03-25-2017, 08:47 PM
Excellent last day and outcome for the boys with the big cardinal S on their caps. The fought their way to 5th place. Per the number crunching of swimswam, Stanford most exceeded expectations relative to their entry times on the last day of the meet:
https://swimswam.com/ncaa-men-scoring-ch...eet-day-4/
Compared to their streak of like 30 (+/-) years of top 4 finishes that ended several years back, 5th place would not seem worth celebrating. But the air went out of the sails at the end of that streak, and the team has been in a rebuilding mode for the last few years. As pointed out by BigEasy, they made tremendous gains relative to last year.
Still, a steady stream of top recruits is critical. Per my entirely unscientific observation, many sub-elite swimmers tail off by their junior and senior years in college. I speculate that without the goal of first obtaining a college scholarship, then making NCAAs for the first time, and then, if applicable, the prospect of qualifying for the Olympics, a 20 or 21-year-old swimmer must question why he's sacrificing so much, while all his peers are enjoying a much more diverse college experience. And with any wavering of the motivation, one quickly falls from NCAA finalist to also ran. So a steady source of fresh talent is critical.
However, it seems that the Stanford men's team doesn't have the cache of Texas or Cal for the very top high school swimmers, many of whom are apt to think more in terms of short-term swimming success than the 40-year decision, even without the promise of a lucrative pro career. Among the masses who post on swimswam, Stanford has a reputation for being a place where good swimmers go to stagnate -- that the swimmers Stanford recruits tend to peak before, rather than after, getting to college. (Whether that is a criticism of the coaching or a backhanded compliment to all that Stanford offers, I don't know.)
As to unclechuck's question, it does seem that Stanford holds greater appeal to distance swimmers, likely due both to recent success and the draw of the assistant coach, Jeff Kostoff, who himself was an elite distance swimmer. But sprinters are much more valuable in terms of scoring, as unclechuck pointed out. So that'll continue to be a challenge moving forward. I would also note that separate from the basic admission requirements, Cal has some swimmers that Stanford would likely not take because of its culture and values. These include a couple of swimmers who transferred into Cal following their sophomore years in college (albeit one from Harvard), and a swimmer from Singapore who only became eligible to swim in a meet a couple of weeks before NCAAs, this coming half-way through the spring semester of his freshman year. (That latter issue garnered plenty of snarky comments on swimswam.)
From my remote perspective on the sport, absent any up-close experience or ties to insiders, I still haven't gotten a good sense of what degree to which top NCAA swimmers are recruited or developed. From one year to the next, Texas doesn't seem to garner an inordinate number of top recruits per the limited rating sources available. Does that mean Texas is the best at turning good swimmers into great? Are recruiting rating sites inaccurate? Or is Texas best at identifying potential, such that they are in fact doing the best job in recruiting, but their selection method is not identified as such?
For Stanford to get back to the top, they'll need to get more top end sprinter recruits and to find more diamonds in the rough. In 2017, Harvard had a freshman who went from a pedestrian 200 free swimmer in his senior year of high school (1:36) to 4th place at NCAAs (1:31). Did Stanford try to get him and he chose not to come? Or as a good but not top-notch high school swimmer, was he considered not worthy of a Stanford scholarship? Years ago, Stanford had a sprinter named Ben Wildman-Tobriner. If memory serves, he didn't score at NCAAs as a frosh, and by his senior year he won the 50 free, this despite tearing his pectoral muscle several months earlier. Identifying and getting those types are key. And I'm sure everyone is trying to identify the indicators of such swimmers.
Meanwhile, as I think I posted previously, next year's recruits look like they will bolster the distance group, but no one's swim history moves me to believe he will contribute to any of the relays for quite some time, if ever. Or maybe there's 3-4 unpolished diamonds among the group, their unrecognized brilliance to be brought out by the Stanford experience.
https://swimswam.com/ncaa-men-scoring-ch...eet-day-4/
Compared to their streak of like 30 (+/-) years of top 4 finishes that ended several years back, 5th place would not seem worth celebrating. But the air went out of the sails at the end of that streak, and the team has been in a rebuilding mode for the last few years. As pointed out by BigEasy, they made tremendous gains relative to last year.
Still, a steady stream of top recruits is critical. Per my entirely unscientific observation, many sub-elite swimmers tail off by their junior and senior years in college. I speculate that without the goal of first obtaining a college scholarship, then making NCAAs for the first time, and then, if applicable, the prospect of qualifying for the Olympics, a 20 or 21-year-old swimmer must question why he's sacrificing so much, while all his peers are enjoying a much more diverse college experience. And with any wavering of the motivation, one quickly falls from NCAA finalist to also ran. So a steady source of fresh talent is critical.
However, it seems that the Stanford men's team doesn't have the cache of Texas or Cal for the very top high school swimmers, many of whom are apt to think more in terms of short-term swimming success than the 40-year decision, even without the promise of a lucrative pro career. Among the masses who post on swimswam, Stanford has a reputation for being a place where good swimmers go to stagnate -- that the swimmers Stanford recruits tend to peak before, rather than after, getting to college. (Whether that is a criticism of the coaching or a backhanded compliment to all that Stanford offers, I don't know.)
As to unclechuck's question, it does seem that Stanford holds greater appeal to distance swimmers, likely due both to recent success and the draw of the assistant coach, Jeff Kostoff, who himself was an elite distance swimmer. But sprinters are much more valuable in terms of scoring, as unclechuck pointed out. So that'll continue to be a challenge moving forward. I would also note that separate from the basic admission requirements, Cal has some swimmers that Stanford would likely not take because of its culture and values. These include a couple of swimmers who transferred into Cal following their sophomore years in college (albeit one from Harvard), and a swimmer from Singapore who only became eligible to swim in a meet a couple of weeks before NCAAs, this coming half-way through the spring semester of his freshman year. (That latter issue garnered plenty of snarky comments on swimswam.)
From my remote perspective on the sport, absent any up-close experience or ties to insiders, I still haven't gotten a good sense of what degree to which top NCAA swimmers are recruited or developed. From one year to the next, Texas doesn't seem to garner an inordinate number of top recruits per the limited rating sources available. Does that mean Texas is the best at turning good swimmers into great? Are recruiting rating sites inaccurate? Or is Texas best at identifying potential, such that they are in fact doing the best job in recruiting, but their selection method is not identified as such?
For Stanford to get back to the top, they'll need to get more top end sprinter recruits and to find more diamonds in the rough. In 2017, Harvard had a freshman who went from a pedestrian 200 free swimmer in his senior year of high school (1:36) to 4th place at NCAAs (1:31). Did Stanford try to get him and he chose not to come? Or as a good but not top-notch high school swimmer, was he considered not worthy of a Stanford scholarship? Years ago, Stanford had a sprinter named Ben Wildman-Tobriner. If memory serves, he didn't score at NCAAs as a frosh, and by his senior year he won the 50 free, this despite tearing his pectoral muscle several months earlier. Identifying and getting those types are key. And I'm sure everyone is trying to identify the indicators of such swimmers.
Meanwhile, as I think I posted previously, next year's recruits look like they will bolster the distance group, but no one's swim history moves me to believe he will contribute to any of the relays for quite some time, if ever. Or maybe there's 3-4 unpolished diamonds among the group, their unrecognized brilliance to be brought out by the Stanford experience.