[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. 

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.

[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. 

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.