Semifinal #1 – April 19, 12:00 CT
[2] UCLA
[3] LSU
[6] Utah
[7] Michigan

The simplest framing of this semifinal has UCLA advancing and LSU and Utah fighting it out for the second spot in the national championship. That is the most likely outcome, but it’s also an overly simplistic characterization. UCLA has to hit and hit well to avoid getting into trouble. The days of “you’re good enough to be bad” ended with regionals. And Michigan, with its 197.275 for an only-OK day in the regional final (a score that outpaced both of Utah’s own regional totals), is not out of this by any means and does not need something crazy to happen to get through.

For that simple framing to be upended, however, UCLA would first need to make a mistake. The precedent of the season tells us that if UCLA goes through this meet 24-for-24 (or 20-for-24 as long as they’re the right 20), then UCLA will have enough leadoff 9.9s and anchor 10s to outscore the rest of the field. It’s still a “hit and you advance” meet for UCLA. What’s changed is the margin for error. LSU and Utah are close enough that even a minor mistake that results in an inopportune counting 9.6 would bring UCLA back to the pack.

For Michigan to upend that simple framing, there’s a degree to which the team will have to outperform its normal. While we have seen big scores this season from Michigan—the kind of scores that will advance from the national semifinals—the typical performance has garnered a lower number than a typical performance from the other three teams. Still, if you look at the assembled score rankings at the very bottom, the two places where Michigan ranks in blue are the regional final scores on beam and floor. Michigan upended the regular season norm there, and now has to keep that going…while adding two more events. Just that.

Turning to the LSU/Utah comparison, so far this season we have seen an LSU team that is consistently just a little shred better than Utah. We saw that at the GQ Invite when LSU finished .175 ahead, and we saw that at the regional final when LSU finished .250 ahead. These are not large or decisive margins—and I wouldn’t anticipate a large or decisive margin in this semifinal either—but they are margins.

Yet in those score rankings at the bottom, you’ll see that the majority of places where Utah does have the advantage are average score categories. Vault average, floor average, season average (by only a smidge, but still higher). That’s because Utah has been the more consistent this season—didn’t have that slow start, didn’t lose conference meets it should have won.

It tells us that Utah is not as likely to reach the same peak score as LSU but will record the more predictable score and more predictable performance, one that LSU will either beat by having an excellent day, or lose to by having a fine day. We’ve seen both of them and we’ve seen both of them recently.

If LSU is to have that excellent day, it will be essential to bridge the vault gap. Utah ranks as the best team in this entire semifinal on vault, while LSU has shown a tendency to lunge for 9.850. In fact, vault is the only event where LSU does not rank in the top 2 in this semifinal despite having the most 10.0 starts of any of these teams. The Tigers must turn those vault landings around because if LSU does find a way to match Utah’s vault scores here, it becomes increasingly difficult to map Utah’s route to a top-2 finish.

For Utah, take that exact project, but swap out vault for beam. Utah ranks last in this semifinal on beam and will have to watch out. And not just watch out for falls (that’s immediate death at nationals), but watch out for OK. Even something like a hit for 49.200 probably doesn’t do you any good anymore. A 49.2 is basically a zero, and a 9.825 is basically a fall when the teams are this strong.

That’s why much of this semifinal will hinge on which team can best minimize its theoretical disadvantage. Who doesn’t get a disqualifyingly low score? Because it’s not about winning the meet. It’s about not losing to two of the teams. So if you’re staying 49.350, that’s not a WOW score on an apparatus that will go down in history, but across the events, it starts to add up to the kind of number that will advance to Saturday.

Continue reading National Championship Preview: Semifinal of Death →

After that whirlwind weekend (as long as you consider Thursday part of the weekend, which you don’t, because it’s not), we now know which teams have advanced to the national championship and which teams think this new postseason format is a terrible idea.

FULL DRAW

Now, to set the scene.

---

SEMIFINAL #1 – April 19, 12:00 CT

[2] UCLA – Vault
[3] LSU – Beam
[6] Utah – Floor
[7] Michigan – Bars

Congratulations, you got the bad one. The hard one. All of the top-seeded teams advanced from this side of the draw—including what is now 4 of the top 6 teams at nationals overall—and we have just 2 spots remaining for them in the team final.

UCLA is the only team that will be comfortable with this draw because UCLA was going to be a major favorite to advance to the final regardless of the draw. UCLA hit 198 in the regional final, and used a B+ squad to go 197.675 in the semifinal, which still outpaced the scores for any of these others teams over either day of regional competition. The other three are in the danger zone.

LSU is your seeded favorite for the second spot, but Utah will look at Saturday’s result—finishing just .250 behind LSU at LSU—and feel it is in with at least a shot at advancing. By scoring 197.275 for what was still not an ideal performance either, Michigan proved it is not going to be an also-ran in this semifinal. No filler rotations here.

---

SEMIFINAL #2 – April 19, 6:00 CT

[1] Oklahoma – Vault
[5] Denver – Beam
[8] Georgia – Bars
[16] Oregon St – Floor

Congratulations, you got the good one. The elimination of Florida has blown up this half of the bracket, providing what should be a cleaner route to the team final for Oklahoma, as well as a true opportunity for someone unexpected to make it. Denver, Georgia, and Oregon State are not “supposed” to make the team final, and yet one of them will.

Denver is your ranking favorite, and the question we’ll have to tackle as we march toward this semifinal is how much being at home for regionals buoyed Georgia and Oregon State (both in scores and actual performances) versus how truly competitive they might be at a neutral site. Georgia’s regional final score was more than a fall better than Denver’s, but like…those scores.

---

EVENT DRAW

The rotation draws are fairly…normal here? They don’t look like they’re provide a significant advantage or disadvantage to any team or change what the scenario would be in any other context. Oregon State and Utah probably won’t love starting on floor because they both need that event to be a big score, but it worked out for them at regionals.

I actually think that the worst draw to get these days is starting on bars—because it means you have to finish on vault. Vault is the lowest-scoring event in NCAA and the one where the potential Carol-ness of end-of-meet scoring when everyone is drunk at getting 10s is dampened by start values. We saw that play out at regional finals for the teams with that rotation order. Minnesota ending on vault while Utah was on beam was ultimately a disadvantage for Minnesota, not Utah, even though beam. Michigan’s final vault rotation of 9.825s almost let Alabama back into the meet, and Kentucky finishing on vault meant it just couldn’t quite keep up with the 49.5-a-thon that was the Athens regional. Half the rotation scores at that regional were 49.550 or greater (not over it), but none of those 49.550+ scores came on vault.

---

FOUR ON THE FLOOR DRAW – April 20, 6:00 CT

For future reference.

Vault – 2nd place, Semifinal 1
Bars – 1st place, Semifinal 2
Beam – 1st place, Semifinal 1
Floor – 2nd place, Semifinal 2

The random draw typically causes ire because it doesn’t necessarily reward performance in the semifinals with a good event order, but this year I feel like Olympic order is an appropriate reward for whichever team manages to advance from that mire of the first semifinal in 2nd place. They’ll have had to fight for it.

---

INDIVIDUALS

National individual titles are awarded based on the scores in the semifinals, and we now use six judges with four scores counting throughout nationals, which is ostensibly to separate the scores a little more and avoid having ties for those event championships. Meanwhile, we had a three-way tie for the vault title last year and a two-way tie for the bars and floor titles.

The new individual qualification system gives us more eventers and fewer all-arounders advancing with just four AAers qualifying—Alex Hyland, Kentucky; Sienna Crouse, Nebraska; Lexy Ramler, Minnesota; Alicia Boren, Florida. Alex Hyland is the only one of those four who received Olympic order, drawn to rotate with UCLA in the first semifinal. All four individuals are capable of exceptionally strong scores, but everything so far this season has pointed to Kyla Ross as the all-around favorite with Maggie Nichols as the last-minute spoiler when she comes back on floor for nationals. With people like Finnegan and Skinner as the second tier of contenders.

Historically, discussion of scores rising in the second semifinal at nationals has been overblown (and teams tend to prefer being placed in the first semifinal because it allows for more rest before the final), but it’s worth noting that Nichols is the only one of those top four contenders who competes in the second semifinal.

The individual qualifiers are as follows:
Vault – Milan Clausi, Cal; Taylor Houchin, Nebraska; Derrian Gobourne, Auburn; Savannah Schoenherr, Florida
Bars – Sabrina Garcia, Penn St; Cally Nixon, Kentucky; Trinity Thomas, Florida; Cairo Leonard-Baker, Arizona St
Beam – Brooke Kelly, Missouri; Jessie Bastardi, Penn St; Alyssa Baumann, Florida; Hailey Garner, Arkansas
Floor – Sidney Dukes, Kentucky; Abby Armbrecht, Alabama; Trinity Thomas, Florida; Sophia Carter

Alyssa Baumann was drawn to rotate with Georgia, and will compete in the same beam rotation as her sister. Look how that worked out.

The most likely outcome has Ohashi, Ross, and Nichols dominating the individual titles, with Finnegan and Skinner right there on their best events (and then Wojcik, maybe Trautman for floor) because it’s going to take 10s to win most of these events if this season’s everything is any indication. But of the individual qualifiers, the Florida’s will put up a good fight. You can see Trinity Thomas winning events, and there is historical precedent for extremely high scores for the individuals coming from the famous team that got upset at regionals.

We’re five days away from the start of the NCAA season, so even though you’ve valiantly put off understanding the new championship format for as long as possible (and I’m so proud of you for it), it’s time to buckle down and do the thing.

The new postseason format instituted for 2019 is an improvement over the previous system in many ways, most notably because of the elimination of those bloated and interminable six-team meets with bye rotations. It still has its faults and problems from the previous format that have gone unresolved, which we’ll all be sure to complain about at every possible moment, but it’s a step. So here’s how it will go.

The season itself will progress as before. The teams will compete every weekend, they’ll all get overscored, you’ll be furious about it, and everything will be fine and normal. Following the conference championships, the top 36 teams will still advance to the elimination meets, as per usual, while the season ends for everyone else. After that, it gets new and different.

ELIMINATION ROUNDS

Previously, the 36 advancing teams would be divided among 6 regional sites—6 teams at each site—for a single day of elimination competition from which the top 2 teams at each site advanced to the national championship.

This year, the 36 advancing teams will be divided among 4 regional sites—9 teams at each site—for three days of elimination competition after which the top 2 teams at each site will advance to the national championship. Continue reading Explained: The New NCAA Championship Format →

We officially have the report from this month’s NCAA committee meeting. First of all, I have to give them credit for providing the report to us during the same month as the meeting itself. Usually it trickles out to us peasants around Novembruary threeteenth. Progress!

The most important order of business is confirmation of the change in postseason format, which we’ve kinda-sorta-basically known about for several months, though this ultimate proposal has a minor tweak or two from what we heard about before.

Still, the headline remains the same. The new format adds an extra super-regional round to the postseason and eliminates all six-team meets and byes.

Why is this important? It’s a million times better for TV and the fan experience. It adds an additional round of exciting elimination meets and creates faster, clearer, and more interesting competitions with less downtime and fewer teams hanging around that aren’t ultimately going to be relevant to the final result.

Or, you know, because it

Do note that the proposal now goes to the Division I Competition Oversight Committee and will not go into effect until the 2019 season. Continue reading Bye Bye Byes →