 1 | Eastin, Ella | Stanford | 60 |
| 1 | Manuel, Simone | Stanford | 60 |
| 3 | Ledecky, Katie | Stanford | 57 |
| 4 | Baker, Kathleen | California | 54 |
| 5 | Hu, Janet | Stanford | 53 |
| 6 | Smith, Leah | Virginia | 46 |
| 7 | King, Lilly | Indiana | 45 |
| 8 | Hansson, Louise | Southern Cali | 44 |
| 9 | Pickrem, Sydney | Texas A&M | 43 |
| 9 | Osman, Farida | California | 43 |
| 9 | Smoliga, Olivia | Georgia | 43 |
| 12 | Runge, Cierra | Wisconsin | 41 |
| 13 | Comerford, Mallory | Louisville | 40 |
| 13 | Cox, Madisyn | Texas | 40 |
| 13 | Zevnik, Alexia | NC STATE | 40 |
| 16 | Li, Zhesi | Ohio St | 38 |
| 17 | Neal, Lia | Stanford | 37 |
| 18 | Mack, Linnea | UCLA | 33 |
| 19 | McLaughlin, Katie | California | 32 |
| 20 | Ryan, G | Michigan | 31 |
| 20 | Jones, Kaitlyn | Virginia | 31 |
| 20 | Howe, Ally | Stanford | 31 |
| 23 | Zeiger, Brooke | Minnesota | 30 |
| 23 | Weitzeil, Abbey | California | 30 |
| 23 | Gibson, Sarah | Texas A&M | 30 |
| 26 | Kansakoski, Silja | Arizona St | 29 |
| 27 | Bi, Rose | Michigan | 27 |
| 27 | Escobedo, Emily | UMBC | 27 |
| 27 | Haughey, Siobhan Bernadette | Michigan | 27 |
| 27 | Simon, Laura | Virginia | 27 |
| 31 | Small, Meghan | Tennessee | 26 |
| 31 | Galat, Bethany | Texas A&M | 26 |
| 31 | Scott, Riley | Southern Cali | 26 |
| 31 | Cottrell, Andrea | Louisville | 26 |
| 31 | Smith, Kierra | Minnesota | 26 |
| 31 | Bilquist, Amy | California | 26 |
| 31 | Dalesandro, Gia | Indiana | 26 |
| 38 | Clary, Lindsey | Ohio St | 24 |
| 38 | Seidt, Asia | Kentucky | 24 |
| 38 | Thomas, Noemie | California | 24 |
| 38 | Britt, Chelsea | Georgia | 24 |
| 42 | Karosas, Tasija | Texas | 21 |
| 43 | Banic, Maddy | Tennessee | 20 |
| 44 | Drabot, Katie | Stanford | 19 |
| 44 | Brumbaum, Kayla | NC STATE | 19 |
| 46 | Moffitt, Hellen | UNC | 18 |
| 47 | Goss, Kennedy | Indiana | 17 |
| 47 | Marrkand, Jen | Virginia | 17 |
| 47 | Szekely, Allie | Stanford | 17 |
| 47 | Stevens, Hannah | Missouri | 17 |
| 47 | Pierce, Natalie | Florida St | 17 |
| 47 | Adams, Claire | Texas | 17 |
| 53 | Wright, Maddie | Southern Cali | 16 |
| 54 | Keire, Jackie | Cincinnati | 15 |
| 55 | Byrnes, Megan | Stanford | 14 |
| 56 | Van Landeghem, Chantal | Georgia | 13 |
| 57 | Valley, Danielle | Wisconsin | 12 |
| 57 | Apostalon, Anika | Southern Cali | 12 |
| 57 | Horejsi, Lindsey | Minnesota | 12 |
| 60 | Evans, Joanna | Texas | 11 |
| 60 | Mann, Becca | Southern Cali | 11 |
| 62 | Baldwin, Caroline | UNC | 10 |
| 63 | Meitz, Kaersten | Purdue | 9 |
| 63 | Gyorgy, Reka | Virginia Tech | 9 |
| 63 | McGregor, Ashley | Texas A&M | 9 |
| 63 | Konopka, Katrina | Arizona | 9 |
| 63 | Vredeveld, Kristen | California | 9 |
| 63 | Carlson, Maria | Wisconsin | 9 |
| 69 | Caldwell, Courtney | NC STATE | 8 |
| 70 | Moore, Hannah | NC STATE | 7 |
| 70 | Neidigh, Ashley | Auburn | 7 |
| 70 | Case, Lauren | Texas | 7 |
| 70 | Cameron, Emily | Georgia | 7 |
| 70 | Galyer, Danielle | Kentucky | 7 |
| 70 | Haan, Elise | NC STATE | 7 |
| 70 | Erasmus, Marne | SMU | 7 |
| 77 | Vose, Kirsten | Southern Cali | 6 |
| 77 | Smiddy, Clara | Michigan | 6 |
| 77 | Rule, Remedy | Texas | 6 |
| 77 | Samardzic, Matea | SMU | 6 |
| 81 | Stevens, Leah | Stanford | 5 |
| 81 | Brady, Sharli | Missouri | 5 |
| 81 | Sougstad, Emma | Iowa | 5 |
| 81 | Millard, Rebecca | Texas | 5 |
| 81 | Moseley, Stanzi | Southern Cali | 5 |
| 81 | Koucheki, Sarah | UNC | 5 |
| 87 | Postoll, Becca | Michigan | 4 |
| 87 | Miller, Genevieve | Air Force | 4 |
| 87 | Bratton, Lisa | Texas A&M | 4 |
| 87 | Barksdale, Emma | South Carolina | 4 |
| 87 | Nazieblo, Klaudia | Virginia Tech | 4 |
| 87 | Perry, Ky-lee | NC STATE | 4 |
| 87 | Murphy, Maddie | California | 4 |
| 87 | Engel, Lindsey | Stanford | 4 |
| 87 | Caneta, Jorie | Texas A&M | 4 |
| 96 | Hespeler, Jessica | Virginia Tech | 3 |
| 96 | McHugh, Ally | Penn St | 3 |
| 96 | Oder, Tjasa | Arizona | 3 |
| 96 | Goldman, Leah | Duke | 3 |
| 96 | Kingsley, Megan | Georgia | 3 |
| 96 | Ross, Katharine | Missouri | 3 |
| 96 | Scott, Bailey | Alabama | 3 |
| 103 | Cox, Hannah | Arizona | 2 |
| 103 | Li, Celina | California | 2 |
| 103 | Kopas, Emily | Michigan | 2 |
| 103 | Garcia Urzainqui, Marina | California | 2 |
| 103 | Gastaldello, Beryl | Texas A&M | 2 |
| 103 | Deloof, Gabby | Michigan | 2 |
| 109 | Peters, Stephanie | Georgia | 1 |
| 109 | Freriks, Geena | Kentucky | 1 |
| 109 | Gruest Slowing, Valerie | Northwestern | 1 |
| 109 | Galyer, Ali | Kentucky | 1 |
| 109 | Andison, Bailey | Denver | 1 |
| 109 | Oglesby, Grace | Louisville | 1 |
| 109 | Toussaint, Kira | Tennessee | 1 |
| 109 | Burchill, Veronica | Georgia | 1 |
| 109 | Vargo, Taylor | Ohio St | 1 |
Top 10 Teams Event by Event Scores
| Stanford | California | Southern Cali | NC STATE | Texas | Georgia | Texas A&M | Virginia | Michigan | Louisville | |
| 500 Freestyle | 33 | 12 | 0 | 5 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 35 | 7 |
| 200 Individual Medley | 22 | 17 | 13 | 11 | 16 | 0 | 23 | 18 | 3 | 0 |
| 50 Freestyle | 31 | 32 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 400 Individual Medley | 35 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 7 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 100 Butterfly | 22 | 35 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 Freestyle | 54 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 17 | 16 |
| 100 Breaststroke | 0 | 0 | 12 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 14 |
| 100 Backstroke | 36 | 28 | 0 | 25 | 15 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1650 Freestyle | 39 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 27 | 0 |
| 200 Backstroke | 28 | 35 | 0 | 16 | 23 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 100 Freestyle | 35 | 25 | 19 | 3 | 4 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 17 |
| 200 Breaststroke | 0 | 2 | 20 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 26 | 11 | 0 | 12 |
| 200 Butterfly | 22 | 22 | 16 | 0 | 13 | 18 | 17 | 25 | 0 | 1 |
| 800 Freestyle Relay | 40 | 34 | 32 | 18 | 26 | 12 | 24 | 28 | 30 | 8 |
| 200 Freestyle Relay | 34 | 40 | 0 | 30 | 12 | 32 | 0 | 10 | 8 | 4 |
| 400 Medley Relay | 40 | 34 | 32 | 30 | 26 | 18 | 24 | 22 | 6 | 12 |
| 200 Medley Relay | 40 | 34 | 28 | 30 | 22 | 26 | 24 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| 400 Freestyle Relay | 40 | 32 | 34 | 30 | 24 | 28 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 26 |
I would be shocked if Georgia gets 6th. I know they don’t have depth the used to, but still they know how to show up and swim fast!!!!
Wow, I did not realize the divide between 2 and 3 was so stark (and you could also say the divide between 1 and 2, I guess). Also interesting that the top 3 schools are from California (though Georgia may peak later as they did last year).
How did this work out last year? Clearly this is an exercise in mathematics and not a prognostication but it might have been worth mentioning how close last year’s numbers compared to the final standings.
Woof Woof Woof
Last year’s numbers. First number is psych sheet. Second number is real score. If those trends hold this year’s meet will be 1. Stanford 2. Cal 3. Georgia which sounds pretty plausible
California 398 357
Stanford 376 395
Virginia 313 264
Georgia 280 414
Southern Cali 265 244
Texas A&M 261 308
Louisville 227 220
Indiana 190 228
NC State 190 155
Tennessee 158 111
Michigan 157 150
Texas 142 79
Ohio St 94 84
Arizona 80 120
Didn’t look it up myself, but are diving points included in either of last year’s totals, or is it swimming only “apples-to-apples”?
This is not apples to apples. The psych sheet points don’t include diving (same as the article) and the real points do. It’s the same comparison as this article vs the real meet in March, but for last year.
So diving taints whether there was upside or downside vs the scored psych.
Correct. I think there are better ways to look at performance change at nationals than score comparisons (it’s narrow, imprecise, and can easily obscure underlying trends), so I’m not going to work too hard to get a perfect comparison here. I’ll do a more in depth analysis of this topic in a separate post some time before nationals.
Good stuff, keep it coming!
https://swimswam.com/ncaa-d1-women-performance-nationals-vs-seed-time/
It would be interesting to do an analysis of which teams taper best, which teams double taper best, which teams groups (sprint, distance, stroke) taper best. It would be interesting to collect this data and plot it for a several year stretch.
https://swimswam.com/swimulator-ncaa-team-taper-patterns/
you guys are such nerds. I LOVE YOU GUYS. đŸ™‚
https://swimswam.com/much-taper-matter/
While the team title is not likely to be as closely contested as last year, there will be great battles and extremely fast swimming. Can’t wait.