2026 NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships
- Wednesday, March 18 – Saturday, March 21, 2026
- McAuley Aquatic Center, Atlanta, GA
- Defending Champions: Virginia (5x)
- Championship Central
- Preview Index
- Psych Sheet
- Live Stream
- Live Results
- Live Recaps
We looked at how the men’s NCAA Championship results measured up to the seed times, seeing the majority of events have slightly faster times required to score than it took to qualify in the top 16, and now it’s time to look at the women’s meet.
For a lot of the swimmers at NCAAs, making the meet is already an achievement and the mark of a successful season. Backing up a gruelling regular season with yet more drops can be a challenge. In some events that can be evident: for example, the 200 breast is often slower at NCAAs, and has a strong symmetry for both men and women in terms of psych sheets vs results.
So is it more difficult to score at NCAAs than to swim the 16th-fastest time in the nation heading into March? Just like on the men’s side, in terms of pure time the answer seems to be no. However, the time required to make the ‘A’ final also looks to be slightly slower than the seeded time for women – a contrast to the men.
Entries Per Event Under 8th/16th Prelims Time, Women’s NCAAs 2026
Just like at the men’s championships, the 200 breast was the event with the most swimmers seeded faster than the 2:07.58 it took to make the ‘A’ final. It was one of seven individual events in which that was the case, a slight majority.
The 100 fly, 100 back, and 500 free all saw 13 swimmers entered faster than the ‘A’ final time. In the 100 fly it was not necessarily a case of swimmers seeded in the top eight falling out, as seven of the top eight seeds made the ‘A’ final, but a confluence of the fact that they were slower than their entries and three of the next six seeds (9-14) missed scoring entirely.
There were no events this year where the time required to score was slower than the qualification time compared to two for the men, a feature of the larger field at the women’s championship. However, every event was softer to score at than to qualify in the top 16 this year.
The 100 back had 24 swimmers entered faster than the eventual 16th place time of 51.36, as only three of the top 16 finishers dropped time in prelims. The 200 medley relay also saw 24 teams entered faster than the 1:36.22 that Duke swam for 16th.
All five relays had no more than eight teams seeded fast enough to have scored ‘A’ final points, but had at least 20 teams seeded fast enough to score overall.
The 400 medley relay was the event that was fastest compared to the regular season in terms of the top eight, with just five teams seeded faster than Louisville’s 3:25.38 for 8th. Six of the top eight teams dropped time, with Stanford falling out of the top eight despite dropping 0.34 seconds.
Just three individual events had fewer than eight swimmers entered with times fast enough to have made the ‘A’ final. Of those, the 50 free was possibly the most impressive this year – it took a time of 21.44 to make the ‘A’ final, with five 21.5s missing out. The slowest time in that ‘A’ final was even faster at 21.37.
Difference Between Seed Time And Prelims Time By Event, Women’s NCAAs 2026 – 8th & 16th
There were just five events in which the 8th-fastest time in prelims was faster than the 8th-fastest entry time, three individual events (200 back, 400 IM, 50 free) and two relays (400 free, 400 medley). The 200 back was faster by the greater percentage, with a 1:50.31 required to make the ‘A’ final and the 8th seed Teagan O’Dell coming in at 1:50.72 (before placing 4th).
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly then, it was the 100 back that was slower by the largest percentage at nearly a full percentage point. It took a 50.32 to qualify in the top eight but just a 50.79 to make the ‘A’ final. The 500 free, 200 fly, and 200 free were also more than 0.5% slower.
Every event was slower when looking at 16th however, with the 200 fly (0.80%) and 100 back (0.80%) once again near the bottom. Two of five relays and nine of 13 individual events were more than 0.5% slower than the psych sheets.

i love these stats-based analyses! thanks Sam! whenever i see these charts, I look at the author can expect to see Sam 🙂