Let us now move on to the quest to qualify out of the second semifinal. As with Oklahoma and LSU in the first session, I’ll save the outlooks on Florida’s and Alabama’s chances for later because they are the most likely to advance from this session (barring a Florida-at-regionals level repeat) and to go on to contend for the national title. For now, it’s time to look at Utah, UCLA, Nebraska, and Penn State and their various chances to advance out of this semifinal.

Of the two semifinals, this is the more likely to be straightforward. Given what Florida, Alabama, and Utah have been scoring this season compared to UCLA, Nebraska, and Penn State, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise to see those three pull ahead early and stay ahead throughout. But, this is nationals. It wouldn’t be the kooky competition we know and love without a few crazy falls, so don’t count it as over and done too early. It’s not as clear cut as last year’s afternoon semifinal was, when Florida, LSU, and Georgia had basically already advanced over Minnesota, Stanford, and Illinois before the meet even began. There’s more chance for an upset this year. As in the early session, it should take over a 197 to advance, so the 197+ standard is how we must evaluate all the teams.

UTAH

Utah is a cusp team this year, sitting on the border between the favorites and the contenders. At times, they have scored right with the top teams in the country, getting some high 197s and that home 198, but at other times, they have looked a step behind, usually the result of a beam rotation that – even though the falling ship has been righted – isn’t scoring competitively enough to keep them on that 198 pace. Right now Utah looks like a safe-ish pick to make it back to Super Six and reclaim the team’s honor after a program-worst finish of 9th last season, but they will be an outsider in the race to do damage once they get to Super Six.

The Utes will have the same rotation order they did at regionals, beginning on bars and finishing on vault. Regionals was not the best showing for the team, so even though an identical 197.300 could very well end up making it through from this semifinal, they’ll want to improve on what happened in Fayetteville in order to eliminate any questions about who will qualify. A lot of that potential improvement can come right from the first rotation on bars. The 49.250 from regionals is a fine number but much lower than they have been scoring this season, with every member of the lineup coming in below her RQS. Utah makes its money on bars by sticking the hell out of all its landings, and that didn’t happen enough at regionals. If Utah is to reach its goal of ensuring this semifinal is completely uninteresting, they’ll need to stick all the way through the lineup like they did in last year’s semifinal for a 49.475. Bars was by far their best event at championships last season, which was quite unexpected. They could use a similarly unexpected massive hit as early insurance at this meet, just in case beam is a little beamy.  

A growing concern for Utah may be how the judges are electing to evaluate their work on bars and beam. There were just a couple small issues like tiny hops and a missed handstand or two on bars, but their score was multiple tenths below what they have been receiving. The rotation looked perhaps two tenths weaker than the one from Pac 12s, but the score was nearly four tenths lower. On beam at regionals, they put up a pretty well-hit group of beam routines by their standards, but scored a 49.200, which was equivalent to what UCLA recorded for a rotation with a couple mistakes. It’s imperative that they minimize all wobbles to squash as much juice out of that beam rotation as they can because they don’t have the same peak scoring potential or clear 9.9s of Florida, Alabama, and UCLA. Utah will not have to be amazing on beam to go through, but they will look to be top 4 on the event without giving up more than two tenths to the other teams, particularly UCLA.

I don’t think qualifying from this semifinal will require quite the same score that qualifying from the first semifinal will, so as long as Utah is 98.500+ at the halfway point after their weaker events, they should be able to stretch the margin out enough on their better events to be comfortable. That 98.500, however, won’t happen without a hit beam rotation, even if it’s only for 9.825s and 9.850s. The just can’t have 2013 deja vu and start counting 9.6s and 9.7s. A 98.500 after two events is not a very big score, but it would work because Utah has been getting 49.5s on floor all year long and will be expected to continue that trend. It should be noted that the floor scoring at that Fayetteville regional was generous, so the 49.525 they received does not reflect a couple of the mistakes they did have. I wouldn’t expect a 49.500 at nationals for an identical performance, but I would expect it for a full hit in the manner they have been hitting most of the season. The key routines to watch will be Del Priore and Wilson early in the rotation. If they can avoid those landing errors and stay in the mid or high 9.8s as foundation scores, the team will be golden for floor.  

I should have the same level of confidence about vault. Utah has been one of the best vaulting teams this season and has consistently scored 49.500s, led by the parade of 9.950s from the back of the lineup. The problem is that the landings have been deteriorating for the last month or so. Five of the team’s six best vault scores were recorded before February 22, and since then the team has been more often 49.3 than 49.5. They’ve still had consistently good scores – the amplitude helps keep the scores high even when the landings aren’t there – but the sticks have vacated the building. At regionals, Delaney, Wilson, and Dabritz all scored below 9.900, which should never happen. They’ll need to find those landings again to make vault the asset it needs be. Any kind of big score on vault to end their competition would likely close the door on any hope for the teams ranked below. If Utah hits both floor and vault for 49.500s and gets through beam, they should advance. I would expect that starting on bars and ending on vault and going maybe 49.300, 49.200, 49.500, 49.500 would be enough to make it – unless UCLA really shows up – and that score seems pretty doable as long as the vault landings arrive.

UCLA

I’ll begin by quoting myself from December regarding UCLA: “This very well could be one of those Bruin seasons where they’re ranked 8th all year long but then are suddenly amazing at Championships. They will seem like the easy team to upset right until they aren’t.” I’m proud of myself for being spot on in the first part about being ranked 8th, but I’m less convinced about the “suddenly amazing” part. That seems a little optimistic now given the depth issues in some of these lineups. The amazingness would be very sudden. Maybe the Christmas spirit got hold of me then, but at the same time, it’s UCLA. This is what they do. But there’s still quite a bit to work out. Making Super Six this season would require one of the classic UCLA late peaks.

The Bruins are in a somewhat similar position to Georgia going into nationals in that they didn’t have a great performance at regionals, but the lack of great performance is almost in itself reason for optimism. They counted a fall on bars and finished seven tenths behind Utah, who did not have a fall in the competition. Give Syd Sawa a 9.825 on bars (which is what she has been scoring all year), and UCLA finishes with 197.200, one tenth behind Utah. If that had happened at regionals, we would be talking about how close the fight between the two is and how it’s going to come down to the final rotation at nationals. Seven tenths seems like a big deficit, but UCLA will be buoyed by how close they actually were. It was a much, much tighter margin than we saw at Pac 12s, which is significant.

The Bruins begin on beam, so we’ll know very early on whether they are in it. Beam is the primary area where they boast an advantage over Utah, so they’ll have to make sure they not only hit but get a high enough score to make that advantage a reality. Just an average result on beam will put too much of a burden on UCLA’s remaining events that they can’t handle. The big beam score is possible primarily because of the 9.950 potential from Peszek and Francis. If everyone before them can hit regaulr routines for 9.825, that will equal a good rotation score. Olivia Courtney is in there in the third spot, and her new consistency on beam has been one of the unsung improvements of the season for UCLA. For three years, she was the scariest one, but she’s not anymore. The scary part comes if the team ends up having to rely on whatever weather condition is currently brewing in the sixth position. Neither Sawa nor Craddock have been reliable hits, which means the rest of the lineup is permitted zero margin to fall. The first five must, must hit.  

If UCLA is going to be in this to challenge Utah, they’ll need a very strong score at the halfway point, something 98.800 or more. Mid-49.3 is pretty attainable for them on beam because we can expect a 9.900+ from both Peszek and Francis basically every time. But that still means they’ll need to replicate the excellent floor score from regionals to get to that high 98s level. As with Utah, the floor scoring at that regionals was friendly, but we have seen the judges’ willingness to give 9.9s to Peszek, Courtney, and Sawa this season, so that level of scoring is about what we should be continue to expect for this rotation. 49.4s have been the norm since Peszek returned and since Pinches rounded into form as a solid leadoff to set the bar at 9.850, and if Pinches and Francis hit early, we could see another 49.500 at nationals. A UCLA 49.500 is less likely than a Utah floor 49.500, but it will be necessary for the Bruins to build the advantage they need after two events. UCLA must be leading Utah at the halfway point to have any chance to advance. Utah’s scoring potential for floor + vault is much higher than UCLA’s for vault + bars, so it will be very difficult for UCLA to make up any deficit in the second half of the meet. They’ll want to be in the position of trying to fend off Utah at that point.

A significant part of the reason UCLA isn’t likely to gain ground later in the meet is the vault situation. We’re going on two years now of UCLA not being as competitive as they should be on vault, but this year is more problematic than last year because they actually have the lineup to perform well. It’s not like 2013 when they had to teach Pritchett a vault at the last minute and throw her out there and hope for a 9.750. This is a lineup of good vaulters, but the short landings and lack of distance early in the rotation – along with Sawa’s deteriorating scores (9.750 at regionals) – have made vault a liability for the Bruins once again. They consistently lose ground there, and they’ll be competing vault while Utah does floor, which won’t be pretty for them if UCLA doesn’t have a solid lead going in. There is exceptional pressure on the very strong vaults from Peszek and Courtney in the final two spots to be perfect to bring that rotation score up to par. The 9.875, 9.900 scores from regionals are good, but better is required of them given what we have seen lately.

Did you know that bars was UCLA’s best event early in the season? That seems so long ago now, but they were getting 49.4s and 49.5s on bars before they were getting them on the other events. It will take returning to those scores of 49.4 in this semifinal to finish top 3, but at the last couple competitions they have fallen apart on bars, which adds to the importance of having an early lead so that they don’t have too much work to do at the end on bars. The basis for excellent scoring is there with Peszek, DeJesus, and Courtney, all of whom can put up high-scoring routines. Peszek finds a way to nail that dismount every time, and DeJesus has once again done her now-trademark “It’s March so now my wacky gienger is fine.” And with a Courtney stick and the usual clean work from Francis in the leadoff spot, they can keep the lineup competitive along the way. That’s four routines. Unfortunately, it takes more. Mossett has been struggling lately, isn’t 100%, and has been moved to the end of the lineup. Moving the trouble routine to the back is not my favorite lineup strategy, and
bars is beginning to become a carbon copy of beam where the first five routines are must-hits because there is now much less confidence in getting a hit from the last spot.

Part of the story for UCLA is how little margin there is in these lineups, and the potential greatness from two or three gymnasts in each rotation is always on the verge of being obliterated. Making Super Six will take three hours of tightrope walking.

NEBRASKA

Nebraska has been idling on the edge of the secondary pack for most of the season, but like Stanford, they’re a “fifth-seeded team” (if we had seedings at nationals now) that is still in contention to make it out of the semifinals. The Huskers have reached into the low 197s a couple times this year, but have more often been a team of high 196s for hit meets. It’s a lower peak than what Utah or UCLA have shown this year, and since I do think that it will take 197s to make it out of this semifinal, that might be a challenge. Still, they have the potential to score higher than what they have put up so far and appear to be rounding into form on a couple crucial events. To get out of this session, and pass two teams ranked ahead of them, they’ll probably need a season best. As I mentioned with UCLA, they’ll need to be suddenly amazing starting now.

The Huskers begin on floor, and even though they endured that same rotation order at regionals, it’s not ideal for them. It depends on the team, but some tend to struggle hitting floor right out of the gate. Nebraska didn’t perform up to par on floor at regionals with a 49.125, but with other contending teams looking at 49.5s, Nebraska can’t give up four tenths again there. They must be close especially because based on their roster, floor should be one of their stronger events. Wong, DeZiel, and Blanske are all in the 9.9 conversation, so I’m not having those 49.1s from them. Something closer to 49.300 is a manageable and necessary expectation. 

Like UCLA, Nebraska will need to start very well and establish a margin early. Finishing on bars and beam, the Huskers are also unlikely to keep pace with what Utah scores on floor and vault, so I’d look at that same 98.800 after two events as a solid benchmark to keep them in it. They’ll want to be top 3 after the first three rotations (or a very, very close fourth) because by that point they will already have competed vault, which is by far their best event. The Huskers are always among the best vaulting teams, and while we haven’t seen many of those 49.5s and 49.6s that we often expect from them yet, they got pretty close with a 49.475 at regionals. Stephens, Blanske, Wong, and DeZiel are all in the 9.900 family, so a big score on this event to launch them close to 99 at the halfway point is conceivable. The first task for them in their multi-task qualifying journey will be to pass UCLA, and vault is the event where they can do that. They should gain a few tenths on the Bruins, but the question will be whether they have already given up those tenths on floor.

Bars is the event where Nebraska has lost the most ground from last season because they haven’t been able to replace the big score from Giblin, but the strength of DeZiel and Wong should still be enough to bring in a competitive number. Wong in particular has been almost a guaranteed 9.9 machine on bars this year. The team performed about as expected at regionals for a 49.300, and there’s every reason to think they can do that again. They’ll be on bars while Utah is on floor (and UCLA is on vault – that 4th rotation is the make-or-break one of this semifinal, and I’m already excited for it), and that rotation performance will tell us whether Nebraska is still in this as we head to the end of the meet. They must be ahead of both Utah and UCLA after three events to stand a realistic chance to advance because their final event – beam – should be the lowest scoring final event among the three teams.

Finishing on beam is the other reason I don’t particularly like this rotation order for Nebraska. It’s OK for Stanford in the first session because they feel very comfortable on beam, but Nebraska does not have the same consistency or big scores. They’re more reliant on the other events to make their 197. I should mention that beam hasn’t seen as many struggles or disaster days for Nebraska as it has for some other teams in this semifinal, but it is often on the verge – as it was again at regionals with a couple counting 9.7s. Nebraska doesn’t have the luxury of having a low-scoring event than can be buoyed by the other three in the way that the top four or five teams in the country do. They have to be competitive on every piece, so 49.0 or 49.1 there won’t help. I have to think they’ll need to beat Utah on beam to have a chance at passing them for a qualifying spot. 

We can expect Wong and DeZiel to put up excellent numbers on most events, with a couple big scores from Blanske as well to keep Nebraska in the meet, but whether the team is able to pass Utah and UCLA will come down to the first four spots in the rotation. All three teams should be competitive at the ends of the lineups, but Nebraska has just three people competing in spots 1-4 who have RQSs greater than 9.850, while both Utah and UCLA have seven people. Some of those early competitors will have to overperform what they’ve shown this season to buoy Nebraska up to that 49.500 they need on vault or that 49.300 they need on bars. It can’t be solely the job of the final two.  

PENN STATE
http://www.gymnastike.org/embed/MTE0NzM0MTUw?related=1&autoplay=false

Penn State is taking on the same role in this semifinal that Illinois has in the first session, the team that has done something special by making it this far but is unlikely to do any more. It’s especially important for Penn State because this is the team’s first nationals appearance since 2009, and it was beginning to look like they were regressing in quality. Each year was just a little bit less competitive than the one before, and the rough 193s at the beginning of this season didn’t help that impression. But, the team managed to improve throughout the season and used home gym advantage at regionals to get back to the big meet.

It will be difficult for Penn State to challenge because they’re not the 197 team that the rest of the competitors in this semifinal are. They put together a very nice meet at regionals at home for a 196.725, outscoring expectations by quite a significant margin on vault and floor, so that’s probably about the score we can expect from a strong, hit meet at nationals. For a 196 to make advance, it would require a multi-team pileup. The major obstacles for the Nittany Lions are bars and beam, where they just don’t have the likely 9.9s to keep up with the other competitors. They’ll also expect to count some 9.7s on those events, which Super Six teams basically never do. Much as Nebraska must endure the obstacle of finishing on beam, Penn State must do the same and will welcome it even less. Beam has been their weakest event all year and has seen scored under 49 in the majority of meets – 8 out of 13.

Penn State will begin the meet on their strong events, floor and vault, so expect them to remain relatively competitive through the first few rotations. Sibson on vault and Welsh and Musgrove on floor help make them competitive with most teams through those two events, and those individuals look to be PSU’s most likely nominees for qualifying to event finals. Don’t expect them to be resting at the bottom of the table early in the meet, and it wouldn’t be surprising if Penn State is ahead of some much more famous teams at the halfway point, with perhaps a 98.600. It will get harder from there, but they could make some waves with their ranking position in some of the early splits.

(Do you like the title? Thank you. I’m very proud of myself.)

The NCAA National Championship is less than a week away, people. One week, and then it’s over. I’m definitely not ready for the season to be finished yet. Then, we’ll have to focus on elite gymnastics, which is always a challenge at first. I watched the women’s team competition at Pac Rims this week (P.S. how do they expect anyone to spend time writing previews for Nationals when Pac Rims and Men’s NCAA Champs are going on?) and it was hard to shift gears back to elite and remember that you’re allowed to have a lot of mistakes and wobbles and breaks and bound on landings and it’s still considered a good routine. Also that corner rule, you guys . . . I just can’t with it. I feel like it’s getting even worse. It might be more upsetting than the pointed-toe, duck-with-rigor-mortis running they’re already forced to do to connect dance elements. It’s just the dumbest. 

But I digress. For now, we still have NCAA Nationals to enjoy, so over the coming days I’ll be previewing the competition by assessing the chances for each of the twelve qualified teams – what constitutes a likely outcome and what they will need to do to attain it. Based on what we’ve seen over the past few weeks, this season defies any “favorite” status for any of the teams. No one hangs onto being the favorite for more than a week or so before they start counting falls on beam, which should make for an exciting competition. In the men’s championship yesterday, after the first rotation Michigan was all, “Oh wait, now we could fall a thousand times and still win. Peace out.” I don’t expect such a scenario in the women’s championship. There are several teams with solid arguments for the championship, and they should be fighting it out until the end of Super Six. I’ll save their preview for later. For this preview of the afternoon session, I’ll withhold Oklahoma and LSU until then and limit it to addressing the fight to qualify with Georgia, Michigan, Stanford, and Illinois. It is by no means guaranteed that Oklahoma and LSU will advance, but for the purpose of setting the scene, this is the most likely scenario.

The first session looks to be the more exciting of the two semifinals, and the quest to qualify out of the afternoon session is perhaps the most interesting storyline we have going into Nationals in that no teams looks like a frontrunner. There is no expected scenario or upset scenario, just several teams that could end up in any order. Georgia is the highest ranked of the contending trio, ahead of Michigan and Stanford, but at both conference championships and regionals, they had the lowest score of the three. Stanford is the lowest ranked, but looked the strongest and most consistent at regionals.

This semifinal also looks like a pretty good bet to make a tiny blip on the history radar. No team has ever scored a 197 in a semifinal and failed to advance to Super Six. The highest score ever to lose in a semifinal is Oklahoma’s 196.925 from 2012, but if all these teams hit regular meets, we could see five 197s. It could take as much as a 197.4-197.5 to begin to feel comfortable with qualifying, which is great. It should take brilliance to make Super Six, and that’s what will be required here. Let’s begin.

GEORGIA

It hasn’t been a great end to the season for Georgia. They lost Brittany Rogers’ contributions in the AA, finished 4th at SECs (expected, but still not exciting for the team), and then put together a downright lumpy performance at regionals. That’s enough concentrated lackluster to make an argument for Georgia as easy choice for an upset in semifinals, but at the same time there is reason for optimism for the Gym Dogs. Even with that rather poor showing at regionals, they didn’t finish all that far behind Michigan (who didn’t have a great meet themselves, but also didn’t count a fall). Get rid of the Hires mistake on floor, and the meet is even. Assume both teams show up on beam, and Georgia is out ahead. I’m not saying that’s going to happen – there are quite a few leaping assumptions there – but even considering all their mistakes at regionals, the bars and vault advantages bode well for Georgia’s chances to advance to Super Six for the second time in a row if they can be just fine on the other events and not go to pieces this time.

Georgia has drawn Olympic order in the semifinal, which should be a very comfortable rotation schedule, but it does mean they will have the onus of coming out of the gates quickly and opening up a big early lead over their competitors. To be in a healthy position, Georgia will need something around a 99.000 at the halfway point (which is a big score but certainly attainable on those two events – 49.400 on vault and 49.600 on bars is something they have done multiple times this year), and they will want to be in either first or second place at that point. LSU begins on floor and vault, so we could also see them break the 99s after two events, and Georgia won’t necessarily need to be ahead of LSU’s pace in order to advance. The lack of Brittany Rogers and her 1.5 in the vault lineup is a significant obstacle, but because Michigan has also lost Sheppard and because Stanford isn’t as strong on vault, it should be manageable. Lauren Johnson has come into the lineup after her 9.975 from SECs, but I wouldn’t expect to see that score again. It was an overscore based on situation and occasion given to a solid (but 9.850-9.900) vault, and something 9.750-9.850 for her is the much more likely outcome. Still, because we can expect 9.900+ from Cheek and Rogers, the rest of the lineup need only be good and solid for 9.850s to get that 49.400+ score they need.

Bars, of course, is the showcase event for this team. They are the best bars team in this semifinal, and should win the event, possibly by as much as multiple tenths depending on how the scoring goes. But because of the competitiveness of this session, Georgia can’t take the bars rotation for granted. They must score over a 49.500 to get to that 99.000 plateau, which means continuing to stick the landings as well as they have been is a necessity for survival. This team consistently scores well on this event because the work on the bars themselves is pristine. There are no handstands given away, no breaks in leg form, which means nearly everything decided by the dismount landings. But, if they are tight and start to give away steps, they could go down into the 49.3s, which isn’t good enough in this situation. They need that 99.

If they get to that 99 level after the first two events, Georgia can go 49.250 or so on the final two piece (which is a more realistic goal for beam and floor) and still get to that mid-197 area that may very well be required to advance. Rogers was a question mark on beam for regionals and ended up not competing, but if it’s possible to get her back for Nationals, that would be very significant. She has her errors from time to time, but she can get a 9.900 for a hit, which none of the replacements can do. Ashlyn Broussard’s hit for 9.825 in the anchor position at regionals was very important, so expect her to continue to compete if Rogers remains unavailable. While Georgia is sure to give up ground to Michigan on floor, that’s not necessarily the case on beam – even though it happened at regionals – which makes it that much more critical for their advancement quest. Georgia has a lot of 9.825 gymnastics early on beam, but their weapons are Cheek and Earls, which made the mistakes from those two at regionals doubly significant. There was no one else to pick up the scoring slack. I wouldn’t expect the same mistakes to occur again, and if they do hit – even for 9.875 or the like – they can make things very difficult for the other teams.   

For Georgia’s sake, the session needs to be decided before they get to floor. They’ll be on floor in the last rotation, and by that point we need to be saying things like, “They just need to hit five routines to make it.” But, if we go into the final rotations of the semifinal still doing calculations about what certain teams need to score to advance, that doesn’t bode as well for the Gym Dogs. Michigan finishes on vault and Stanford finishes on beam – both in the fifth rotation – and both can outscore what Georgia will get on floor by putting up just average showings. One of the troubles for Georgia is that they appear to be conceding a guaranteed dropped score at the beginning of the floor lineup. Neither of the replacements for Rogers (Broussard at SECs, Persinger at regionals) looked ready to compete, and neither had a usable score. They’ve had a couple more weeks now to prepare, but the burden of an early dropped score puts more pressure on the rest of the lineup, especially on Jay at the end – the one potential big score. Georgia would definitely take something like a 49.200 on floor right now given what we have seen lately, but that’s still a somewhat vulnerable score. How vulnerable exactly will depend on beam. If they hit beam for a positive score with a bunch of 9.850-9.875s, that will take the pressure off the floor score and is more likely to create that “just need to hit” scenario.

MICHIGAN

Given the rotation order, Michigan will have to come from behind at this meet to advance, so don’t be surprised if Michigan spends the first half of the meet in 4th place with a fairly significant deficit on the first three teams. That’s very much expected. If Georgia is looking at a 99.000 after the first two events for a strong showing, Michigan should be at 98.600 at the same point to feel pleased with their progress – a potentially challenging score but probably necessary. The real litmus test for the Wolverines will be where they stand after they compete on floor in rotation 4. If the deficit remains more than two tenths or so, they’ll be in some trouble, but if they have cut the deficit to something tiny or moved into a top three position after they have done floor, they’ll be feeling good going to finish on vault.

There has been less dissection of Michigan’s performance at regionals because they won the meet and because it wasn’t as dire as Georgia’s performance, but significant quality upgrades will still be required if they want to advance. They scored a 196.750, so they’ll need to find at least five tenths (and probably more) of improvement to make Super Six in a hit meet. Most of that should be coming on the beam, but there are areas of possible improvement elsewhere as well.

Michigan begins the competition on bars, which should be a welcome rotation order for them and should produce a strong early score. They had a fall from Sampson at regionals, which was very unusual – she’s had some 9.7s this year but we always expect a hit. That depleted some of the scoring potential we would otherwise expect. Michigan bars is a delightful rotation to watch, combining power with form and hitting all points on the power-grace spectrum at various times. It is worthy of more than the 49.275 they earned at regionals, and in prior meets they have scored in the 49.4s. That’s much close to their talent level and is what they will need in order to keep on a solid early pace. With Georgia starting on vault, they’ll want to give up as little as possible to begin the session. Getting a 49.4 on bars likely means 9.9s from both Beilstein and Sampson and then 9.850-9.875s from the other counting scores, which is manageable. They won’t score as well as Georgia will once the Gym Dogs go to bars, but they’ll be fine with that and will believe they can make it up elsewhere.

Oh beam. Over the last two years, Michigan has mastered the art of being as terrifying as possible on beam without counting a fall. In fact, up until the disaster from the Big Ten quad meet, they had barely counted falls at all in the last two season but had counted so many 9.6s that you would never know that they don’t actually fall too often. It was exactly that counting 9.6s situation that kept them out of Super Six last year with a 48.775 on beam, and regionals last week saw a nearly identical performance. Low beam scores should be the biggest concern for Michigan because they don’t have the high-scoring options to make up for them they way that Georgia does. Michigan is more likely to get 9.850s for hits, while Georgia has Cheek and Earls at the back of the lineup who can get 9.900s. Briley Casanova does have a 9.950 high this year, and her return to the lineup is essential for Michigan’s chances, even though she struggled at regionals. If she and Nicole Artz can hit clean routines and Sampson gets one of her 9.850s, they should be able to endure the event. All other things being hit, it will be hard for Michigan to stay competitive without a 49.200 on beam. Looking at the lineup, they are more than capable of that score, but they have reached it only twice this season. 

Floor is the major asset for Michigan in this session, and the score they record there will tell us whether they are in contention or not. It’s always tough to expect a 49.500+ on an event, but I expect it from Michigan’s floor, and they’ll need it in order to reach that mid-197 territory. They have the power, difficulty, and control on the landings to score right with LSU and Oklahoma and I wouldn’t be surprised if they win the session on floor. Getting Chiarelli into the lineup over Parker is a necessary step because she has higher scoring potential and can put up a number more likely to be used. The quality escalates from her routine right through to Sampson, who is almost an automatic 9.950 at the back of the lineup now. If they are within four tenths of Georgia going to floor, they could make up that whole margin during one rotation.

Vault should be a strength for the Wolverines as well, and a few weeks ago I would have expected them to put up a huge vault score and use it to continue eating away at Georgia’s advantage at the end of the meet, but after the injury to Sheppard, that strong vault score is much less of a sure thing. They still have the big vaults from Sugiyama, Beilstein, and Sampson, but a competitive score will require them to stick in a way they haven’t done consistently yet. The 49.200 from regionals probably won’t be good enough in the semifinals because Georgia is capable of scoring about the same for a hit floor rotation. That would put the pressure entirely on Michigan’s own floor rotation to do all the work of keeping pace with the Gym Dogs, and they’d want to spread that work over multiple rotations.

In a bit of a surprise, they rearranged the lineup order after Sheppard went out to put Sugiyama in the leadoff position. We rarely see a 1.5 lead off a vault rotation, and I love it. I don’t think teams use early difficulty nearly enough in their lineup composition. They won’t lose much scoring potential by moving her to the front because 1.5s are less likely to be underscored – even if they’re early in the order – out of respect for the difficulty. A difficult vault to start can obliterate any conservative judging for the beginning of the lineup, and it has the potential of bumping up the scores for Artz and Zakharia if they can land with more control than Sugiyama does. Still, it will be up to the back of the lineup to get scores of at least 9.900, maybe 9.950, to make sure that they continue to outscore Georgia and Stanford as the meet winds to a close. Michigan will have to be the class of the contending teams in rotations 4-6 to advance.   

STANFORD

Let’s not forget about the Cardinal. They’re absolutely in this. If you’re looking for an upset pick next weekend, go with Stanford. The argument to advance is very believable. I would still consider them less likely than Georgia or Michigan to get a spot in Super Six because they have the lowest peak score of the three teams. If everyone is hitting to capability, Stanford doesn’t have the huge, huge scores to match them (topping out at 197.275 this season). Unlike Georgia with bars and Michigan with floor, Stanford doesn’t possess that big 49.500 event that they can rely on either to create a lead or eliminate someone else’s lead. Beam is actually the most likely 49.500 for Stanford, but it’s so tough to rely on beam for a big score because it’s such a mercurial temptress. They needed 9.925s from the first two routines to get up to 49.450 on beam at regionals, and I wouldn’t expect that to happen again (though props to one judge for being willing to give a 10 in the leadoff position to Morgan’s deserving routine). But at the same time, Stanford is on an upswing and may not have shown peak gymnastics yet. They recorded that 197.275 at regionals while counting a low bars score, so we know that going at least two tenths better than that is very possible. Still, it looks like it will take a major mistake from at least one of the higher-ranked teams for Stanford to find an opening to hop into Super Six.

If Michigan is going to start with a deficit compared to Georgia, then we can expect Stanford to do the same since they will begin the meet on weaker events before advancing to stronger ones. One of the most important improvements we needed to see at regionals was Stanford stepping up the scoring capability on floor, which they did by managing a 49.325. In true Stanford fashion, they squeezed Shapiro into the lineup at the last minute, debuting her at regionals after she hadn’t competed all year. Of course they did. The concern on floor is still the lack of big gymnastics with so few difficult passes. Stanford doesn’t scream 9.9s and are unlikely to get many. It’s a lot of 9.850s, but they will need at least two or three 9.875s-9.900s to keep as close as they need to be after floor. They will be trailing early, but it’s about staying close enough. The vault situation is similar to floor in the dearth of 9.9s. It’s not as dire as it is on floor, but the lack of big sticks has been a concern at times this season. Nicolette McNair is both the most likely to stick and the most likely to get a 9.900 (funny how that works out), but she needs to bring that magical power to the rest of her team. They cannot give up a 49.100 and expect to stay competitive. At least half the lineup needs to land. 

With a really strong showing in the early rotations, Stanford would be around the 98.600-98.650 range after two events. I don’t know that it will happen, but that would be a very nice outcome for them. If they are under 98.500 at halfway, I don’t think they’re in it even with superb hits on the final two events, but if they can somehow be ahead of Michigan and within .250-.300 of Georgia at that point, then look out because the final two events should produce very competitive scores.

This is really an excellent semifinal in terms of bars talent (so the judges will have to be on top of their critical game to produce the necessary separation between routines), and Stanford has several routines that are right up there with the best, particularly those of Shapiro and Vaculik. Oh, the toe point and the vertical handstands – not just those 10-degree, no-deduction handstands we always see, but vertical handstands. They’re a joy to watch. The meet will tighten as we move into the later rotations with all the contending teams coming together, and expect the Cardinal to begin to close a gap while on bars with something to the tune of 49.400. They haven’t done that nearly enough this year, but they are way too talented to be settling for anything less. The 9.950s from Shapiro and Vaculik at regionals tell me they’re on track for that kind of score at nationals. But really, the crucial event for Stanford’s chances is beam, and that’s where they will end the meet.

Here’s the thing about Stanford right now: I can see how they would outscore one of Georgia or Michigan on most of the events – they could beat Georgia on floor or Michigan on bars – but to advance, they’re going to need to be beat both of them at the same time, which is quite the burden. That’s where beam comes in because Stanford is clearly the best of the three on beam. In terms of being enjoyable to watch, Stanford and Oklahoma are the class of the whole nationals field on beam, and the scoring could end up ranking them the same way. Stanford has not been perfect on the event – there have been mistakes along the way – but the lineup they’re putting out right now looks solid. They’re not the most likely to fall, and most importantly, they have five people capable of getting a 9.900. If Stanford is to pull off the upset, I don’t see it happening without a 49.400 on beam. That’s within their capability and much higher than we can expect from Georgia or Michigan. Finishing on beam can be tough, but I think they’ll thrive in that scenario. They did at regionals, posting a total score that would see them qualify out of this session if everything played out exactly the same. I don’t expect everything to play out exactly the same, but that regionals result is reason enough to think it’s possible.

ILLINOIS

The Illini round out the group and head into nationals for the third time in the last four years (and fourth time in the last six), which is an accomplishment in itself. Qualifying this season is probably the biggest accomplishment of all of them because this year they truly did it against the odds, having lost their star competitor after last season and qualifying out of the Minnesota Regional when the majority of observers figured they would fall tamely to the home team. Advancing this far is a big deal, but it does look extremely likely to be the end of the road.

Illinois put together a great performance at regionals, but it was a great performance worthy of 196.600, which is only a bit above what Georgia scored for a poor performance and lower than what Michigan scored for a largely average one. They would need a tornado of mistakes from three teams at the same time to find themselves in position to advance. 196.600 isn’t necessarily their peak score (several of those vaults had bad landings with no control that must be reigned in), but it’s very difficult to envision a mid-197 that the other teams can reach. Where Illinois can make a mark is on bars, especially if the regionals performance is anything to go by. They put together a stream of excellent stuck DLOs and very clean routines that scored well above what Oklahoma did at the same meet and would challenge most teams in the country. They’re in a semifinal overrun with the nation’s top bars performers, so those routines may get overlooked, but they have a lot of talent on that event.

I’m more looking for Illinois to put together a complete meet at nationals for the first time. This is the program’s fourth visit to the big game, but they have never broken the 196 barrier in any of their semifinal appearances. Last year they came the closest with a 195.700, but poor vault and bars rotations put them out of the running. They are by far the least likely team in this session to advance, so hopefully they can compete freely knowing that they already accomplished their goal of making nationals. With multiple recent appearances at nationals, this is becoming normal for them, but if finishing higher than 11th-12th is going to be a realistic possibility in future years, they’ll have to start proving they’re more than just making up the numbers once nationals get underway by finally hitting. 

And just like that, the regionals are over. We leave 24 more teams in the dust and turn our attention to the big 12 that have managed to advance to compete for the national championship. Today, the rotation order and individual competitor placement was released.

Afternoon Session (starting event): Georgia (vault), Illinois (bye), Michigan (bars), Oklahoma (beam), LSU (bye), Stanford (floor)

Evening Session (starting event): Florida (vault), Alabama (bye), Utah (bars), UCLA (beam), Penn State (bye), Nebraska (floor)

Off the top, it doesn’t look like a particularly bad rotation order for anyone. Beam and floor tend to be the most significant starting/ending events, but in the first session, I like Stanford starting on floor and ending on beam, and I always like Oklahoma starting on beam. They’ll embrace that position. Is ending on beam trouble for LSU? We’ll find out. Georgia got a gift in that rotation order after the regionals near-nightmare. They’re like the France of this competition. (World Cup qualifications reference? Anyone?) In the second session, I think Nebraska and Penn State probably would have preferred not to start on floor and end on beam, since beam can be a worry for both. That’s a harder rotation for Nebraska, but they got through the same rotation well at regionals, even though beam was just endured.

We have nice battles for the final qualifying spots in each semifinal. If we call Oklahoma and LSU the favorites in the first, then Stanford, Georgia, and Michigan will clashing for the final spot, and the same is the case in the second with Utah, UCLA, and Nebraska if we think of Florida and Alabama as the favorites. If things go as they’ve gone this season, the second semifinal could end up being a more straightforward affair for Florida, Alabama, and Utah, but I’m not quite ready to bet on that yet. P.S. you guys, is Stanford going to make Super Six?

Of those respective challenging trios, Georgia and UCLA will be ending the meets on the floor while the others will be on byes. Teams always like to finish competing, and score building will be a topic of discussion there. In the unnecessary fact department, Utah has started on bars and finished on vault twice so far this year and twice scored a 197.300.

I’ll be doing the whole breakdown in the coming weeks, but I appreciate that this year we have two semifinals with relatively equivalent levels of competitiveness. Last year, one was essentially a slam dunk while the other was a game of thrones. 

In case you were curious, if NQS were still in effect this season, the semifinals would be as follows:
Afternoon: LSU, Florida, Utah, Nebraska, Georgia, Penn State
Evening: Oklahoma, Alabama, Stanford, Michigan, UCLA, Illinois

Better or worse? Not really sure. Maybe more fun, though. Because all the top teams qualified this year, predetermining the semifinals has worked out just fine, but I still don’t like it. Just wait for the year when we have true upsets and completely unbalanced semifinals.

Our individual AA qualifiers are
Moriah Martin (Denver), Lindsay Mable (Minnesota), Chelsea Tang (Oregon State), Madeline Gardiner (Oregon State), Kalliah McCartney (Sac State), Alicia Asturias (Cal), Alexis Gunzelman (Rutgers), Caitlin Brown (Iowa State), Katherine Grable (Arkansas), Marie Case (Kent State), Hope Sloanhoffer (West Virginia), and Amanda Wellick (Arkansas)

The event qualifiers are
Dallas Crawford – bars (Cal), Audrey Harrison – beam (Kentucky), Kaytianna McMillian – beam (Oregon State), Hanna Nordquist – beam (Minnesota), Emily Heinz – beam (Central Michigan), Kelsey Morris – bars (Boise State), Halle Moraw – beam (Central Michigan), Taylor Noonan – beam (Central Michigan), Ciera Perkins – floor (Boise State)

The major AAers in that crop are Grable and Mable (rhyming!) Both have been placed with teams that knocked them out of regionals (Utah and Illinois, respectively). Mable has the added possible – though often overstated – struggle of going in the first semifinal, but Grable has been placed in the second. The scoring advantage of being in the second session over the first is a question mark for me. We’ve seen plenty of people win the AA from the first session, but we’ve also seen plenty of two-session NCAA meets where the scores do rise noticeably (like Pac 12s this year). Grable will have the challenge of competing without her team, but she can build on Utah’s scores and has enough name recognition that the judges won’t overlook her. It’s harder than it would have been with her team, but she’s not out of the AA title race.

And if you think that’s too many individual beam workers, blame Georgia and Florida not getting any 9.9s on beam. Which brings me to a point: some of these teams performed distinctly barfily at regionals and should be thanking their lucky stars that they got through. UCLA needed the wobbly beam rotation of Arkansas to forgive them for counting a fall, Florida ended up being a Kytra beam routine away from a shocking upset of all upsets (huge hit for her, especially after bars), and Georgia basically has the seeding system to thank for its second chance after mistakes in two rotations. We’ve seen many teams perform better than Georgia did on Saturday and miss out on Nationals (and they’re called Oregon State).

Interesting note: If Georgia had been the #1 team in the country, they wouldn’t be going to Nationals right now because their 196.375 would not have advanced from that regional, being below OSU and PSU’s scores. They were the beneficiaries of the seeding system that rewards being in the middle of the top 10 more than being a top team. As it stood, the Gym Dogs didn’t even really come that close to being knocked out. This is good because Nationals will be a better competition with them in it, but it’s definitely a strange way to put together a system and robbed us of some more competitive action on regionals day.

In conclusion, get excited for semifinals because they will be close. I could make an argument for the large majority of these teams going through.