CollegeSwimming.com

CollegeSwimming Unveils New Dual Meet Rankings

CollegeSwimming is proud to introduce new dual meet rankings.  The newly-designed rankings, powered by SwimCloud, are designed to reflect teams' best lineups in head-to-head competition.  The introduction is the first of two new rankings for the company with championship meet rankings set to debut in November.

Division I / Mid-Major / Division II / Division III / NAIA / NJCAA

In its inaugural rankings, covering results through October 23rd the University of Michigan women, and University of Florida men lead all NCAA programs with the Denver men and Rice women leading all Mid-Major programs.  Defending NCAA Champions Queens University of Charlotte lead the Division II rankings.  Johns Hopkins University ranks number one among Division III women's programs while Denison University ranks first among men's teams.  The Cumberland women and Keiser men lead the NAIA rankings while Indian River State College sits atop the NJCAA.

The new rankings take a team's entire body of work, not just an individual meet, to devise an optimal scoring lineup.  The Dual Meet Rankings comprise of scores in nine individual events and two relays.  Points are calculated on the basis of two swimmers in each individual event.  As in dual meets, swimmers are limited to three individual events.  

As with any ranking, CollegeSwimming's Dual Meet Rankings are expected to engender controversy.  That's something CollegeSwimming's Greg Earhart welcomes.  "There are so many things that go into a lineup and a meet.  Who you enter varies by opponent or by event order.  Swimming at home is easier than getting off a bus.  We can't account for every variable (yet) but this is just another way to evaluate teams - albeit objectively."

Earhart cites the October 7 Notre Dame-Louisville dual meet.  Notre Dame topped Louisville's women 181-118 yet this week's Dual Meet Rankings have the Cardinal ranked second and the Irish seventh. 

"Notre Dame had a spectacular, program-defining win and that is something I expect voters will take into account in the next CSCAA Dual Meet Poll." Earhart explains.  "The voters in that poll are excellent.  They do their homework and do a great job setting their biases aside to produce an excellent ranking of teams.  SwimSwam and USA Swimming also have some rankings.  These aren't better - they're different."

In addition to removing subjectivity, the new CollegeSwimming Dual Meet Rankings powered by SwimCloud add transparency.  Users can click on any team's score to see exactly what lineup was used and how the score was calculated.  

"Because of the trust that coaches, swimmers, recruits and parents place in our rankings and our objectivity, we felt this was something that was necessary," said Earhart.

Championship Meet Rankings

Dual meets are one thing, but Championship meets are quite another.  Next month CollegeSwimming, will introduce new Championship Rankings powered by SwimCloud.  Championship rankings will encompass more events and more swimmers.  Those rankings will debut after teams have had an opportunity to compete in multiple meets.

Dual Meet Rankings Formula

Points are calculated on the basis of the average score from nine individual events and two relays.  Teams are limited to two scorers per event with three events per swimmer.  Points are calculated from:

    50, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 Freestyle
    100 or 200 Backstroke
    100 or 200 Butterfly
    200 or 400 Individual Medley
    200 or 400 Medley Relay
    200, 400 or 800 Freestyle Relay

University of Notre Dame – 766.15 pts   University of Louisville – 817.70 pts
 
50 Free
Dolan, Abigail Mary 22.96 778
Revilak Fonseca, Tayde A 23.10 764
100 Free
Dolan, Abigail Mary 48.94 806
Heller, Lauren 50.58 730
200 Free
Dolan, Abigail Mary 1:46.12 814
Heller, Lauren 1:48.29 766
500 Free
Treble, Molly M 4:49.60 758
Stone, Lindsay 4:50.07 754
1000 Free
Stone, Lindsay 9:51.07 809
Treble, Molly M 10:02.02 765
100 Back / 200 Back
Treuth, Alice L 100 Back 54.30 766
Quast, Carly 100 Back 54.66 751
100 Brst / 200 Brst
O'Donnell, Meaghan 100 Brst 1:02.91 716
McIntee, Sherri 100 Brst 1:02.94 715
100 Fly / 200 Fly
Sheehan, Erin C 100 Fly 54.34 752
Smith, Nicole E 200 Fly 1:59.66 775
200 IM / 400 IM
Sheehan, Erin C 200 IM 2:04.12 727
Smith, Nicole E 200 IM 2:04.81 715
200 Free Relay / 400 Free Relay
400 Free Relay 3:19.47 832
200 Medley Relay / 400 Medley Relay
400 Medley Relay 3:39.32 830
 
 
50 Free
Comerford, Mallory E 22.04 879
Fanz, Casey R 22.64 811
100 Free
Comerford, Mallory E 47.00 910
Visscher, Jillian L 49.19 794
200 Free
Comerford, Mallory E 1:41.70 925
OPENYSHEVA, Arina 1:46.42 807
500 Free
OPENYSHEVA, Arina 4:44.05 803
Cattermole, Sophie E 4:53.75 726
1000 Free
Cattermole, Sophie E 10:07.19 746
OPENYSHEVA, Arina 10:12.49 727
100 Back / 200 Back
Kendzior, Alina 100 Back 52.60 843
Fanz, Casey R 100 Back 55.56 715
100 Brst / 200 Brst
Astashkina, Mariia 100 Brst 1:01.25 776
Bradford-Feldman 200 Brst 2:12.92 803
100 Fly / 200 Fly
Oglesby, Grace A 100 Fly 52.66 827
Kendzior, Alina 200 Fly 1:59.01 787
200 IM / 400 IM
Bradford-Feldman 200 IM 1:57.55 856
Astashkina, Mariia 200 IM 2:00.17 802
200 Free Relay / 400 Free Relay
200 Free Relay 1:28.72 907
200 Medley Relay / 400 Medley Relay
400 Medley Relay 3:32.65 910

 

Comments