Scoring Out The 2023 Men’s NCAA Pre-Selection Psych Sheets: Texas In Trouble


  • March 22-25, 2023
  • Jean K. Freeman Aquatic Center | Minneapolis, MN
  • SCY (25 yards)
  • Meet Central
  • Pre-Selection Psych Sheets
  • Live Results

Data compiled by Andrew Mering.

With Tuesday’s release of the pre-selection psych sheets for the 2023 Men’s NCAA Championships, we’re now able to both project the individual cut line and score out the psych sheets for the event.

In the scored psych sheets, Cal projects to repeat as NCAA champions with 453.5 points on the board, though Arizona State is hot on their heels, just 27 points back.

Note that all current data includes NC State bringing 19 swimmers to the meet, which is more than the roster maximum (18).

The Golden Bears’ projected total is 95 points more than they were seeded to score last season (358.5), though they ultimately trounced that total by winning the meet with 487.5 points.

In fact, this season sees Cal, Arizona State and Florida all seeded to exceed 400 points after no team was projected to do so last year. This speaks to the dominance these three teams have both in terms of top performers and depth. Those three squads combine to have the top seed in 14 of 18 events, and are also well ahead of any other team in terms of total individual scoring swims.

The most shocking statistic to see on the scored psychs is the position of Texas. The Longhorn men have won five of the last seven NCAA titles and finished in the top two in eight straight seasons, but this year, they’re seeded to finish a distant seventh, a whopping 284 points back of Cal.

Last season, Texas finished second at NCAAs, 51 points back of Cal, with 436.5 points—425.5 not factoring in diving. They were seeded to score 351 (without diving). This year, their projected to score 169.5.

This is the lowest the team has been seeded to finish in recent years by a wide margin, and their diving group, while still stronger than most of the top teams, isn’t what it once was in terms of scoring potential.

There’s an argument to be made that Texas would have a much better seeding if it had more of a marquee conference championship title to vie for (hello SEC), since they could essentially swim through Big 12s and win easily. However, the Longhorns did suit up for their midseason invite and their dual with UVA earlier this season.

Either way you look at it, Texas swimmers will need to outperform their seeds in a big way over the course of the meet to be anywhere near contention.

The projections are, of course, just projections, and every season teams vary significantly from their psych sheet points to their actual scored points. But the numbers do give us a starting point to start previewing how the team race will unfold at the meet.

Note: these projections do not include diving, where athletes will be selected via NCAA Zone meets which are currently ongoing.


School Total Psych Individual Relay Scoring Ind Count Scoring Relay Count
California, University of, Berkeley 453.5 299.5 154 23 5
Arizona State University 426.5 254.5 172 25 5
Florida, University of 419.5 243.5 176 24 5
North Carolina State University 308 154 154 16 5
University of Tennessee 217.5 89.5 128 8 4
Indiana University 193 95 98 10 5
Texas, University of 169.5 114.5 55 11 4
VA Tech 143.5 85.5 58 7 4
Auburn University 133.5 45.5 88 6 4
Georgia, University of 128 80 48 10 3
Louisville, University of 125.5 45.5 80 4 5
Stanford University 121.5 39.5 82 6 4
Virginia, University of 97 26 71 4 4
Texas A&M University 92 66 26 8 3
Michigan, University of 86 46 40 6 5
Missouri, University of 73.5 36.5 37 5 4
Ohio State University 67.5 34.5 33 4 4
University of Alabama 51 29 22 2 3
University of Minnesota 33 33 0 2 0
Wisconsin, University of, Madison 25.5 25.5 0 4 0
Kentucky, University of 24 24 0 2 0
Arizona, University of 24 0 24 0 3
Georgia Institute of Technology 19.5 19.5 0 3 0
Yale University 16 16 0 2 0
Notre Dame, University of 15 15 0 4 0
US Air Force Academy (M) 15 15 0 1 0
Southern Illinois Univ atCarbondale (M) 12.5 12.5 0 1 0
Princeton University 12 12 0 2 0
Towson University 12 12 0 1 0
Harvard University 11 7 4 1 1
Utah, University of 11 11 0 1 0
Pittsburgh, University of 10 10 0 1 0
Louisiana State University 10 10 0 2 0
Northwestern University 5 5 0 1 0
South Carolina, University of, Columbia 4 4 0 1 0
Southern Methodist University 2 2 0 1 0
Florida State University 1 1 0 1 0

2022 Men’s NCAAs – Psych Sheets vs Actual Scoring (Top 10)

Actual Finish School Psych Sheet Points Actual Points* Difference
1 Cal 358.5 487.5 +129
2 Texas 351 425.5 +74.5
3 Florida 310.5 346 +35.5
4 NC State 274.5 291 +16.5
5 Indiana 226 201 -25
6 Arizona State 277 236 -41
7 Stanford 239 215 -24
8 Georgia 173 194 +21
9 Ohio State 190 118 -72
10 Virginia 109 154.5 +45.5

*Diving points not included

The top four teams last year outperformed their seed, with Cal and Texas in particular doing much better than their psych sheet positioning indicated.

Arizona State trailed their projection by 41 points one year ago, and after a monumental Pac-12 performance, it will be an interesting storyline to keep an eye on at NCAAs to see if the Sun Devils can execute a successful double-taper and vie for the national title.

2023 NCAAs – Projected Individual Scoring

With the top seed (and NCAA/U.S. Open Records) in the 200 breast, 200 IM and 400 IM, Leon Marchand leads the projected individual scoring race with the maximum of 60 points, having paced the field in 2022 with 57.

Fellow sophomore Jordan Crooks ranks second with 54 projected points, as he owns the top seed in the 50 free and the #2 spot in both the 100 free and 100 fly.

Besides Marchand, Cal’s Gabriel Jett is the only other swimmer with multiple top seeds, as he leads the 500 free and 200 fly while ranking 14th in the 200 free.

Last First School Psych Points
Marchand, Leon Arizona State University 60
Crooks, Jordan University of Tennessee 54
Gonzalez de Oliveira, Hugo California, University of, Berkeley 49
Lasco, Destin California, University of, Berkeley 49
Liendo, Josh Florida, University of 49
Ramadan, Youssef VA Tech 48
Foster, Carson Texas, University of 45.5
Jett, Gabriel California, University of, Berkeley 43
Johnston, David Texas, University of 40
Savickas, Aleksas Florida, University of 37
Seeliger, Bjorn California, University of, Berkeley 36.5
Chaney, Adam Florida, University of 36
Cohen Groumi, Gal Michigan, University of 34.5
Magahey, Jake Georgia, University of 34
McHugh, Max University of Minnesota 33
Louser, Jason California, University of, Berkeley 32
Burns, Brendan Indiana University 32
Stokowski, Kacper North Carolina State University 31.5
Nelson, Baylor Texas A&M University 31
House, Grant Arizona State University 31
Dolan, Jack Arizona State University 31
Coll Marti, Carles VA Tech 28.5
McDonald, Owen Arizona State University 28
Hayes, Aiden North Carolina State University 27
Santos, Guilherme University of Tennessee 26.5
Whitley, Reece California, University of, Berkeley 26
Frankel, Tomer Indiana University 25.5
Kos, Hubert Arizona State University 25
Petrashov, Denis Louisville, University of 25
Hillis, Dillon Florida, University of 23
Gaziev, Ruslan Ohio State University 23
Bustos, Arsenio North Carolina State University 22
Dahlgren, Jack Missouri, University of 22
Mathias, Van Indiana University 21
Grum, Ian Georgia, University of 21
Sandidge, Levi Kentucky, University of 20
Mitchell, Jake Florida, University of 19
Nichols, Noah Virginia, University of 19
Dunham, Bradley Georgia, University of 18.5
McDuff, Macguire Florida, University of 18.5
Gallant, Will North Carolina State University 17
Newmark, Jake Wisconsin, University of, Madison 16.5
MILLARD, NOAH Yale University 16
Hill, Julian Arizona State University 16
Hawke, Charlie University of Alabama 16
Colson, Alexander Arizona State University 16
Minakov, Andrei Stanford University 16
Mefford, Colby California, University of, Berkeley 16
Mestre, Alfonso Florida, University of 15
Zhang, Wen US Air Force Academy (M) 15
Polonsky, Ron Stanford University 14.5
Elaraby, Abdelrahman Louisville, University of 14.5
Watson, Tyler Florida, University of 14
Guiliano, Chris Notre Dame, University of 14
Sammon, Patrick Arizona State University 14
Secchi, Clement Missouri, University of 13.5
Johansson, Victor University of Alabama 13
Mikuta, Reid Auburn University 13
Alexy, Jack California, University of, Berkeley 13
Van Renen, Ruard Southern Illinois Univ atCarbondale (M) 12.5
Stoffle, Nate Auburn University 12.5
Henveaux, Lucas California, University of, Berkeley 12
Gray, Andrew Arizona State University 12
Kilavuz, Mert Georgia Institute of Technology 12
Khosla, Raunak Princeton University 12
Fers Erzen, Anze Texas A&M University 12
Benzing, Brian Towson University 12
Miller, Luke North Carolina State University 12
Rose, Dare California, University of, Berkeley 12
Hobson, Luke Texas, University of 11
Sarkany, Zalan Arizona State University 11
Corbeau, Caspar Texas, University of 11
Sanchez, Alex Texas A&M University 11
Ungur, Andrei Utah, University of 11
Stoffle, Aidan Auburn University 10.5
Curry, Brooks Louisiana State University 10
Van Der Laan, Cooper Pittsburgh, University of 10
Matheny, Josh Indiana University 9.5
Plage, James North Carolina State University 9
Clark, Charlie Ohio State University 9
Garcia, Nicolas VA Tech 9
Bowers, Noah North Carolina State University 9
Torok, Dominik Mark Wisconsin, University of, Madison 9
Korstanje, Nyls North Carolina State University 9
Linscheer, Gio Florida, University of 8
Brown, Eric Florida, University of 8
Puente Bustamante, Andres Texas A&M University 8
Sequeira, Aaron Stanford University 8
Unlu, Baturalp Georgia Institute of Technology 7
Mathias, Mason Auburn University 7
Izzo, Giovanni North Carolina State University 7
Laur, Mason Florida, University of 7
Brownstead, Matt Virginia, University of 7
Gures, Umitcan Harvard University 7
Miroslaw, Rafael Indiana University 7
Davis, Wyatt Michigan, University of 7
Callan, Patrick California, University of, Berkeley 6
Enyeart, Alec Texas, University of 6
Sartori, Murilo Louisville, University of 6
Gonzalez Pinero, Joaquin Florida, University of 6
Curtiss, David North Carolina State University 5.5
Schlicht, David Arizona State University 5
Jensen, Matthew California, University of, Berkeley 5
Miller, Ben Northwestern University 5
Epitropov, Lyubomir University of Tennessee 5
McCusker, Max Arizona State University 4.5
Dant, Ross North Carolina State University 4
Wilby, Mason Kentucky, University of 4
Laitarovsky, Michael South Carolina, University of, Columbia 4
Ng, Wesley Georgia, University of 3.5
Smith, Julian Florida, University of 3
Driggers, Landon University of Tennessee 3
Tirheimer, Logan Auburn University 2.5
Szabados, Bence Michigan, University of 2.5
Quach, Alex Ohio State University 2.5
Abruzzo, Andrew Georgia, University of 2
Bratanov, Kaloyan Texas A&M University 2
Feehery, Colin Southern Methodist University 2
Daigle, Jared Michigan, University of 2
Gogulski, Ethan Texas A&M University 2
Yanchev, Yordan Florida State University 1
Matheson, Daniel Arizona State University 1
Hoagland, Jack Notre Dame, University of 1
Hils, Zach Georgia, University of 1
Foster, Jake Texas, University of 1
Patton, Ben Missouri, University of 1
Gu, Rafael Stanford University 1
Piszczorowicz, Bartosz North Carolina State University 1
Espernberger, Martin University of Tennessee 1
Saka, Berke Georgia Institute of Technology 0.5

In This Story

Leave a Reply

Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
11 days ago

Can someone tell me how the wvu swimmer made the meet cuz I can’t find where he swam 3:42. I’m genuinely curious.

25 days ago

Texas has a ceiling of 2nd and a floor of 5th with 3rd most likely behind Cal and FL. I think they sneak ahead of ASU and NCS.

25 days ago

Wild to think Ohio State beat Texas in a dual meet, was ranked 5th at one point (?), but then seemingly didn’t get it done when it counted. Only 4 qualifiers and slightly above average relays? I’ve read some posts on here about the staff changes at OSU being super positive, but a 17th place projection has to be a HUGE letdown for the Ohio folks.

captain undeez
Reply to  3HeadMafia
24 days ago

we love the ohio state slander💀

Snowpipers of Alaska
25 days ago

It actually appears a real interesting battle for 5th will be brewing (TN, IN, TX, and whichever other Top 15 team comes in healthy, nails the relays, and hits the lucky 8th/16th spots in Prelims).

NC State always seems to be stuck at 4th during their best seasons.

25 days ago

Imagine if Finke, Smith, and Freeman had stayed for the season for the Gators. 😱

Reply to  Corey
25 days ago

If those guys have stayed I doubt they have the scholarship money for Liendo.

25 days ago

Texas has not been the favorite to win the title and sure isn’t now, but it would be a terrible meet for them to finish below 3rd

For instance, all 4 relays other than 800 free will still finish top 8 despite being seeded much lower

To answer an earlier poster, I think Carson can go 21.0 in the back

That means you won’t win but you won’t finish 14th

Grant Drukker
Reply to  Horninco
25 days ago

I think they’ll need to hit everything right for their relays to perform this well.

8th last year in the 200 free relay was an 18.8 average split. Feel like that is about the ceiling in terms of time for them to go. Their fastest returning splits are an 18.6 is Corbeau and 18.7 in Krueger.

If you remove the legs from their 200 medley and add in a 21.0 and the respective split times that they have produced this year, they’ll be right around a 1:22 low. Which is right around 8th again.

I can see them replicating their 3:01 mid in the 400 medley pretty well this year. Which is about 5th.

400 free relay is going to… Read more »

Last edited 25 days ago by Grant Drukker
K Chilly
25 days ago

So far there is not a single comment doubting ASU’s second place. Not only have they positioned themselves well, but they have done such a commanding job of it that the swim community pretty much has them as a lock for second. I don’t know my history but their rise from preseason rankings seems historical.

Reply to  K Chilly
25 days ago

Most people (swimswam included had them 5th or 6th) I still think they finish behind Cal & UF, but if they do go preseason 6th to 2nd, I wouldn’t call that a historical rise.

Last edited 25 days ago by oxyswim
25 days ago

Its almost not fair to prescore Texas’ times. They were still swimming fast to try to qualify people, but they could have won their conference if half their swims were randomly DQed, they are all in on NCAA. I’d expect their top tier guys that were going to qualify anyway to get a bigger bump than most of field. Who cares if they qualify 17th instead of 5th.
I know we live in an age where you dont need to only swim fast once a year anymore, (heck Leon is living proof with in-season NCAA records) but there is something to be said about peaking.

Reply to  GatorGuy
25 days ago

Well that is how prescoring works lol. It is based off the psych sheet.

Reply to  GatorGuy
25 days ago

Other than Jake foster and Caspar who do you expect to make huge jumps from the psych sheet? Who’s gonna go a 20.9 leading off the 200 medley relay for them?

Reply to  SKOOOOOO
25 days ago

Maybe ‘unfair’ was a bit of a stretch.
My point is just that I think Texas will outperform their seed times more consistently than the rest of the field.
If the betting line was for Texas to finish better or worse than 7th (their projected score), I’d take the better every day.

Reply to  GatorGuy
24 days ago

Agreed, they are more likely to “outperform their seed times more consistently than the rest,” but the problem is how far back the seed times put them.

Reply to  SKOOOOOO
25 days ago

Hobson isn’t seeded to score in the 500. Braden vines and coby Carozza aren’t seeded to score anything; I could see them snagging some B-final points. Enyeart could get into the 500 B-final. Caspar isnt seeded to score in the 2IM, and Krueger is seeded outside in the 100

Grant Drukker
Reply to  Backstrokebro
25 days ago

Vines: 16th, 25th, 23rd. Would have to be near best times to score this year.
Carozza: 10th, 15th, 31st. He’s looked good this year. I think he’ll probably get 2 B final swims.
Enyeart: Think he could score in the 500, just never quite know with freshman. Could even get an A final. He looked good in the summer.
Hobson: 3rd, 12th, 16th. Think he’s a lock for an A in the 500. 200 free is so tight it’s tough to say he would be a guarantee A, but probably guaranteed final swim.

Reply to  Grant Drukker
24 days ago

One thing to remember and think about is momentum. As the meet begins you have to think about the order of events. What if they win the 800 free relay and wake up and go 2/2 in the 500 and 1/2 in the IM and then Krueger go 18.8 in the 50. What place do they get from that start?

Reply to  Taa
24 days ago

The 500 and 200 IM could easily happen, but Krueger probably isn’t going 18.8. He’s more likely to not score than go 18.8.

No one is rested for their conference meets, which is always laughable because most swim slowly ‘when rested’ at NCAAs. Some of the Texas bigtime swimmers haven’t been where they were last year so it will be interesting to see if they’re just off this year or they’ve been waiting for a big rest for NCAAs.

Reply to  GatorGuy
25 days ago

YES, exactly!
Texas finishing 7th? Only in the psych sheet world; real world: 1st or 2nd.

25 days ago

There’s that Texas energy we were waiting for.

Steve Nolan
Reply to  Braden Keith
25 days ago

i’m still waiting for the real nuclear take from Mike in Austin.

Reply to  Braden Keith
25 days ago

I don’t think the alums can save them this year.

Reply to  Braden Keith
24 days ago

You call it energy I call it arrogance

About James Sutherland

James Sutherland

James swam five years at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, specializing in the 200 free, back and IM. He finished up his collegiate swimming career in 2018, graduating with a bachelor's degree in economics. In 2019 he completed his graduate degree in sports journalism. Prior to going to Laurentian, James swam …

Read More »