You are working on Staging2
Subscribe to SwimSwam Magazine

Scored Psych Sheets For Men’s NCAAs Project ASU Will Dominate En Route To First Title

Comments: 78

2024 MEN’S NCAA SWIMMING AND DIVING CHAMPIONSHIPS

The 2024 Division I Men’s NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships are quickly approaching. The psych sheets have dropped and cut lines are out. That means it’s time to take a closer look at the numbers before the teams descend on Indianapolis.

It is important to note that these calculations do not include diving points and are based solely on the official (pre-scratch) psych sheets. They’re a good starting point for evaluating NCAA Championship performance. For example, Arizona State is projected to be about 100 points ahead of Cal after day 2 of the meet. If that lead is, say,

The scored psych sheets project that the Arizona State men will claim their first NCAA title in commanding fashion with 538 points. Meanwhile, Florida is expected to take second (443 points) with Cal, the two-time defending champions, in third (298 points).

ASU’s dominance throughout the regular season and en route to their second straight PAC-12 title win certainly make them the favorites heading into the meet.

Typically, the psych sheets provide a reliable estimate of how the meet will run. Last year for example, Cal was projected to repeat as champions with 453.5 points. They won with 482 points.

Rank School Total Individual Relays Top 16 Individuals Top 24 Individuals Top 16 Relays
1 Arizona St 538 345.5 192 28 36 5
2 Florida 443 267 176 23 32 5
3 California 298 158 140 15 21 5
4 NC State 275 135 140 15 24 5
5 Tennessee 224.5 102.5 122 8 9 4
6 Indiana 193.5 97.5 96 15 18 5
7 Virginia Tech 176 78 98 8 10 5
8 Georgia 173 115 58 12 16 5
9 Stanford 165.5 89.5 76 11 20 5
10 Notre Dame 142 66 76 6 10 5
11 Texas 132.5 82.5 50 9 9 4
12 Auburn 116.5 48.5 68 8 12 5
13 Michigan 103 49 54 5 9 5
14 Virginia 78.5 36.5 42 3 5 3
15 Alabama 67.5 31.5 36 3 5 2
16 Louisville 62 28 34 3 8 2
17 Texas A&M 58 54 4 5 9 1
18 Wisconsin 51 25 26 2 5 1
19 Ohio St 47 37 10 4 6 1
20 Penn St 36 24 12 2 3 1
21 Florida St 30 16 14 2 3 2
22 Southern Cali 28 28 0 3 8 0
23 Arizona 24 0 24 0 3 3
24 Brigham Young 17 17 0 3 3 0
24 Minnesota 17 17 0 3 5 0
24 Penn 17 17 0 1 1 0
27 SMU 15 15 0 3 4 0
28 Missouri 10 10 0 2 2 0
29 Georgia Tech 7 7 0 1 3 0
30 Brown 6 6 0 1 2 0
30 Kentucky 6 6 0 1 2 0
32 LSU 4 2 2 1 3 1
33 Towson 2.5 2.5 0 1 1 0
34 Utah 1 1 0 1 1 0
Army 0 0 0 0 1 0
Cincinnati 0 0 0 0 1 0
Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0
GW 0 0 0 0 1 0
Harvard 0 0 0 0 0 0
Northwestern 0 0 0 0 1 0
Pittsburgh 0 0 0 0 0 0
SIUC (M) 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNC 0 0 0 0 2 0
Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0

However, these numbers may be softer than they usually are. That’s largely because Cal sent a group of their best swimmers (Jack Alexy, Destin Lasco, Gabriel Jett, and Dare Rose) to the Westmont Pro Swim instead of PAC-12s. Bjorn Seeliger did not compete in Federal Way either. Not only does that affect these swimmers individual seeds and therefore projected points, but also the Golden Bears’ relays.

Expect Cal to outperform the psych sheets. In turn, that will affect points distribution across the rest of the top teams.

Four teams with less than 10 swimmers (not including relay swimmers) are expected to earn a spot in the top 10. With just six swimmers, Notre Dame is expected to edge out Texas for 10th place. That would be a huge jump for the Fighting Irish, who finished 18th last season.

Tennessee is the highest-placed of the top 10 teams with fewer than 10 swimmers. The Volunteers are bringing nine swimmers qualified for individual events. If nobody scratches, they will have 12 individual swims. But it’s their relays that are doing the heavy lifting; they are expected to score 122 relay points and 19.5 points more than they’ll earn in their individual events.

The other two teams in the top 10 with less than 10 individual event swimmers are Georgia (9) and Virginia Tech (8).

Projected Points Per Event

More than anything, this table highlights how dominant the Sun Devils have been this season. They’re seeded 1st in four of the five relays, giving them a high ceiling to meet in Indianapolis. The only event they aren’t expected to score points in is the 100 breaststroke. Florida is the only other team projected to score in all but one event. In the Gators case, they aren’t expected to score in the 200 fly.

Rank School 200 Medley Relay 800 Free Relay 500 Free 200 IM 50 Free 200 Free Relay 400 IM 100 Fly 200 Free 100 Breast 100 Back 400 Medley Relay 1650 Free 200 Back 100 Free 200 Breast 200 Fly 400 Free Relay
1 Arizona State 40 40 41 43 23.5 32 53 13.5 12 0 20 40 25 36 22 30 27 40
2 Florida 34 34 16 1 24 40 25 32 33 20 26 34 29 17 31 13 0 34
3 Cal 32 30 15 16 5 22 0 2 21 18.5 17.5 30 0 21 28 0 14 26
4 NC State 28 24 0 17 9 34 5 30 0 0 15 26 25 5 6 7 16 28
5 Tennessee 30 0 0 0 34 30 0 0 15 8 3.5 32 0 0 31 0 11 30
6 Indiana 26 22 0 2 0 2 3 16.5 1.5 2.5 12 28 0 5 0 30 25 18
7 Virginia Tech 18 6 0 7 11 24 0 17 0 16 0 26 0 0 7 20 0 24
8 Georgia 10 32 21 0 0 4 25 0 9 0 20 2 0 30 8 0 2 10
9 Stanford 8 28 7 12 0 14 15 17 1.5 15 0 14 3 2 0 0 17 12
10 Notre Dame 4 4 0 0 22.5 18 0 0 16 0 1.5 18 0 6 20 0 0 32
11 Texas 24 12 6 24 0 0 0 0 16.5 6 14 6 0 11 0 5 0 8
12 Auburn 22 18 14 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 9.5 12 1 22 0 0 0 6
13 Michigan 6 6 0 15 0 6 0 12 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 22 14
14 Virginia 0 0 0 5 13 28 0 0 0 18.5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4
15 Alabama 0 14 9 0 0 0 0 0 22.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
16 Louisville 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 8 0 0 0 12 0 0
17 Texas A&M 0 0 0 9 0 0 16 6 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 15 0 0
18 Wisconsin 0 0 13 0 12 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 Ohio State 0 10 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0
20 Penn State 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 Florida State 0 0 2 0 0 12 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
22 USC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 12 0
23 Arizona 14 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 Minnesota 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
24 BYU 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
24 Penn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0
27 SMU 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
28 Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
29 Georgia Tech 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
30 Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
30 Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
32 LSU 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
33 Towson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Projected Score Progression

Arizona State is expected to grab the lead in the opening event and keep rolling from there, building their lead as the meet progresses.

Meanwhile, we’re looking at a close race for a spot in the top 10. Notre Dame is expected to be 12th heading into the 400 free relay, behind Texas and Auburn. But their sprint freestyle depth is expected to vault them into the top 10: their 400 free relay is ranked 3rd in the NCAA.

Rank School 200 Medley Relay 800 Free Relay 500 Free 200 IM 50 Free 200 Free Relay 400 IM 100 Fly 200 Free 100 Breast 100 Back 400 Medley Relay 1650 Free 200 Back 100 Free 200 Breast 200 Fly 400 Free Relay
1 Arizona State 40 80 121 164 187.5 219.5 272.5 286 298 298 318 358 383 419 441 471 498 538
2 Florida 34 68 84 85 109 149 174 206 239 259 285 319 348 365 396 409 409 443
3 Cal 32 62 77 93 98 120 120 122 143 161.5 179 209 209 230 258 258 272 298
4 NC State 28 52 52 69 78 112 117 147 147 147 162 188 213 218 224 231 247 275
5 Tennessee 30 30 30 30 64 94 94 94 109 117 120.5 152.5 152.5 152.5 183.5 183.5 194.5 224.5
6 Indiana 26 48 48 50 50 52 55 71.5 73 75.5 87.5 115.5 115.5 120.5 120.5 150.5 175.5 193.5
7 Virginia Tech 18 24 24 31 42 66 66 83 83 99 99 125 125 125 132 152 152 176
8 Georgia 10 42 63 63 63 67 92 92 101 101 121 123 123 153 161 161 163 173
9 Stanford 8 36 43 55 55 69 84 101 102.5 117.5 117.5 131.5 134.5 136.5 136.5 136.5 153.5 165.5
10 Notre Dame 4 8 8 8 30.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 64.5 64.5 66 84 84 90 110 110 110 142
11 Texas 24 36 42 66 66 66 66 66 82.5 88.5 102.5 108.5 108.5 119.5 119.5 124.5 124.5 132.5
12 Auburn 22 40 54 54 55 65 66 66 66 66 75.5 87.5 88.5 110.5 110.5 110.5 110.5 116.5
13 Michigan 6 12 12 27 27 33 33 45 45 45 45 67 67 67 67 67 89 103
14 Virginia 0 0 0 5 18 46 46 46 46 64.5 64.5 74.5 74.5 74.5 74.5 74.5 74.5 78.5
15 Alabama 0 14 23 23 23 23 23 23 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 67.5
16 Louisville 0 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 30 42 42 50 50 50 50 62 62 62
17 Texas A&M 0 0 0 9 9 9 25 31 31 39 39 43 43 43 43 58 58 58
18 Wisconsin 0 0 13 13 25 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
19 Ohio State 0 10 10 10 10 10 16 16 19 19 19 19 47 47 47 47 47 47
20 Penn State 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 25 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
21 Florida State 0 0 2 2 2 14 14 14 14 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 30
22 USC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 28 28
23 Arizona 14 16 16 16 16 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
24 Minnesota 0 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 17 17 17 17 17 17
24 BYU 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 17 17
24 Penn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 17
27 SMU 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 15 15 15
28 Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10
29 Georgia Tech 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7
30 Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6
30 Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6
32 LSU 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
33 Towson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
34 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Individual Scorers

Event 1 Seed Time Event 2 Seed Time Event 3 Seed Time
Marchand, Leon JR Arizona St 60 500 Free 1 4:06.18 400 IM 1 3:34.66 200 Breast 1 1:48.60
Kos, Hubert SO Arizona St 60 200 IM 1 1:38.77 100 Back 1 43.75 200 Back 1 1:35.69
Liendo, Joshua SO Florida 54 50 Free 2 18.55 100 Fly 1 43.89 100 Free 2 40.82
Guiliano, Christopher JR Notre Dame 52 50 Free 3 18.57 200 Free 3 1:31.16 100 Free 1 40.62
Crooks, Jordan JR Tennessee 51 50 Free 1 17.99 200 Free 4 1:31.17 100 Free 3 40.90
Sarkany, Zalan SO Arizona St 46 500 Free 2 4:09.19 400 IM 9 3:40.50 1650 Free 1 14:23.01
Lasco, Destin SR California 46 200 IM 3 1:40.16 100 Back 3 44.28 200 Back 5 1:38.34
Kharun, Ilya FR Arizona St 39.5 50 Free 10 18.82 100 Fly 5 44.32 200 Fly 1 1:37.93
Coll Marti, Carles SR Virginia Tech 39 200 IM 10 1:41.51 100 Breast 3 50.95 200 Breast 3 1:50.08
Cohen Groumi, Gal JR Michigan 38 200 IM 4 1:40.48 100 Fly 10 44.6 200 Fly 3 1:39.60
Modglin, William FR Texas 38 200 IM 6 1:41.01 100 Back 5 44.49 200 Back 8 1:38.99
McDuff, Macguire JR Florida 38 50 Free 13 18.87 200 Free 1 1:30.64 100 Free 5 41.30
Marshall, Jonathon FR Florida 34 200 Free 44 1:34.75 100 Back 2 44.12 200 Back 2 1:36.68
mcdonald, owen SO Arizona St 33 200 IM 2 1:39.35 100 Back 31 45.59 200 Back 3 1:37.70
Minakov, Andrei JR Stanford 33 50 Free 33 19.29 100 Fly 3 44.16 200 Fly 2 1:38.61
Schlicht, David SR Arizona St 32 200 IM 11 1:41.68 400 IM 2 3:37.97 200 Breast 9 1:51.41
Ramadan, Youssef SR Virginia Tech 31 50 Free 8 18.79 100 Fly 2 44.06 100 Free 14 41.68
Linscheer, Giovanni SO Florida 30 500 Free 14 4:13.10 400 IM 6 3:39.61 1650 Free 5 14:38.78
Magahey, Jacob SR Georgia 29 500 Free 3 4:09.38 400 IM 8 3:39.67 200 Fly 15 1:41.28
Jett, Gabriel JR California 29 500 Free 4 4:10.43 200 Free 5 1:31.78 200 Fly 18 1:41.33
Santos, Guilherme SO Tennessee 29 50 Free 5 18.7 100 Fly 38 45.87 100 Free 4 40.99
Savickas, Aleksas SO Florida 28 200 IM 63 1:45.93 100 Breast 4 51.01 200 Breast 6 1:50.42
Dolan, Jack Grad Arizona St 28 50 Free 4 18.61 100 Back 18 45.07 100 Free 6 41.38
Burns, Brendan Grad Indiana 28 100 Back 7 44.62 200 Back 13 1:39.50 200 Fly 7 1:40.24
Frankel, Tomer SR Indiana 26.5 100 Fly 5 44.32 200 Fly 6 1:39.80
Hawke, Charlie JR Alabama 26 500 Free 9 4:11.62 200 Free 2 1:30.75 100 Free 38 42.31
Grum, Ian Grad Georgia 26 200 IM 45 1:44.15 400 IM 5 3:39.48 200 Back 7 1:38.88
Mitchell, Jacob SR Florida 25 500 Free 7 4:11.28 200 Free 6 1:31.84 1650 Free 20 14:48.21
Nelson, Baylor SO Texas A&M 25 200 IM 9 1:41.33 400 IM 3 3:38.05 200 Breast 18 1:52.43
Petrashov, Denis Grad Louisville 24 100 Breast 7 51.10 200 Breast 7 1:50.81
Polonsky, Ron JR Stanford 23 200 IM 7 1:41.25 100 Breast 8 51.17 200 Breast 17 1:52.27
Sanchez, Alexander SR Texas A&M 23 200 IM 21 1:42.55 100 Breast 9 51.19 200 Breast 4 1:50.36
Maurer, Rex FR Stanford 22 500 Free 10 4:11.88 400 IM 4 3:38.10 200 Back 17 1:39.75
Dunham, Bradley Grad Georgia 22 500 Free 48 4:17.80 100 Back 10 44.91 200 Back 4 1:37.80
Bustos, Arsenio JR NC State 21 200 IM 5 1:40.75 100 Fly 54 46.99 200 Breast 10 1:51.53
Miller, Lukas SR NC State 21 50 Free 32 19.18 100 Fly 4 44.17 100 Free 11 41.50
Chmielewski, Krzysztof FR Southern Cali 19 500 Free 19 4:13.84 1650 Free 3 14:37.74 200 Fly 14 1:41.20
Nichols, Noah SR Virginia 18.5 200 IM 38 1:43.73 100 Breast 1 50.89 200 Breast 26 1:53.06
Bell, Liam Grad California 18.5 50 Free 54 19.61 100 Breast 1 50.89 200 Breast 32 1:54.01
Seeliger, Bjorn SR California 17.5 50 Free 12 18.85 100 Back 15 44.99 100 Free 8 41.41
Fallon, Matthew JR Penn 17 500 Free 47 4:17.31 100 Breast 29 51.89 200 Breast 2 1:49.75
Clark, Charles SR Ohio St 17 1650 Free 2 14:35.00
Stoffle, Aidan Grad Auburn 16.5 100 Back 13 44.98 200 Back 6 1:38.57
Taylor, Andrew FR Florida 16 500 Free 16 4:13.48 400 IM 35 3:44.81 1650 Free 4 14:38.41
Van Renen, Ruard SO Georgia 16 50 Free 47 19.53 100 Back 6 44.5 200 Back 14 1:39.54
Rose, Oludare SR California 16 100 Fly 15 44.98 200 Fly 5 1:39.76
Mathias, Mason JR Auburn 15 500 Free 5 4:11.03 200 Free 45 1:35.00 1650 Free 16 14:46.50
Soloveychik, Bar JR Minnesota 15 500 Free 8 4:11.49 200 Free 34 1:33.37 1650 Free 13 14:45.59
Stoffle, Nathaniel JR Auburn 15 50 Free 55 19.63 100 Back 11 44.93 200 Back 9 1:39.01
Bowers, Noah Grad NC State 15 100 Fly 19 45.04 200 Free 47 1:35.17 200 Fly 4 1:39.65
Stokowski, Kacper Grad NC State 15 100 Fly 34 45.59 100 Back 4 44.36 200 Back 29 1:40.61
Koski, Tomas FR Georgia 14 500 Free 12 4:12.29 200 Free 9 1:31.93 100 Free 65 42.95
Varjasi, Peter Grad Florida St 14 50 Free 37 19.34 100 Breast 5 51.07 100 Free 37 42.30
Yep, Jassen SR Indiana 14 100 Breast 17 51.49 200 Breast 5 1:50.40
Aslan, Yigit JR Wisconsin 13 500 Free 6 4:11.20 200 Free 43 1:34.74 1650 Free 31 14:55.20
Dant, Ross Grad NC State 13 500 Free 32 4:15.05 1650 Free 6 14:39.34
Hoagland, Jack Grad SMU 13 500 Free 38 4:15.61 400 IM 13 3:41.19 1650 Free 9 14:44.08
Tiffany, Jordan FR Brigham Young 13 200 IM 13 1:41.88 100 Fly 9 44.51 100 Free 35 42.25
Brownstead, Matthew SR Virginia 13 50 Free 6 18.74 100 Back 24 45.26 100 Free 17 41.85
Sammon, Patrick JR Arizona St 13 50 Free 39 19.36 200 Free 7 1:31.87 100 Free 16 41.77
LAZZERINI, Mariano SO Penn St 13 50 Free 61 19.71 100 Breast 6 51.08 200 Breast 23 1:52.94
Lloyd, Kenneth SR NC State 12 500 Free 29 4:14.87 400 IM 26 3:42.54 1650 Free 7 14:41.32
Laur, Mason JR Florida 12 200 IM 36 1:43.70 400 IM 7 3:39.65 200 Fly 27 1:42.00
Torepe-Ormsby, Taiko SO Wisconsin 12 50 Free 7 18.76 100 Fly 51 46.37 100 Free 23 42.10
Chaney, Adam SR Florida 12 50 Free 14 18.91 100 Back 9 44.87 100 Free 27 42.17
Alexy, John JR California 12 50 Free 17 18.97 200 Free 27 1:32.74 100 Free 7 41.40
Buff, Scott FR Florida 12 50 Free 60 19.70 100 Fly 7 44.38 100 Back 26 45.29
Hayes, Aiden JR NC State 12 100 Fly 8 44.41 100 Back 17 45.01 200 Fly 16 1:41.31
Carrozza, Coby SR Texas 11.5 500 Free 11 4:11.95 200 Free 11 1:31.97 100 Free 62 42.83
Campbell, Samuel SO Ohio St 11 500 Free 36 4:15.49 400 IM 32 3:43.95 1650 Free 8 14:42.63
Hobson, Luke JR Texas 11 500 Free 37 4:15.56 200 Free 8 1:31.88 100 Free 68 43.10
Germonprez, Nathaniel FR Texas 11 200 IM 8 1:41.29 200 Free 32 1:33.00 100 Free 34 42.24
Foster, Jacob Grad Texas 11 200 IM 60 1:45.46 100 Breast 11 51.22 200 Breast 12 1:51.78
Ray, Tyler SO Michigan 11 50 Free 44 19.47 100 Fly 12 44.77 200 Fly 11 1:40.80
Morley, Cooper SO Penn St 11 50 Free 67 19.78 100 Back 8 44.74 200 Back 33 1:41.16
Espernberger, Martin SO Tennessee 11 100 Fly 52 46.41 200 Fly 8 1:40.47
Matheny, Joshua JR Indiana 11 100 Breast 23 51.69 200 Breast 8 1:51.13
Kulow, Jonathan SO Arizona St 10 50 Free 15 18.92 100 Fly 27 45.3 100 Free 9 41.44
McCarty, Quintin FR NC State 9 50 Free 9 18.80 100 Back 34 45.72 100 Free 18 41.88
Chmielewski, Michal FR Southern Cali 9 100 Fly 46 46.06 100 Back 45 46.84 200 Fly 9 1:40.63
Diehl, Daniel FR NC State 8 200 IM 14 1:41.97 200 Free 24 1:32.72 200 Back 12 1:39.30
Martter, Cale SO Arizona St 8 200 IM 20 1:42.28 400 IM 10 3:40.53 200 Breast 16 1:52.19
Branzell, Reese JR Georgia 8 50 Free 42 19.38 200 Free 19 1:32.26 100 Free 9 41.44
Crisci, Flynn Grad Tennessee 8 50 Free 53 19.60 100 Breast 9 51.19 200 Breast 42 1:57.15
Jones, Jackson FR California 7 500 Free 18 4:13.73 200 Free 35 1:33.43 200 Back 10 1:39.18
Kilavuz, Mert JR Georgia Tech 7 500 Free 49 4:17.95 1650 Free 10 14:44.15
Colson, Alexander Grad Arizona St 7 200 IM 41 1:44.03 100 Fly 41 45.9 200 Fly 10 1:40.78
Hanson, Robin JR California 7 50 Free 45 19.49 200 Free 10 1:31.95 100 Free 63 42.93
Elaraby, Abdelrahman Grad Notre Dame 6.5 50 Free 10 18.82 100 Fly 17 45.03 100 Free 30 42.19
Sandidge, Levi SO Kentucky 6 500 Free 59 4:21.45 400 IM 40 3:46.05 1650 Free 11 14:44.24
Jankovics, Tristan SO Ohio St 6 200 IM 25 1:42.76 400 IM 11 3:40.89 200 Back 40 1:43.62
Kelly, John JR Brown 6 200 IM 41 1:44.03 100 Breast 21 51.58 200 Breast 11 1:51.63
Foote, Connor SO Texas A&M 6 50 Free 17 18.97 100 Fly 11 44.76 100 Free 25 42.13
Janton, Tommy SO Notre Dame 6 100 Fly 50 46.36 100 Back 21 45.17 200 Back 11 1:39.21
Alves, Kaique JR Alabama 5.5 200 IM 39 1:43.89 200 Free 11 1:31.97 100 Free 36 42.28
Brooks, Finlay JR Indiana 5.5 50 Free 41 19.37 100 Fly 14 44.84 100 Breast 14 51.30
Matheson, Daniel JR Arizona St 5 500 Free 28 4:14.81 400 IM 20 3:42.07 1650 Free 12 14:44.85
Ponsler, Kyle SO NC State 5 500 Free 33 4:15.11 400 IM 12 3:41.18 200 Back 41 1:43.76
Connery, Timothy JR Virginia 5 200 IM 12 1:41.86 100 Fly 37 45.85 100 Back 38 46.14
Smith, Julian JR Florida 5 200 IM 23 1:42.61 100 Breast 12 51.26 100 Free 21 42.07
Barnett, Toby FR Indiana 5 200 IM 44 1:44.13 400 IM 14 3:41.37 200 Breast 15 1:51.95
Bochenski, Grant JR Missouri 5 50 Free 57 19.67 100 Back 12 44.96 100 Free 49 42.56
Zubik, Jan SO Missouri 5 100 Fly 39 45.89 100 Back 50 47.3 200 Fly 12 1:40.95
Jensen, Matthew SR California 5 100 Fly 49 46.23 100 Breast 29 51.89 100 Free 12 41.57
Hill, Julian Grad Arizona St 4 500 Free 13 4:12.37 200 Free 17 1:32.06 100 Free 52 42.60
Fan, Zhier SO Stanford 4 200 IM 48 1:44.45 100 Breast 13 51.29 200 Breast 21 1:52.68
Whitfield, Brendan FR Virginia Tech 4 50 Free 26 19.10 200 Free 23 1:32.50 100 Free 13 41.61
Henderson, Noah Grad NC State 4 50 Free 30 19.13 100 Fly 13 44.8 100 Free 42 42.40
Brooks, Guy SO Louisville 4 50 Free 65 19.77 200 Free 13 1:32.00 100 Free 43 42.41
Pouch, Ananias Grad Virginia Tech 4 100 Breast 31 51.98 200 Breast 13 1:51.86
Prolo, Bradley Grad Brigham Young 4 100 Breast 36 53.04 200 Fly 13 1:41.15
Lierz, Harrison SR Tennessee 3.5 100 Fly 31 45.40 100 Back 13 44.98 200 Back 32 1:40.84
Navikonis, Tomas SO Ohio St 3 500 Free 39 4:15.65 200 Free 14 1:32.01 100 Free 33 42.22
Custer, Liam SO Stanford 3 500 Free 57 4:19.82 400 IM 43 3:49.07 1650 Free 14 14:46.22
Reich, Maxwell SR Indiana 3 100 Breast 26 51.87 200 Breast 14 1:51.89
Benzing, Brian SR Towson 2.5 200 IM 33 1:43.13 100 Breast 14 51.30 200 Breast 35 1:54.64
Yanchev, Yordan SR Florida St 2 500 Free 15 4:13.35 200 Free 37 1:33.77 1650 Free 37 15:10.08
Nagy, Christopher SR Minnesota 2 500 Free 59 4:21.45 1650 Free 15 14:46.36
Barr, Luke JR Indiana 2 200 IM 15 1:42.00 100 Back 36 45.83 100 Free 70 43.43
Fields, Wyatt JR SMU 2 200 IM 59 1:45.45 400 IM 15 3:41.42 200 Fly 33 1:42.76
Hribar, Jere FR LSU 2 50 Free 19 18.99 200 Free 50 1:35.70 100 Free 15 41.76
Sequeira, Aaron JR Stanford 2 100 Fly 20 45.09 100 Back 22 45.23 200 Back 15 1:39.62
Miroslaw, Rafael JR Indiana 1.5 500 Free 24 4:14.40 200 Free 15 1:32.03 100 Free 47 42.54
McFadden, Henry FR Stanford 1.5 500 Free 44 4:16.61 200 Free 15 1:32.03 100 Free 50 42.58
Filion, Tanner Grad Notre Dame 1.5 100 Fly 33 45.47 100 Back 15 44.99 200 Back 34 1:41.50
Gonzalez Pinero, Joaquin JR Florida 1 200 IM 16 1:42.07 400 IM 33 3:44.47 200 Fly 18 1:41.33
Rathle, Jacques JR Auburn 1 200 IM 35 1:43.42 400 IM 16 3:41.52 200 Breast 34 1:54.37
Tirheimer, Logan SR Auburn 1 50 Free 16 18.95 100 Free 23 42.10
Gu, Kaihan SO Stanford 1 50 Free 35 19.31 100 Fly 16 44.99 100 Free 28 42.18
Horner, Alfred Grad Utah 1 100 Breast 16 51.32 100 Free 71 43.45 200 Breast 31 1:53.37
Van Westering, Kai SO Indiana 1 100 Back 28 45.43 200 Back 16 1:39.74

In This Story

78
Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of

78 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Grant Hackett’s Biggest Fan
9 months ago

Woild Tanner Filion be the first guy to score at DIII and then DI NCAAs in consecutive years?

Last edited 9 months ago by Grant Hackett’s Biggest Fan
3
0
Reply
Braden Keith
Author
Reply to  Grant Hackett’s Biggest Fan
9 months ago

No. Zack Turk did it for Michigan in 2012/2013.

5
0
Reply
Flippin Birds
Reply to  Braden Keith
9 months ago

Turk’s story is unbelievable, btw, for those who don’t know.

  • National champion individually, on relays, and as a team with Kenyon. Set various D3 NCAA records.
  • National champion on relays and as a team with Michigan. Set D1 NCAA 200 medley relay record.
6
0
Reply
Ron
10 months ago

Couldn’t Owen Lloyd from NC State get in there somehow? Was it not possible to do a time trial after ACCs? He’d have been seeded third in the mile.

1
0
Reply
ClubCoach
Reply to  Ron
10 months ago

I believe Owen Lloyd is in the meet as Kenneth Lloyd, seeded 7th in the mile…

5
0
Reply
Tim
Reply to  Ron
9 months ago

Kenneth Lloyd

4
0
Reply
Hiswimcoach
10 months ago

Would love to see swim swam writer predictions for order of finish.

1) asu
2) cal
3) fla
4) ncs
5) texas

2
0
Reply
Andrew
Reply to  Hiswimcoach
10 months ago

IU will smash NCS and Texas lol

6
-14
Reply
Tanner
Reply to  Andrew
10 months ago

Nope

2
0
Reply
Alex Wilson
10 months ago

One take-away from these psych sheets is that if you want to be a top IM swimmer best to train at ASU with Coach Bowman! This is even more true when one includes the Sun Devil Pro Group swimmers! Together the two Sun Devil groups, are likely to have more Olympic swimming medals than most countries!

12
-18
Reply
Diehard
Reply to  Alex Wilson
10 months ago

Unfortunately the ASU men’s team won’t be helping the USA team!

28
-5
Reply
snailSpace
Reply to  Diehard
10 months ago

That’s why ASU is USA backwards 🤯

40
-4
Reply
Hoover max
Reply to  Diehard
10 months ago

Don’t blame ASU for training the swimmers that come to swim for them. Blame top level American recruits for going to other schools.

16
-2
Reply
Facts
Reply to  Diehard
10 months ago

Bob Bowman is merely compensating the French national team for damages caused by the 2008 4×100 freestyle relay

40
-2
Reply
Alex Wilson
Reply to  Diehard
10 months ago

Marchand is from a swimming family, both parents were Olympians, he came to ASU because he wanted to be coached by Bowman, Kos decided on his own after swimming against Marchand that he also wanted to be coached by Bowman. Also look at the times and development of Owen McDonald only a sophomore. There is something special going on at ASU. Also the pro swimmers such as Chase, Jay, Ryan, Regan, Simone, Oliva, would not be training at ASU if they did not think it was special.

15
-5
Reply
Alex Wilson
Reply to  Alex Wilson
10 months ago

I should also mention that Zalan Sarkany besides being an excellent distance swimmer won the Hungarian Championship in the 400IM Short Course Meters with a time of 4:05.35 so don’t count him out in the 400IM

6
-3
Reply
Diehard
Reply to  Alex Wilson
9 months ago

Have any of the pros gotten to the next level at ASU yet? Simone might be getting there yet. The others not so much!

1
-3
Reply
Miself
Reply to  Diehard
9 months ago

The Pros are the next level. All of them have world and Olympic medals. How do they become more next level?

7
-1
Reply
An old diving fool with time to think
10 months ago

Is diving still included at the NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships? No mention here. Maybe the NCAA should separate the two sports, then most everyone would be less confused and happier. The Olympics separates
the two sports. Diving could thrive with its own scholarships and its own venue for an NCAA Diving Championship.
How about adding synchronized events and High Diving events. The World Championships does that. Someday!

7
-4
Reply
Back2Back
Reply to  An old diving fool with time to think
10 months ago

Shhh. I’m sorta glad SwimSwam leaves out DiveDove points from these projections. Schools like Texas are fielding some strong divers this year which could raise their ranking.

“If you leave diving out of the NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships, then swimmers would just have to jump in to the water feet first off the blocks and start racing their strokes right?”🤘

Seems like CAL started all this nonsense when they couldn’t recruit or train good divers for what seems like decades…

5
-5
Reply
Andrew
Reply to  Back2Back
10 months ago

Nobody with a brain in their head wants to dive outside year-round at Cal or be in Berkeley at all for that matter.

6
-19
Reply
NoFastTwitch
Reply to  Andrew
10 months ago

Those of us who live in Berkeley are really, really glad that you don’t, Andrew.

13
-5
Reply
Andrew
Reply to  NoFastTwitch
9 months ago

i’m also really, really glad that I don’t. Crime rates and cost of living for such a horrid place are out of control.

6
-6
Reply
JDA
Reply to  An old diving fool with time to think
9 months ago

At the beginning of the article it is specifically stated that diving is not taken into consideration in this estimate.

Also, diving could not thrive on its own. Could a school pay for just a diving team?

It’s very similar to Track & Field. A shot-putter is on the same team as a 100m sprinter.

0
0
Reply
Facts
10 months ago

Imagine if after all the ASU/Cal talk Florida comes from the top rope to steal the title

10
-1
Reply
Goldie
Reply to  Facts
9 months ago

How? Explain how they just come up with 100 more points?

1
0
Reply
Hereforthecrazyshow
10 months ago

I don’t understand why this article is written this way with this much data when it is only scoring the swim meet vs the swimming and diving championship. Is it because diving is too difficult to score? If you read the comments people seem to believe that Texas will fall out of the top 10, but since they will score over 50 points in diving they will probably end up 7th. And Indiana will absolutely move up materially. I often wonder why swimswam doesn’t cover this aspect of the meet since schools make such different choices about how to construct a roster and Eddie has used diving to win more than a few championships while Cal and NCST ignore diving.

22
-4
Reply
Brian
Reply to  Hereforthecrazyshow
10 months ago

Can you guess the places for diving? Swimming is comparing apples to apples, a 100 fly v 100 fly time. The diving scores are subjective and are really hard to predict the order of finish. If you have some guesses, feel free to put them out there. I don’t know how to even guess the order of finish for diving until the event occurs.

17
-3
Reply
Hoover max
Reply to  Brian
10 months ago

Perfect reason to separate the sports. It’s a disservice to diving as much as it is swimming. The top diving team in the country shouldn’t be dependent upon their swim team to be recognized as the best team and the top swim teams shouldn’t have to hold their breath over getting diving points. If figure skating and speed skating were college sports would you score them together? No.

7
-4
Reply
JDA
Reply to  Hoover max
9 months ago

Yes, they probably would be held at the same championships. Track & Field are.

0
0
Reply
Jimbo
Reply to  Brian
10 months ago

If I was to guess diving I’d take the numeric place in a combined zone score and average it with the dive meets ranking over the previous year times two. And then just use it to guess a final or b final. Day to day is too variable.
Divemeets has turned off their ranking system (like swimcloud for divers) so it would be very painful to work it out.

3
-1
Reply
Just a guy
Reply to  Brian
10 months ago

We’re hypothetically scoring based on psych sheets, why not just score the divers as they are currently ranked.

5
-1
Reply
Brian
Reply to  Just a guy
10 months ago

Because they dove with different judges. The scoring in one zone could have been higher than another. I don’t think the accuracy would be there-admittedly I could be wrong on that. Swimming psych sheets are going to be pretty close in most cases.

3
-1
Reply
Steve Nolan
Reply to  Hereforthecrazyshow
10 months ago

DiveDove might have some insight but they were unavailable for comment at the time of publishing.

15
0
Reply
Wethorn
Reply to  Hereforthecrazyshow
10 months ago

It’s not like the swim pysch is some prophetic predictor. SwimSwam should just blend the zone scores and score based on that. Yes, each region may be more subjective, but would this be any less accurate than scoring swim heat sheets?

This would paint a much more realistic prediction (even if it isn’t perfect). Wouldn’t that be what most SS readers want to see?

4
0
Reply
Braden Keith
Author
Reply to  Hereforthecrazyshow
10 months ago

Cal scored diving points at last year’s NCAA Championship meet.

14
-2
Reply
Aquajosh
10 months ago

The X Factor is that Florida has four divers qualified for this meet, and all of them can score points at NCs based on their SEC/Zones performances (one was SEC high point, two different guys 1st and 3rd at Zones), or have already scored at NCs in the past. If UF is on in the pool and on the boards, they could make this a much closer meet than projected.

5
-2
Reply

About Braden Keith

Braden Keith

Braden Keith is the Editor-in-Chief and a co-founder/co-owner of SwimSwam.com. He first got his feet wet by building The Swimmers' Circle beginning in January 2010, and now comes to SwimSwam to use that experience and help build a new leader in the sport of swimming. Aside from his life on the InterWet, …

Read More »

Don't want to miss anything?

Subscribe to our newsletter and receive our latest updates!

Want to take your swimfandom to the next level?

Subscribe to SwimSwam Magazine!