03-15-2018, 03:46 PM
Ledecky wins the 500 free Drabot 2nd.Â
Women's Swimming at 2018 NCAA Championships
03-15-2018, 03:58 PM
Ella Eastin with the new NCAA and American record wins the 200IMÂ 4 wins in the 4 events thus far.Â
03-15-2018, 04:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2018, 04:39 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
5 for 5. Manuel wins the 50 free.
After event 5, Stanford leads 2nd place C.al 171 to 115 points.
After event 5, Stanford leads 2nd place C.al 171 to 115 points.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2018, 04:39 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
5 for 5. Manuel wins the 50 free.
After event 5, Stanford leads 2nd place C.al 171 to 115 points.
After event 5, Stanford leads 2nd place C.al 171 to 115 points.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
03-15-2018, 05:08 PM
6 for 6.
400 Medley relay sets American record in 3:25.09, beating their own 3:25.15.
But the breaststroke leg was scary. Simone Manuel completely ran down the field as the anchor.
VG
400 Medley relay sets American record in 3:25.09, beating their own 3:25.15.
But the breaststroke leg was scary. Simone Manuel completely ran down the field as the anchor.
VG
6 for 6.
400 Medley relay sets American record in 3:25.09, beating their own 3:25.15.
But the breaststroke leg was scary. Simone Manuel completely ran down the field as the anchor.
VG
400 Medley relay sets American record in 3:25.09, beating their own 3:25.15.
But the breaststroke leg was scary. Simone Manuel completely ran down the field as the anchor.
VG
03-15-2018, 05:30 PM
(03-15-2018, 11:05 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote: [quote author=DenverCard link=topic=18870.msg225962#msg225962 date=1521134013]She lost the swim off by 5 one-hundredths of a second.
Poor Megan Byrnes. Tied for 16th in the 500 free
[/quote]
This swim-off thing in a distance event seems like cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, how about letting the swimmer with the lowest time this year swim the final, and give team points for last place in the final to the other one? Or flip a coin to decide who swims and has the chance to get more than the last-place points awarded to the loser of the flip?
(03-15-2018, 11:05 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote: [quote author=DenverCard link=topic=18870.msg225962#msg225962 date=1521134013]She lost the swim off by 5 one-hundredths of a second.
Poor Megan Byrnes. Tied for 16th in the 500 free
[/quote]
This swim-off thing in a distance event seems like cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, how about letting the swimmer with the lowest time this year swim the final, and give team points for last place in the final to the other one? Or flip a coin to decide who swims and has the chance to get more than the last-place points awarded to the loser of the flip?
03-15-2018, 05:45 PM
(03-15-2018, 07:58 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote: [quote author=unclechuck link=topic=18870.msg225936#msg225936 date=1521104612]
Bob - thanks for relay clarification. BEC & Spiny: thanks for links so we can play along in real time. Pac12 to do standard job of broadcasting a truncated version a week after it's over?
This is an NCAA event, not P12. The P12 Network has no broadcast rights.
NCAA.com says that ESPNU will broadcast finals tomorrow beginning at 5 pm eastern. And ESPN3 will have finals on Saturday beginning at 6 pm eastern.
https://web1.ncaa.org/NCAATV/exec/query
[/quote]
Thanks for checking & timely heads-up!
(03-15-2018, 07:58 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote: [quote author=unclechuck link=topic=18870.msg225936#msg225936 date=1521104612]
Bob - thanks for relay clarification. BEC & Spiny: thanks for links so we can play along in real time. Pac12 to do standard job of broadcasting a truncated version a week after it's over?
This is an NCAA event, not P12. The P12 Network has no broadcast rights.
NCAA.com says that ESPNU will broadcast finals tomorrow beginning at 5 pm eastern. And ESPN3 will have finals on Saturday beginning at 6 pm eastern.
https://web1.ncaa.org/NCAATV/exec/query
[/quote]
Thanks for checking & timely heads-up!
03-15-2018, 06:03 PM
Dominant performance by Stanford today. Though both relays set records, and Katie Ledecky swims absurdly far in front of the rest of a pack that are all bunched up, the 200 IM swum by Ella Eastin was amazing. She broke her own record by a full second. In beating last year's winner, Kathleen Baker of C.al, Eastin was slightly slower than Baker in each of the butterfly, backstroke, and breaststroke legs, only to blast past Baker on the last 50 (freestyle).
With victory all but bestowed upon them since the season began, I was concerned that the team might be complacent -- expecting to win simply by showing up, and forgetting that they still have perform at an elite level -- but such concerns were quickly obliterated. Countless swimmers were lights out.
Interesting aside: As noted, the competitor from Georgia, Courney Harnish, beat Megan Byrnes in the 500, with both swimming 4:45s to following their morning swims of 4:38. So you figure Harnish would have nothing left for the final, and that last place was a foregone conclusion. In fact, though, she got 2nd in consolation finals, for 10th overall. And in doing so, she swam a 4:36 -- two seconds faster than the morning swim, and 9 seconds faster than the swim-off that she won by only 0.05 seconds. Somewhat strange, but impressive.
With victory all but bestowed upon them since the season began, I was concerned that the team might be complacent -- expecting to win simply by showing up, and forgetting that they still have perform at an elite level -- but such concerns were quickly obliterated. Countless swimmers were lights out.
Interesting aside: As noted, the competitor from Georgia, Courney Harnish, beat Megan Byrnes in the 500, with both swimming 4:45s to following their morning swims of 4:38. So you figure Harnish would have nothing left for the final, and that last place was a foregone conclusion. In fact, though, she got 2nd in consolation finals, for 10th overall. And in doing so, she swam a 4:36 -- two seconds faster than the morning swim, and 9 seconds faster than the swim-off that she won by only 0.05 seconds. Somewhat strange, but impressive.
Dominant performance by Stanford today. Though both relays set records, and Katie Ledecky swims absurdly far in front of the rest of a pack that are all bunched up, the 200 IM swum by Ella Eastin was amazing. She broke her own record by a full second. In beating last year's winner, Kathleen Baker of C.al, Eastin was slightly slower than Baker in each of the butterfly, backstroke, and breaststroke legs, only to blast past Baker on the last 50 (freestyle).
With victory all but bestowed upon them since the season began, I was concerned that the team might be complacent -- expecting to win simply by showing up, and forgetting that they still have perform at an elite level -- but such concerns were quickly obliterated. Countless swimmers were lights out.
Interesting aside: As noted, the competitor from Georgia, Courney Harnish, beat Megan Byrnes in the 500, with both swimming 4:45s to following their morning swims of 4:38. So you figure Harnish would have nothing left for the final, and that last place was a foregone conclusion. In fact, though, she got 2nd in consolation finals, for 10th overall. And in doing so, she swam a 4:36 -- two seconds faster than the morning swim, and 9 seconds faster than the swim-off that she won by only 0.05 seconds. Somewhat strange, but impressive.
With victory all but bestowed upon them since the season began, I was concerned that the team might be complacent -- expecting to win simply by showing up, and forgetting that they still have perform at an elite level -- but such concerns were quickly obliterated. Countless swimmers were lights out.
Interesting aside: As noted, the competitor from Georgia, Courney Harnish, beat Megan Byrnes in the 500, with both swimming 4:45s to following their morning swims of 4:38. So you figure Harnish would have nothing left for the final, and that last place was a foregone conclusion. In fact, though, she got 2nd in consolation finals, for 10th overall. And in doing so, she swam a 4:36 -- two seconds faster than the morning swim, and 9 seconds faster than the swim-off that she won by only 0.05 seconds. Somewhat strange, but impressive.
(03-15-2018, 06:03 PM)DenverCard link Wrote: the competitor from Georgia, Courney Harnish, beat Megan Byrnes in the 500, with both swimming 4:45s to following their morning swims of 4:38. So you figure Harnish would have nothing left for the final, and that last place was a foregone conclusion. In fact, though, she got 2nd in consolation finals, for 10th overall. And in doing so, she swam a 4:36 -- two seconds faster than the morning swim, and 9 seconds faster than the swim-off that she won by only 0.05 seconds. Somewhat strange, but impressive.Harnish actually had the fourth-fastest time going into the NCAAs (4:35.69), but for whatever reason she took it too easy in the prelims, swam only a 4:38 and ended up in a tie for 16 (by contrast Byrnes swam her best time of the year in the prelims). Then I think Harnish swam the swim-off as slowly as she could while still winning (she only had to keep her eye on Byrnes and just barely got that right), and had enough left to finish 2nd in the consolation finals at 4:36--still slower than her psych sheet time. So I think Harnish (a freshman) just had a massive miscalculation or other problem in the prelims, then tried to do what she could to gain as many points for her team as possible. I'll bet next year she won't make the same mistake!
I still think the swim-off in a distance event is cruel and unusual punishment and ought to be unconstitutional. ;) In fact, from my standpoint as a former (terrible) swimmer, I think that racing the 500 free itself is cruel and unusual punishment!
(03-15-2018, 06:03 PM)DenverCard link Wrote: the competitor from Georgia, Courney Harnish, beat Megan Byrnes in the 500, with both swimming 4:45s to following their morning swims of 4:38. So you figure Harnish would have nothing left for the final, and that last place was a foregone conclusion. In fact, though, she got 2nd in consolation finals, for 10th overall. And in doing so, she swam a 4:36 -- two seconds faster than the morning swim, and 9 seconds faster than the swim-off that she won by only 0.05 seconds. Somewhat strange, but impressive.Harnish actually had the fourth-fastest time going into the NCAAs (4:35.69), but for whatever reason she took it too easy in the prelims, swam only a 4:38 and ended up in a tie for 16 (by contrast Byrnes swam her best time of the year in the prelims). Then I think Harnish swam the swim-off as slowly as she could while still winning (she only had to keep her eye on Byrnes and just barely got that right), and had enough left to finish 2nd in the consolation finals at 4:36--still slower than her psych sheet time. So I think Harnish (a freshman) just had a massive miscalculation or other problem in the prelims, then tried to do what she could to gain as many points for her team as possible. I'll bet next year she won't make the same mistake!
I still think the swim-off in a distance event is cruel and unusual punishment and ought to be unconstitutional. ;) In fact, from my standpoint as a former (terrible) swimmer, I think that racing the 500 free itself is cruel and unusual punishment!
03-15-2018, 07:00 PM
Louisville's Comerford had a faster 200 split than Ledecky in the 4X200 final, and a faster anchor 100 FR split than Manuel in the 400 Medley Relay final. Both by slim margins with tighter relay starts, but boy is that 200 going to be an interesting (and FAST) race.
Louisville's Comerford had a faster 200 split than Ledecky in the 4X200 final, and a faster anchor 100 FR split than Manuel in the 400 Medley Relay final. Both by slim margins with tighter relay starts, but boy is that 200 going to be an interesting (and FAST) race.
03-15-2018, 07:52 PM
(03-15-2018, 04:16 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote: 5 for 5. Manuel wins the 50 free.
After event 5, Stanford leads 2nd place C.al 171 to 115 points.
Not just 5/5: 5/5 with 3 new records.
1:25.43 in the 200 yd freestyle relay is a new NCAA and American record
1:50.67 in the 200 yd IM is a new NCAA and American record
3:25.09 in the 400 yd medley relay is a new NCAA and American record
In the two events that Ledecky (500 yd free) and Manuel (50 yd free) didn't break a record, it was their own record they failed to break.
BC
(03-15-2018, 04:16 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote: 5 for 5. Manuel wins the 50 free.
After event 5, Stanford leads 2nd place C.al 171 to 115 points.
Not just 5/5: 5/5 with 3 new records.
1:25.43 in the 200 yd freestyle relay is a new NCAA and American record
1:50.67 in the 200 yd IM is a new NCAA and American record
3:25.09 in the 400 yd medley relay is a new NCAA and American record
In the two events that Ledecky (500 yd free) and Manuel (50 yd free) didn't break a record, it was their own record they failed to break.
BC
03-16-2018, 07:28 AM
In this morning's heats.
400IM, 1-2 -5
100 Fly 5
200 Free 3-6
100 Breast 15
400IM, 1-2 -5
100 Fly 5
200 Free 3-6
100 Breast 15
03-16-2018, 08:35 AM
(03-16-2018, 08:06 AM)mbdude link Wrote: How are team points scored? And what are ×ÉÉ's strongest event?
I'd been wondering the same thing. Here's a link to a breakdown from a few years ago, but it's the most recent thing I could find:
https://swimswam.com/scoring-out-the-201...s-edition/
A Final Points for individual events:
1. 20 (40 relays)
2. 17 (34 relays)
3. 16 (32 relays)
4. 15 (30 relays)
5. 14 (28 relays)
6. 13 (26 relays)
7. 12 (24 relays)
8. 11 (22 relays)
B Final Points For Individual Events
1. 9 (18 relays)
2. 7 (14 relays)
3. 6 (12 relays)
4. 5 (10 relays)
5. 4 (8 relays)
6. 3 (6 relays)
7. 2 (4 relays)
8. 1 (2 relays)
From eyeballing the results so far, that seems to be correct.
(03-16-2018, 08:06 AM)mbdude link Wrote: How are team points scored? And what are ×ÉÉ's strongest event?
I'd been wondering the same thing. Here's a link to a breakdown from a few years ago, but it's the most recent thing I could find:
https://swimswam.com/scoring-out-the-201...s-edition/
A Final Points for individual events:
1. 20 (40 relays)
2. 17 (34 relays)
3. 16 (32 relays)
4. 15 (30 relays)
5. 14 (28 relays)
6. 13 (26 relays)
7. 12 (24 relays)
8. 11 (22 relays)
B Final Points For Individual Events
1. 9 (18 relays)
2. 7 (14 relays)
3. 6 (12 relays)
4. 5 (10 relays)
5. 4 (8 relays)
6. 3 (6 relays)
7. 2 (4 relays)
8. 1 (2 relays)
From eyeballing the results so far, that seems to be correct.
03-16-2018, 08:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-16-2018, 08:55 AM by ColoradoTree.)
So far, Stanford has 211 points. At this point in the meet, pre-NCAA season-best times (the psych sheet) would have predicted 183.5 points (I think points for tied positions in races are handled like golf prize money--i.e., if two swimmers tie for 3rd, they combine the 3rd place and 4th place points and divide by two). And based on that same prediction, Stanford was projected to win this meet by 160 points. So if we're already overperforming that?? Goodness.Â
One example: Stanford was, based on the psych sheet, projected to go 1-7-11-T14 in the 500 Free (40.5 points), but instead we went 1-2-11-16 for 44 points.
Also, here's a link to that psych sheet I keep referencing: http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/f...list.pdf. Based on that, Cal's best events (aside from the relays where they were seeded higher coming in, but where we beat them already) are the backstroke events (Kathleen Baker is the 1 seed in the 200 back and the 3 seed in the 100 back), the 100 free (Abigail Weitzeil is the 2 seed). As for races already run, Cal's best hopes were Baker in the 200 IM (2 seed coming in, finished 2nd) and Weitzeil in the 50 free (4 seed coming in, finished 4th). But ultimately, they're not built to take advantage of our relative weakness at breaststroke, because they're not strong there, either. And we're no slouch in the 100 free (Manuel is the top seed) or the backstroke events, either (Janet Hu is the 2 seed in both the 100 and 200 back). In short, short of a mass of Stanford disqualifications, we're not racing to beat Cal (or Texas A&M or Michigan) anymore, but to beat our own best times.
One example: Stanford was, based on the psych sheet, projected to go 1-7-11-T14 in the 500 Free (40.5 points), but instead we went 1-2-11-16 for 44 points.
Also, here's a link to that psych sheet I keep referencing: http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/f...list.pdf. Based on that, Cal's best events (aside from the relays where they were seeded higher coming in, but where we beat them already) are the backstroke events (Kathleen Baker is the 1 seed in the 200 back and the 3 seed in the 100 back), the 100 free (Abigail Weitzeil is the 2 seed). As for races already run, Cal's best hopes were Baker in the 200 IM (2 seed coming in, finished 2nd) and Weitzeil in the 50 free (4 seed coming in, finished 4th). But ultimately, they're not built to take advantage of our relative weakness at breaststroke, because they're not strong there, either. And we're no slouch in the 100 free (Manuel is the top seed) or the backstroke events, either (Janet Hu is the 2 seed in both the 100 and 200 back). In short, short of a mass of Stanford disqualifications, we're not racing to beat Cal (or Texas A&M or Michigan) anymore, but to beat our own best times.
(This post was last modified: 03-16-2018, 08:55 AM by ColoradoTree.)
So far, Stanford has 211 points. At this point in the meet, pre-NCAA season-best times (the psych sheet) would have predicted 183.5 points (I think points for tied positions in races are handled like golf prize money--i.e., if two swimmers tie for 3rd, they combine the 3rd place and 4th place points and divide by two). And based on that same prediction, Stanford was projected to win this meet by 160 points. So if we're already overperforming that?? Goodness.Â
One example: Stanford was, based on the psych sheet, projected to go 1-7-11-T14 in the 500 Free (40.5 points), but instead we went 1-2-11-16 for 44 points.
Also, here's a link to that psych sheet I keep referencing: http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/f...list.pdf. Based on that, Cal's best events (aside from the relays where they were seeded higher coming in, but where we beat them already) are the backstroke events (Kathleen Baker is the 1 seed in the 200 back and the 3 seed in the 100 back), the 100 free (Abigail Weitzeil is the 2 seed). As for races already run, Cal's best hopes were Baker in the 200 IM (2 seed coming in, finished 2nd) and Weitzeil in the 50 free (4 seed coming in, finished 4th). But ultimately, they're not built to take advantage of our relative weakness at breaststroke, because they're not strong there, either. And we're no slouch in the 100 free (Manuel is the top seed) or the backstroke events, either (Janet Hu is the 2 seed in both the 100 and 200 back). In short, short of a mass of Stanford disqualifications, we're not racing to beat Cal (or Texas A&M or Michigan) anymore, but to beat our own best times.
One example: Stanford was, based on the psych sheet, projected to go 1-7-11-T14 in the 500 Free (40.5 points), but instead we went 1-2-11-16 for 44 points.
Also, here's a link to that psych sheet I keep referencing: http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/f...list.pdf. Based on that, Cal's best events (aside from the relays where they were seeded higher coming in, but where we beat them already) are the backstroke events (Kathleen Baker is the 1 seed in the 200 back and the 3 seed in the 100 back), the 100 free (Abigail Weitzeil is the 2 seed). As for races already run, Cal's best hopes were Baker in the 200 IM (2 seed coming in, finished 2nd) and Weitzeil in the 50 free (4 seed coming in, finished 4th). But ultimately, they're not built to take advantage of our relative weakness at breaststroke, because they're not strong there, either. And we're no slouch in the 100 free (Manuel is the top seed) or the backstroke events, either (Janet Hu is the 2 seed in both the 100 and 200 back). In short, short of a mass of Stanford disqualifications, we're not racing to beat Cal (or Texas A&M or Michigan) anymore, but to beat our own best times.
03-16-2018, 09:53 AM
To give you a sense of how these morning prelims are setting us up for tonight:
* 400 IM: we came into the meet expecting to put 3 in the A final (Ledecky, Eastin, and Forde with the 1, 2, and 4 seeds before the meet, respectively), and we've done just that. Barring an injury or a DQ, it'll be Ledecky and Eastin going 1-2 tonight--the gap between those two and the rest of the field is substantial--but while Ledecky should be considered the favorite going in (her fastest time this year is 8 tenths of a second faster than Eastin's), don't be surprised if Eastin wins. It'll be a heck of a race. Oh, and we expected to put one swimmer (Szekely) in the B final, and we did that, too. Equal to expectations.
* 100 Fly: we didn't project to get anyone in the A final (Hu came in as the 9 seed), and just Hu in the B final. Instead, Hu qualified for the A final in 5th, and Lindsey Engel qualified for the B final, so we are guaranteed more points out of this event than we would have predicted. Better than expectations.
* 200 Free: we came in expecting Manuel to the A final (top seed) and Drabot to the B final, but both made the A final. Should be a Manuel battle with Louisville's Mallory Comerford for the title. Better than expectations.
* 100 Breast: not our event; we came in expecting Williams to the B final, but we snuck Zhao in there, too. Better than expectations.
* 100 Back: we came in expecting Hu and Howe to the A final (2 and 4 seeds, respectively), and no one in the B final, and that's how it played out. Equal to expectations.
* 200 (4x50) medley relay: Stanford qualified third, but is a threat to win tonight with Manuel likely replacing Pitzer for the anchor leg, though you'd have to consider Cal the favorite, and Indiana also very much in the mix. About equal to expectations.
Summary: we're either at or surpassing the pre-meet expectations--which were already sky-high and predicting a blowout win for the overall title--in every single event. That's insane. Not a single event where we expected, but failed, to put a swimmer in the A final. While a couple of swimmers haven't lived up to times earlier in the season, other swimmers have stepped up to keep those numbers at or above where we expected coming in.
* 400 IM: we came into the meet expecting to put 3 in the A final (Ledecky, Eastin, and Forde with the 1, 2, and 4 seeds before the meet, respectively), and we've done just that. Barring an injury or a DQ, it'll be Ledecky and Eastin going 1-2 tonight--the gap between those two and the rest of the field is substantial--but while Ledecky should be considered the favorite going in (her fastest time this year is 8 tenths of a second faster than Eastin's), don't be surprised if Eastin wins. It'll be a heck of a race. Oh, and we expected to put one swimmer (Szekely) in the B final, and we did that, too. Equal to expectations.
* 100 Fly: we didn't project to get anyone in the A final (Hu came in as the 9 seed), and just Hu in the B final. Instead, Hu qualified for the A final in 5th, and Lindsey Engel qualified for the B final, so we are guaranteed more points out of this event than we would have predicted. Better than expectations.
* 200 Free: we came in expecting Manuel to the A final (top seed) and Drabot to the B final, but both made the A final. Should be a Manuel battle with Louisville's Mallory Comerford for the title. Better than expectations.
* 100 Breast: not our event; we came in expecting Williams to the B final, but we snuck Zhao in there, too. Better than expectations.
* 100 Back: we came in expecting Hu and Howe to the A final (2 and 4 seeds, respectively), and no one in the B final, and that's how it played out. Equal to expectations.
* 200 (4x50) medley relay: Stanford qualified third, but is a threat to win tonight with Manuel likely replacing Pitzer for the anchor leg, though you'd have to consider Cal the favorite, and Indiana also very much in the mix. About equal to expectations.
Summary: we're either at or surpassing the pre-meet expectations--which were already sky-high and predicting a blowout win for the overall title--in every single event. That's insane. Not a single event where we expected, but failed, to put a swimmer in the A final. While a couple of swimmers haven't lived up to times earlier in the season, other swimmers have stepped up to keep those numbers at or above where we expected coming in.
To give you a sense of how these morning prelims are setting us up for tonight:
* 400 IM: we came into the meet expecting to put 3 in the A final (Ledecky, Eastin, and Forde with the 1, 2, and 4 seeds before the meet, respectively), and we've done just that. Barring an injury or a DQ, it'll be Ledecky and Eastin going 1-2 tonight--the gap between those two and the rest of the field is substantial--but while Ledecky should be considered the favorite going in (her fastest time this year is 8 tenths of a second faster than Eastin's), don't be surprised if Eastin wins. It'll be a heck of a race. Oh, and we expected to put one swimmer (Szekely) in the B final, and we did that, too. Equal to expectations.
* 100 Fly: we didn't project to get anyone in the A final (Hu came in as the 9 seed), and just Hu in the B final. Instead, Hu qualified for the A final in 5th, and Lindsey Engel qualified for the B final, so we are guaranteed more points out of this event than we would have predicted. Better than expectations.
* 200 Free: we came in expecting Manuel to the A final (top seed) and Drabot to the B final, but both made the A final. Should be a Manuel battle with Louisville's Mallory Comerford for the title. Better than expectations.
* 100 Breast: not our event; we came in expecting Williams to the B final, but we snuck Zhao in there, too. Better than expectations.
* 100 Back: we came in expecting Hu and Howe to the A final (2 and 4 seeds, respectively), and no one in the B final, and that's how it played out. Equal to expectations.
* 200 (4x50) medley relay: Stanford qualified third, but is a threat to win tonight with Manuel likely replacing Pitzer for the anchor leg, though you'd have to consider Cal the favorite, and Indiana also very much in the mix. About equal to expectations.
Summary: we're either at or surpassing the pre-meet expectations--which were already sky-high and predicting a blowout win for the overall title--in every single event. That's insane. Not a single event where we expected, but failed, to put a swimmer in the A final. While a couple of swimmers haven't lived up to times earlier in the season, other swimmers have stepped up to keep those numbers at or above where we expected coming in.
* 400 IM: we came into the meet expecting to put 3 in the A final (Ledecky, Eastin, and Forde with the 1, 2, and 4 seeds before the meet, respectively), and we've done just that. Barring an injury or a DQ, it'll be Ledecky and Eastin going 1-2 tonight--the gap between those two and the rest of the field is substantial--but while Ledecky should be considered the favorite going in (her fastest time this year is 8 tenths of a second faster than Eastin's), don't be surprised if Eastin wins. It'll be a heck of a race. Oh, and we expected to put one swimmer (Szekely) in the B final, and we did that, too. Equal to expectations.
* 100 Fly: we didn't project to get anyone in the A final (Hu came in as the 9 seed), and just Hu in the B final. Instead, Hu qualified for the A final in 5th, and Lindsey Engel qualified for the B final, so we are guaranteed more points out of this event than we would have predicted. Better than expectations.
* 200 Free: we came in expecting Manuel to the A final (top seed) and Drabot to the B final, but both made the A final. Should be a Manuel battle with Louisville's Mallory Comerford for the title. Better than expectations.
* 100 Breast: not our event; we came in expecting Williams to the B final, but we snuck Zhao in there, too. Better than expectations.
* 100 Back: we came in expecting Hu and Howe to the A final (2 and 4 seeds, respectively), and no one in the B final, and that's how it played out. Equal to expectations.
* 200 (4x50) medley relay: Stanford qualified third, but is a threat to win tonight with Manuel likely replacing Pitzer for the anchor leg, though you'd have to consider Cal the favorite, and Indiana also very much in the mix. About equal to expectations.
Summary: we're either at or surpassing the pre-meet expectations--which were already sky-high and predicting a blowout win for the overall title--in every single event. That's insane. Not a single event where we expected, but failed, to put a swimmer in the A final. While a couple of swimmers haven't lived up to times earlier in the season, other swimmers have stepped up to keep those numbers at or above where we expected coming in.
03-16-2018, 10:35 AM
(03-16-2018, 10:06 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote: ColoTree, thanks for your expert reports. Did you swim at Stanford?
Ha! Nope, just a lowly rugby player that gets obsessed with swimming (and really, lots of sports) at the Olympics. Just decided to read up a lot on the NCAA championships this year. And when I'm digging into sports I don't know that well leading into a major event like NCAAs, one thing I try to find out is what's expected of us (what we're good at; what rivals are good at; how realistic a championship is, etc.), so I can reasonably measure whether we're overperforming or underperforming. Honestly, looking through the psych sheet is a big help, and reading through stuff on swimswam.com is brobdingnagian, too.Â
So, take what I say with a grain of salt. When I say stuff like "we'd expect so and so to get into the A final," what I'm really saying is "so and so has the Nth best time so far this year, which would project into the A final." Not a perfect projection, since folks train differently, and while everyone has their eyes set on NCAAs, not everyone times their training perfectly enough to have their absolute best time. But useful for my limited, non-expert analysis on how likely it would be for us to win (or yield a certain number of points at) each event and thus, the overall title.
I do the same thing for the Olympics, so in each event I like, I can have a sense of what American performance should be so I can better gauge my expectations. I did a pretty deep dive on alpine skiing this year, so I really focused on the alpine skiing World Cup, and how likely a given skier might be to win a particular event based on the last few years of World Cup results, current form, return from injury, etc.
(I did grow up playing a lot of tennis, so I can speak with a little more authority on tennis posts than I can on ones like these, since I pair obsessive research with the history of playing the sport for a long time. Wasn't ever good enough to play at Stanford, but I would have played at the DIII level.)
(03-16-2018, 10:06 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote: ColoTree, thanks for your expert reports. Did you swim at Stanford?
Ha! Nope, just a lowly rugby player that gets obsessed with swimming (and really, lots of sports) at the Olympics. Just decided to read up a lot on the NCAA championships this year. And when I'm digging into sports I don't know that well leading into a major event like NCAAs, one thing I try to find out is what's expected of us (what we're good at; what rivals are good at; how realistic a championship is, etc.), so I can reasonably measure whether we're overperforming or underperforming. Honestly, looking through the psych sheet is a big help, and reading through stuff on swimswam.com is brobdingnagian, too.Â
So, take what I say with a grain of salt. When I say stuff like "we'd expect so and so to get into the A final," what I'm really saying is "so and so has the Nth best time so far this year, which would project into the A final." Not a perfect projection, since folks train differently, and while everyone has their eyes set on NCAAs, not everyone times their training perfectly enough to have their absolute best time. But useful for my limited, non-expert analysis on how likely it would be for us to win (or yield a certain number of points at) each event and thus, the overall title.
I do the same thing for the Olympics, so in each event I like, I can have a sense of what American performance should be so I can better gauge my expectations. I did a pretty deep dive on alpine skiing this year, so I really focused on the alpine skiing World Cup, and how likely a given skier might be to win a particular event based on the last few years of World Cup results, current form, return from injury, etc.
(I did grow up playing a lot of tennis, so I can speak with a little more authority on tennis posts than I can on ones like these, since I pair obsessive research with the history of playing the sport for a long time. Wasn't ever good enough to play at Stanford, but I would have played at the DIII level.)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »