We continue our traditional spring recruiting coverage with our “Way Too Early” ranks of the current high school sophomore class. As top recruits continue to give verbal commitments earlier and earlier, we’re moving up our rankings to help give better context to big recruiting announcements.
Before we run over our traditional ranking methodology, we should head off a few counterarguments at the pass:
- Isn’t this too early to have a good read on talent? Aren’t 16-year-old kids still improving? Maybe. On the other hand, coaches are clearly finding roster spots for kids who verbally commit this early. And if we and our readership want to have the most accurate picture of how the recruiting season is playing out, it’ll be useful to have some sort of ranking – even one still very much in flux – to refer to as big-name swimmers commit.
- But recruiting ranks don’t matter. It’s the fast-dropping swimmers and diamonds in the rough that really have the biggest NCAA impact. Not true. There are always fast-rising swimmers who quickly develop into NCAA stars. But there are far less of them than there are elite high school prospects that become high-impact NCAA swimmers. We all love the Cinderella stories, the unranked recruits who flourish into dominators. But even those rags-to-riches stories aren’t as fleshed out if they don’t have a clearly-defined “rags” setup. These ranks help show us who is most likely to become NCAA standouts… but also contextualize where the eventual breakout stars originally rated compared to peers. If you, your favorite swimmer or your son/daughter isn’t ranked, don’t get mad – see it as the starting point for your/their rise to stardom.
- How accurate can these be with two plus years of development to go before any of these swimmers compete in the NCAA? Who knows? This is as new to us as it is to you. For these ranks, we’re a little less concerned with actual NCAA scoring times than we are in our junior/senior ranks, and probably marginally more interested in “ceilings” – wide event ranges, versatility, etc. But as with any ranking, these are ultimately nothing more than a snapshot in time: what the top of this recruiting class looks like in the moment, with full admission that a lot of these ranks can and will change by the time they finish their senior years.
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 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 are the trump card, but any big improvements in quality can make a difference as well. For example, a swimmer who only took up year-round swimming as a junior in high school going the same time as a swimmer whose been swimming year-round since they were 8 will probably get the edge in our rankings.
- 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.
- Distance-heavy class for the time being
- Lots of parity – no consensus top tier
- Very much in-development compared to last year’s group
- Solid IM class, lots of depth
- Not much in the way of breaststrokers or multi-event sprint freestylers
This is just the third class of boys we’ve ranked as sophomores, and this one is much more what we expected when we set out to start “way-too-early” ranks. There’s not a lot of definition in this group yet – we can’t tell who the clear-cut #1 is, and we can’t even really define what discipline a lot of these swimmers should project into. You’ve got a lot of guys with one or two breakout events, but their supporting events haven’t yet risen to the same level.
The last two classes have been much more defined as sophomores, with a handful of big-name standouts (Carson Foster, Luca Urlando, Anthony Grimm) and a much clearer ‘top-tier’. That means that at the moment, this class is a bit weaker than the past few, but it also means there’s probably a lot more development to go for some of these fast risers.
In terms of specifics, it’s the distance and IM groups that stand out most in this class. There’s no Foster/Fallon type to lead the IMs, but a lot of developing talent in the 1:48s and low 3:50s. In the same way, we have what has to be a record number of distance swimmers in our top 20. That’s because a good number of them swim down decently well to the 200 (upping their relay value), while most of the sprinters haven’t developed a strong second event.
The parity of this group is clear from the chart below. Where the top times in the class are usually monopolized by a few multi-event stars, this group has just two swimmers with the class’s best time in more than one event, and no swimmers who top three or more events. Maybe that’s a product of many of these swimmers missing out on taper meets this spring.
It’s a bit of an odd class in a few ways. We’ve got an unusually high number of semi-international types near the top. Quite a few represent other countries internationally, but have moved to the U.S. to swim club and even high school. We usually don’t include internationals in these rankings, but every year there are some swimmers in the ‘gray area’ – Caspar Corbeau, Taylor Ruck, Alexei Sancov types, who represent another country but spend at least a good portion of the year training in the United States. That takes away some of the mystery as to when/if an athlete will join the NCAA, and we’ve tried to verify with most of these international-type swimmers that the NCAA is at least an option on the table before including them in our ranks.
That international twist on the class does mean there are quite a few long course standouts in the group, too. On the flip side, a higher number than usual appear to not compete at the high school level.
|Top Times in the Class of 2022|
|50 Free||Dawson Joyce||20.17|
|100 Free||Alec Filipovic||44.31|
|200 Free||Michael Cotter||1:36.91|
|500 Free||Henry Morrissey||4:24.12|
|1000 Free**||Braeden Haughey||9:05.39|
|1650 Free||Henry Morrissey||15:04.80|
|100 Back||Charlie Crosby||47.65|
|200 Back||Nick Simons||1:44.92|
|100 Breast||Hank Rivers||53.91|
|200 Breast||Zachary Tan||1:58.17|
|100 Fly||Carl Bloebaum||47.85|
|200 Fly||Landon Gentry||1:46.06|
|200 IM||Baylor Nelson||1:47.17|
|400 IM||Zachary Tan||3:48.84|
**The 1000 free isn’t an event at the Division I NCAA Championships, but is swum instead of the 1650 in many Division I dual meets and is part of the NCAA program in Division II.
With that out of the way, let’s get to our rankings.
Disclaimer: there are a lot of high school sophomores 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.
TOP 20 SWIMMERS FROM THE CLASS OF 2022
1. Zachary Tan – DART Swimming – Davis, CA **Verbally committed to Cal**
Best Times: 400 IM – 3:48.84, 200 IM – 1:47.23, 200 breast – 1:58.17, 100 breast – 55.43, 200 back – 1:46.56, 100 back – 49.74, 200 free – 1:39.54, 100 free – 45.70
In a class this bunched up, we’ll go with the versatility of Zachary Tan at #1. He’s the top swimmer in the class in the 400 IM by a pretty wide margin, and also the top 200 breaststroker. Tan is the first of our internationals – he’s an age group standout for the nation of Singapore, but moved to the United States in 2018. He swam with Phoenix Swim Club for a time, but is now registered with DART out of California, though he doesn’t appear to compete at the high school level. Tan is an excellent all-around swimmer, which bodes well for his development into an NCAA scoring threat somewhere. He’s also a great long course swimmer, going 2:03 and 4:25 in the IMs and 1:04 and 2:16 in the breaststrokes.
2. Baylor Nelson – SwimMAC Carolina– Community School of Davidson – Charlotte, NC **Verbally committed to Texas A&M**
Best Times: 100 fly – 47.98, 200 IM – 1:47.17, 400 IM – 3:51.40, 200 back – 1:47.53, 100 back – 48.67
Nelson has the best 200 IM in the class, narrowly clipping Tan. He’s also very close to the top sprint butterfly time, and that’s a boost to relay value that Tan doesn’t yet have. The other argument Nelson has to the #1 ranking is his improvement curve, which is off the charts at this point. Over his sophomore year, Nelson has gone from 49.8 to 47.9 in butterfly, 1:50 to 1:47 in the IM and most impressively, 3:58 to 3:51 in the 400 IM. He’s also a great long course swimmer across multiple events (2:04/4:27 IM, 56/2:05 in fly) and should be in high demand among this class as recruiting opens.
3. Josh Zuchowski – Flood Aquatics Swim Team – Kings Academy – Jupiter, FL
Best Times: 100 back – 47.85, 200 back – 1:45.46, 200 IM – 1:47.44, 400 IM – 3:53.06, 100 breast – 55.81, 200 breast – 2:03.00, 100 fly – 49.37
Zuchowski is one of the more well-rounded swimmers in the class, and probably one of the more known names of the bunch thanks to his handful of NAG records dotted through the 11-12 and 13-14 ranks. He’s easily the top overall backstroker in the group despite not having the class’s top time in the 100 or 200 back. Zuchowski has had great improvements as a sophomore, taking almost a second off his 100 back and about three off his 200 IM. Both of those swims came at Florida’s high school state meet in the fall. Zuchowski had a huge summer, too, blasting a 2:00.7 in the 200 back at Senior Nationals, along with a 55.9 in the 100 back at a state-level meet a week earlier.
4. Zhier Fan – Metroplex Aquatics – Plano, TX
Best Times: 100 breast – 54.21, 200 breast – 1:58.24, 200 IM – 1:47.76, 400 IM – 3:57.15
This class isn’t great in breaststroke, but Zhier Fan is the clear-cut top swimmer in that discipline. He’s just a tick behind Tan for the top 200 breast in the class, but is dropping extremely fast – he was 2:02 as a freshman. Fan has cut more than two seconds in his 100 breast, too, and is within tenths of the top of the class. His 200 IM has been the biggest riser, going from 1:54 last year to 1:47.7 this year and again knocking on the door of best-in-class. Fan doesn’t have a lot of other events yet, but this spring he went 1:03/2:17 in long course breaststroke – those are big-league swims.
5. Rafael Gu – Rose Bowl Aquatics – Pasadena, CA
Best Times: 50 free – 20.38, 100 free – 44.62, 200 free – 1:37.88, 100 fly – 48.35
Another semi-international type here. Gu attends an international school in China, but trains out of California during the summers and school breaks. He’s one of the top swimmers in the class across four incredibly relay-valuable events. Gu is within tenths of the top of the class in the 50 and 100 frees, and could contend for class-leading times in the 100 fly and 200 free in the next year, too. He’s perhaps even more impressive in long course: 23.6, 50.9 and 1:51.9 in freestyle and 55.0 in butterfly. That’s easily the best 100-meter free time in this class. Gu’s ability to sprint in free and fly gives him opportunities on any of the five relays, though he definitely needs some development to work his way onto those relays by his freshman season of college.
6. Alec Filipovic – St. Charles Swim Team – Saint Charles North High School – St. Charles, IL **Verbally committed to Texas**
Best Times: 50 free – 20.21, 100 free – 44.31, 100 fly – 48.25, 200 IM – 1:48.04
Filipovic is a true sprinter at this point. You could make the argument for him to rank higher, as he’s got Gu beat in three of four events, but he also has a little less versatility and is behind Gu in long course. That 20.21 in the 50 is a big sell, though, and Filipovic supplements with the best 100 in the class. He’s had outstanding drops over the past year, highlighted by a cut from 45.7 to 44.3 in the 100. Filipovic is also a good 200 IMer. Improvement in his 200s (he’s 1:48.8 in fly and 1:40.6 in free) is probably the avenue to move up in next year’s ranks.
7. Kledi Kadiu – CSP Tideriders – St. Louis, MO
Best Times: 50 free – 20.83, 100 free – 44.63, 200 free – 1:38.08, 100 breast – 55.96, 200 breast – 2:02.26
Kadiu is another interesting story. Originally from Albania, he moved to the United States in 2017 and was competing in the States through last spring. He represented Albania at World Juniors last summer, and is now back in Albania, though the NCAA still remains a possibility down the road. Kadiu is a high-qualify breast/free combo swimmer who could have relay impact in a lot of different ways. His 100 and 200 frees are close to the top of the class, and a long course 1:04 is probably his most impressive breaststroke swim. He’s not quite as fast as Filipovic in the freestyles, but has the advantage of a little more versatility at this point.
The last few prospects show exactly how hard it is to divide this class out into hard-and-fast ranks. Do is a little faster than Kadiu in the 50 free, but slower in the 100 free. Do has better short course breaststroke times, but Kadiu has a pretty clear advantage in long course. Both have awesome improvement curves. For Do’s part, he dropped almost two full seconds in his 100 free since last year, along with four seconds in his 200 breast. Everyone in this class needs some developing to be an NCAA scoring threat, but the ceiling is high for Do, with the ability to contribute in at least four of the five relays based on his event lineup.
Crosby had a whale of a meet at Minnesota high school state. Just 22.0 in the 50 free and 50.6 in the 100 back coming out of his freshman season, Crosby exploded for a 20.3 free and 47.6 backstroke at the state meet, surging to the top of the nation in his recruiting class in that backstroke. The name of the game for Crosby moving forward will be developing a viable third event, perhaps improving his 46.1 100 freestyle or a 1:50 200 backstroke. This is kind of the point in our rankings where versatility starts to drop off and we see a lot more one-event standouts.
Carl Bloebaum is the top 100 flyer in the class after dropping a full second this year at Winter Juniors. What probably bodes even better for his NCAA value, though, is a drop from 1:49.5 to 1:46.3 in the 200 fly. A lot of guys in this class seem to be good at a 100 and just figuring out the 200 of that stroke. Bloebaum is a half-step ahead with major progress already in his 200 and a time that leaves him three tenths away from the top times in both butterfly. He’s proven it in long course, too – as far as we can tell, he’s got the best 200-meter fly in the class at 1:59.9, and his 54.7 leads the field in the 100 fly, too. Both of those swims came at Junior Nationals last summer.
11. Henry Morrissey – Germantown Academy Aquatic Club – Germantown Academy – Philadelphia, PA
Best Times: 1650 free – 15:04.80, 1000 free – 9:08.07, 500 free – 4:24.12
Morrissey is the clear #1 distance man in a deep distance class. He’s got the class’s best times in the 500 and 1650 frees, and his class-leading mile is actually the only event where the top Class of 2022 swimmer is faster than the top Class of 2021 swimmer when we ranked those sophomores a year ago. 15:04 is a legitimate college time, just seven seconds off what it took to earn an NCAA invite this year and about 18 off what it took to score in 2019. The 500 is a notoriously tough event to compare from the high school level to the college level. Morrissey is the best in the class, but still 8 seconds from 2020 NCAA invite time. That’s an event to watch, though, since Morrissey dropped from 4:38 as a freshman to 4:24 this year.
12. Logan Zucker – SwimMAC Carolina – Davidson Day School – Charlotte, NC **Verbally committed to Michigan**
Best Times: 200 free – 1:37.99, 500 free – 4:26.11, 400 IM – 3:53.34, 1000 free – 9:23.04, 1650 free – 15:32.73
We’re getting into a block of distance swimmers who are hard to stratify into ranks. Zucker has a 200 free that can rival some of the best in the class, along with a strong 500 free and a very good 400 IM. Guys like Kieran Smith and Andrew Seliskar have showed how much crossover there can be between the 200/500 free and the 400 IM, and that’s roughly the mold Zucker fits into, though he’s definitely a more developmental prospect than those two. Zucker is also dropping well, from 1:39.7 and 4:29 as a freshman to 1:37.9 and 4:26 as a sophomore.
13. Sebastien Sergile – SwimAtlanta – Centennial High School – Alpharetta, GA
Best Times: 200 free – 1:38.22, 500 free – 4:27.37, 400 IM – 3:52.37, 1000 free – 9:33.52, 1650 free – 15:32.55
Sergile fits that same type of mold as Zucker. He’s a bit better in the 400 IM and a tick slower in the 200/500 frees, with an almost-identical mile. One thing Sergile has going for him is that he’s a slightly better sprinter (21.1/45.6 compared to 21.0/46.2), though both are far enough out of NCAA scoring range that it’s hard to factor that in too much. Sergile also has an incredible improvement curve. He was 4:04 in the IM prior to this year, and 1:41/4:34 in the 200/500 freestyles. That bodes very well for his ability to climb into the top 10 by next year.
14. Lance Norris – TAC Titans – Nash Central High School – Rocky Mount, NC **Verbally committed to NC State**
Best Times: 400 IM – 3:52.85, 1650 free – 15:21.83, 1000 free – 9:07.22, 500 free – 4:27.61, 200 back – 1:46.82
Norris is a tough one to rank. His 400 IM is comparable to two of our top three ranked swimmers, but he doesn’t have any top events with relay impact. Norris has dropped almost 20 seconds in his mile as a sophomore and could be an outstanding distance/IM type prospect. His 200 back also stands out, bolstered by a long course 2:04 last summer. His 1:40.4 in the 200 free doesn’t grab headlines yet, but does show enough speed to potentially develop into a relay prospect, especially if he keys in on the 200-yard distance. It’s also worth noting that Norris is part of a pretty incredible crew coming up through the TAC Titans in North Carolina – our top two girls prospects in this class were from the TAC Titans, and there are three Titans boys in our top 20.
15. Tona Zinn – Socal Aquatics Association – Laguna Hills High School – Santa Ana, CA **Verbally committed to Northwestern**
Best Times: 400 IM – 3:52.08, 200 IM – 1:48.02, 200 fly – 1:47.61, 100 breast – 55.73, 100 fly – 49.83
Zinn’s versatility is intriguing. He’s a great two-distance IMer, where most of the guys we’ve ranked above are good at one IM or the other. Zinn doesn’t have a lot of relay options, yet, and the IMs take some pretty absurd times to score at the NCAA level (1:43.0/3:42.7 for a single point in 2019), so he might not be an immediate-impact recruit unless he goes on a tear through his remaining two years of high school. Zinn did drop about a second in his 200 IM over his sophomore year, and his 400 IM is outstanding relative to the rest of this class.
Hayes has the mid-distance times of Zucker and Sergile, but doesn’t yet have the range upwards or downwards. He’s 45.6 in the 100 free, which isn’t bad, but still a long ways from NCAA scoring level (42.1 in 2019). Hayes seems to be improving well into the upper distances, though. He went from 4:30 to 4:26 in the 500 free this year. He’s pretty inexperienced in the 1000 free (four career swims in USA Swimming’s database) and 1650 free (five career swims; none since 2018), but would appear to have a lot of room to grow into those events down the road.
17. Michael Cotter – TAC Titans – Green Hope High School – Cary, NC **Verbally committed to NC State**
Best Times: 200 free – 1:36.91, 500 free – 4:29.05, 100 free – 45.03, 1000 free – 9:26.32, 200 IM – 1:49.85, 400 IM – 3:56.63
Where exactly do you rank Cotter? He’s got the best 200 free in the class, better than a bunch of 200/500 types in this 12-18 range. But his 500 lags well behind that group. On the other hand, he’s got pretty good speed (45.0 in the 100 free) and some interesting developmental potential in the IMs. Cotter seems like a guy on the cusp of a breakout. He was 1:41 in the 200 free at this time last year and cut to 1:39, then 1:38, then 1:36 over the course of five months this winter. His 500 dropped from 4:31 to 4:29 in that time, but it feels like bigger drops should be on the way compared to his 200. Another big event to watch is the 400 IM, where Cotter cut about 24 seconds off his lifetime-best between December and January. He’s also a great long course swimmer, centered around times of 51.6 and 1:51.5 in the freestyles.
18. Braeden Haughey – TAC Titans – Middle Creek High School – Apex, NC **Verbally committed to Virginia**
Best Times: 1650 free – 15:21.12, 1000 free – 9:05.39, 500 free – 4:26.44, 200 free – 1:39.01, 200 back – 1:47.19, 400 IM – 3:57.02
Haughey is much more of a consistent freestyler across the 200-to-500 range. His range is impressive, peaking with the top 1000 free in the class. He’s also developing his speed, going from 1:41 to 1:39 in the 200 free as a sophomore. There’s probably an argument for ranking him higher in this clump of distance guys. And he had a solid long course season last summer. His 3:56.4 in the long course 400 free is easily the best time in the class for that event, and probably converts to a better 500 than his current best.
Valdez is an extremely fast riser, going from 1:41 and 46.4 to 1:37 and 44.9 in the 200/100 freestyles this year. His range hasn’t quite come around in the same way yet – he’s 21.0 in the 50 free and 4:45 in the 500 free – but the potential is there for Valdez to rocket up these ranks on his relay value. His breakout extends back to last summer when he cut from 54.0 to 52.0 in the 100-meter free.
Rivers exploded this year, dropping almost a second and a half from his 100 breaststroke at Winter Juniors. His trajectory is incredible: in last year’s high school season (in the spring of 2019), he dropped from 58.0 to 55.3 in that 100 breast. After bruising his way down to 53.9, Rivers may have been in line for even more drops had California not canceled its high school season in the coronavirus pandemic. He ranks fairly low right now because he doesn’t really have a great second or third event, but he’s clearly a fast riser who could eventually have relay value on his one standout event by itself.
ONES TO WATCH
We’re throwing in one more short list – a handful of swimmers who piqued our interest. They didn’t yet have the full complement of times to make our top 20, but seemed to have enough intrigue that we’ve earmarked them as names to keep an eye on over the next year, where they could develop into top threats for one reason or another.
- Sage Sungail (Patriot Aquatics / Lake Brantley High School / Altamonte Springs, FL)
Sungail is a freestylers whose 50 (20.5) and 200 (1:38.5) seem clearly better than his 100 (45.5). The 100 was the one of those three times Sungail didn’t improve in late 2019, so there’s probably another drop to be had there. A 1:53.7 in long course freestyle shows nice range.
- Dawson Joyce (Seminole Aquatics / Seminole High School / Sanford, FL)
The class’s best 50 freestyler (20.1) will always have some level of value as the top speedster in the field. Joyce also swims to 44.7 in the 100 free, though he doesn’t have much of a 200 yet. 57.5 in the long course 100 fly suggests a different avenue for a potential third event.
- Nick Simons (Lake Oswego Swim Club / Jesuit High School / Lake Oswego, OR)
Simons makes this list mostly based on the class’s best 200 back after a massive drop from 1:49.9 to 1:44.9 as a sophomore. He’s also 48.6 in the 100 back and dropping fast there.
- Ryan Branon (North Baltimore Aquatic Club / Loyola Blakefield High School / Baltimore, MD) **Verbally committed to Texas**
Another fast dropper in a 200-yard race. Branon went from 1:50 to 1:46.5 in the 200 fly this year, and also swims 48.4 in the 100 fly. He’s got some solid versatility at this point, too, with times of 45.3 and 1:39.4 in the freestyles.
- Patrick Keough (University Place Aquatic Club / Curtis High School / University Place, WA)
One of the class’s better 100 flyers (48.0), Keough dropped about a second there as a sophomore. He’s also 20.7/45.3 in sprint free, which ranks pretty well in this class. The most impressive time in his portfolio might be a 54.8 in the 100-long-course-meter fly – close to the speed of top-10 recruit Bloebaum in long course.
- Landon Gentry (Nation’s Capital Aquatic Club / Patriot High School / Bristow, VA) **Verbally committed to Virginia Tech**
Hard to put Branon and Keough in this category without including Gentry, who has the best 200 fly (1:46.0) in the class. He’s also 48.4 in the 100 fly. No great third event yet, but potential is there in the IMs.
BEST OF THE REST
New this year: this isn’t an exhaustive list, but we can rattle off a few of the athletes we studied who wound up just outside the top 20 in each event discipline. For the purposes of space, we won’t include every top event for these athletes, but just a few of their standouts. Each of these athletes is still an extremely high-level recruit:
- Sprint free:
- Distance free:
- Ronald Dalmacio (48.6/1:46.0, 48.8FL)
- Cameron Abaqueta (48.0, 20.7FR) **Verbally committed to Florida**
- Tommy Park (48.4/1:46.4, 1:48.4IM)
Feeling nostalgic? Here’s a look back at our recruiting class rankings since we started ranking classes in 2012:
|High School Class of 2022||Way Too Early Ranks As Sophomores|
|High School Class of 2021||Way Too Early Ranks As Sophomores||Ranks as Juniors|
|High School Class of 2020||Way Too Early Ranks As Sophomores||Ranks as Juniors||Re-Rank As Seniors|
|High School Class of 2019||Ranks as Juniors||Re-Rank As Seniors|
|High School Class of 2018||Ranks as Juniors||Re-Rank As Seniors|
|High School Class of 2017||Ranks as Juniors|
|High School Class of 2016||Ranks as Juniors|
|High School Class of 2015||Ranks as Juniors||Post-college retrospective|
|High School Class of 2014||Ranks as Juniors||Post-college retrospective|
|High School Class of 2013||Ranks as Juniors||Post-college retrospective|