Category Archives: Rankings

Rankings

Week 4 Rankings + Notes

4 Comments

That Florida gymnastics isn’t marketing a shirt that says, “On Fridays, we get 10s” is ludicrous. Verging on lyyyyyudicrous. Florida’s meet was the closest to a postseason-level performance we’ve seen so far this year (closest, but not there by any means), and now the Gators lead the rankings by a big, heaping margin this week with that 687.900 (because of Florida at home), highlighted by a “yeah, I’m down with that” 10.000 for Bridget Sloan on beam, a “squint…but also that Dos Santos” 10.000 for Kennedy Baker on floor, and a “Bahahahaha” 10.000 for Alex McMurtry on bars. At least she has a same-bar release this year.

Kathy is not OK with these piked giants. The judges are. The interesting thing is that McMurtry gets a heaping load of side-eye for this bars routine every time because she gets such high scores, but if she were going, say, 2nd or 3rd in the lineup and getting a 9.850 for this routine, we would be standing up and applauding for how much she has improved on bars from her Level 10 career, when she was getting 8s for hit routines. Compare her 10.000 to this routine from the Nastia in 2013, which scored 8.925, uninspiring even by JO scoring standards. Improvements, clearly.

But let’s be honest, the biggest difference between 2013 and 2016 is going 6th in a Florida lineup. Many of the factors that got her an 8.925 remain, hence the saltiness about this 10.

And now Baker and Sloan.

Kennedy Baker is like, “This is the seventh-best floor routine I’ve done at Florida, and this is the 10?”

To the rankings!

Week 4 rankings

1. Florida – 197.438
Week 4: 198.175
Week 4 leaders: AA – Sloan 39.775; VT – Boren, Baker 9.950; UB – McMurtry 10.000; BB – Sloan 10.000; FX – Baker 10.000

2. Oklahoma – 197.185
Week 4: 197.550
Week 4 leaders: AA – Capps 39.575; VT – Jones 9.900; UB – Wofford 9.950; BB – Capps 9.900; FX – Jones 9.950

3. Michigan – 196.860
Week 4: 196.550
Week 4 leaders: AA – Karas 39.525; VT – Karas, Chriarelli, Sheppard 9.850; UB – Brown 9.875; BB – Brown, Karas 9.875; FX – Artz 9.975

4. Alabama – 196.855
Week 4: 197.525
Week 4 leaders: AA – Beers 39.650; VT – Beers 9.900; UB – Beers 9.925; BB – Sims 9.975; FX – Winston 9.925

5. UCLA – 196.758
Week 4: Monday meet

6. LSU – 196.525
Week 4: 196.750
Week 4 leaders: AA – Gnat 39.500; VT – Gnat 10.000; UB – Finnegan, Zamardi 9.900; BB – Gnat 9.925; FX – Gnat, Finnegan 9.900

7. Utah – 196.342 
Week 4: Monday meet

8. Arkansas – 196.210
Week 4: 196.600
Week 4 leaders: AA – Wellick 39.500; VT – Wellick 9.900; UB – Wellick, Speed 9.850; BB – Wellick, Nelson 9.850; FX – Nelson 9.925

9. Boise State – 196.175
Week 4: 196.400
Week 4 leaders: AA – Collantes 39.475; VT – Stockwell 9.850; UB – Jacobsen 9.950; BB – Everyone 9.825; FX – Collantes, Krentz 9.950

10. Auburn – 196.080
Week 4: 195.975
Week 4 leaders: AA – Atkinson 39.400; VT – Rott 9.900; UB – Milliet, Engler 9.875; BB – Demers 9.850; FX – Atkinson 9.900

11. Georgia – 195.870
Week 4: 196.275
Week 4 leaders: AA – Jay 39.350; VT – Jay 9.900; UB – Rogers 9.925; BB – Rogers 9.875; FX – Box 9.900

12. Stanford – 195.856
Week 4: 196.075
Week 4 leaders: AA – Price 39.600; VT – Price 9.875; UB – Price 9.950; BB – Hong 9.925; FX – Price 9.875

13. Denver – 195.763
Week 4: 196.125
Week 4 leaders: AA – McGee 39.525; VT – McGee 9.850; UB – McGee 9.900; BB – McGee 9.850; FX – McGee 9.925; LIFE – McGee 60.000

14. Nebraska – 195.700
Week 4: 196.775
Week 4 leaders: AA – Williams 39.500; VT – Laeng 9.850; UB – Laeng 9.925; BB – Williams 9.950; FX – Schweihofer, Williams, Orel 9.875

15. Oregon State – 195.694
Week 4: 195.875
Week 4 leaders: AA – Gardiner 39.300; VT – Gardiner, Jimenez 9.825; UB – M Colussi-Pelaez 9.850; BB – Gardiner 9.925; FX – Perez 9.900

16. Missouri – 195.645
Week 4: 195.825
Week 4 leaders: AA – Porter 38.750; VT – Harris 9.875; UB – Porter 9.900; BB – Kelly 9.875; FX – Harris 9.850

17. George Washington – 195.517
Week 4: 194.950
Week 4 leaders: AA – Drouin-Allaire 39.250; VT – Drouin-Allaire 9.875; UB – Raineri 9.825; BB – Pfeiler, Zois 9.850; FX – Drouin-Allaire, Raineri 9.800

18. Minnesota – 195.469
Week 4: 196.075
Week 4 leaders: AA – Mable 39.150; VT – DeMuse 9.850; UB – Holst 9.975; BB – Mable 9.900; FX – DeMuse 9.875

19. Illinois – 195.363
Week 4: 195.725
Week 4 leaders: AA – Horth 39.400; VT – O’Connor 9.825; UB – Horth 9.900; BB – Kato, Leduc 9.900; FX – Leduc, Buchanan 9.875

20. Arizona – 195.217
Week 4: Monday meet

21. Cal – 195.150
Week 4: Monday meet

22. New Hampshire – 195.095
Week 4: 195.800
Week 4 leaders: AA – Lauter, Pflieger 39.150; VT – Pflieger 9.750; UB – Mulligan 9.900; BB – Lauter 9.925; FX – Pflieger 9.900

23. West Virginia – 195.083
Week 4: No meet

24. Southern Utah – 195.056
Week 4: 195.250
Week 4 leaders: AA – None; VT – Ramirez 9.875; UB – Yee 9.875; BB – Webb 9.900; FX – Brownsell 9.850

25. Kentucky – 195.031
Week 4: 195.025
Week 4 leaders: AA – Dukes 39.300; VT – Stuart 9.825; UB – Dukes 9.825; BB – Dukes, Hyland, Whittle 9.800; FX – Dukes 9.875

-The top 10 is still sort of a work in progress at this point because UCLA and Utah are yet to compete tonight, which will change the dynamic. How Utah adapts to life without Kari Lee will be the most interesting part of tonight’s meets, but Valorie is teasing a Peng vault as well. It begins…?

-In addition to the four 10s recorded this week, Nicole Artz went 9.975 on floor, Aja Sims went 9.975 on beam for sticking her double tuck and showing everyone what dance elements are, and Bailie Holst went 9.975 on bars for a routine I haven’t seen yet. But Minnesota is the best about uploading all the routines to youtube, so I’m sure we’ll see it in due time.

-New Hampshire is in a fight with George Washington to see who can be the new, cool team this year, and UNH is gaining every week as Casey Lauter continues to be the gymnast you wish you had on your fantasy gym team. We need to make sure she makes it to nationals. Here’s her 9.925 on beam (along with all the other northeast-based routines your heart could desire from David Pendrys).

-Lizzy Leduc had a rough start to her NCAA career in those first couple meets, but a 9.900 on beam and a 9.875 on floor over the weekend are very good signs that my anticipated O’Connor-Horth-Kato-Leduc quadrangle of triumph may come to fruition after all.

-Grace Williams hit a 39.500 in the AA, the best mark of her career by over a tenth. With Ashley Lambert MIA again, that increases the pressure on Williams and Blanske to be all the types of fantastic, and this is much more the kind of number we expected for Williams based on her exceptional JO career.

-Fun game: Denver scored 196.125 on Saturday. Without Nina McGee, the score would have been 195.475. That’s an MVP. McGee better not get overlooked when it comes to naming the AAI six this year, even though Bridget Sloan has already won it. This is also a fun game to play with Ebee and Stanford, since Stanford would be ranked 600th without her.

-Georgia hit beam this week sort of! We’ll take a sort of. It was a beam rotation that the Gymdogs endured rather than thrived in, but that’s the first step. Vaculik came into the lineup, and weirdly, this is the most confident I’ve ever seen her look on beam. She’s a beautiful beam worker (it should be her best event) when she’s not terrified. We need this from her because two of Georgia’s other lovely beam options, Schick and Cherrey, may have to be jettisoned by the business-end of the season for consistency. Even if Georgia does work out beam, it may not be the strength it could have been if that means sacrificing style and execution to get six hit routines.

-Also, Brittany Rogers is a lunatic woman and attempting to compete Georgia/Florida and Elite Canada this week. How is that…I don’t even…? In other news, someone get her legs a therapy dog. 

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
-The coach who picked Boise State #1 in preseason is looking at us all right now and going, “Mmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmm.” Except not really because…#1?

-Arkansas defeated Auburn in the Battle for Underdog SEC Darling of the Year, cementing the position as an outsider pick for a real postseason run in a meet that was marred by the physical destruction of every possible Auburn gymnast. With Phillips and Engler going down, the vault lineup in particular will need some serious help, putting more pressure on Atkinson, Rott, and Demers to bring the big numbers to overcome the inevitable low replacement scores.

-Sadly, a streak ended over the weekend when Michigan went sub-49 on beam for the first time since March 15, 2014. The fall from Artz was particularly unexpected, and while Michigan did record a perfectly fine 196.550 in the loss to Nebraska, the precarious depth situation did rear its head with the lack of Casanova clearly felt by all, particularly people watching that vault rotation. Michigan has no intention of counting Brown’s vault score, which means the other five must not only hit but perform ideal vaults to keep the total competitive.

-LSU continues to break hearts on beam, recording a 48.600 and dropping to a wholly unbefitting beam ranking of 18. This week, the Tigers had only two truly acceptable hits, from Hambrick and Gnat, which isn’t good enough even for this point in the season. Both of the falls came from gymnasts missing skills they never miss, Ewing on her layout and Finnegan on her triple wolf, but this can’t be dismissed as an anomaly because falls and weird 9.700s have been the name of the game in pretty much every meet this season. LSU, you’re on beam watch. Not everything can be Ashleigh Gnat’s job.

-There’s less to say about Alabama and Oklahoma other than that they looked goooood over the weekend. Alabama showed LSU what a beam recovery is and gleefully took advantage of a juicy Florida road score, even while continuing to exploring depth and shunning a top-strength lineup/missing Jetter. So many floor options. There are still questions about how competitive bars will be against the best teams, as well as who the six vaulters are (I’m not convinced by Bailey or Bresette yet, but Beers, Brannan, Guerrero, Winston, McNeer, TBD is enough to be getting on with), but the meet against Florida was a very good sign in spite of the loss.

-The last two weeks, we’re starting to see the performances we expected from Oklahoma from the very first week of the season: not pristine post-season level, but impressive, consistent, and clearly 197. Yes, it was Metroplex and there were some Metroplexy scores in getting to that 197.550, a number that flatters a meh-landed vault lineup and too many wobbles on beam, but for the end of January, this is how a title-contending team should look. Also, Chayse Capps’ best event is bars now. Apparently. I don’t know either. I think there’s still room to play around with those bars and beam lineups to bring out the best options. Are Jackson and Capps final lineup on bars (though if Capps keeps scoring like this…I guess so)? Is Jones final-six on beam? We’ll see how this progresses.

Rankings

Week 3 Rankings + Notes

2 Comments

It sure was a cap-popping blizzard of a weekend.

The champion of the week was Ashleigh Gnat, who recorded the first vault 10 of the new vault era by sticking her DTY. Because that’s what happens when you stick DTYs. You get 10s. Do I hear an Amanar? Sorry. I’ll stop. OMG YOU GUYS, my aunt’s cousin’s best enemy’s roommate totally saw Ashleigh Gnat training an Amanar. I SWEAR.

“Oh snap, she stuck it!” Oh Sac, never leave us ever. What if KJC said “Oh snap” when someone landed a vault? I’ll let you go enjoy your made life.  

Week 3 rankings

1. Florida – 197.192
Week 3: 197.075
Week 3 leaders: AA – Sloan 39.575; VT – McMurtry 9.900; UB – Sloan 9.925; BB – McMurtry 9.900; FX – Baker 9.950

2. Oklahoma – 197.094
Week 3: 197.475
Week 3 leaders: AA – Capps, Kmieciak 39.500; VT – Scaman, Jackson, Capps 9.875; UB – Wofford, Kmieciak 9.925; BB – Brown 9.925; FX – Scaman 9.925

3. Michigan – 196.938
Week 3: 196.900
Week 3 leaders: AA – Karas 39.550; VT – Karas 9.950; UB – Artz 9.900; BB – Artz, Marinez 9.900; FX – Karas 9.900

4. UCLA – 196.758
Week 3: 196.800
Week 3 leaders: AA – Ohashi 39.375; VT – Hall 9.900; UB – Ohashi 9.925; BB – Francis, Meraz 9.850; FX – Bynum 9.925

5. Alabama – 196.688
Week 3: 196.400
Week 3 leaders: AA – Beers 38.950; VT – Guerrero 9.900; UB – Winston 9.900; BB – A Sims 9.950; FX – Jetter 9.925

6. LSU – 196.450
Week 3: 196.575
Week 3 leaders: AA – Hambrick 39.325; VT – Gnat 10.000; UB – Priessman 9.925; BB – Finnegan 9.900; FX – Gnat 9.950

7. Utah – 196.342
Week 3: 196.125
Week 3 leaders: AA – Lee 39.100; VT – Hughes 9.900; UB – Rowe 9.950; BB – Stover 9.925; FX – Schwab 9.925

8. Arkansas – 196.113
Week 3: 196.700
Week 3 leaders: AA – Wellick 38.950; VT – Wellick 9.900; UB – Zaziski, Freier, Glover 9.775; BB – Wellick 9.900; FX – Canizaro, McGlone, Nelson 9.900

9. Auburn – 196.106
Week 3: 195.900
Week 3 leaders: AA – Atkinson 39.275; VT – Atkinson 9.825; UB – Atkinson 9.875; BB – Krippner, Hlawek 9.775; FX – Demers 9.925

10. Boise State – 196.063
Week 3: 196.425
Week 3 leaders: AA – Remme 39.250; VT – Stockwell 9.925; UB – Stockwell 9.875; BB – Means, Remme 9.800; FX – Collantes 9.925

11. George Washington – 195.800
Week 3: Cancelled

12. Stanford – 195.783
Week 3: 196.675
Week 3 leaders: AA – Price 39.500; VT – Price 9.925; UB – Price 9.925; BB – Hong 9.925; FX – Price 9.875

13. Georgia – 195.769
Week 3: 195.350
Week 3 leaders: AA – Jay 39.475; VT – Jay, Rogers, Snead 9.875; UB – Vaculik 9.875; BB – Box 9.875; FX – Jay, Box 9.900

14. Denver – 195.642
Week 3: 195.650
Week 3 leaders: AA – McGee 39.500; VT – McGee 9.900; UB – McGee 9.875; BB – Ross 9.800; FX – McGee 9.975

15. Oregon State – 195.633
Week 3: 195.125
Week 3 leaders: AA – Gardiner 39.150; VT – Gardiner 9.850; UB – Singley 9.875; BB – McMillan 9.850; FX – Gardiner 9.875

16. Missouri – 195.600
Week 3: 195.800
Week 3 leaders: AA – None; VT – Ward 9.875; UB – Kelly 9.850; BB – Ward 9.900; FX – Harris 9.925

17. Nebraska – 195.342
Week 3: 195.825
Week 3 leaders: AA – Blanske 39.500; VT – Schweihofer 9.900; UB – Williams 9.875; BB – Williams 9.900; FX – Blanske 9.950

18. Minnesota – 195.267
Week 3: 195.675
Week 3 leaders: AA – Gardner 39.100; VT – Haines 9.825; UB – Holst 9.850; BB – Nordquist 9.950; FX – Mable 9.900

19. Illinois – 195.242
Week 3: 195.150
Week 3 leaders: AA – Horth 39.275; VT – O’Connor 9.850; UB – Horth 9.900; BB – Kato 9.875; FX – O’Connor 9.925

20. Arizona – 195.217
Week 3: 196.475
Week 3 leaders: AA – None; VT – Cindric 9.825; UB – Laub 9.875; BB – Cindric 9.875; FX – Sisler Scheider 9.900

21. Cal – 195.150
Week 3: 195.650
Week 3 leaders: AA – Williams 38.800; VT – Williams 9.875; UB – Williams 9.850; BB – Owens 9.850; FX – Williams 9.925

22. West Virginia – 195.083
Week 3: 195.800
Week 3 leaders: AA – Muhammad 39.325; VT – Koshinski 9.900; UB – Goldberg 9.875; BB – Galpin 9.875; FX – Muhammad 9.950

23. Kentucky – 195.033
Week 3: 195.100
Week 3 leaders: AA – Dukes 39.200; VT – Dukes, Stuart 9.800; UB – Stuart 9.800; BB – Dukes 9.900; FX – Stuart, Roemmele 9.775

24. Eastern Michigan – 194.992
Week 3: 195.050
Week 3 leaders: AA – Valentin 39.025; VT – Slocum 9.900; UB – Conrad 9.800; BB – Rubin 9.875; FX – Slocum 9.850

24. Southern Utah – 194.992
Week 3: 195.275
Week 3 leaders: AA – Ramirez 38.725; VT – Webb 9.850; UB – Shettles 9.850; BB – Trejo, Webb 9.875; FX – Webb 9.825

-Florida retains the #1 ranking after a fine-not-great showing at Auburn, a score brought down by some discomfort/Bridget Sloan improvisation on beam that had not been a factor in earlier performances, along with the continued half-a-floor-lineup situation. Oklahoma gained ground in the rankings after putting up a much more Oklahoma-January type performance, still having to endure one beam fall but without the total number of mistakes that kept the first couple meets in more pedestrian territory.

-The emergence of Natalie Von Lovelyton has been a pleasant develop in the reconstruction of Oklahoma’s lineups this season, with her pretty, twisty routines characteristic of the early-KJ Oklahoma era. Brown has a front 2/1 on floor, an E pass but not a double salto E pass, though I’ve noticed that overall the Sooners are going much simpler than their capability on floor, aside from Scaman. Jackson, Jones, and Capps sometimes are all more than capable of big double-salto E passes, but they haven’t been bringing the big. At least not yet. That’s even more true for UCLA’s lineup, which is a march of the double pikes until Bynum in the anchor spot. It will be interesting to watch when or if the in-your-face difficulty is reintroduced to some of these routines, or if these coaches just decide to say, “Hey, this is what we can do cleanly, and we don’t need to do more. Over the last two or three years, clean, amplitudinous double pike routines have received 9.950s and even 10.000s in anchor spots, so…..deal with it.”

-When I said in December that this would be the season of beam, I meant it in a good way. I really did. There’s so much pretty happening on beam this year, just right now it tends to be happening in a windstorm and on the ground.

-Georgia. Good improvement? Coming off of last weekend’s four falls, Georgia recorded three falls and a missed connection this time, so it’s way better and everything’s fine. We’re number 43! We’re number 43! Brandie Jay is their rock, so that’s where Georgia’s beam is. It’s officially a balance beam situation. At this point, the gymnasts are already displaying a level of terror that can only be described as “our coach just decided that we’re going to try to take a bus across Pennsylvania in the middle of a blizzard,” so it’s only going to get worse after this latest showing.

-It’s the first sign of the inevitable and oncoming beam revolt during which the beams will rise up and battle the humans for the future of the planet in a laser war. As part of this opening salvo, one beam also stole Avery Rickett’s foot and forced Alabama to count two falls, taking away what looked like an easy 197, and another comrade tried to pop a cap at Katelyn Ohashi as she double piked to her neck following a misguided round off. UCLA did not have to endure the same level of beam catastrophe (because the world is upside down) as Ohashi got to go again due to equipment malfunction. Which it did. That’s what happens when you’re relying on the structural integrity of only the cap to keep you on the beam. Somehow, she was able to be not in a thousand pieces after that landing and did go again, hitting the double pike this time and recording a 9.825.

-Through three weeks, the current top four teams have not had to count a fall, in some cases more surprising than others. I joke about UCLA, but having a solid and clear six beamers this year without the need to mix and match and rearrange seems to be doing the trick so far. That’s already a postseason lineup, just needing to straighten up a couple ragged edges and Sophina dismounts here and there. Michigan is a 196.9 machine, just sneaking up to that plateau for the 4th consecutive week after petitioning some beam scores at the last minute. Four straight 196.9s is kind of insane but also emblematic of the even-steven nature of this team in 2015 and now 2016. Michigan is the least susceptible to wild variations in performance from meet to meet. What you expect is what you get, which is much less heart-attacky than what we got used to during those couple seasons right after the Botterman era. Wolverine fans have earned this.

-While everyone else is having a balance beam situation, Utah is having a floor exercise situation. Someone should start that blog. Utah’s high on floor is a 49.025 right now. And yes, that whole lineup graduated after last season, but the remaining floor workers are much more talented than the performances they have been throwing out there, especially Lee and Lewis who should be hitting us over the head with 9.875-9.900s every time. What’s even going on around here?

-Nina McGee has a 10 and a 9.975 on floor so far this season. Amazing what happens when people suddenly start paying attention to the huge routines you’ve been doing for three years. 

-Stanford got a 196.675 over the weekend. Didn’t someone tell them that it’s still only January? Ladies, you’re not supposed to get good scores until March. At the earliest. What is this?

Rankings

Week 1 Ranking and Notes

8 Comments

Well, well well. Look at yourselves. No 197s. No accidental 10s given for Yurchenko fulls. You disgust me. If it hadn’t been for the crazy home-team floor scoring at literally every meet, I would hardly even recognize you.

For the moment, Michigan and LSU are riding the “not really doing anything wrong” train to the top spot, but very, very few of the scores recorded this weekend will be expected to stick around once RQS rolls into town. No one burst out of the gate with a shocking or overwhelming performance, except for Nina McGee, who tallied the first 10 of the season with her usual McGeeificiation of the floor exercise. She wins the award for best control and body position on a DLO this week. Now, let’s get to the standings and some general thoughts about the scoring changes based on week 1.

Week 1 Ranking (RTN)

1. Michigan – 196.950
Week 1 leaders: AA – Artz 39.450; VT – Karas 9.900; UB – Artz 9.900; BB – Artz, Chiarelli 9.875; FX – Artz, Karas 9.950

1. LSU – 196.950
Week 1 leaders: AA – Hambrick 39.450; VT – Gnat, Wyrick 9.900; UB – Finnegan, Zamardi 9.850; BB – Finnegan 9.925; FX – Gnat 9.950

3. Florida – 196.825
Week 1 leaders: AA – Sloan 39.500; VT – McMurtry 9.925; UB – Sloan 9.875; BB – Boren, Fassbender 9.900 9.875; FX – Baker, Sloan 9.900

4. Oklahoma – 196.725
Week 1 leaders: AA – Kmieciak 39.250; VT – Kmieciak 9.875; UB – Wofford 9.950; BB – Lehrmann, Brown 9.875; FX – Scaman 9.925

5. UCLA – 196.550
Week 1 leaders: AA – Ohashi 38.650; VT – Cipra 9.850; UB – Francis 9.825; BB – Lee, Francis 9.950; FX – Mossett, Bynum 9.950

6. Alabama – 196.300
Week 1 leaders: AA – Brannan 39.350; VT – Brannan 9.900; UB – Bailey, Winston 9.900; BB – Beers, McNeer 9.850; FX – Bailey, Sims 9.900

7. George Washington – 196.175
Week 1 leaders: AA – Winstanley 39.350; VT – Winstanley 9.925; UB – Winstanley 9.900; BB – DeMoura, Mermelstein 9.875; FX – Drouin-Allaire 9.825

7. Utah – 196.175
Week 1 leaders: AA – Lee 38.400; VT – Delaney 9.850; UB – Rowe 9.925; BB – Stover 9.825; FX – Schwab 9.900

7. Auburn – 196.175
Week 1 leaders: AA – Atkinson 38.300; VT – Atkinson 9.925; UB – Milliet 9.875; BB – Milliet 9.875; FX – Demers 9.875

10. Arizona – 195.700
Week 1 leaders: AA – None; VT – Cindric, Mattson 9.825; UB – Laub 9.850; BB – Sheppard 9.825; FX – Schneider 9.825

11. Cal – 195.575
Week 1 leaders: AA – None; VT – Williams 9.850; UB – Williams 9.800; BB – Howe 9.800; FX – Howe 9.875

12. Oregon State – 195.425
Week 1 leaders: AA – Gardiner 39.225; VT – Dessaints 9.900; UB – Dessaints 9.850; BB – Gardiner 9.850; FX – Radermacher 9.875

13. Denver – 195.375
Week 1 leaders: AA – McGee 39.250; VT – Fielitz 9.850; UB – McGee 9.900; BB -Hammen 9.825; FX – McGee 10.000

14. Missouri – 195.275
Week 1 A leaders: AA – Porter 38.900; VT – Miller 9.850; UB – Kelly, Porter 9.875; BB – Ward 9.850; FX – Harris 9.900

Week 1 B leaders: AA – Porter 39.250; VT – Porter, Ward 9.825; UB – Porter 9.800; BB – Kelly 9.850; FX – Harris 9.875

15. Georgia – 195.200
Week 1 leaders: AA – Rogers 39.100; VT – Snead 9.875; UB – Snead 9.900; BB – Box, Rogers 9.800; FX – Marino 9.875

16. Arkansas – 195.150
Week 1 leaders: No meet

16. Kent State – 195.150
Week 1 leaders: AA – None; VT – Williams 9.850; UB – Stypinski 9.900; BB – Lippowitsch 9.750; FX – Stypinski 9.900

18. New Hampshire – 195.100
Week 1 leaders: AA – Lauter 39.200; VT – Mahoney 9.825; UB – Mulligan 9.900; BB – Aucoin, Lauter 9.875; FX – Lauter 9.850

19. Illinois – 195.075
Week 1 leaders: AA – O’Connor 39.275; VT – O’Connor, Foley 9.700; UB – Horth 9.900; BB – O’Connor 9.850; FX – O’Connor 9.900

20. Eastern Michigan – 194.875
Week 1 leaders: AA – Conrad 39.050; VT – Valentin 9.875; UB – Valentin 9.850; BB – Valentin 9.850; FX – Slocum 9.750

21. Kentucky – 194.825
Week 1 leaders: AA – Dukes 39.125; VT – Dukes, Stuart 9.850; UB – Dukes 9.825; BB – Hyland 9.875; FX – Puryear 9.875

22. Stanford – 194.800
Week 1 leaders: AA – Price 39.500; VT – Price 9.850; UB – Price 9.900; BB – Price 9.850; FX – Price 9.900

23. Minnesota – 194.700
Week 1 leaders: AA – Mable 38.900; VT – Mable 9.900; UB – Hanley 9.850; BB – Mable 9.850; FX – Mable 9.800

23. NC State – 194.700
Week 1 leaders: AA – Knight 39.000; VT – Knight 9.825; UB – Turner 9.825; BB – Wild 9.900; FX – Woodford 9.800

25. Maryland – 194.400
Week 1 leaders: AA – Kathy Tang 39.025; VT – Kathy Tang 9.850; UB – Epperson 9.875; BB – Kathy Tang, Nee 9.875; FX – Brauckmuller 9.675

The scoring
-The significant story heading into the season was how the downgrading of the yfull would affect overall vault scoring. It’s too soon to draw any grand conclusions because the approach was not consistent from meet to meet. In several meets, we saw the judges being noticeably stricter on yurchenko fulls, not just accounting for the 0.05 downgrade but taking probably another 0.05 after that, at least compared to the last three or so seasons. For instance, Haley Scaman got a 9.825 for her yurchenko full with a hop back that would have received a 9.900 last season, as all her vaults did at the very least. Plenty of 9.750s popped up for yfulls, especially early in the lineup, that would have gone 9.825-9.850 last season. So in some cases, the judges were adding an additional level of scrutiny to the fulls, which is a positive development and should help create more separation in the vault scores, a desperately needed change.

-In these same meets, however, an identical level of scrutiny was not applied to the vaults that still started from a 10.0, with the judges much more willing to go into the 9.9s for y1.5s, even if the performance may not have merited it. Olivia Karas of Michigan comes to mind, with a pretty sizable step off to the side on her 1.5 that still received a 9.900. Perhaps we’re seeing a bit of overcompensation right now and the creation of an artificially significant separation between fulls and 1.5s of the same quality, though I would still say this is preferable to the previous situation of a glut of 9.925s being handed out to so many different vaults of widely varying quality. We’ll see how things level out in the coming months.

-Although, this approach was not consistent across all the meets. UCLA/Alabama, for instance, had more charitable scores given to a couple yurchenko fulls (Angi Cipra’s 9.850) and stricter scores given to 10.0 SV vaults, like Brannan’s. To me, that vault did look like a 9.900, which is exactly what it received (miracle of miracles!), but it was a stronger vault than some of the other 10.0 SVs that received 9.900s over the weekend.

-We’re going to have to work through this yurchenko arabian business together as a family. It’s going to create a lot of frustration this year. (Wyrick and Gnat got the same vault score this weekend, which is the exact opposite of what the scoring change was intended to achieve.) The bigger issue to me, though, is that NCAA gymnastics has always prided itself on being explicable and accessible to all fans, even those who never did gymnastics or who have never picked up a CoP before. For the most part (and I emphasize for the most part), the deductions are basic enough that someone with only a passing understanding can tell what constitutes a good routine or a not-so-much routine. Steps, handstands, wobbles, etc. The obvious things, what are often referred to as “visible deductions,” though I hate that expression because they’re all visible deductions. An invisible deduction is nothing. Differentiating between the y1/2 and yArabian (which the elite code does not) and giving them different start values, however, begins to get a little inside-baseball for the target audience of NCAA gymnastics. Why are those vaults different? Why is one scoring better than the other? Those are legitimate questions casual fans and gymfans alike will be, and have been, asking. In NCAA, scoring rewards should always strive to be as visually explicit as possible.

-In other scoring news, “strict” and “floor” are two words not even in the same continent so far. Oh, floor.

The teams
-Many of the top teams that scored in the mid-high 196s had a couple brilliant moments apiece but not much else to put in the scrapbook. It was a ragged weekend for most teams, especially in terms of adjusting to vault expectations. We’re going to see a lot of difficulty experimentation in the coming weeks as teams try to feel out which vaults they’ll get more rewarded for, which adds a little more unpredictability and removes some of the stagnation from NCAA vault, so I’m all for it. But for teams like Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, Alabama, etc., nothing happened this weekend to warrant a change in our preseason expectations for their accomplishments.

-George Washington. Yep, 196.175. And it seems pretty legit. Check out this channel for meet videos. The vaults from Winstanley and Drouin-Allaire in particular are competitive with pretty much all the rest of the teams. Everyone rush to fantasy gym to make the necessary trades.

-Is it bad that Stanford got a 194.800 and I don’t think it’s that much of a problem? Now, filling out the lineups is going to be a huge issue all season, especially on floor, but take away the unexpected mistakes (Rice’s floor fall and Hong’s beam fall, the things that shouldn’t be repeated), and this is a high 195, meaning Stanford would be in the top 10. Not a mighty accomplishment, but about where the team should be. Of course, they cannot afford even one more injury otherwise they’ll be back to not having enough competitors, but aside from the very real concerns over having enough competitive floor workers, doesn’t this count as on-track for Stanford?

-Georgia didn’t have a good opener, which was mostly disappointing because the beam problems put us all right back where we were last season. This should be a beam team in 2016, more so than in the last couple years, so let’s hope this 48.000 doesn’t develop into another edition of the Georgia beam epidemic of the last five years. Nebraska’s issues were more pronounced and more troubling (not even in the top 25 right now) because the team appears to lack both depth and 9.9 star power. Laeng had a good meet—and of the freshmen, Schweihofer looks like the usable 9.800 find—but the falls notwithstanding, they’re going to need to get more people into competition shape to have a true shot at nationals this year.

Rankings

The 2016 Boise State Preseason Coaches Poll

4 Comments

Road to Nationals (the new official NCAA gym ranking site, so you can finally let yourself forget how to spell troester) has released the annual coaches poll, and it did not disappoint, mostly because of one special hero’s first place vote.

(Full results at the link above.)

Obviously, the biggest story and only thing I care about is that some snarky little sass monster voted for Boise State as the #1 team and won the coaches poll along with all of our hearts. Well played, stranger. Next year, all of the coaches need to do comedy rankings and just vote for the University of Texas and Madeleine Albright. You have your instructions.

If we have to care about something else, I guess it’s worth noting that Oklahoma is the #1 team in a bit of an upset over three-time defending champions Florida. Oklahoma is a completely worthy choice for #1 and will be right there competing for the top spot all season long, so it’s hardly a scandal or even much of a question. It’s not Boise State. But it is interesting. My first instinct was that K.J. has clearly taken over as the new Rhonda and general beloved leader of the coaching sorority, while Florida didn’t get near the same number of first-place votes as Oklahoma because of the change in head coach. Realistic possibility. (Although Georgia did still manage the #1 ranking the year after Suzanne left.)

But checking out the number of voters this season might tell a different part of the story. Major kudos to RTN for getting a whole 66 coaches to vote in the poll this year instead of the usual barely 4. The last couple years, 31 coaches participated, so the sample is greater than double this year. (PROOF OF ADDITION SKILLS!) With a lot more coaches voting and not just the usual suspects, perhaps there was a desire from them to support the team that isn’t from the big SEC/Pac-12 powers, all other things being pretty much equal at this point in the year. Perhaps. Last year, Oklahoma got 8 first-place votes and this year 29, so something clearly changed. Whether it’s perception of Florida, perception of Oklahoma, or voting demographics, the world may never know.

Elsewhere, there’s not that much to report. The coaches have Utah higher than I did, which is understandable given the finish last season, and UCLA is perhaps a little high based on last year’s performance + losing Peszek. But also the Valorie Factor. Illinois is a few spots lower than I had (and therefore obviously under-ranked duh), but the Illini didn’t make nationals last year. It’s always hard to get a good ranking after not making nationals. At least the coaches have hopped onto the Cal wagon with the rest of us.