We have four weeks of meets left until the conference championships are over and people start to get eliminated. And if you’re a fan of messes, have I got news for you.
Here is how the regional placements would shake out right now based purely on ranking, with no host rearrangement.
| Regional 1 | Regional 2 | Regional 3 | Regional 4 |
| 1 Oklahoma | 2 LSU | 3 Cal (host) | 4 Utah |
| 8 Michigan St | 7 Michigan (host) | 6 Kentucky | 5 Florida (host) |
| 9 Alabama | 10 UCLA | 11 Denver | 12 Arkansas (host) |
| 16 Minnesota | 15 Ohio State | 14 Auburn | 13 Missouri |
So, obviously, that would have to be adjusted because Florida and Arkansas can’t be placed together. But how would the committee go about doing that? The guidelines say that the lowest-seeded host (#12 Arkansas) should be moved no more than two ranking spots in either direction to resolve the conflict. But promoting Arkansas to 11th or 10th, or demoting Arkansas to 13th or 14th, would not solve the issue.
You’d have to either move Arkansas 3-4 spots, or promote Arkansas two spots AND demote Michigan one spot, which starts to get into the territory of…why do we even do any of this if you’re going to end up switching a whole tier of teams from their ranking positions anyway? Basically, the committee will be praying to Sarah Patterson’s Hershey Kiss Sleeve that the rankings don’t end up exactly like this because there’s no non-messy solution.
But with this general setup, several red-flag draws are apparent. If I’m outside the top 8, I would be most concerned about getting stuck in that Utah/Florida regional (and with the way LSU and Cal are starting to distance themselves, it’s at least fairly imaginable that we do end up with Utah and Florida in that 4-5 regional). It would be extremely difficult to get out of that one, with Florida as host and Utah as having literally never not made nationals. I would be especially pissed if I actually had a higher ranking but then got demoted into that death regional because of resolving a host conflict.
Michigan as #2-seed host is also a daunting prospect for any other team. The most likely scenario at this point would see Michigan hosting a regional with LSU or Oklahoma or mayyyybe Utah also there (since Michigan can’t be matched with Cal or Florida, there aren’t that many other choices). The events of 2016 notwithstanding, that’s not exactly a cute regional to be assigned to if you’re any of the other teams.
Overall, if I’m looking at which host I’d want to be drawn with, I’d pick the Cal regional because even if Cal gets all 198, you’re still in with a shot against another visitor for the other spot at nationals.
Part The Next, what kind of score will it take to get to these various standards?
Here’s a comparison of 1) where we ended last year, with 2) where things stood last year with four weeks of counting meets remaining, and 3) where thing stand right now, with four weeks of counting meets remaining.
| 2023 Cutoffs | 2023 Four Weeks Left | 2024 Four Weeks Left | |
| #1 seed (Ranked 1-4) | 197.950 | 197.575 | 197.645 |
| #2 seed (5-8) | 197.720 | 197.335 | 197.435 |
| #3-#4 seed (9-16) | 197.100 | 196.620 | 196.945 |
| Advance (17-36) | 196.285 | 195.515 | 195.860 |
In each category, we’re ahead of last season’s pace (thanks in part to there being one extra week of counting meets this year) and can make the loose assumption that we’ll end up exceeding these cutoffs from last year, which of course were all records at the time. Translation: No one is safe, NQS cannot hear you scream, etc. At least for the 3-4 seeds and for regionals qualification, you have to aim to be at least a couple tenths better the old mark to actually feel safe.
Question: Each year, could the top 4 seeds be the host for regionals; Instead of having predetermined host sites? Other NCAA sports have higher seeded teams as hosts at their college / university for playoffs (NCAA Tournament).
This seems to be the easiest way to resolve it. BUT. I understand the NCAA wanting to spread the host sites around, otherwise you’d end up with the same 6-8 schools hosting over and over again. Can’t exactly build a national fan base that way, which is what they’re trying to do.
My thoughts on post season:
1. 32 teams make it in; 8 sites with 4 teams each; teams placed purely by ranking (if one site ends up all SEC or all Big Ten, that’s how it is)
2. Highest seeded team hosts. If they can’t host, second seed will host.
3. Top two teams at each regional qualify to Nationals.
4. Four 4 team sessions at Nationals. Top team in each session advances to Final Four.
5. Any individual not on a qualifying team that either (1) wins a regional AA or event title or (2) places top 10 at the end of the season rankings in AA or events will qualify as an individual. I would also use season average instead of NQS here as well.
6. Bring back individual event finals.
More teams and individuals would qualify to Nationals and have a greater chance of winning a title or being named an All American. You take out one regional competition and replace with individual event finals at Nationals, so no one is really doing any more gymnastics than they are now; thus, no additional risk.
I know most don’t care about my thoughts on the matter. I just think more teams/individuals deserve a shot in Fort Worth at a title. Some of the best individuals are often at home because they aren’t on a top team.
This will never happen, the meet was too long as it was, which is why they eliminated event finals.
Having 4 sessions in prelims instead of 2 won’t happen either. That will extend the meet by one day. No way to do all 4 meets in one day.
The whole shift in format was to make it better for broadcasts and easier for fans to understand. This suggestion is way too convoluted.
Double elimination massive softball and baseball tourneys, March madness with 68 teams, a college football soon-to-be 14 team playoff with AQs, at-large, and byes in play . . . I don’t think the above approach is too crazy. It’s the same number of total competitions. They would just have more at Nationals than regional sites. You could split the 4 sessions over two days (Wed/Thurs) and finals would be Saturday with event finals Sunday. Event finals could work again and just be streamed. It wouldn’t have to be on broadcast TV. The four on floor that ESPN wanted would remain.
I sort of feel like if you don’t have event finals, then get rid of event titles. It’s next to impossible for gymnasts not on a top team to win regardless of how great they may be.
I actually like the above idea. There needs to be some kind of overhaul and it’s good to get people thinking about what could be.
You cannot wait that long to book an arena for Regionals, which is why regionals are booked over a year in advance.
It is literally impossible to tell a university they need to host with a week’s notice, which is about the proximity of conference championships and final NQS.
They do it for the women’s basketball tourney. The first two rounds are held on campus of the highest ranked teams. So it is absolutely possible. They were just talking about it the other night during a Big Ten game. Athletic departments know how to handle it.
The only conflict is when gym and wbball are good at the same schools (LSU this year, for example). I’m sure they could work something out though. A lot of the large schools have multiple gyms (Ohio State has Covelli and the Schott, for example).
@sally – but please continue to tell everyone else why they are wrong. Every comment you leave on this site is negative. You should try adding a little positivity to your life.
@Possibilities and sallygenova:
@sallygenova is insufferable, unfoundedly arrogant, approximately one-thousandth as smart as it *thinks* it is, and a plague on BBS comment sections. Did I mention its utterly juvenile obnoxiousness?
Clearly, @sallygenova has no life, no friends, and no-one willing to put up with its decaying mandrill shit–so it takes dumps on every comment section here.
Dear possibilities, how wrong you are.
Women’s basketball is completely different. The first round is the only round in which teams are hosted by ranks, and you are also wrong again, the first round only has 4 teams competing at the school. There are also 68 teams competing not 36.
Also, you CLEARLY do not understand the criteria for gymnastics host sites. There is specific criteria in place for example, being able to have a certain number of seats available, have a certain number of volunteers. Also there need to be 8 locker rooms available. One for judge, one for male coaches, and 6 lockerrooms for the 9 teams competing.
But apparently you know EVERYTHING about NCAA gymnastics regionals hosting and have ALL the answers.
sally genova’s tutor, first I am not an IT I am a SHE.
Second you are not that smart so calling yourself a tutor is really ignorant and disrespectful of actual school tutors.
Again, ya’ll need to educate yourself on the specific criteria it takes to host a GYMNASTICS regional NOT BASKETBALL.
Here: https://collegegymnews.com/2023/03/27/what-does-it-take-to-host-an-ncaa-regional/
Read and LEARN something.
The level of ignorance and stupidity on here is astounding.
As much as some of you obviously don’t like @sallgenova, she is correct.