Yesterday, I scored out the D1 men’s pre selection psych sheet. This exercise gives us some idea of how teams stand heading into the meet, but there are some major flaws. Swimmer’s entry times are based on their best time this season. Many top swimmers haven’t fully rested yet, or have rested some, but not in every event they entered. It’s relatively easy to predict that these swimmers will be faster at the big meet. So I decided to try a projection that factors that in.
I grabbed the top collegiate time for every swimmer* that qualified for the meet individually and re scored. I left relays with their current seed times. Still no diving. This resulted in the biggest point jump for Texas who went from 4th with 322 to 1st with 398.5. NC State remained 2nd with 372.5. Indiana are 3rd with 337.5, Florida 4th with 323, and Cal are 5th with 319.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions and declares Cal are out of contention, it’s useful to discuss the flaws of this method. Mainly that it severely underrates top freshmen. For example, Cal’s Ryan Hoffer is scored at 0 points by his collegiate best times. However, if swims his lifetime best times in the 50 and 100 free (18.71, 41.23) suddenly he scores 31 points. Even a small improvement in his third event, the 100 fly, will bump him into the points there as well. Accounting for Hoffer’s ability bumps Cal to 350 points and he isn’t Cal’s only freshman with big potential. Sean Grieshop, Bryce Mefford, Daniel Carr, and Trenton Julian were all ranked in SwimSwam’s top 20 recruits in this year’s class and have qualified for the meet. Texas and Florida also have multiple freshmen at the meet that were highly ranked coming into the year.
In the same way that a scored psych sheet isn’t a straight forward prediction of the outcome, this isn’t either. It’s missing diving. Some swimmers are likely to go much faster or much slower than the times used here. This is one more data point that can help us set expectations.
In this version, Caeleb Dressel of Florida leads individuals with 60 points followed by Joseph Schooling of Texas with 52, Ryan Held of NC State with 49.5, Mark Szaranek of Florida with 49.5, Ian Finnerty of Indiana with 49 and Felix Auboeck of Michigan with 49. Individual scores are listed below the team scores.
Best Time Scores
| Best Time Points | Psych Points | Difference | |
| Texas | 398.5 | 322 | 76.5 |
| NC State | 372.5 | 385 | -12.5 |
| Indiana | 337.5 | 350.5 | -13 |
| Florida | 323 | 302 | 21 |
| California | 319 | 340.5 | -21.5 |
| Michigan | 207 | 218.5 | -11.5 |
| Southern Cali | 185 | 166 | 19 |
| Stanford | 147.5 | 129.5 | 18 |
| Louisville | 136 | 152 | -16 |
| South Carolina | 114 | 84 | 30 |
| Auburn | 109 | 144 | -35 |
| Alabama | 107 | 101 | 6 |
| Minnesota | 90 | 95 | -5 |
| Tennessee | 88 | 80.5 | 7.5 |
| Georgia | 79.5 | 49.5 | 30 |
| Texas A&M | 70.5 | 83 | -12.5 |
| Harvard | 60 | 77 | -17 |
| Ohio St | 59.5 | 75 | -15.5 |
| Florida St | 48 | 53 | -5 |
| Arizona | 47 | 60.5 | -13.5 |
| Missouri | 45 | 47 | -2 |
| Arizona St | 43 | 43 | 0 |
| Virginia | 31 | 46 | -15 |
| Grand Canyon University | 26 | 27 | -1 |
| Notre Dame | 25.5 | 37.5 | -12 |
| Cornell | 22 | 27 | -5 |
| Denver | 15 | 9 | 6 |
| Purdue | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| Georgia Tech | 9 | 9 | 0 |
| Missouri St. M | 6 | 12 | -6 |
| Pacific | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 4.5 | 8 | -3.5 |
| Virginia Tech | 3 | 7 | -4 |
| Utah | 2 | 7 | -5 |
| Loyola University Maryland | 2 | 5 | -3 |
| Kentucky | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| Penn | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| UNLV M | 0 | 2 | -2 |
Individuals
| School | Best Time Points | |
| Dressel, Caeleb | Florida | 60 |
| Schooling, Joseph | Texas | 52 |
| Held, Ryan | NC State | 49.5 |
| Szaranek, Mark | Florida | 49.5 |
| Finnerty, Ian | Indiana | 49 |
| Auboeck, Felix | Michigan | 49 |
| Seliskar, Andrew | California | 46 |
| Bentz, Gunnar | Georgia | 45 |
| Lanza, Vini | Indiana | 42.5 |
| Haas, Townley | Texas | 42 |
| Vazaios, Andreas | NC State | 40.5 |
| Shebat, John | Texas | 40 |
| Stewart, Coleman | NC State | 36 |
| Gonzalez, Hugo | Auburn | 33 |
| Pieroni, Blake | Indiana | 32 |
| Mahmoud, Akaram | South Carolina | 32 |
| Ipsen, Anton Oerskov | NC State | 32 |
| Switkowski, Jan | Florida | 31.5 |
| Quah, Zheng | California | 31 |
| Roberts, Jonathan | Texas | 31 |
| DeVine, Abrahm | Stanford | 30.5 |
| Becker, Bowen | Minnesota | 30 |
| Apple, Zachary | Auburn | 29 |
| Carter, Dylan | Southern Cali | 29 |
| Farris, Dean | Harvard | 29 |
| McHugh, Conner | Minnesota | 28 |
| Shoults, Grant | Stanford | 26 |
| Kaliszak, Luke | Alabama | 25 |
| Wich-Glasen, Nils | South Carolina | 25 |
| Jackson, Tate | Texas | 25 |
| Brock, Levi | Indiana | 24 |
| Katz, Austin | Texas | 23 |
| Minuth, Fynn | South Carolina | 23 |
| Evdokimov, Alex | Cornell | 22 |
| Yeadon, Zach | Notre Dame | 22 |
| Ringgold, Brett | Texas | 20.5 |
| Ress, Justin | NC State | 20.5 |
| Vargas Jacobo, Ricardo | Michigan | 20 |
| Acosta, Marcelo | Louisville | 19 |
| Sweetser, True | Stanford | 19 |
| Litherland, Jay | Georgia | 19 |
| Castillo Luna, Mauro | Texas A&M | 18.5 |
| Stuart, Hennessey | NC State | 18 |
| Mulcare, Patrick | Southern Cali | 17 |
| Vissering, Carsten | Southern Cali | 17 |
| Lynch, Justin | California | 17 |
| Craig, Cameron | Arizona St | 17 |
| Ransford, Pj | Michigan | 17 |
| Nikolaev, Mark | Grand Canyon University | 16 |
| Hoppe, Connor | California | 16 |
| Tribuntsov, Ralf | Southern Cali | 15 |
| Loncar, Anton | Denver | 15 |
| Josa, Matthew | California | 15 |
| Acevedo, Javier | Georgia | 14.5 |
| Samy, Mohamed | Indiana | 14 |
| Stevens, Peter | Tennessee | 14 |
| Montague, Jacob | Michigan | 14 |
| Claverie, Carlos | Louisville | 14 |
| Condorelli, Santo | Southern Cali | 14 |
| Wright, Justin | Arizona | 14 |
| Powers, Paul | Michigan | 14 |
| Lense, Noah | Ohio St | 13.5 |
| Fantoni, Gabriel | Indiana | 13 |
| Baqlah, Khader | Florida | 13 |
| Albiero, Nicolas | Louisville | 12 |
| Sendyk, Pawel | California | 12 |
| Egan, Liam | Stanford | 12 |
| Pomajevich, Sam | Texas | 12 |
| Khalafalla, Ali | Indiana | 11 |
| Amaltdinov, Marat | Purdue | 11 |
| Perry, Sam | Stanford | 11 |
| Rooney, Maxime | Florida | 11 |
| Almeida, Brandonn | South Carolina | 11 |
| Harty, Ryan | Texas | 11 |
| Schubert, Ted | Virginia | 10 |
| Glinta, Robert | Southern Cali | 9 |
| Norman, Nick | California | 9 |
| Swanson, Charlie | Michigan | 9 |
| Somov, Evgenii | Louisville | 8 |
| Peribonio, Tom | South Carolina | 8 |
| Reid, Christopher | Alabama | 7 |
| White, Evan | Michigan | 7 |
| Thomas, Mike | California | 7 |
| Bish, Blair | Missouri St. M | 6 |
| Kaleoaloha, Kanoa | Florida St | 6 |
| Grieshop, Sean | California | 6 |
| Novak, Brennan | Harvard | 6 |
| Newkirk, Jeff | Texas | 6 |
| Cope, Tommy | Michigan | 6 |
| Dobbs, Chatham | Arizona | 5 |
| Holoda, Peter | Auburn | 5 |
| Bekemeyer, Cody | South Carolina | 5 |
| Ogren, Curtis | Stanford | 5 |
| Delakis, Paul | Ohio St | 5 |
| Armstrong, Jake | West Virginia | 4.5 |
| Poti, Zachary | Arizona St | 4 |
| Bonetti, Brock | Texas A&M | 4 |
| Molacek, Jacob | NC State | 4 |
| Loschi, Moises | Georgia Tech | 4 |
| Ferraro, Christian | Georgia Tech | 4 |
| Wielinski, Jacob | Missouri | 4 |
| Lawless, Ben | Florida | 4 |
| Szabo, Norbert | Virginia Tech | 3 |
| Howard, Robert | Alabama | 3 |
| Schreuders, Mikel | Missouri | 3 |
| Wieser, Chris | Arizona | 3 |
| McHugh, Sam | Tennessee | 3 |
| Thorne, Nick | Arizona | 3 |
| Plaschka, Justin | Notre Dame | 2.5 |
| Ungur, Paul | Utah | 2 |
| Cono, Ben | Loyola University Maryland | 2 |
| Tybur, Jonathan | Texas A&M | 2 |
| Gurevich, Etay | Louisville | 2 |
| Clark, Joe | Virginia | 1 |
| Whitacre, Robert | Notre Dame | 1 |
| Babinet, Jeremy | Michigan | 1 |
| Pumputis, Caio | Georgia Tech | 1 |
| Coetzee, Ryan | Tennessee | 1 |
| Higgins, Walker | Georgia | 1 |
| Harting, Zach | Louisville | 1 |
*I didn’t get times for transfers from their previous school, only their current school. Shouldn’t change much
First off, this article is great. Good data work. Second, it got me thinking about NCAA scoring and pondering a hilarious notion: how many Caeleb Dressels do you need to win NCAAs? By my math its easy to do it with 5. Four might be possible but only if its a super close meet and winning scores are low.
CD1: 50FR, 1FLY, 1FR = 60 points
CD2: 2IM, 1BR, 1FR = 57 points
CD3: 50FR, 200FR, 200FLY = 57 points (dude can totally win 2free, 2nd in 2fly)
CD4: 2IM, 1FLY, 1FR = 51 points
CD5: 50FR, 1BR, 2BR = 49-ish points
(annndddddd they easily take all 5 relays)
Total Team Dressel Individual Points:… Read more »
Related, less silly side question: what is the smallest NCAA winning team size in history?
My team would only need 4 swimmers:
Murphy, Licon, Dressel and Conger.
Predictions
50 free
Dressel 18.14
Held 18.56
Becker 18.65
100 free
Dressel 39.91
Held 40.84
Pieroni 40.95
200 free
Haas 1.30.12
Pieroni 1.30.28
Craig 1.30.74
500 free
Auboeck 4.06.74
Haas 4.08.01
Ransford 4.08.56
1650 free
Mahmoud 14.18.56
Auboeck 14.19.88
Minnuth 14.21.80
100 breast
Finnerty 50.98
Hoppe 51.14
Mchugh 51.42
200 breast
Szaranek 1.49.54
Seliskar 1.50.02
Castillo Luna 1.51.34
100 fly
Dressel 43.31
Schooling 43.54
Held 44.35
200 fly
Schooling 1.37.95
Quah 1.38.69
Wright 1.39.60
100 back
Kalizek 44.55
Shebat 44.64
… Read more »
Cool fanfic, bro.
Wow IU is for real. Add some diving and they should finish 3rd. If so great coaching.
Very cool! Thank you for doing this!
Prediction would’ve been nearly perfect with the freshman personal bests included but we all know you don’t get paid enough to search the USA Swimming database one swimmer at a time.
Thanks Mr. Mering for another interesting article. Also, when you came out with your article predicting NCAA cut times, people were criticizing them as being too fast, but they were remarkably accurate. https://staging2.swimswam.com/estimating-ncaa-d1-nationals-cut-times/
Thanks.
The men’s times were really close to the predicted times, but the women’s times were noticeably faster than predicted (all cuts were within prediction confidence intervals, but 13/13 were faster than predicted time). I looked into the women’s miss a bit. The error appears to be partly because of the cut line being lower this year and partly due to model calibration. There was a couple year lull in long term overall improvement among top NCAA women swimmers and my training data included mostly the lull. This year was back on track, so the model undershot by a bit. Here’s the write up: https://staging2.swimswam.com/d1-womens-national-cuts-faster-year-mean-anything/
Pile on more expectations on Ryan Hoffer. Can he surpass his high school records at his first NCAAs?
Every tenth of a second counts in his events. Getting to the finals is Step 1 for Ryan.
Yale wasn’t scored yet have three people going to NC’s?
They don’t have anyone whose best time would put them in the top 16.