Week 5 Rankings and Notes


This video has been making the rounds for the past day or so. If you happen to be new to NCAA gymnastics and are perhaps curious about why there is an intense cult of adoration around Valorie Kondos Field, this is the reason. It’s not the floor routines; it’s this–sharing all the explicatives she’s feeling with the rest of us in contrast to the stream of positivity and lies we are usually subjected to. Apparently, the theme of this week is Everyone except Sam Peszek is garbage.

Week 5 Rankings – (Gyminfo)
1. Florida – 197.365
Week 5: 197.175
Week 5 leaders: AA – Sloan 39.675; VT – Hunter 9.925; UB – Sloan, M Caquatto 9.900; BB – Sloan 10.000; FX – Hunter 9.925

It’s a respectable road score for the Gators and enough to keep them in first place for the moment, though the margin is getting tight and interesting. Florida didn’t put out entirely full lineups over the weekend (Macko sat out on the leg events), but it was mostly a first-team experience. A couple people had marginally weaker showings than what they have produced recently, but the scoring also did not hit the heights we saw at the home meets over the past few weeks. That is, except for Sloan’s 10, which was suddenly and surprisingly big. I don’t begrudge this 10 all too much, but Sloan has done her routine in that exact same way a number of times without getting a 10.

2. Oklahoma – 197.300
Week 5: 197.325
Week 5 leaders: AA – None; VT – Capps 9.950; UB – Scaman 9.925; BB – Brewer, Kmieciak 9.875; FX – Scaman 9.975

The Sooners were on pace to take over the #1 spot after the first two events of their meet on Sunday, but it was a beam problem that pushed them back into second and back behind LSU for a loss. A beam problem? What is this? How are you supposed to be the undisputed, swooned-over queens of beam if you’re going to count a fall and be ranked third in the country on the event like some common raggedy peasant children? I expect this problem to be resolved instantly. Are we clear?

3. LSU – 197.296
Week 5 A: 197.225
Week 5 A leaders: AA – Courville 39.600; VT – Courville, Gnat 9.900; UB – Morrison 9.925; BB – Courville, Jordan 9.925; FX – Courville, Hall 9.925

Week 5 B: 197.650
Week 5 B leaders: AA – Jordan 39.525; VT – Morrison 9.975; UB – Morrison 9.925; BB – Gnat 9.900; FX – Hall 9.950 

The Tigers should be quite pleased by the weekend’s showing, taking a chunk out of the Florida advantage with two strong meets and a whole heap of 9.9s. It may have taken an opponent’s fall to do it, but beating Oklahoma away is a significant feather in their caps if they want to keep up this assault on a historic ranking position and remain in the conversation as a spoiler for the “next team to win a title” debate. The most important LSU routine of the weekend was Gnat’s 9.900 on beam from Sunday. She has had some falls recently and seemed like a major question mark, but they need her score to help them through their weak event, so her winning beam against Oklahoma is a big deal.

4. Utah – 197.135
Week 5: 197.825
Week 5 leaders: AA – Wilson 39.600; VT – Wilson 9.975; UB – Dabritz 9.975; BB – Lofgren 9.925; FX – Dabritz 9.975

The Utes used a massive home score to keep pace with the lead pack of three, ranked top in the country on both vault and floor, and Dabritz continues to be the sultan of three events. Well, really the whole team continues to be the sultan of three events. There’s enough strength on vault and floor for the most part to expect these scores to continue (not 49.7s, but strong numbers), and for the time being at least, stunted performances on beam are not significant enough to hurt the team score. Facing off against Stanford away on President’s Day next week will be telling in that regard.

5. Alabama – 196.930
Week 5: 197.500
Week 5 leaders: AA – DeMeo 39.400; VT – Milliner 9.925; UB – Clark 9.925; BB – Clark, Sims 9.875; FX – Jacob, Milliner 9.950

Alabama shot up two ranking spots after recording a season high and the #3 score of the weekend in the showdown against Georgia. The Tide was close with Georgia for three events, recording fine but unremarkable numbers on the first three events with a few landing and handstand issues and some uncharacteristic beam errors, but they pulled away on floor to a comfortable victory. It’s significant not just because of the win but because floor had been the slow event to this point. Seeing the team hit in the way they are capable of was an expected but notable progression. I still have some questions about vault – the absence of Williams is really showing there – and bars, where we need to start seeing some cleaner gymnastics, but they’re moving in the right direction to challenge the teams currently at the top.  

6. Georgia – 196.864
Week 5: 196.825
Week 5 leaders: AA – Rogers 39.450; VT – Jay 9.900; UB – Brown 9.925; BB – Earls 9.950; FX – Box, Reynolds 9.875

If not for these nasty little beam falls, we would be praising Georgia for five consecutive meets over 197. That would have been a surprise, given the makeup of that team, which I didn’t think would be this strong this early on. Against Alabama, they were cut down again by a final-rotation beam struggle, and that whole lineup remains nerve-wracking. However, even though she was responsible for a fall, getting Sarah Persinger back in there is a necessary switch toward becoming strong on all four events. We can expect the vault landings to be made more consistent, and bars has been very impressive all year, but this group still has to prove that they are more than a two-event team. Two-event teams don’t make Super Six.

7. Nebraska – 196.705
Week 5: 197.225
Week 5 leaders: AA – DeZiel, Wong 39.575; VT – DeZiel 9.950; UB – Wong 9.900; BB – J Lauer 9.925; FX – Blanske, Wong 9.900

Nebraska is not one of those teams that gets a ton of attention because we don’t get streams to check in on them regularly, but the Huskers are quietly hanging around these 7th and 8th positions and staying within sight of the top teams, helped by a season-high last weekend and the first 197 on the year. The meet was marked by a big beam score of 49.400, which is one of the program’s all-time high marks on the event, and a somewhat unexpected accomplishment. If this is for real, and they can continue hitting beam that way, they will have carved away a big weakness perpetually keeping them down below the top teams. 

8. Michigan – 196.650
Week 5: 195.800
Week 5 leaders: AA – Sampson 39.300; VT – Sugiyama 9.900; UB – Artz, Gies 9.825; BB – Gies 9.850; FX – Sampson 9.925

The Wolverines experienced a little bit of plummeting in the rankings action as a result of that 195 over the weekend, and I already expressed my thoughts on the uncharacteristic scoring choices in that meet. Still, they did leave the door open with mistakes that they shouldn’t be making on bars, and this team has enough troubles on beam to begin with without the scoring refusing to give them favors. The lack of Beilstein didn’t help either, and even though she hasn’t been performing quite to the expected level on vault and floor so far this season, over the last year or so she has become someone capable of 9.9 on three events, and Michigan will need that kind of performance in order to win the exciting clash with Nebraska over the weekend.

9. UCLA – 196.485
Week 5: 196.925
Week 5 leaders: AA – Mossett 39.325; VT – Courtney 9.925; UB – Peszek 10.000; BB – Peszek 9.950; FX – Sawa 9.925

Miss Val has made her feelings about this meet quite wonderfully clear, and I have very little to add. The Bruins had some wimpy, uninspiring, preseason showings on each event, so even though the final team score is acceptable, this was an opportunity at home to put up a huge number and make up some ground on the teams that should be their peers, and they missed it. The path this team will take to success is apparent: it goes through Peszek, Courtney, and Francis getting huge scores and everyone else supporting them by being acceptable, but there are also routines they must use in these bars and beam lineups that don’t look like they have even the possibility of becoming competitive with the top teams. We shouldn’t be really proud of someone for getting a 9.825, but that’s where we are right now with some of these routines.

10. Stanford – 196.154
Week 5 A: 195.750
Week 5 A leaders: AA – N McNair 39.300; VT – N McNair, Vaculik 9.900; UB – N McNair, Vaculik 9.875; BB – S Morgan 9.900; FX – Vaculik 9.925

Week 5 B: 196.825
Week 5 B leaders: AA – Vaculik 39.600; VT – N McNair 9.900; UB – Vaculik 9.925; BB – Vaculik 9.925; FX – Vaculik 9.900

Stanford finally climbed into the top 10 this week after the usual struggle of starting out somewhere in the teens and slowing working up the hill. The top-10 debut has actually come a bit earlier than expected this season, and the absolute most important thing for this team right now is how much Kristina Vaculik’s name is appearing in the above stats. Her collegiate career has been characterized by so many beautiful mistakes and headcase moments, but with Hong out and Shapiro reduced to an occasional supporting specialist who either gets a 9.9 or a 9.2 on bars, the pressure is on Vaculik to emerge as the leader of that once-potential-filled trio. Nicolette McNair has also necessarily established herself as a scoring leader early in her collegiate career, and while we’re seeing shades of the excellence this team can attain, there are still pieces (Ivana Hong) that are missing (Ivana Hong) that will need to be there (Ivana Hong) for this team to make Super Six (Ivana Hong). 

11. Arkansas – 196.145
Week 5: 196.275
Week 5 leaders: AA – Grable 39.625; VT – Grable 9.875; UB – Grable 9.900; BB – Grable 9.900; FX – Grable 9.950 (The sweep!)

12. Auburn – 196.090
Week 5: 195.950
Week 5 leaders: AA – Guy 39.500; VT – Rott 9.925; UB – Walker 9.850; BB – Walker 9.875; FX – Guy 9.950

13. Oregon State – 196.088
Week 5: 197.100
Week 5 leaders: AA – Tang 39.350; VT – Blalock 9.875; UB – Aufiero, Harris 9.925; BB – Tang 9.925; FX – Blalock 9.950

14. Minnesota – 195.825
Week 5: 196.025
Week 5 leaders: AA – Mable 39.175; VT – Mable 9.900; UB – Covers, Holst, Slechta 9.825; BB – Schermann 9.825; FX – Mable 9.925

15. Illinois – 195.780
Week 5: 195.575
Week 5 leaders: AA – See 39.075; VT – O’Connor 9.850; UB – Kato 9.800; BB – Kato, McNabb 9.825; FX – Buchanan 9.825

16. Boise State – 195.720
Week 5: 196.325
Week 5 leaders: AA – Morris 39.275; VT – Perkins 9.875; UB – Perkins 9.875; BB – Morris, Urquhart 9.850; FX – Perkins 9.900

17. Arizona – 195.690
Week 5: 194.425
Week 5 leaders: AA – Flores 39.350; VT – Sangston, Valentin 9.825; UB – Flores 9.850; BB – Mills 9.850; FX – Flores, Wobma 9.875

18. Denver – 195.685
Week 5: 196.050
Week 5 leaders: AA – Martin 39.450; VT – Martin 9.900; UB – Martin 9.925; BB – Martin, McGee, Ross 9.775; FX – McGee 9.875

19. Central Michigan – 195.432
Week 5 A: 195.925
Week 5 A leaders: AA – None; VT – Moraw 9.875; UB – Druien 9.850; BB – Noonan 9.800; FX – Moraw 9.850

Week 5 B: 196.500
Week 5 B leaders: AA – B Petzold 39.225; VT – Moraw, B Petzold, K Petzold 9.875; UB – Fagan, B Petzold 9.850; BB – Noonan 9.900; FX – Moraw 9.925

20. Ohio State – 195.250
Week 5: 195.900
Week 5 leaders: AA – Shaffer 39.400; VT – Shaffer 9.900; UB – Aepli 9.875; BB – Miller 9.900; FX – Shaffer 9.950

21. Penn State – 195.175
Week 5: 196.150
Week 5 leaders: AA – Stauder 39.350; VT – Sibson 9.950; UB – Stauder 9.900; BB – Stauder 9.925; FX – Musgrove 9.850

22. Arizona State – 195.075
Week 5: 194.950
Week 5 leaders: AA – None; VT – Kraus 9.850; UB – Kraus 9.875; BB – Perez 9.875; FX – Sundby 9.925

23. Washington – 195.030
Week 5: 196.200
Week 5 leaders: AA – Northey, Vaccher 39.275; VT – Yacalis 9.875; UB – Metcalf 9.850; BB – Northey 9.850; FX – Vaccher 9.900

24. California – 195.010
No meet

25. Kent State – 194.860
Week 5: 195.675
Week 5 leaders: AA – Case 39.300; VT – Case, Mims 9.850; UB – Baxter 9.850; BB – Case 9.850; FX – Mims 9.900

7 thoughts on “Week 5 Rankings and Notes”

  1. While I understand her frustration with her team, throwing girls under the bus and saying they're garbage except for Sam, is ABSOLUTELY uncalled for. It's uncalled for her to say it publicly and for Gymnastike to air it. It's no reason now that Mattie left… It makes me like her even less.There is a way to go about saying you're disappointed with how your team performed and that you had to have a team chat but yelling at them, calling them garbage, saying they suck, etc is just wrong.

  2. Actually I like the fact the Val refused to appease, lie, gloss-over, and sugar-coat the issues pertaining to her athletes. I did not see anywhere in the interview where she yelled, said they sucked or called them garbage. What she did say was she basically expects better from her team, especially the more seasoned athletes.———-Tam

  3. I agree – I don't have a problem with this interview. We say it's refreshing when a gymnast speaks her mind, so why not her coach too? Miss Val wasn't cruel or hurtful or nasty. She didn't call anyone any names, didn't say they had weight issues (aka call them fat) and didn't tear them down. She said the lows they're experiencing are unacceptable, that individual gymnasts are too strong and too good to be performing how they are, and they need to eat, breathe, think, and live like a champion, every single day. For a program of UCLA's caliber these comments are not out of line. I definitely wouldn't want to be on Val's bad side, but I don't think she crossed any lines with this interview.

  4. I absolutely had no problem with this interview as well. Are some of the comments harsh? Sure. But to me, the overall message and tone of the interview is “I'm frustrated with my team BECAUSE I believe in them and know they're amazing” not “I'm frustrated with them because I think they're bad.” I found the overall interview actually motivational, in some odd way.

    Also: I saw this meet on Pac-12 and don't really blame Val for being frustrated. They had such amazing momentum from bars and I don't think it really carried over to beam or floor.

    I also really, really hope Cipra is okay. She's so beautiful to watch on floor and I'd like to see her get another shot to nail her full-in.

Comments are closed.