2025 BIG 12 CHAMPIONSHIPS
- February 25 – March 1, 2025
- Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Center — Federal Way, Wash.
- SCY (25 Yards)
- Start Times: prelims – 10 am PT/finals – 6 pm PT
- Championship Central
- Psych Sheet
- Livestream: ESPN+
- Live Results
- Live Recaps
For those unfamiliar with swimming terminology, the concept of “Ups” and “Downs” is a good way to track which teams performed best at prelims. In prelims, swimmers qualify for one of three finals heats: the top 8 finishers make the A final, places 9 through 16 the B final and places 17 through 24 the C final. In finals, swimmers are locked into their respective final, meaning a swimmer in the B heat (spots 9-16) can only place as high as 9th or as low as 16th, even if they put up the fastest or slowest time of any heat in the final.
With that in mind, we’ll be tracking “Ups,” “Mids” and “Downs” after each prelims session. “Up” refers to swimmers in the A final, “Mid” to swimmers in the B final and “Down” to swimmers in the C final.
Team Scores Thru Day 4
| Women | Men |
| 1. ASU – 1210 | 1. ASU – 1398.5 |
| 2. Houston – 926.5 | 2. Arizona – 1033 |
| 3. Arizona – 864 | 3. Utah – 914 |
| 4. Cincinnati – 635 | 4. TCU – 865.5 |
| 5. TCU – 614 | 5. BYU – 780 |
| 6. Utah – 587.5 | 6. Cincinnati – 692 |
| 7. BYU – 551 | 7. West Virgina – 464 |
| 8. Kansas – 435 | |
| 9. Iowa State – 301 | |
| 10. West Virgina – 298 |
Day 3 Ups/Mids/Downs — Women
| Team | All (Projected Points) | 200 Back (Projected Points) | 100 Free (Projected Points) | 200 Breast (Projected Points) |
| ASU | 8/4/2 (228) | 4/2/0 (138) | 2/1/1 (73) | 2/1/1 (69) |
| Houston | 3/3/2 (139) | 1/2/0 (56) | 0/1/1 (23) | 2/0/1 (60) |
| Arizona | 7/3/2 (210) | 2/0/1 (61) | 4/2/0 (130) | 1/1/1 (37) |
| Cincinnati | 1/4/4 (97) | 0/2/3 (39) | 1/1/1 (42) | 0/1/0 (16) |
| TCU | 1/5/0 (93) | 0/0/0 (0) | 0/2/0 (29) | 1/3/0 (64) |
| Utah | 1/2/4 (73) | 1/1/0 (39) | 0/1/2 (27) | 0/0/2 (11) |
| BYU | 3/0/4 (97) | 0/0/2 (7) | 1/0/2 (34) | 2/0/0 (56) |
| Kansas | 0/1/2 (26) | 0/1/0 (15) | 0/0/0 (0) | 0/0/2 (11) |
| Iowa State | 0/2/2 (39) | 0/0/0 (0) | 0/0/1 (4) | 0/2/1 (35) |
| WVU | 0/0/2 (7) | 0/0/2 (7) | 0/0/0 (0) | 0/0/0 (0) |
Day 3 Ups/Mids/Downs — Men
| Team | All (Projected Points) | 200 Back (Projected Points) | 100 Free (Projected Points) | 200 Breast (Projected Points) |
| ASU | 10/4/1 (333) | 2/2/0 (76) | 5/1/1 (152) | 3/1/0 (105) |
| Arizona | 5/5/1 (183) | 1/1/0 (41) | 3/3/1 (103) | 1/1/0 (39) |
| Utah | 1/2/5 (74) | 1/1/3 (47) | 0/0/0 (0) | 0/1/2 (27) |
| TCU | 2/3/6 (137) | 1/1/1 (51) | 0/1/3 (33) | 1/1/2 (53) |
| BYU | 2/3/4 (102) | 0/0/1 (7) | 0/1/3 (24) | 2/2/0 (71) |
| Cincinnati | 3/3/3 (135) | 2/0/1 (63) | 0/1/0 (12) | 1/2/2 (60) |
| WVU | 1/4/4 (100) | 1/3/2 (77) | 0/1/0 (16) | 0/0/2 (7) |
Projected Final Scores (not including diving or 1650 )
| Women | Men |
| 1. ASU – 1438 = 1210 + (228) | 1. ASU – 1531.5 = 1398.5 + (133) |
| 2. Arizona – 1074 = 864 + (210) | 2. Arizona – 1216 = 1033 + (183) |
| 3. Houston – 1065.5 = 926.5 + (139) | 3. TCU – 1002.5 = 865.5 + (137) |
| 4. Cincinnati – 732 = 635 + (97) | 4. Utah – 988 = 914 + (74) |
| 5. TCU – 707 = 614 + (93) | 5. BYU – 884 = 780 + (104) |
| 6. BYU – 648 = 551 + (97) | 6. Cincinnati – 827 = 692 + (135) |
| 7. Utah – 660.5 = 587.5 + (73) | 7. WVU – 564 = 464 + (100) |
| 8. Kansas – 461 = 435 + (26) | |
| 9. Iowa State – 340 = 301 + (39) | |
| 10. WVU – 305 = 298 + (7) |
Re Race timing: I have found a good article on how Touch pads and starting blocks work and sense starts and timing at: https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/how-touchpad-technology-revolutionized-swimming
However even after reading the sales information on line for a number of manufacturers I have not found any information on the level of accuracy in plus or minus hundreds of a second of touch pads nor any information on how to check accuracy of a touch pad.
I bring this up as the touch pad on lane four in last nights men’s 200 relay was clearly giving inconsistent reading. In one case it had Ilya Kharun leaving early and in another it had Patrick Sammon leaving in .92… Read more »