The unofficial psych sheets for the 2019 NCAA Division III Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships, to be held March 20th-23rd in Greensboro (NC), have been released.
On the women’s side, the cut line was 19 for individual and 18 for relay events; the men’s lines were mostly 16 and 15. 290 female and 236 male swimmers made the meet. Last year, the qualifying line for individual women’s races was either 21 or 22, and for relays it was 20. For the men, individual races and relays were cut at 16 entries.
Men’s and Women’s Lists:
- Women’s unofficial psych sheet
- Men’s unofficial psych sheet
- Women’s alternate list
- Men’s alternate list
- Women’s invitees by team
- Men’s invitees by team
The selection process is somewhat complicated, but here’s the gist: First, the NCAA selected the top 20/16 individuals in each event (29/24 for diving). Then, entries were added to each relay event one-at-a-time, until all relay events have 20/16 entries.
If, at some point, the addition of one relay per event to the entire order of events put the field over the total participant cap number, the relay whose time was closest to the Division III established “B” cut was selected by entry until 20 relays were selected or the maximum participant number was reached. No additional relays were added if the next relay for selection would surpass the maximum participant number or the last complete individual row. After the selection process was conducted, if there was a disparity of more than one between individual and relay complete rows, then one individual event row was eliminated and the process returned to relay selection.
Each team is capped at 18 student-athletes of each gender and divers only count as 1/3 of a competitor; thus the Emory women and Denison and Kenyon men will have to pare down their swimming rosters. The sheets are “unofficial” because divers have not yet been selected, and thus the swim roster cuts have not been made.
| Top 5 Women’s Teams by # of Swimmers |
Top 5 Men’s Teams by # of Swimmers
|
| Emory, 18 | Denison/Kenyon, 18 |
| kenyon, 16 | Emory, 15 |
| Denison, 15 | Johns Hopkins/Tufts/Chicago, 13 |
| NYU/Williams, 14 | MIT, 11 |
| Chicago/Johns Hopkins, 12 | Pomona-Pitzer/Wash. U St. Louis, 9 |
NOTABLE INDIVIDUAL NON-ENTRIES
- Kenyon’s Michael Bartholomew is swimming the 400 IM, where he is the 38th seed, instead of his ninth-seeded 200 IM. He is also doing the 200 back/200 breast double.
- Jordyn Wentzel of St. Kate’s is skipping the women’s 200 free (would be 6th seed).
- Crile Hart of Kenyon is skipping the 200 free (10th seed) and 200 fly (would be 4th seed). She’s the top seed in the 200 IM, 100 back, 200 back.
- Denison’s Bebe Wang is skipping the men’s 200 free (would be 5th seed)
Division 3 has it own qualifying methods and it is different from Division 1 and 2. Why doesn’t it adopt the Division 1 and 2 philosophy for B cuts for individual swimmers and relays. I look at the psyche sheet and I cringe when I see multiple swimmers enter at 49 in the men’s 100 free or multiple women enter at 18 in the mile. Do they really need to have those extra heats? This is the national championships not the participation championships.
You listed the Top 7 women’s team and Top 9 men’s team sizes. As opposed to the Top 5. Not a huge deal, but just looks weird.
“…the men’s lines were 15 and 14. 290 female and 236 male swimmers made the meet.”
Looks more like 16 and 15 for the men, no? Also, does anyone know why the total participant cap is higher for women? Is it a Title IX thing? Are there just more women in D3 swimming? Just curious…
swisher – I don’t know for sure in D3, but in D1, someone (I forget who) told me that basically they were decided in the 90s or some time, and nobody has asked the NCAA to change them for fear that they’ll be reduced. Especially on the D1 men’s side, where there are now so many fewer teams.
Ah OK. So presumably they were based on total number of men’s teams and women’s teams back in the 90s? And back then there there were more women’s teams/swimmers than men’s?
If that’s the case, then I guess the calculation itself makes sense? Or does it? Should total number of teams define the total cap? Or given that the rules are the same for men and women (i.e. 8 finalists + 8 consolation finalists, same point scoring rules etc.), should we just set the invites equally as well?
Either way if it’s a 20+ year old calculation, then it’s weird that they haven’t at least revised it. 16 invites vs. 19 invites per event is a pretty big difference, and… Read more »
Swisher – the participant ratios reflect the gender disparity in DIII swimming. The NCAA reviews participant demographics once every 8 years or so, and last year, they did it and decided to raise the women’s cap. Here’s out report on it: https://swimswam.com/diii-ncaa-championship-numbers-expanding-womens-side/
Thanks Torrey for filling in that gap!
Oh, thanks for this info, Torrey. And for the link as well.
Yeah, part of me thinks that makes sense. Another part of me questions it, particularly when the meet is held jointly. It would be interesting to see a distribution curve with times for both men and women. Then you could answer whether both look similar, or if a larger pool of teams creates a longer tail of slower swimmers. In other words, is the competition fiercer when there are more teams, justifying more invites? Or are a handful of teams (with strong men and women’s teams) generating most of the invitees?
I dunno, just spit-balling… Seems a little questionable to have one group shoot for top-16 in the… Read more »
I believe its every six years. So even though men’s participation numbers in Div 3 have been growing, as have teams unlike in Div 1, the NCAA doesn’t increase the men’s cap, only the women’s cap. Why?$$$$$$$$ that’s why
The women’s cap was changed so that the two genders had roughly the same access ratio to the championships. Prior to the women’s cap being raised the men’s ratio was significantly better than the women. While it’s frustrating that the men have a smaller cap, both genders have almost identical opportunity to qualify. In a way it is about money – at this point you can’t raise one cap without raising the other, which means twice the expense. And since there is a hard ceiling on funding, which is provided through the NCAA’s television contracts for NCAA Division I basketball and is distributed to all championships outside of NCAA Division I football, finding the kind of money necessary to raise… Read more »
For 2018, the total participation for D3 women swimming and diving was 5,034, and for men it was 4,413 (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/ncaa-sports-sponsorship-and-participation-rates-database). Dividing by 19 and 16 respectively, the “access ratios” are 1 in 264 and 1 in 275. So I get what you’re saying, they are almost identical.
What I’m saying is that at the top 0.5% of the total swimmer population (i.e the 0.5% fastest), the difference in speed from swimmer #16 to swimmer #19 is negligible in most races. So by inviting 19 of one gender and 16 of another, it seems to me like you’re favoring the first group. You are essentially giving 3 extra spots for swimmers of roughly the same… Read more »
swisher – I think a lot of what you say makes sense. But, at the end of the day, the primary concern of the rules is providing equal access to male and female athletes, not making sure that both meets have equal competitiveness.
Anybody who wants to make the point that there should be more men can find a justification for that. Anybody who wants to make the point that there should be more women can find a justification for that too. But at the end of the day, none of those justifications will outweigh the equal access policies.
Your argument highlights a dichotomy in sports. We can look at high level numbers, identify trends, look at ratios, come to… Read more »
Braden – thanks, good points.
Just a clarification: I wasn’t making the argument that since 16th and 19th are almost the same, they should all be invited. And it doesn’t follow from my argument that basketball teams that lose by 1 point shouldn’t be eliminated…
Instead, my argument is that since 16th and 19th are almost the same, giving those 3 extra spots to one gender makes it significantly easier/harder to qualify for the meet for swimmers who live on that bubble. Shooting for top 16 in the country is significantly harder than shooting for top 19. So I’m still not 100% convinced that the “access ratio” approach actually results in “equal access.”
At the end of the day, you… Read more »
Be careful what you wish for. You’re making as strong an argument for only 16 invites per event as as you’re making for 19. If another sport makes a stronger case for more money, or is seen as less difficult to work with, the NCAA can just as easily reduce your cap as they can expand it.
Fritz — As I said before, money and NCAA politics unfortunately overrides my points. I know that within the current structure/decision-making process, what I’m asking is unlikely to gain any traction.
That aside, my question is about parity in the joint D3 championship meet, not about total number of invites. They are separate questions (1: should number of invites be equal?, 2: what should the number of invites be?)
Currently, invites are based on total participation/population. But I think the reasoning behind that rule is flawed (particularly without assessing distribution curves with best times). Further, if you do follow the “equal access” argument, shouldn’t scoring also be based on participation/population? For example, if the male and female participation figures dictate… Read more »
How about creating a cap based on swimming participation ACROSS all three divisions. No increase in NCAA money spent on swimming. i suspect that it would mean more invitees for both men and women in Div 3.
Also if everything is driven by money then whey not allow relay only swimmers to also compete in up to three individual events? Cost no more to have them swim rather than sit on deck.
That would result in a total shift in NCAA methodology. Thus far, D1, D2, and D3 do their own things, because…D2 and D3 will always lose to D1. If I understand what you’ve proposed is that D1 institutions use their football money to fund D3 swimmers to NCAAs, while cutting the number of D1 qualifiers. I don’t see any way that this ever happens politically until some pending radical shift in the collegiate sports landscape happens.
Relay swimmers and individual events? My understanding of why they did it that way is that gave the big teams with the fast relays a significant competitive advantage in earning qualifiers. This was actually a backdoor way to get more swimmers at NCAAs –… Read more »
There should be a total shift in NCAA means of operation. The current system is a sham on so many levels. Is the NCAA a college sports organization for scholar athletes or the minor league system for the NFL and NBA? If they NCAA sanction has any real value then they should assert more control over TV money (go to a seance and get Pete Rozelle to mentor them). I guess getting the chances of getting Pete Rozelle to return are better than the NCAA will act like a non-profit organization that is chartered to support scholar athletes at the collegiate level.
My count is 18 up and 9 down for Denison and 14 up and 15 down for Kenyon. Which would you rather be?
Denison will wreck Kenyon.
Brandon Fabian was champion and record breaker in 200 free last year, opted for 100 fly this time
Just curious. What happens if a team with 18 swimming qualifiers then qualifies a diver? Must they include the diver and drop a swimmer, or is it team/coaches discretion? I’d imagine that it’s the latter, but I’ve seen stranger rules…
Coach’s decision.
Can they drop a relay qualifier?
Matt – let me ask Torrey to confirm. In theory they could I think, because those relay qualifiers should count toward the team cap, but let me be 100%.
I would think that they could, provided that the other qualifiers on that relay have already qualified in another way
You are allowed only so many entries per team so Kenyon and Denison have swimmers who would make the meet not on their official list of entries
It looks like there is a mistake putting Fitzgerald’s name on the alternate list, this swimmer is also included on the invited list. I just noticed this.
I see Fischer from Kenyon on the alternate list. Not Fitzgerald.
Question: It show Bryan Fitzgerald in 12 place for the 500, but he isnon the alternate list rather than automatically in. How does that work?
Ftizgerald is not on the alternate list.