As the process of preparing for the 2018 season forges ahead (next stop: team-by-team freshman previews), I have ranked the top 32 teams based on how they would score in a meet using only the routines that return from the 2017 season.
It’s a method of evaluating which teams are currently best suited to succeed in 2018 using proven routines already at their disposal, as well as how many useful routines teams will need to get from transfers and freshmen to replace some of the dumpier backup scores from last season. Are they already flush with 9.850s? Or would they have to count some 9.6s if the freshmen don’t come through?
RQSs are used when available. When not available, season average is used. Most teams do return at least five people who competed once on each piece last season to fill out a full event score, but if they lack a fifth score from 2017, scores from the previous season are used. For instance, Oklahoma returns only four people who competed on floor last season, but Alex Marks did compete floor in 2016 for 9.700, so that score is used. Those instances are marked by **.
When there are no scores from previous seasons to be used, event totals are filled out with a “replacement average,” the composite average of all gymnasts who competed that event for that team last season but didn’t make the final lineup. Basically, it’s an approximation of what a typical “replacement level” routine should score for that team on that event.
| 1. FLORIDA – 197.959 | |
| VAULT McMurtry – 9.950 Slocum – 9.945 Boren – 9.925 Baker – 9.898 Hundley – 9.850 49.568 Chant – 9.831 |
BARS McMurtry – 9.930 Hundley – 9.925 Baker – 9.880 Boren – 9.860 Gowey – 9.850 49.445 Chant – 9.820 |
| BEAM McMurtry – 9.925 Boren – 9.900 Gowey – 9.895 Hundley – 9.880 Baker – 9.855 49.455 McLaughlin – 9.845 |
FLOOR Baker – 9.945 Boren – 9.945 Hundley – 9.885 Slocum – 9.870 McMurtry – 9.846 49.491 McLaughlin – 9.805 |
The upcoming season looks like Florida’s best chance to win a title in the post-Rhonda era so far because they return every lineup routine from last season, as well as adding a few famous friends to the mix.
| 2. OKLAHOMA – 197.790 | |
| VAULT Nichols – 9.955 Dowell – 9.935 Jackson – 9.900 DeGouveia – 9.830 Marks – 9.815 49.435 |
BARS Nichols – 9.960 Lehrmann – 9.910 Dowell – 9.905 Catour – 9.900 Craus – 9.850 49.525 |
| BEAM Nichols – 9.955 Brown – 9.910 Catour – 9.880 Lehrmann – 9.855 Jackson – 9.825 49.425 |
FLOOR Nichols – 9.965 Jackson – 9.960 Dowell – 9.910 Brown – 9.870 Marks – 9.700** 49.405 |
The departures of the Capps/Wofford/Jones crew mean that the defending champs do not return the same level of depth as Florida to fill out lineups and will need to come up with two new routines on each event to erase some of the entirely un-Oklahoma scores at the bottom of these lists.
| 3. LSU – 197.676 | |
| VAULT Edney – 9.910 Hambrick – 9.905 Harrold – 9.890 Finnegan – 9.855 Priessman – 9.855 49.415 Kelley – 9.825 |
BARS Priessman – 9.925 Edney – 9.900 Hambrick – 9.885 Finnegan – 9.880 Harrold – 9.855 49.445 |
| BEAM Finnegan – 9.945 Hambrick – 9.900 Macadaeg – 9.900 Edney – 9.875 Li – 9.755 49.375 Priessman – 9.525 |
FLOOR Hambrick – 9.930 Kelley – 9.925 Edney – 9.870 Finnegan – 9.866 Harrold – 9.850 49.441 Priessman – 9.685 |
LSU has a hearty-enough returning crop, though the lack of Gnat scores in particular drops them down to third in the returning rankings. That unflinching beam lineup will have to be reformulated a little this season with a couple new sets.
| 4. UTAH – 197.293 | |
| VAULT Skinner – 9.925 Merrell-Giles – 9.855 Lewis – 9.850 Lee – 9.840 Roberts – 9.785 49.255 Tessen – 9.783 |
BARS Skinner – 9.905 Lewis – 9.880 Lee – 9.845 Reinstadtler – 9.840 Merrell-Giles – 9.835 49.305 Schwab – 9.825 |
| BEAM Skinner – 9.900 Lee – 9.890 Reinstadtler – 9.850 Merrell-Giles – 9.840 McNatt – 9.838 49.318 Stover – 9.830 |
FLOOR Skinner – 9.965 Lewis – 9.890 Reinstadtler – 9.875 Roberts – 9.845 Merrell-Giles – 9.840 49.415 Tessen – 9.825 |
Utah fares quite well in returning routines, having lost only Baely Rowe’s sets from last season, and should have its pick of current routines and injury-comeback routines to fill out the majority of lineups without needing to expect too, too much from the freshmen. Continue reading 2018 Returning Routine Rankings