[oldalum]

  That's a 46 point swing.

That relieves most of the pressure on us I would think, although I think Kassidy Cook's 8th place finish was unexpected?

[oldalum]

  That's a 46 point swing.

That relieves most of the pressure on us I would think, although I think Kassidy Cook's 8th place finish was unexpected?

[threepointer]

Current Scoring
213  Stanford
136  Cal
119  Texas
112  Georgia
108  Texas A&M

If all swimmers place according to their current rankings by times and all relay teams do the same over the next two days.....

506  Stanford
367  Cal

Let's hope we can avoid any DQs.

[threepointer]

Current Scoring
213  Stanford
136  Cal
119  Texas
112  Georgia
108  Texas A&M

If all swimmers place according to their current rankings by times and all relay teams do the same over the next two days.....

506  Stanford
367  Cal

Let's hope we can avoid any DQs.

[M T]

50 Free
Some swimmers are relay swimmers; some swimmers do best in individual swims.
Perhaps Simone is someone that swims the individual races better.  Her lead-off 50 Free on the 200 Free Relay was 0.3 seconds slower than her individual race.  (By the way, she did not set an American record, but it was a NCAA record.)
She didn't even finish first of the lead-off swimmers.  If she'd swum her relay time in the individual event, she'd have been 4th.  If she'd swum her individual time on the relay, we'd have been 0.02 behind Cal.

Lia, on the other hand, had a slow relay exchange, but swam within 0.01 of what she swam in the B finals of the 50 Free (after accounting for reaction times).  Ally Howe had a really good split (21.29), which after accounting for reaction time, would have been just on the bubble of getting into the A final of the 50 free.

Both Simone & Lia did their best times in their races.  Unfortunately Lia missed the top 8 in the prelims and had to settle for 9th with the 6th fastest time in the finals.

200 IM
Yes, it is a bit of an upset that Ella Eastin didn't win the 200IM.  She still has the A.R. from 1 year ago, about 0.6 better than her swim today (and 0.04 better than the winning time).  Ally Howe had a nice improvement in the B finals over her PAC-12 time (by 0.9).

1 meter
I don't know anything specific about Kassidy Cook's 1m finals.  I do see she was 2nd in the prelims (which doesn't influence the finals), and her score in the finals was only 3 points less.  Yet, she finished about 20 points out of 2nd.    She had such a fine season on the 1 meter, she has to be very disappointed.

400 Medley Relay
It looks like there was a missed touch pad at the exchange between back & breast for Stanford (But the officials obviously decided it was not a false start.)  Ally Howe swam a NCAA & American record 49.69 at the PAC-12s but is only credited with a 51.42 in the leadoff here.  But the breaststroke swimmer shows a reaction time of -0.62.  If her reaction time was a more typical 0.24, that would make Ally's real time to be about 50.56.  Even so, that's a very slow time for her.  By comparison, the Cal swimmer swam a 49.80.  After applying the same correction, Kim Williams time was about a 59.37(est. rt 0.24), which is about 0.4 faster than at PAC-12s.  Lia Neal obviously didn't want to lose out to Cal and swam a very fast 46.15 (r.t. 0.26), about equivalent to a 46.58 flat start.  The Cal freestyler, who left well early (r.t. -0.13), block-to-wall time was 0.2 slower than Lia's.  Had the Cal freestyler had anything slower than a 0.04 reaction time, Stanford would have won without the D.Q.


500 Free
What a fantastic swim, as Katie L. knocks another second off her A.R. from the PAC-12s.  (Btw, she was 1.3 seconds short of a time that was invited to the men's NCAAs).  Megan Byrnes & Leah Stevens had good improvements over their PAC-12 times, but Katie Drabot fell off by 6 seconds.  Katie D.'s PAC-12 time would have been 3rd, but she got no points today.


Tomorrow is the
  400IM (Ella Eastin seeded 1st, Allie Szekely seeded 4th),
  100 Fly (Janet Hu 1st (but top 5 are within 0.07), Lindsey Engel seeded 15th),
  200 Free (seeds 1,2,8, and 11, but #3 seed was very fast in the relay, while Katie D.(#11) swam poorly in the 500 Free).
  100 Breast (likely no points),
  100  Back (Ally Howe 1st, Janet Hu 3rd, but the Cal swimmer had a much better 100 today),
  200 Medley Relay (Stanford #1, Cal #2 by 0.1),
  3-meter.

Stanford's power is striking tomorrow, but that means there is considerable downside as well.  We could win 5 events, but there is a non-zero chance that we win none.  I still think Stanford should win this meet, but I see some performances that weren't quite as impressive as I might have anticipated.


(Btw, if you look at all the teams in the 200 Free Relay, you'll see one swimmer had a reaction time of -0.02 seconds and was not disqualified.  Another swimmer had a reaction time of -0.06 and was disqualified.  I think the dividing line is between -0.03 and -0.04.)

[M T]

50 Free
Some swimmers are relay swimmers; some swimmers do best in individual swims.
Perhaps Simone is someone that swims the individual races better.  Her lead-off 50 Free on the 200 Free Relay was 0.3 seconds slower than her individual race.  (By the way, she did not set an American record, but it was a NCAA record.)
She didn't even finish first of the lead-off swimmers.  If she'd swum her relay time in the individual event, she'd have been 4th.  If she'd swum her individual time on the relay, we'd have been 0.02 behind Cal.

Lia, on the other hand, had a slow relay exchange, but swam within 0.01 of what she swam in the B finals of the 50 Free (after accounting for reaction times).  Ally Howe had a really good split (21.29), which after accounting for reaction time, would have been just on the bubble of getting into the A final of the 50 free.

Both Simone & Lia did their best times in their races.  Unfortunately Lia missed the top 8 in the prelims and had to settle for 9th with the 6th fastest time in the finals.

200 IM
Yes, it is a bit of an upset that Ella Eastin didn't win the 200IM.  She still has the A.R. from 1 year ago, about 0.6 better than her swim today (and 0.04 better than the winning time).  Ally Howe had a nice improvement in the B finals over her PAC-12 time (by 0.9).

1 meter
I don't know anything specific about Kassidy Cook's 1m finals.  I do see she was 2nd in the prelims (which doesn't influence the finals), and her score in the finals was only 3 points less.  Yet, she finished about 20 points out of 2nd.    She had such a fine season on the 1 meter, she has to be very disappointed.

400 Medley Relay
It looks like there was a missed touch pad at the exchange between back & breast for Stanford (But the officials obviously decided it was not a false start.)  Ally Howe swam a NCAA & American record 49.69 at the PAC-12s but is only credited with a 51.42 in the leadoff here.  But the breaststroke swimmer shows a reaction time of -0.62.  If her reaction time was a more typical 0.24, that would make Ally's real time to be about 50.56.  Even so, that's a very slow time for her.  By comparison, the Cal swimmer swam a 49.80.  After applying the same correction, Kim Williams time was about a 59.37(est. rt 0.24), which is about 0.4 faster than at PAC-12s.  Lia Neal obviously didn't want to lose out to Cal and swam a very fast 46.15 (r.t. 0.26), about equivalent to a 46.58 flat start.  The Cal freestyler, who left well early (r.t. -0.13), block-to-wall time was 0.2 slower than Lia's.  Had the Cal freestyler had anything slower than a 0.04 reaction time, Stanford would have won without the D.Q.


500 Free
What a fantastic swim, as Katie L. knocks another second off her A.R. from the PAC-12s.  (Btw, she was 1.3 seconds short of a time that was invited to the men's NCAAs).  Megan Byrnes & Leah Stevens had good improvements over their PAC-12 times, but Katie Drabot fell off by 6 seconds.  Katie D.'s PAC-12 time would have been 3rd, but she got no points today.


Tomorrow is the
  400IM (Ella Eastin seeded 1st, Allie Szekely seeded 4th),
  100 Fly (Janet Hu 1st (but top 5 are within 0.07), Lindsey Engel seeded 15th),
  200 Free (seeds 1,2,8, and 11, but #3 seed was very fast in the relay, while Katie D.(#11) swam poorly in the 500 Free).
  100 Breast (likely no points),
  100  Back (Ally Howe 1st, Janet Hu 3rd, but the Cal swimmer had a much better 100 today),
  200 Medley Relay (Stanford #1, Cal #2 by 0.1),
  3-meter.

Stanford's power is striking tomorrow, but that means there is considerable downside as well.  We could win 5 events, but there is a non-zero chance that we win none.  I still think Stanford should win this meet, but I see some performances that weren't quite as impressive as I might have anticipated.


(Btw, if you look at all the teams in the 200 Free Relay, you'll see one swimmer had a reaction time of -0.02 seconds and was not disqualified.  Another swimmer had a reaction time of -0.06 and was disqualified.  I think the dividing line is between -0.03 and -0.04.)

[oldalum]

thanks for the detailed commentary! It seems our swimmers are having a mix of best times and slower times, I guess to be expected over a lot of swims, can't be universally great.

[oldalum]

thanks for the detailed commentary! It seems our swimmers are having a mix of best times and slower times, I guess to be expected over a lot of swims, can't be universally great.

[BigEasyCard]

Yes MT, many thanks for your insightful commentary.

Results so far from Friday morning session (All Preliminary Events)

Event 8  Women 400 Yard IM
  1 Ella Eastin
  15 Allie Szekely
  ןɐɔ qualifies none in this event.

Event 9  Women 100 Yard Butterfly
  5 Janet Hu
  ןɐɔ qualifies three in this event.

Event 10  Women 200 Yard Freestyle
  1 Simone Manuel
  2 Katie Ledecky
  11 Lia Neal
  13 Katie Drabot
  16 Nicole Stafford
  ןɐɔ qualifies one in this event.

Event 11  Women 100 Yard Breaststroke
  No one from Stanford or Cal advances.

Event 12  Women 100 Yard Backstroke
  4 Janet Hu
  5 Ally Howe
  ןɐɔ qualifies two in this event.


Event 13  Women 3 mtr Diving and Event 14  Women 200 Yard Medley Relay not yet completed.

Finals resume at 6 PM Eastern tonight.

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

Yes MT, many thanks for your insightful commentary.

Results so far from Friday morning session (All Preliminary Events)

Event 8  Women 400 Yard IM
  1 Ella Eastin
  15 Allie Szekely
  ןɐɔ qualifies none in this event.

Event 9  Women 100 Yard Butterfly
  5 Janet Hu
  ןɐɔ qualifies three in this event.

Event 10  Women 200 Yard Freestyle
  1 Simone Manuel
  2 Katie Ledecky
  11 Lia Neal
  13 Katie Drabot
  16 Nicole Stafford
  ןɐɔ qualifies one in this event.

Event 11  Women 100 Yard Breaststroke
  No one from Stanford or Cal advances.

Event 12  Women 100 Yard Backstroke
  4 Janet Hu
  5 Ally Howe
  ןɐɔ qualifies two in this event.


Event 13  Women 3 mtr Diving and Event 14  Women 200 Yard Medley Relay not yet completed.

Finals resume at 6 PM Eastern tonight.

Geaux Cardinal!

[Viking_Guy]

Looking at the 200 relay prelim, why weren't TAMU and NC State dq'ed for leaving early?  Both seem to have early departures in the transition between back and breaststroke - TAMU -0.86 and NCSt -0.70.  That's a brobdingnagian advantage in a race where all 8 teams were with a second.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Looking at the 200 relay prelim, why weren't TAMU and NC State dq'ed for leaving early?  Both seem to have early departures in the transition between back and breaststroke - TAMU -0.86 and NCSt -0.70.  That's a brobdingnagian advantage in a race where all 8 teams were with a second.

VG

[M T]

Looking at the 200 relay prelim, why weren't TAMU and NC State dq'ed for leaving early?  Both seem to have early departures in the transition between back and breaststroke - TAMU -0.86 and NCSt -0.70.  That's a of exceedingly large proportions advantage in a race where all 8 teams were with a second.

In the 400 medley relay final, the Stanford breaststroker's reaction time was -0.62.  This can happen if the backstroker's touch isn't recorded by the touchpad.  You already mentioned the video review.  An early start of that magnitude would have been obvious (at 2 yards/second, that's about 1.5 yards or so).

This is a picture of the early start by Cal in the 400MR final (not sufficient to call a DQ, but shows the magnitude of the jump).  You can see the Stanford swimmer Lia Neal in the background.  The Stanford swimmer (unseen, in the water) touched 0.02 before the Cal swimmer.  Lia's reaction time was 0.26 (about normal, but a bit slow), meaning the sensor felt her push off the block 0.26 seconds after the previous swimmer touched.  The Cal swimmer's reaction time was recorded as -0.13.

While it is understandable to me that a backstroker's touch might not get recorded, I also saw a relay in which the butterflyer's touch wasn't recorded.  (Not recorded probably means that there is enough noise in the signal from the sensor to decide what was a touch and what wasn't.)  That's much more surprising to me, but I haven't looked at the performance of these touchpads.  My impression of touchpads from years ago was that they required a direct, firm hit to record, while brushing the pad didn't get recorded.  I'm sure they've tweaked the sensitivity to allow lighter touches, but then noise (from waves) could possibly be a problem.

[M T]

Looking at the 200 relay prelim, why weren't TAMU and NC State dq'ed for leaving early?  Both seem to have early departures in the transition between back and breaststroke - TAMU -0.86 and NCSt -0.70.  That's a of exceedingly large proportions advantage in a race where all 8 teams were with a second.

In the 400 medley relay final, the Stanford breaststroker's reaction time was -0.62.  This can happen if the backstroker's touch isn't recorded by the touchpad.  You already mentioned the video review.  An early start of that magnitude would have been obvious (at 2 yards/second, that's about 1.5 yards or so).

This is a picture of the early start by Cal in the 400MR final (not sufficient to call a DQ, but shows the magnitude of the jump).  You can see the Stanford swimmer Lia Neal in the background.  The Stanford swimmer (unseen, in the water) touched 0.02 before the Cal swimmer.  Lia's reaction time was 0.26 (about normal, but a bit slow), meaning the sensor felt her push off the block 0.26 seconds after the previous swimmer touched.  The Cal swimmer's reaction time was recorded as -0.13.

While it is understandable to me that a backstroker's touch might not get recorded, I also saw a relay in which the butterflyer's touch wasn't recorded.  (Not recorded probably means that there is enough noise in the signal from the sensor to decide what was a touch and what wasn't.)  That's much more surprising to me, but I haven't looked at the performance of these touchpads.  My impression of touchpads from years ago was that they required a direct, firm hit to record, while brushing the pad didn't get recorded.  I'm sure they've tweaked the sensitivity to allow lighter touches, but then noise (from waves) could possibly be a problem.

[Viking_Guy]

Thanks MT!  Wasn't sure of the tech involved, and it seemed out of line with the other recorded reaction times.

I also thought Stanford might be being VERY careful this year :) .
VG

[Viking_Guy]

Thanks MT!  Wasn't sure of the tech involved, and it seemed out of line with the other recorded reaction times.

I also thought Stanford might be being VERY careful this year :) .
VG

[CornFed]

[quote author=Viking_Guy link=topic=16677.msg190095#msg190095 date=1489772849]
Looking at the 200 relay prelim, why weren't TAMU and NC State dq'ed for leaving early?  Both seem to have early departures in the transition between back and breaststroke - TAMU -0.86 and NCSt -0.70.  That's a of exceedingly large proportions advantage in a race where all 8 teams were with a second.

In the 400 medley relay final, the Stanford breaststroker's reaction time was -0.62.  This can happen if the backstroker's touch isn't recorded by the touchpad.  You already mentioned the video review.  An early start of that magnitude would have been obvious (at 2 yards/second, that's about 1.5 yards or so).

This is a picture of the early start by ןɐɔ in the 400MR final (not sufficient to call a DQ, but shows the magnitude of the jump).  You can see the Stanford swimmer Lia Neal in the background.  The Stanford swimmer (unseen, in the water) touched 0.02 before the ןɐɔ swimmer.  Lia's reaction time was 0.26 (about normal, but a bit slow), meaning the sensor felt her push off the block 0.26 seconds after the previous swimmer touched.  The ןɐɔ swimmer's reaction time was recorded as -0.13.

While it is understandable to me that a backstroker's touch might not get recorded, I also saw a relay in which the butterflyer's touch wasn't recorded.  (Not recorded probably means that there is enough noise in the signal from the sensor to decide what was a touch and what wasn't.)  That's much more surprising to me, but I haven't looked at the performance of these touchpads.  My impression of touchpads from years ago was that they required a direct, firm hit to record, while brushing the pad didn't get recorded.  I'm sure they've tweaked the sensitivity to allow lighter touches, but then noise (from waves) could possibly be a problem.
[/quote]


I don't see anything in that picture of the touch being made by the swimmer in the pool.  Are my image settings wrong?

[CornFed]

[quote author=Viking_Guy link=topic=16677.msg190095#msg190095 date=1489772849]
Looking at the 200 relay prelim, why weren't TAMU and NC State dq'ed for leaving early?  Both seem to have early departures in the transition between back and breaststroke - TAMU -0.86 and NCSt -0.70.  That's a of exceedingly large proportions advantage in a race where all 8 teams were with a second.

In the 400 medley relay final, the Stanford breaststroker's reaction time was -0.62.  This can happen if the backstroker's touch isn't recorded by the touchpad.  You already mentioned the video review.  An early start of that magnitude would have been obvious (at 2 yards/second, that's about 1.5 yards or so).

This is a picture of the early start by ןɐɔ in the 400MR final (not sufficient to call a DQ, but shows the magnitude of the jump).  You can see the Stanford swimmer Lia Neal in the background.  The Stanford swimmer (unseen, in the water) touched 0.02 before the ןɐɔ swimmer.  Lia's reaction time was 0.26 (about normal, but a bit slow), meaning the sensor felt her push off the block 0.26 seconds after the previous swimmer touched.  The ןɐɔ swimmer's reaction time was recorded as -0.13.

While it is understandable to me that a backstroker's touch might not get recorded, I also saw a relay in which the butterflyer's touch wasn't recorded.  (Not recorded probably means that there is enough noise in the signal from the sensor to decide what was a touch and what wasn't.)  That's much more surprising to me, but I haven't looked at the performance of these touchpads.  My impression of touchpads from years ago was that they required a direct, firm hit to record, while brushing the pad didn't get recorded.  I'm sure they've tweaked the sensitivity to allow lighter touches, but then noise (from waves) could possibly be a problem.
[/quote]


I don't see anything in that picture of the touch being made by the swimmer in the pool.  Are my image settings wrong?

[M T]

I don't see anything in that picture of the touch being made by the swimmer in the pool.  Are my image settings wrong?

The Stanford swimmer in the background (4th swimmer of the relay), did not leave before her swimmer touched. In this picture, she is into the motion of her dive, but still has a long way to go before her body is extended fully over the water.  Her swimmer (not visible, the 3rd swimmer) touched 0.02 ahead of (essentially at the same time) the 3rd Cal swimmer (not visible).  But the 4th swimmer for Cal is quite far into her dive in this photo.  As I said, this photo doesn't show enough to call for a D.Q., but it shows the magnitude of the early start.

[M T]

I don't see anything in that picture of the touch being made by the swimmer in the pool.  Are my image settings wrong?

The Stanford swimmer in the background (4th swimmer of the relay), did not leave before her swimmer touched. In this picture, she is into the motion of her dive, but still has a long way to go before her body is extended fully over the water.  Her swimmer (not visible, the 3rd swimmer) touched 0.02 ahead of (essentially at the same time) the 3rd Cal swimmer (not visible).  But the 4th swimmer for Cal is quite far into her dive in this photo.  As I said, this photo doesn't show enough to call for a D.Q., but it shows the magnitude of the early start.

[CTcard]

I didn't see it listed, so I add here a useful site for finding the results as they happen.
http://www.sidearmstats.com/ncaa/swimming/index.htm

Todays prelims:
400 IM: Eastin qualified 1st. Szekely 15th.  no cal qualifiers.
100 Fly: Hu 5th.  cal qualifiers 1st, 3rd(tie), 11th.
200 Free: Manuel 1st, Ledecky 2nd, Neal 11th, Drabot 13th, Stafford 16th.  cal qualifier 9th.
100 Breast: no Stanford qualifiers.  No cal qualifiers.
100 Back: Hu 4th, Howe 5th.  cal qualifiers 3rd and 9th.
200 Medley Relay: Stanford 8th.  cal qualified 3rd.

Stanford playing with fire in the 200 relay. Made the A final by 0.05 despite having the top seed time and last year's team (with somewhat different makeup) having the NCAA and American records.

[CTcard]

I didn't see it listed, so I add here a useful site for finding the results as they happen.
http://www.sidearmstats.com/ncaa/swimming/index.htm

Todays prelims:
400 IM: Eastin qualified 1st. Szekely 15th.  no cal qualifiers.
100 Fly: Hu 5th.  cal qualifiers 1st, 3rd(tie), 11th.
200 Free: Manuel 1st, Ledecky 2nd, Neal 11th, Drabot 13th, Stafford 16th.  cal qualifier 9th.
100 Breast: no Stanford qualifiers.  No cal qualifiers.
100 Back: Hu 4th, Howe 5th.  cal qualifiers 3rd and 9th.
200 Medley Relay: Stanford 8th.  cal qualified 3rd.

Stanford playing with fire in the 200 relay. Made the A final by 0.05 despite having the top seed time and last year's team (with somewhat different makeup) having the NCAA and American records.

[Treefence]

Through 12 events

Stanford: 326.5
Cal: 215

[Treefence]

Through 12 events

Stanford: 326.5
Cal: 215

[threepointer]

End of Day Score:
374.5  Stanford
255.0  Cal
209.0  Texas A&M

Tomorrow we have:
200 Back - Stanford:  Howe (#4), Hu (#5)      | Cal:  Baker (#1).  Draw.
100 Free - Stanford:  Manuel (#1), Neal (#4)  | Cal:  Weitzeil (#6), Bilquist (#9).  Stanford picks up at least 10 points over Cal.
200 Fly - Stanford:  Eastin (#1), Engel (#15)  | Cal: McLaughli (#6), Thomas (#9).  Draw.
400 Free Relay - Stanford (#1)                        | Cal (#3).  Stanford picks up 8 points over Cal.
1650 Free - Stanford:  Ledecky (#1), Byrnes (#5), Stevens (#12) | Cal:  Devine (#27).  Stanford picks up 39 points over Cal.

Final Predicted Result: 
539.5  Stanford
363.0  Cal

National Championship #112 looking good.

[threepointer]

End of Day Score:
374.5  Stanford
255.0  Cal
209.0  Texas A&M

Tomorrow we have:
200 Back - Stanford:  Howe (#4), Hu (#5)      | Cal:  Baker (#1).  Draw.
100 Free - Stanford:  Manuel (#1), Neal (#4)  | Cal:  Weitzeil (#6), Bilquist (#9).  Stanford picks up at least 10 points over Cal.
200 Fly - Stanford:  Eastin (#1), Engel (#15)  | Cal: McLaughli (#6), Thomas (#9).  Draw.
400 Free Relay - Stanford (#1)                        | Cal (#3).  Stanford picks up 8 points over Cal.
1650 Free - Stanford:  Ledecky (#1), Byrnes (#5), Stevens (#12) | Cal:  Devine (#27).  Stanford picks up 39 points over Cal.

Final Predicted Result: 
539.5  Stanford
363.0  Cal

National Championship #112 looking good.

[BostonCard]

End of Day Score:
374.5  Stanford
255.0  ןɐɔ
209.0  Texas A&M

Tomorrow we have:
200 Back - Stanford:  Howe (#4), Hu (#5)      | ןɐɔ:  Baker (#1).  Draw.
100 Free - Stanford:  Manuel (#1), Neal (#4)  | ןɐɔ:  Weitzeil (#6), Bilquist (#9).  Stanford picks up at least 10 points over ןɐɔ.
200 Fly - Stanford:  Eastin (#1), Engel (#15)  | ןɐɔ: McLaughli (#6), Thomas (#9).  Draw.
400 Free Relay - Stanford (#1)                        | ןɐɔ (#3).  Stanford picks up 8 points over ןɐɔ.
1650 Free - Stanford:  Ledecky (#1), Byrnes (#5), Stevens (#12) | ןɐɔ:  Devine (#27).  Stanford picks up 39 points over ןɐɔ.

Final Predicted Result: 
539.5  Stanford
363.0  ןɐɔ

National Championship #112 looking good.

Based on the updated results, it looks like we overperformed for the day compared to our seeds.  Always good to see.

BC

[BostonCard]

End of Day Score:
374.5  Stanford
255.0  ןɐɔ
209.0  Texas A&M

Tomorrow we have:
200 Back - Stanford:  Howe (#4), Hu (#5)      | ןɐɔ:  Baker (#1).  Draw.
100 Free - Stanford:  Manuel (#1), Neal (#4)  | ןɐɔ:  Weitzeil (#6), Bilquist (#9).  Stanford picks up at least 10 points over ןɐɔ.
200 Fly - Stanford:  Eastin (#1), Engel (#15)  | ןɐɔ: McLaughli (#6), Thomas (#9).  Draw.
400 Free Relay - Stanford (#1)                        | ןɐɔ (#3).  Stanford picks up 8 points over ןɐɔ.
1650 Free - Stanford:  Ledecky (#1), Byrnes (#5), Stevens (#12) | ןɐɔ:  Devine (#27).  Stanford picks up 39 points over ןɐɔ.

Final Predicted Result: 
539.5  Stanford
363.0  ןɐɔ

National Championship #112 looking good.

Based on the updated results, it looks like we overperformed for the day compared to our seeds.  Always good to see.

BC

[TrumpCard]

If Stanford wins, it will be only 1 championship behind UCLA, 113-112. Just over a year ago, UCLA was ahead 113-107.

[TrumpCard]

If Stanford wins, it will be only 1 championship behind UCLA, 113-112. Just over a year ago, UCLA was ahead 113-107.

[fullmetal]

What a special WSwim/Dive team!  And what a time to be alive :)

[fullmetal]

What a special WSwim/Dive team!  And what a time to be alive :)

[BobK]

Great start this morning.  On our way

[BobK]

Great start this morning.  On our way

[Langdude]

I have a comment and a question.

The comment: It is crazy that Ella Eastin, superstar, is probably considered the least-excellent of the four swimmers on that record-setting 800 relay.

The question: Why did she not swim the 200 individual event? Was it to save her energy for the IM? I am assuming she qualified, no?

-m.

[Langdude]

I have a comment and a question.

The comment: It is crazy that Ella Eastin, superstar, is probably considered the least-excellent of the four swimmers on that record-setting 800 relay.

The question: Why did she not swim the 200 individual event? Was it to save her energy for the IM? I am assuming she qualified, no?

-m.

[CowboyIndian]

If Stanford wins, it will be only 1 championship behind UCLA, 113-112. Just over a year ago, UCLA was ahead 113-107.

I blame Mora...or thank him, actually.

[CowboyIndian]

If Stanford wins, it will be only 1 championship behind UCLA, 113-112. Just over a year ago, UCLA was ahead 113-107.

I blame Mora...or thank him, actually.

[DenverCard]

Langdude,

The other three swimmers on the 4 X 200 free relay -- Katie Ledecky, Simone Manuel, and Lia Neal -- were all in the Rio Olympics.  The first two won gold medals.  So while Ella Eastin has had a fabulous career so far, she hasn't yet earned the cache of Olympic swimmer.

She doesn't swim the 200 free individually because she has three other better events (3 is the limit).  She won the 200 IM at NCAAs last year as a freshman, and was a very close 2nd this year.  She won the 400 IM each of her two years (including this one), both times with American records.  And I believe she was 2nd in the 200 fly last year; tonight she will be the #1 seed for the finals in that event.  So if all goes well, she'll have four wins and two second place finishes in her first two years in college. 

So your observation is spot on -- her accomplishments have been overshadowed by her teammates' successes.

[DenverCard]

Langdude,

The other three swimmers on the 4 X 200 free relay -- Katie Ledecky, Simone Manuel, and Lia Neal -- were all in the Rio Olympics.  The first two won gold medals.  So while Ella Eastin has had a fabulous career so far, she hasn't yet earned the cache of Olympic swimmer.

She doesn't swim the 200 free individually because she has three other better events (3 is the limit).  She won the 200 IM at NCAAs last year as a freshman, and was a very close 2nd this year.  She won the 400 IM each of her two years (including this one), both times with American records.  And I believe she was 2nd in the 200 fly last year; tonight she will be the #1 seed for the finals in that event.  So if all goes well, she'll have four wins and two second place finishes in her first two years in college. 

So your observation is spot on -- her accomplishments have been overshadowed by her teammates' successes.