It’s that time of year again when we at SwimSwam rank out the top 20 high school swimming prospects in the upcoming NCAA recruiting class.
As college recruiting has reached earlier and earlier into high school classes, we’re continually expanding our recruiting ranks and coverage. Last spring, we ranked out the then-sophomore class. This is essentially a re-rank of that class, taking into account a year of improvements. Stay tuned to our recruiting channel for more additions to our yearly recruiting coverage:
- Girls & boys ranks for current juniors – high school class of 2024 (updated rankings from our “Way Too Early” rankings last spring)
- Way Too Early ranks for current sophomore girls & boys – high school class of 2025
- Re-Rank of outgoing senior girls & boys – high school class of 2023
So without further ado, let’s take a look at this class as a whole, then review our ranking methodology (please read it before you get upset about how low the top miler is ranked!) and get into our rankings.
- A lot of distance free depth
- On the other hand, not much sprint back/fly depth
- There’s a big dropoff of talent after the top 10ish swimmers
- 6/15 top times faster than the seniors in the class of 2023
There is some generational talent in the boys’ class of 2024, with names like Kaii Winkler and Daniel Diehl being some of the fastest high schoolers in history in both long course and short course—it wouldn’t be surprising to see both of them on senior international teams within the next few years. The talent goes beyond Winkler and Diehl though, as shown by the fact that 6/15 of the class’s top times are faster than the top times for the seniors of the class of 2023. Furthermore, 9/15 of the class’s top times are faster than those of the class of 2023 when they were ranked as juniors.
However, beyond the top few swimmers, there isn’t much depth, especially in IM and sprint back/fly. For example, there’s a three-second gap between the second and third-fastest 400 IMers in the class. There also exists only three 46-point 100 flyers and three 46-point 100 backstrokers, and there’s really nothing beyond them to the point where only three backstrokers were listed in the “best of the rest” section—and most of them are better in the 200 back than the 100.
The one discipline where this class does have depth is in distance free. Although only two swimmers have broken 4:20, there’s an abundance of swimmers in that 4:20/4:21/4:22 range, and they could all be on track to break 4:20 as seniors. In addition, there are also plenty of swimmers who have been 15:10.
TOP TIMES IN THE CLASS OF 2024
|50 Free||Kaii Winkler||19.44|
|100 Free||Kaii Winkler||41.96|
|200 Free||Kaii Winkler||1:33.28|
|500 Free||Cooper Lucas||4:14.53|
|1000 Free**||Matt Marsteiner||8:57.43|
|1650 Free||Luke Whitlock||15:01.79|
|100 Back||Daniel Diehl||46.01|
|200 Back||Daniel Diehl||1:39.62|
|100 Breast||Daniel Li||52.43|
|200 Breast||Jake Eccleston||1:54.36|
|100 Fly||Jacob Wimberly||46.26|
|200 Fly||Drew Hitchcock||1:43.26|
|200 IM||Daniel Diehl||1:43.01|
|400 IM||Cooper Lucas||3:41.15|
Our goal in these rankings is to reflect what college coaches look for in recruits, based on many years of conversations and coverage.
We focus only on American-based athletes, simply because there is so much uncertainty with international recruits – if they’ll come to the United States, when they’ll come to the States and with what graduating class they should be ranked. Projecting international recruits often becomes more of a discussion of when they’ll first join a college program and not which program they’ll join.
A few other factors that weigh heavily in our rankings:
- Relay Value – Relay points count double in college swimming, and any program needs a strong stable of quality sprinters to fill out all 5 relays with stars. Obviously, a special distance swimmer can easily rank ahead of a very good 100 freestyler, but college swimming generally values a sprint freestyler over a distance swimmer, all other factors being equal.
- Improvements – Actual times carry the most weight by a longshot. But we also keep an eye on a swimmer’s trajectory, especially in deciding between two swimmers with relatively even times.
- Short Course over Long Course – while every club and every swimmer will have a different balance of focus between short course and long course swimming, the NCAA competes in short course yards, and that’s going to be the main factor considered in these rankings. Long course times are another data point for consideration, but we mainly view them through the lens of what a big long course swim could mean for an athlete’s future in short course.
- NCAA scoring ability – NCAAs are the big show for college teams, so we’ve weighted NCAA scoring potential very highly. Swimmers who already have NCAA scoring times wind up mostly filling out the top our of rankings. Since college athletic directors – and by extension coaches – also place high value on conference championships, scoring ability at conference meets is also a factor in our rankings.
- Relative depth in the NCAA and recruiting class – a wealth of elite depth nationwide in one stroke discipline makes a big difference in what times are considered more valuable in that event. Events rise at different rates in the NCAA, but when one event gets extremely deep and fast at the college level, it makes high school prospects in those events a little less valuable, relatively, with lots of other veteran options. In the same way, a recruiting class stacked with swimmers in butterfly, for example, would make each butterflyer a little less sought-after in the market, with lots of other recruiting options able to provide similar production.
Of course, there’s no way to predict the future, and the most concrete data we have to go on are cold, hard times. These rankings in no way mean that all of these 20 swimmers will be NCAA standouts, and they certainly don’t mean that no swimmer left off this list will make big contributions at the NCAA level.
Disclaimer: there are a lot of high school juniors in the country, and no really good, complete, 100% accurate listing of them all. If you don’t see your favorite swimmer on the list, feel free to politely point them out in the comments. There’s a chance that we disagree with your assessment of their spot in the top 20, and so long as it’s done civilly, there’s no problem with differences of opinions. There’s also a chance that we’ve simply missed a no-brainer (we’ve taken every precaution to avoid that), and if that happens, we want to make sure we correct it.
- 50 free: 19.44 (best in class)
- 100 free: 41.96 (best in class)
- 200 free: 1:33.28 (best in class)
- 100 back: 47.92
- 200 back: 1:45.91
- 100 fly: 46.94
Last year, Winkler was already one of the top sprint freestylers in the class, but this year he cemented himself as the clear number-one recruit in the nation with his 41.96 100 free that would have scored at the 2023 NCAAs. After dropping tremendous amounts of time in all of his events, he’s now the second-fastest high schooler ever in the 100 freestyle behind Ryan Hoffer—and this is BEFORE his senior year. In addition, he’s also amongst the fastest of all time for the 15-16 age group in the 50 and 200 free, even boasting an 18.98 50 free relay split. He’s one of the best long course swimmers in the class as well, as he just went a 48.81 100 free to become the youngest American to break 49 seconds in the event.
Winkler’s times would already get him on the relays of most college teams, giving him huge scoring value in the NCAA format. He’ll fit in perfectly with the hotbed of sprinting talent at NC State, where six different swimmers went 19.2 or faster in the 50 free last season.
- 100 back: 46.01 (best in class)
- 200 back: 1:39.62 (best in class)
- 200 IM: 1:43.01 (best in class)
- 50 free: 19.95
- 100 free: 43.31
- 200 free: 1:33.68
- 100 fly: 47.27
Diehl isn’t ranked number one anymore, but that’s not a reflection of his own swimming—it’s just that his class got stronger. That being said, he’s still a no-brainer for the top two, as he’s the fastest high school 200 backstroker that swimming has seen since Ryan Murphy and Jack Conger in 2012, and most certainly the fastest high school junior ever. He dropped from a best time of 1:41.92 to a 1;39.62 in the 200 back as a junior, and is now faster than what it took to make the ‘B’ final at NCAAs. And though his 100 back isn’t as elite as his 200 back, he still improved nearly a second this year and still remains at the top of his class for the event. In long course though, the 100 back is his bread and butter, and he holds a best time of 53.07 that is a U.S. 17-18 National Age Groupever.
In addition to backstroke, Diehl also holds a class-leading and NCAA qualification-worthy 200 IM, dropping nearly four seconds in one year to become the only swimmer in the class that’s been under 1:44. He has great sprint freestyle times too that also put him at the top of the class, which makes him a great asset on all the NCAA relays.
- 500 free: 4:14.53 (best in class)
- 400 IM: 3:41.15 (best in class)
- 200 IM: 1:44.89
- 100 fly: 47.76
- 200 fly: 1:43.44
- 100 free: 43.95
- 200 free: 1:35.29
- 1650 free: 15:16.22
- 100 breast: 54.18
- 200 breast: 1:57.29
Lucas has incredible range, with respectable times in every single discipline besides backstroke (freshman year Leon Marchand, am I right?) and a sweet spot in middle distance. He’s got class-leading times in both the 500 free (by a significant margin) and 400 IM, dropping from a best time of 4:18.65 to a 4:14.52 in the former event and from a best time of 3:46.21 to 3:41.15 in the latter. In addition, his 400 IM time would have scored in the ‘B’ final at 2023 NCAAs and makes him the second-fastest high school junior ever behind Carson Foster. He’s also got standout 200 fly and 200 IM times, with his 200 fly time being ranked third in the class and his 200 IM really emerging after he dropped from a time of 1:47.28 to 1:44.89 in the event last season.
- 200 fly: 1:43.26 (best in class)
- 100 fly: 47.13
- 400 IM: 3:41.81
- 200 IM: 1:45.18
- 200 free: 1:36.15
- 500 free: 4:22.08
- 200 back: 1:44.10
- 200 breast: 1:59.66
Hitchcock is a very similar swimmer compared to Lucas, except with slightly faster fly times and slower IM and distance free times. He’s got the top 200 fly time in the class and an NCAA-scoring-worthy 400 IM, an event where he saw an improvement from a best time of 3:47.29 to 3:41.81 over the last year. Like last year, he still remains primarily a fly and IM specialist with a strong 200 back as the cherry on top, but this year he also developed himself a lot in the mid-distance freestyle events, going from a time of 1:39.36 to 1:36.15 in the 200 free, and then from 4:37.10 to 4:22.08 in the 500 free. Breaking two minutes in the 200 breast is a nice finishing touch as well.
- 100 fly: 46.26 (best in class)
- 200 fly: 1:45.11
- 50 free: 19.89
- 100 free: 43.44
- 200 free: 1:34.00
- 200 back: 1:43.82
- 200 IM: 1:44.08
- 400 IM: 3:51.05
Wimberly saw a massive rise this year, going from “Best Of The Rest” to a top-five recruit in the nation. After being categorized as an IMer last year, he’s now shifted his focus to sprint free and fly, dropping from a 48.33 to a 46.26 in the 100 fly to top his class in the event. He’s also ranked fourth in the class in the 50 and 200 free, as well as third in the 100 free. His improvement in IM hasn’t stopped though, as his PB in the 200 IM went from 1:47.4 to 1:44.0 in a year to rank him as the second-fastest swimmer in the class for the event. That being said, both his drops and his event focus change have increased his NCAA value dramatically.
- 50 free: 19.47
- 100 free: 43.44
- 200 free: 1:36.48
- 100 fly: 46.94
- 100 back: 47.28
Like Winkler, Battaglini is your typical sprint freestyle specialist that can also take on back and fly as a side quest (think fellow Cal swimmers Bjorn Seeliger and Jack Alexy). He hasn’t seen the meteoric drops that others have seen this year, but still hit PBs across the board in all of the events listed for him except the 200 free. His 50 free time is particularly standout, lagging only 0.03 seconds behind Winkler’s class-leading time. In addition, he also dropped over a second in the 100 back this year from 48.62 to 47.28.
- 200 back: 1:41.66
- 100 back: 47.15
- 200 fly: 1:43.40
- 100 fly: 47.27
- 200 IM: 1:45.51
- 400 IM: 3:49.49
After barely making the top 20 last year, Arioti has risen to the eighth-place spot. In last year’s rankings, we noted that the 200 fly and 200 IM seemed to be his best events, but now the 200 back seems to be entering the mix now—he dropped from a best time of 1:46.42 to 1:41.66 to become the second-fastest swimmer in the class for the event (and by a considerable margin, too). He’s also ranked second in the class for the 200 fly, where he saw a three-second drop from a time of 1:46.40 to 1:43.40. Overall, the 200s seem like his strong suit (back, fly IM), but he could progress into a good 100 backstroker or 100 flyer for NCAA event lineup sake.
- 1650 free: 15:02.76
- 1000 free: 9:07.64
- 500 free: 4:21.24
- 200 free: 1:36.63
- 200 back: 1:42.89
- 100 back: 47.24
- 400 IM: 3:48.56
King is a distance freestyler who emerged out of nowhere this year, going from a time of 1:40.66 to a 1:36.63 in the 200 free, from 4:32.14 to 4:21.24 in the 500 free, and from 15:40.55 to 15:02.76 in the 1650 free. He is super versatile too, as not many high school juniors can boast about having a 15:02 mile and a 47.2 100 back. In addition, he’s also got the third-fastest 200 back time in the class. It will be interesting to see how his NCAAs lineup turns out, because he could either go with the 500 free/400 IM/1650 free route, opt to swim the 100/200 back (how many 500 free/100 back/200 back NCAA lineups have we seen in our lifetime?), or do some combination of both lineups.
- 50 free: 20.18
- 100 free: 43.89
- 200 free: 1:36.53
- 100 back: 46.55
- 200 back: 1:44.15
- 100 fly: 48.28
- 200 fly: 1:46.76
Crush, the brother of NAG record holder Charlotte Crush, moves up from the “Best Of The Rest” category largely by virtue of his 100 back time, which has him ranked as the second-fastest swimmer in the class. Even though he was put in the backstroke category in last year’s recruiting rankings, he has developed formidable sprint freestyle times (a 43-point 100 free and a near sub-20 50 free can’t be overlooked) to become a standout NCAA sprinter recruit with endless relay opportunities. In addition, he also shows promise in the 200 fly, where he dropped from a 1:50 to a 1:46 in one year.
A few weeks ago, we wrote an article about how Ben Irwin and Asia Kozan were the first-ever non-Ivy League mid-major recruits to be ranked in SwimSwam’s top 20 list. Crush, an Army commit, now becomes the third non-Ivy League top 20 recruit, and the first-ever to get ranked top ten. With Crush’s commitment as well as Irwin’s commitment to Navy, it seems as if the Patriot League is putting itself on the map with recruiting.
- 100 back: 47.08
- 200 back: 1:43.11
- 100 fly: 47.09
- 200 fly: 1:45.11
- 50 free: 20.35
- 100 free: 44.41
Like Crush and Wimberly, Peck is strong in free, fly, and back across multiple distances. He’s got the third-fastest 200 back time and fourth-fastest 200 fly time in the class, in addition to top five ranked 100 fly and 100 back times (which are virtually identical to each other). His biggest development came in the fly events, as he dropped from 48.5 to 47.0 in the 100 fly and 1:48.7 to 1:45.1 in the 200 fly. At championship meets, Peck could probably pull a Brendan Burns and have the option between a 100 fly/100 back double or a 200 back/200 fly double if he wants to exclusively swim both strokes. If he doesn’t though, the 50 free will always be there for him—20.3 is a very good time for a high school junior that mainly specializes in back and fly.
- 100 breast: 52.43 (best in class)
- 200 breast: 1:55.08
- 200 IM: 1:47.60
Li isn’t as versatile as the swimmers ranked above him, but he’s arguably the best all-around breaststroker in the class. His 52.43 100 tops his year by nearly half a second, is just over half a second off of NCAA qualification and is the fastest 100 breast time we’ve seen from a high school junior since Reece Whitley in 2017. In addition, he’s also the second-fastest 200 breaststroker in the class and has the 200 IM as a strong third event, having dropped from a time of 1:57.48 to 1:55.08 in the 200 breast and from 1:49.36 to 1:47.60 in the 200 IM in the last year. When swimmers become seniors. having strong primary events starts to become more important than versatility, so Li will see his stock rise rapidly if he continues to improve—he will easily become top-ten material if he starts pushing the 52-second barrier in the 100 breast.
- 50 free: 20.21
- 100 back: 47.63
- 100 fly: 46.74
- 100 breast: 54.79
- 200 IM: 1:47.27
Out of all the top 20 recruits, Nicholas is the only sprinter who is good at all four strokes—sort of like Roman Jones in the class of 2023. Last year, only his 100 fly and 100 back times were listed in his writeup, and he’s still very strong in both events—his 100 fly time is ranked second in the class. However, his recent developments include the 50 free, 100 breast, and 200 IM. He dropped from a 21.2 to a 20.2 in the 50 free (to improve a full second in a 50-yard event is crazy), from a 56.7 to a 54.7 in the 100 breast, and from a 1:50.4 to a 1:47.2 in the 200 IM. In addition, for how good he is in the 50 free and the stroke 100s, I’d expect his 100 free time to be faster than 46.18, so that’s also something to keep an eye on.
- 200 breast: 1:54.36 (best in class)
- 100 breast: 53.52
- 200 IM: 1:46.08
- 400 IM: 3:47.12
Eccleston is the third-fastest 100 breaststroker in the class, but he’s the class’s fastest 200 breaststroker by a significant margin and also a more versatile swimmer than most of the other breaststroke specialists in the class. Last year, Eccleston was relatively unheard of, but put himself on the map with an over four-second drop from 1:58.76 to 1:54.36 in the 200 breast. His trajectory in the event is worth looking out for, as his 1:54.36 is already around what the fastest breaststrokers in the class of 2023 were going as seniors. His IM times shouldn’t go unnoticed though, as he ripped a 3:47 this year after having never been under four minutes prior to his junior season. Not many 53-point high school breaststrokers can be sub-3:50 in the 400 IM!
- 200 IM: 1:45.55
- 400 IM: 3:50.40
- 200 free: 1:37.34
- 500 free: 4:19.44
- 200 fly: 1:46.11
After being labeled as a 200/500 free specialist with no strong third event last year, Enoch has now developed great IM times to complement his mid-distance free. He dropped six seconds from 3:56.80 to 3:50.40 in his 400 IM, and went from a best time of 1:52.13 to 1:45.55 in the 200 IM to become the sixth-fastest swimmer in the class for the event. There’s also been progression in his 200 fly, where he made a similar drop from 1:51.48 to 1:46.11 in a year. He’s continued to shine in mid-distance though, dropping four seconds in his 500 free to become only the second swimmer in the class to break 4:20 in the event. His only issue when it comes to value in college is that his best two events are probably the 500 free and 200 IM, which fall on the same day at NCAAs.
- 50 free: 20.34
- 100 free: 44.76
- 100 back: 46.85
- 100 fly: 47.33
In last year’s writeup of Dunkel, we said that he could either branch out to swim the 200s or develop a good 50 free. He seems like he has done the latter, dropping his 50 free time down from 20.8 to 20.3 to complement his 100 back and 100 fly. In addition, he also broke 47 seconds to become the third-fastest 100 backstroker in the class (dropping from a time of 47.39 to 46.85). He didn’t make much improvement in the 100 free this year, so a 50 free/100 fly/100 back lineup at NCAAs with the double on day three seems to be what he’s trending towards.
- 50 free: 19.61
- 100 free: 44.14
I had to go through the “quality of primary events vs. overall versatility” debate with young Young, a recruit with an amazing 50 free, a decent 100 free, but not much of anything else. His 19.6 ranks him third in the class and makes him both well-deserving of a top 20 ranking and very useful for relays, but his next-best event aside from the 50/100 free is a 58.20 100 breast, which is obviously not on the level of his sprint freestyle times. That being said, Max McCusker and Jonny Kulow are recent examples of Arizona State’s ability to develop incredible sprint freestylers, so Young will have a lot of potential as the next in line with his speed as a high school junior.
- 200 free: 1:37.99
- 500 free: 4:21.51
- 1000 free: 8:57.43 (fastest in class)
- 1650 free: 15:02.90
- 400 IM: 3:52.21
- 200 fly: 1:45.29
Marsteiner is no longer the fastest mile swimmer in the class, though his 1000 free still stands at the top. Marsteiner has made improvements over the past season, dropping eight seconds from 15:10.71 to 15:02.90 in his 1650 to remain as one of the top swimmers in the class, and also improving four seconds in his 500. However, what put him in the top 20 over the plethora of 4:20/15:00 swimmers in this class was his 200 fly time. His 1:45.29 in the event is a three-second improvement from last year, and also ranks his as the seventh-fastest swimmer in the class. With his 200 fly and a strong 1650 free, he now has multiple options to choose from on day four of NCAAs.
- 50 free: 20.03
- 100 free: 44.06
- 200 free: 1:36.10
- 500 free: 4:23.10
- 200 IM: 1:45.59
- 100 back: 47.75
Kelly was ranked in the top ten last year due to his sprint free times, which were some of the fastest amongst high school sophomores. His stock gets hurt a bit because he didn’t improve in sprint freestyle all year, but both his speed and his range from the 50 all the way up to the 500 free are still very respectable. Another factor that kept him in the top 20 was his recent breakouts in the 200 IM and the 100 back. He dropped from a best time of 1:48.32 to 1;45.59 in his 200 IM and his now the seventh-fastest swimmer in his class, and also improved from a 49.5 to a 47.7 in the 100 back. If he can get over his plateau in the sprint free as a senior, he has the potential to rise back up the rankings as a senior to become one of the most versatile swimmers in the class.
- 200 IM: 1:47.13
- 400 IM: 3:44.76
- 200 fly: 1:45.84
Last year, we said that D’Ariano needed one of his events to “pop” in order for him to stand out. That event happened to be the 400 IM, where he dropped from a 3:49 to a 3:44, and moved up to rank third in the class for the event behind Lucas and Hitchcock. This 400 IM time is very valuable, considering that there’s a big drop-off in depth following Lucas and Hitchcock’s 3:41s. His 1:45-point 200 fly, which came from a six-second drop from 1:51.04 to 1L:45.84 in the event over the last year, also puts him amongst the top of the class for that event.
- 200 free: 1:39.30
- 500 free: 4:20.05
- 1000 free: 9:05.34
- 1650 free: 15:01.79
- 400 IM: 3:53.48
Whitlock slots into the top 20 because due to his blistering mile time, which is the top time in his class. In addition, he’s got the third-fastest 500 free in the class. He saw massive drops across the board in his events this year, improving 11 seconds in the 500 free from 4:31.43 to 4:20.05, 22 seconds in the 1650 free from 15:23.55 to 15:01.79, and then 11 seconds again in the 400 IM from 4:04.18 to 3:53.48.
- 200 IM: 1:45.02
- 400 IM: 3:46.65
- 200 back: 1:46.52
- 100 fly: 48.20
Lancaster still remains one of the top IMers in the class, ranking fourth overall in the 200 IM and fifth overall in the 400 IM. What hurts his stock a bit is that he doesn’t have a super strong third event compared to his IMs, as he didn’t improve at all in the 200 back this season. However, he did drop nearly a second from 49.15 to 48.20 in the 100 fly, which is a promising event for him even though it conflicts with the 400 IM at NCAAs.
- 50 free: 20.04
- 100 free: 43.48
- 100 back: 48.08
- 200 back: 1:46.52
Croley faces the same problem as Kelly—his sprint free times are amongst the top of the class (especially his 100 free, which ranks as the fourth-fastest in his year), but he didn’t improve his senior season, not even breaking 44 seconds in the 100 free. He did drop nearly a second in his 200 back, which is arguably his best event aside from the sprint freestyles. If he doesn’t want to do the 100 free/200back double in college though, he could always race the 100 back, where he improved 0.11 seconds. Although his trajectory is slower than some of his classmates, his status as still one of the best sprinters in the class shouldn’t be overlooked.
- 100 breast: 55.13
- 200 breast: 2:01.09
- 100 LCM breast: 1:00.37
- 200 LCM breast: 2:12.07
Here we go again with Mahabir. Yes, his long course abilities are probably better than everyone else in the class with the exception of maybe Diehl or Winkler. In fact, he’s even better than he was last year, dropping over a second in both the 100 and 200 breast. However, I can’t put him in the top 20 solely based on long course, as his short course times are nowhere near those of top breaststrokers. In fact, he didn’t race in yards at all this year, swimming exclusively in Singapore. If he produces some great short course times as a senior, then he’ll move to the top 20, but for now, he’ll stay a honorable mention solely because his long course abilities are hard to ignore.
- 50 free: 20.21
- 100 back: 46.83
- 200 back: 1:44.39
Lorenz has made leaps since being listed as a “best of the rest” swimmer last year, clocking a 46-point 100 back (ranked third in the class) in a class where 46s are rare, as well as a top ten ranked 200 back for the class. He dropped over a second from 48.3 to 46.8 throughout the last year in the former event, and two seconds in the latter from 1;46.6 to 1:44.3. In addition, he also has the 50 free as an additional weapon in his arsenal, giving him a perfect three-race lineup and big relay value for colleges.
- 100 free: 44.71
- 200 free: 1:36.44
- 500 free: 4:20.06
- 1000 free 9:05.38
- 1650 free: 15:10.99
Lambert’s 100 and 200 free times are the fastest amongst the distance free crew in this class, and his 200 free time ranks seventh overall. This gives him the advantage of increased relay value to supplement his distance free. On the longer side of things, Lambert is ranked fourth overall for the class in the 500 free, dropping 11 seconds in the event over the last year. He also dropped from a 15:57 to a respectable 15:10 in the mile. Just from looking at his times from last year compared to this year (46/1:39/4:31/15:57 in 2022, 44/1:36/4:20/15:10 in 2023), he seems like a former sprinter that found his groove in distance, which is now where he stands out more nationally.
- 200 IM: 1:46.44
- 400 IM: 3:45.76
- 200 back: 1:44.71
- 100 back: 47.91
- 200 fly: 1:47.91
Laurito is a similar swimmer to D’Ariano, except with the 200 back as his third event instead of the 200 fly, as well as a faster 200 IM and a slower 400 IM. He’s one of the best IMers in his class, with his 400 IM time ranking fourth overall for the class. In addition to his IM times, he’s also got a 47-point 100 back, which shows that he has sprinting potential.
- 100 breast: 52.98
- 200 breast: 1:57.27
- 200 free: 1:38.64
After dropping two seconds in the last year from a time of 55.01 to 55.98, Mueller has emerged as one of the two 52-point breaststrokers in the class. That alone had him in consideration for the top 20, but the issue is that his 200 breast isn’t as strong as some of his other classmates (though a 1:57 is still very respectable) and isn’t great at any other events. That being said, his 52 100 breast was good enough to single-handedly make him an honorable mention.
- 100 fly: 46.85
- 200 fly: 1:47.92
- 200 IM: 1:46.67
- 50 free: 20.31
- 100 breast: 54.85
The swimmer who once was the class-leading 100 flyer is still going strong in the event, ranking as the third-fastest in the class this year. In last year’s rankings, we mentioned that a weak 200 fly time was one of Swearingen’s drawbacks, but it seems like he’s shifting more towards the sprint events now—as shown by his 20.3 50 free (his 100 free PB also feels like it should be faster than a 46.7, considering that he split 44.4 at NCSAs). In addition, he also has a sub-55 breaststroke, which highlights multi-stroke versatility.
Best Of The Rest
Some more names that came up in our research. For the purposes of space, we won’t include every top event for these athletes, but just a few of their standouts. Verbal commitments are listed where they’ve been reported. Each of these athletes is still an extremely high-level recruit:
- Garrett Gould (20.3/43.8, 47.8 100 BK, 47.7 100 FL) **Texas**
- Matthew Klinge (19.7/45.0, 47.9 100 FL) **Ohio State**
- PJ Foy (20.0/43.9/1:38, 47.6 100 FL) **North Carolina**
- Sean Setzer (19.97/44.7) **North Carolina**
- Seneca Oddo (20.1/44.7) **Florida State**
- Devin Dilger (20.2/44.1/1:37.1) **Florida**
- Seth Tolentino (20.1/44.3/1:38.1) **Texas A&M**
- Sam Empey (20.2/44.2/1:37.7) **Auburn**
- Thackston McMullan (20.4/45.0/1:35.8) **Cal**
- Dean Jones (1:37.3/4:22.2/15:02, 1:45.1 200 BK) **Navy**
- Max Hatcher (1:37.5/4:21.5/15:04) **Texas**
- Dillon Wright (4:21.9/15:06, 3:48 4IM) **Virginia**
- Cooper McDonald (1:36.4/4:22.2/15:14) **Indiana**
- Jacob Pins (1:37.5/4:25.3/15:05) **Arizona State**
- Edward Huang (47.7/1:48.9) **Cal**
- JT Schmid 48.1/1:44.5) **North Carolina**
- Cole Witmer (48.6/1:45.2) **Alabama**
- Michael Mullen (47.8/1:45.4, 1:46.2 2IM) **Florida**
- Logan Noguchi (47.2/1:46.4) **Princeton**
- Michael Hochwalt (48.1/1:452) **Arizona State**
- Eamon Monaghan (47.1/1:47.9)
- Diego Balbi (47.2/1:45.3) **USC**
- Logan Robinson (1:45.2, 1;37 2FR) **Florida State**
- Simon Bermudez (47.9/1:46.5, 1:43.8 200 BK) **NC State**
- Andrew Zou (54.3/1:56.5) **Princeton**
- Joshua Chen (54.1/1:57.2) **Harvard**
- Watson Nguyen (53.5/1:56.2) **Penn**
- Brasen Walker (53.5/1:57.8) **NC State**
- Grayson Nye (54.1/1:56.5) **Kentucky**
- Hudson Schuricht (54.4/1:56.7) **NC State**
- Pierce O’Grady (1:46.5) **USC**
- Richard Poplawski (1:47.8/3:51.3) **Harvard**
- William Savarese (1:49.3/3:48.3, 4:22 FR) **Michigan**
Feeling nostalgic? Here’s a look back at our historic recruiting class rankings, plus our retrospectives of those classes after four NCAA seasons:
|High School Class of 2024|
|High School Class of 2023||Ranks As Juniors|
|High School Class of 2022||Way Too Early Ranks As Sophomores|
|High School Class of 2021||Way Too Early Ranks As Sophomores|
|High School Class of 2020||Way Too Early Ranks As Sophomores||Ranks as Juniors|
High School Class of 2019
|Ranks as Juniors|
High School Class of 2018
|Ranks as Juniors||Re-Rank As Seniors|
High School Class of 2017
High School Class of 2016
High School Class of 2015
High School Class of 2014
High School Class of 2013