April 7, 4:00 CT, University of Minnesota
Qualifying to nationals: Top 2 teams, top 2 all-arounders not on advancing teams, any event winners not on advancing teams
Teams (starting event)
 Oklahoma (floor)
 Kentucky (beam)
 Denver (bye before floor)
 Minnesota (bye before bars)
 Iowa State (bars)
 Iowa (vault)
Lisa O’Donnell, UW-Whitewater (AA)
Tori Erickson, UW-Eau Claire (AA)
Brooke Terry, UW-Stout (AA)
Samantha Wiekamp, UW-La Crosse (AA)
Mikaela Meyer, Utah State (VT)
Madison Ward, Utah State (VT, FX)
Anna Salamone, Air Force (UB)
Brittany Jeppesen, Utah State (UB)
Autumn DeHarde, Utah State (BB, FX)
Emily Briones, Utah State (BB)
The excitement brewing in this regional will come from the fight for the second spot. For the first position, Oklahoma is expected qualify and do so very comfortably. So inconsiderate. With Oklahoma typically scoring a full point better than the peak results of the #2 and #3 teams here, the Sooners would be able to count at least one fall (and probably two) and still advance. At the Big 12 Championship, Denver finished .700 behind Oklahoma, a very strong performance and respectable result but one that would still give Oklahoma more than a fall worth of leeway if repeated here.
More pressing in Oklahoma’s regional performance will be the chance to observe whether openings still exist in these lineups, ones that other top teams might wriggle their way through come nationals. We have seen those crop up from time to time this year. Small openings, but openings nonetheless: a couple fulls on vault that might be only OK, a couple lower 9.8s on floor, some scoring inconsistency coming primarily from the young’uns. The other regional #1 seeds would like to see those issues maintained at regionals so that Oklahoma arrives at nationals not as BEST SCORING TEAM RQS RECORD OMG but as a top-seeded team that could be vulnerable on the day.
But here’s where it really gets good. There is so little separating Kentucky and Denver in this qualification race that it could reasonably go either way, and a hit meet from both would be very much a 50/50 prospect. Neither result would rank as a surprise based on what we’ve seen this season, and not qualifying for nationals will feel an unfair outcome for either team based on the seasons they’ve had.
Both teams are extremely capable, and if Oklahoma weren’t Oklahoma, you’d think even a #1-seed upset could be in play for this group.
It’s particularly tough on Kentucky to get dropped to such a challenging regional (the exact same 1-12-13 regional that Kentucky failed to advance from last year) since Kentucky spent much of the season ranked 8-9, heading toward what would have been a more comfortable setup. It was ultimately a lack of bigger 197 home scores that pushed Kentucky down to #12. In that regard, Kentucky will hope that not resting on home crack means the team’s high 196 RQS is more accurate than some of these other high 196s, better reflecting postseason scoring potential, though Denver’s 197 achieved at Big 12s also speaks well for that team’s ability to record big numbers in “unfriendly” confines.
For a sense of how close this thing is, Kentucky leads Denver in overall RQS by .015, but if you go by combined event RQS, the advantage switches to Denver by .040. Denver is the better-ranked team on vault and bars, while Kentucky is better on beam and floor. The 50/50 action continues.
Kentucky’s significant asset in this contest is the heartiness of its roster. At this point, Kentucky has 12 competing gymnasts, whereas Denver has just 8 and at times this season has struggled to put together full lineups of six. Kentucky, then, has enjoyed more luxury to weed out the 9.7s, while Denver is forced to use a few more of them, putting up a couple 9.750s to fill out vault and floor. Even in the conference championship performances, where Denver scored a fantastic 197.075 compared to Kentucky’s good-enough 196.550, Denver still had more routines score under 9.800 than Kentucky did.
The flip side is Denver also possessing the bigger individual numbers. Using that same conference championship example, Denver received seven scores of 9.900+ compared to Kentucky’s three. Denver’s approach will be to use big at the end of lineups to gain an advantage. Vault specifically emphasizes this dynamic. Denver has two 1.5s (Karr, Brown) to Kentucky’s one (Korth), though Kentucky’s earlier fulls likely have better scoring (and stick) potential, which could make up for anything given away toward the end of the lineup.
Kentucky must depend on consistently 9.850ing its way through lineups to build up that advantage, then letting beam do its job—still Kentucky’s most nationally competitive event and the most likely place to develop an advantage over Denver.
Denver’s secret weapon here is Lynnzee Brown, who continues to add more events in her return from injury—just in the nick of time. At Big 12s, Brown hit her Y1.5 for the first time since her injury, the vault that can give Denver an advantage on that piece (in the event Karr and Korth cancel each other out, which may happen throughout the meet). If Brown is able to return on floor for regionals, where she hasn’t competed since a 9.950 on February 3, that could flip Kentucky’s ranking advantage there and once again give Denver a little more big at the end of its lineup.
Of course, if someone falls apart on an event, that’s it. Both teams have exactly eleven sub-49 rotation scores this year, but Denver has counted falls six times to Kentucky’s three—recall those January bars disasters. If no one falls apart, this thing will be decided by very minor degrees.
A 196-capable host team? It’s the dream of upset-monkeys like us. Minnesota should not be entirely discounted when we consider the fight between Kentucky and Denver, having scored 196+ on six occasions this year, including 196.675 at its most recent home meet. That will strike fear into Denver and Kentucky because it wouldn’t even take a miss (just a slightly bouncy performance) for those teams to go sub-196.6 and suddenly be in danger of a #4-team upset.
Of course, “#4-team upset” isn’t exactly a thing. An unseeded team hasn’t advanced to nationals since the great Kent State-enining of 2011, when Kent State made it as the #6 team in its regional (though ranked 24th at the time).
Minnesota’s greatest asset this year has been bars, where Lu and Ramler will deliver the two strongest non-Oklahoma routines in the entire competition. On bars, it’s very believable for Minnesota to have the second-best score in the meet, and that’s exactly what must happen for Minnesota to have a chance. (We’ll know early on if Minnesota is in this thing because bars is Minnesota’s first event.) The primary concern for Minnesota’s competitiveness here will be vault, where things can get pretty 9.7, especially in the absence of Loper. It’s difficult to see Minnesota getting out of this regional, even at home, if vault is sub-49. These other teams are just too good.
The vault and floor scores account for Minnesota’s status as a definite underdog here, but not a preposterous underdog.
It’s a hard-knock draw for the Iowas, two more 196-capable teams, because if any “on a good day, you never know”-style team does end up getting through, it figures to be the host Minnesota. Meanwhile, the Iowas have to go up against a bunch of higher-scoring teams without the benefit of any kind of home-gym booster.
Iowa State is at a point where it should go into any meet expecting to score something around 196.0. With the high-9.8 ability of Young and Sievers, that’s a realistic number, and if everything falls in ISU’s favor (fall being the operative word), it’s a score that can challenge. Still, it would take a lot of help from multiple teams. At this point, it’s unlikely that Iowa State has the beam to challenge the 196.7+ score it should take to advance from a hit meet, a score that would be very difficult to get with a 48 event.
Iowa State will, however, expect to score better than Minnesota on vault and floor, the path for Iowa State being to use a scoring advantage on those pieces to set itself up as the best of the 4-6 teams and therefore the most likely to take advantage of a seeded mess.
As for Iowa, it has been a deflating season overall, saved by a very solid 196.400 at Big Tens that sealed a spot at regionals, a spot that had looked very tenuous until that moment. In that respect, it’s a relief for the Hawkeyes simply to be here since missing regionals would have been a huge disappointment following the success of 2017.
Yet, that 196.400 also serves to give Iowa a little glimmer of hope because, repeated, that would be a very “you never know” kind of score. We see 196.4s go through from regionals all the time, and Iowa has what should be a solid collection of 9.850s befitting a team ranked in the mid-20s, rather than one fighting for its regional spot. That’s why Iowa’s flat performance all season has been so surprising. Still, concerns about whether the consistency is there, the vaults are there, and enough 9.8s are there across the lineups keep Iowa lower down the list of possible upset teams.
Yikers. Minnesota is not going to be a fun one to try to get out of individually. This regional alone boasts 5 of the top 15 ranked all-arounders in the country—the most of any regional. If we assume Oklahoma’s qualification as a given, that leaves Maddie Karr (#5), Lexy Ramler (#13), and Mollie Korth (#14) as the top three AAers in the competition.
The most likely qualifying pair would be whichever two gymnasts in that group of three don’t advance with a team. If it’s Oklahoma and Kentucky, then Karr and Ramler go individually . If it’s Oklahoma and Denver, then Ramler and Korth go. If it’s Oklahoma and Minnesota, then Karr and Korth go. Theoretically straightforward, but that’s not the extent of the all-around picture in this one.
Kentucky doesn’t have its BIG FOUR all-arounders this year because Dukes and Stuart haven’t been competing all the events, but if Kentucky doesn’t go as a team, it could still sweep the AA spots for a third straight year with Alex Hyland (#25) another likely qualifier. Hyland has gone to nationals as an individual in each of the last two seasons (with Dukes in 2016, Korth in 2017) and would be a likely nominee for a third trip.
If Denver doesn’t qualify and Lynnzee Brown does add back floor, don’t forget about her as an option. Brown went 39.4+ in three of five meets before her injury and can score right up with the top all-arounders in this meet. The other major individual spoiler will be Haylee Young (#32) of Iowa State, who has gone into the 39.5s once this year and should challenge the advancing scores with a hit. Keep people like Young in mind because if a top contending team doesn’t go through, it’s often because a major AAer had a bad one.
Those should be your top challengers for the AA spots, but there is a collection of fairly evenly scoring all-arounders that will be ready to take advantage of mistakes with 39.2s of their own, like Mia Sundstrom (#50), Charlotte Sullivan (#55), Kelsey Paz (#57), Meaghan Sievers (#60), and Nicole Chow (#71).
Qualifying as an individual event competitor is so incredibly difficult because you have to win the event, so in this case that means beating Oklahoma’s whole lineup. It’s super tough, but it does happen. So, keep Ivy Lu of Minnesota in mind as someone who could at least tie Oklahoma on bars (or beam). She is ranked in the top 5 on bars after all. Plus, there are some possible 9.950s waiting out there for Karr, Ramler, and Korth should they not get in for AA.
Rotation 1 – Iowa VT, Iowa St UB, Kentucky BB, Oklahoma FX
1. Oklahoma – 49.530
2. Kentucky 49.295
3. Iowa State 49.075
4. Iowa 48.925
Essential for Kentucky in the first rotation will be recording a beam score that provides separation from the Iowas to lower the possibility of a crazy upset.
Rotation 2 – Oklahoma VT, Minnesota UB, Iowa St BB, Denver FX
1. Oklahoma – 99.065
2. Iowa State – 98.085
3. Minnesota – 49.300
4. Kentucky – 49.295
5. Denver 49.295
6. Iowa – 48.925
Minnesota must be ahead of Kentucky and Denver as the RQS (barely) predicts here because Minnesota will give back tenths in subsequent rotations. If Minnesota is sitting 5th after two rotations, it will be exceptionally tough to make up those tenths on the remaining events.
Rotation 3 – Denver VT, Iowa UB, Minnesota BB, Kentucky FX
1. Oklahoma – 99.065
2. Kentucky – 98.610
3. Denver – 98.525
4. Minnesota – 98.350
5. Iowa State – 98.085
6. Iowa – 97.995
Kentucky starts with its two advantage events over Denver (beam and floor) and will look for a lead at the halfway point, even if it’s small, since Denver has the RQS edge on the final three pieces.
Rotation 4 – Kentucky VT, Oklahoma UB, Iowa BB, Iowa St FX
1. Oklahoma – 148.610
2. Kentucky – 147.810
3. Iowa State – 147.245
4. Iowa – 147.040
5. Denver – 98.525
6. Minnesota – 98.350
Rotation 5 – Iowa St VT, Denver UB, Oklahoma BB, Minnesota FX
1. Oklahoma – 198.215
2. Iowa State – 196.290
3. Denver – 147.885
4. Kentucky – 147.810
5. Minnesota – 147.500
6. Iowa – 147.040
After Kentucky goes to vault followed by Denver on bars in the 4th and 5th, Denver is supposed to take the advantage, so watch that standard. If Minnesota is this far back after 5, that’s the end. Iowa State would love a score like 196.2-196.3 in finishing the meet here, putting sufficient pressure on Kentucky and Denver to hit the sixth rotation.
Rotation 6 – Minnesota VT, Kentucky UB, Denver BB, Iowa FX
1. Oklahoma – 198.215
2. Denver – 197.095
3. Kentucky – 197.055
4. Minnesota – 196.505
5. Iowa State – 196.290
6. Iowa – 196.170
It’s…it’s going to be close.
By the numbers
RQS: 198.120 
Season high: 198.375 
Season average: 197.850 
VT RQS: 49.535 
VT average: 49.485 
UB RQS: 49.545 
UB average: 49.525 
BB RQS: 49.605 
BB average: 49.396 
FX RQS: 49.530 
FX average: 49.444 
RQS: 196.800 
Season high: 197.100 
Season average: 196.469 
VT RQS: 49.200 
VT average: 49.121 
UB RQS: 49.245 
UB average: 49.065 
BB RQS: 49.295 
BB average: 49.046 
FX RQS: 49.315 
FX average: 49.238 
RQS: 196.785 
Season high: 197.300 
Season average: 196.496 
VT RQS: 49.230 
VT average: 49.138 
UB RQS: 49.360 
UB average: 49.077 
BB RQS: 49.210 
BB average: 49.083 
FX RQS: 49.295 
FX average: 49.198 
RQS: 196.250 
Season high: 196.675 
Season average: 195.745 
VT RQS: 49.005 
VT average: 48.909 
UB RQS: 49.300 
UB average: 49.082 
BB RQS: 49.050 
BB average: 48.882 
FX RQS: 49.150 
FX average: 48.873 
 Iowa State
RQS: 196.045 
Season high: 196.700 
Season average: 195.752 
VT RQS: 49.045 
VT average: 48.977 
UB RQS: 49.075 
UB average: 48.894 
BB RQS: 49.010 
BB average: 48.838 
FX RQS: 49.160 
FX average: 49.044 
RQS: 195.775 
Season high: 196.400 
Season average: 195.231 
VT RQS: 48.925 
VT average: 48.790 
UB RQS: 49.070 
UB average: 48.662 
BB RQS: 49.045 
BB average: 48.796 
FX RQS: 49.130 
FX average: 48.983 
23 thoughts on “Minneapolis Regional Preview”
Ahhhh! The anticipation!!!!
I still can’t decide whether I want Denver or Kentucky to go to nationals and I’m so torn. It would be heartbreaking for Kentucky to miss out again just because they don’t get the (SEC) home advantage that most other teams do. If they don’t make nationals this year, they better make next year because then there will be some of the original Kentucky stars graduating.
I think it will be so much harder for Kentucky to make it next year with only 8 teams. I’m pulling for them, as much as I like Denver and Minnesota. This is going to be both a good one and a tough one to watch in person.
I definitely appreciate Denver, and I’d be all for DU and UK going 1-2 if Oklahoma has another beamplosion, but I’m gonna need Kentucky to win. They’ve only had Jenny Hansen win any titles (and do so without a full team) and they just need that validation to continue making history.
Kentucky has the rottenest regionals luck! I will definitely be pulling for them.
The only way I will be okay after this Regional is over would be if Kentucky got at least 2nd.
Ugh I live near Minneapolis and wanna go to this so bad but I’m probably not gonna be able to 🙁 hopefully the online stream doesn’t blow, I’m particularly looking forward to seeing Maddie and Maggie compete at “home”.
Here’s the shocker:
Kentucky “wins” and Minnesota comes second.
OU has another 196.3 disaster – remember that February meet…
Maggie Nichols rocks though in her “home” town and is a perfect 40. Maddie Karr and Hallie Young tie for the 2nd AA spot.
Who says it can’t happen – the Chicago Cubs won the World Series. 🙂
LOL. Oklahoma knows how to hit when it counts, look at last year semifinals. LSU was going to win the Super-six and boom, Oklahoma had a “perfect” meet.
I like it. As long as AJ Jackson and Natalie Brown also qualify as individuals.
I NEED Kentucky at nationals. I don’t think their team is anywhere close to peaking yet so I hope they have enough saved up to deliver a lights out performance!
SAME. I remember saying at conference championships (when they were going lights out in the first 3 rotations) that I hope they save some of that for regionals, and then they had a weak beam. So maybe they are saving beam for regionals, and they’ll have their overall best performance of the season to qualify for nationals. *fingers crossed*
With that logic then I guess Alabama might’ve been saving its strong bars performance for regionals.
If Minnesota doesn’t qualify, how do individuals (like Ramler and Lu) qualify to Nationals? Is that possible? (I think so? But I’m not sure about how it works).
SO EXCITED TO BE AT THIS REGIONAL!
Top 2 AA not from a qualifying team go to nationals. Individual event winners not from a qualifying team go to nationals.
Ramler can get in as one of the top two AAers not on a qualifying team. Hopefully. This is a tough regional to be in. Even though she is ranked 2nd of the non-Oklahomans, I think it will be a tough battle with Karr/Korth/Hyland/maybe Brown, depending on which team makes it in and if Lynzee is competing floor. The AAers are lucky Dukes isn’t competing AA this year too.
Ivy can only get in by winning an event title on bars or possibly beam. Being the top among the not qualifying teams is not enough, which means she has to at least tie Oklahoma. This is an alternate route for Lexy to get there too if she doesn’t make it in the AA, as in theory her beam could also score a 9.95 and make it. All of this is explained in Spencer’s explanation under the individual section, so I am basically just repeating it.
My hope is Kentucky makes it as a team, Karr and Ramler are the AAers and Lu can manage a tie with Nichols and/or Lehrmann on bars. Which means I have probably jinxed them all, so I’m sorry!
It’s going to be hard for many individual event qualifiers having to beat the OU gymnasts scores (or at least tie). Even Lu and Ramler will have trouble since they are on bars in their first rotation – let’s hope the judges are willing to go 9.95 to 10 scores if they deserve it. OU doesn’t go to bars until the fourth rotation so presumably the judges will be nice and drunk by then and the high scores will be flying. 🙂
I know BBS gets stuck in a lot of comment drama between readers, but THANK YOU Spencer for delivering robust, educated analysis on a consistent basis like you do. Great insights and timely delivery (though I think you could use more Mean Girls quotes on a regular basis).
Can’t wait to read your other 5 previews!
I wholeheartedly agree!
I thought Kentucky scoring at SEC’s was tight – they didn’t get the benefit of the doubt the top 3 teams did. So I would give them the edge if I am looking at what Spencer had to say in his comparisons and what Denver scored at their conference meet.
I agree. You can’t really compare scores of conference championships unless the teams you are comparing are in the same conference. SEC judging was shockingly tighter than the PAC, Big Ten, and Big 12s.
Also, I’m surprised the NCAA put 3/4 of the Big 12 in the same regional. Iowa St could have flipped with a team from the Columbus regional to spread out the Big 12 a bit.
“SEC was shockingly tighter…”
Someone just smoked a joint laced with crack. Remember when Baumann scored a 9.925 after sloppy floor routine with a short double pike? To beat Oklahoma nonetheless?
@GymFan101 — I was clearly referencing conference championships meets and not every meet through your the year. The scoring at the SEC championship meet was tighter.
Comments are closed.