BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMLINE?!?!?!
That’s right, the NCAA coaches’ preseason poll is out, and it’s as fun and pointless as ever.
Sadly, there’s nothing too, too dramatic going on. Clearly, my petition for at least 5 coaches to submit a joke ballot was denied once again.
Continue reading 2020 Preseason Coaches PollThis October in Stuttgart, the final 9 teams qualifying to the Olympics will be decided. But who will it be?
Using the principles of the National Team Rankings (I know, I know, I got behind and couldn’t catch up…), I ranked the contending nations based on how each country’s best-scoring group of five senior gymnasts would do in a three-scores-count format using each gymnast’s top score on each event recorded at a major international meet this year.
I do have a methodology departure from the previous National Team Rankings in that I’m using only major international meets** and excluding scores from smaller and domestic meets in order to provide a slightly more realistic impression that isn’t skewed by “I got a 14.500 on beam even though I’m getting at best a 12.700 at worlds!” national championship scores. I’m looking at you, Ukraine.
This method does cause equivalent problems of its own—Canada’s score is a little low because Moors and Olsen have competed only domestically so far in 2019, Brazil’s supply of countable routines is misleadingly paltry, etc—but there’s no perfect system.
Because this ranking is specifically about the race for the remaining 9 spots at the Olympics, I have not included the US, Russia, and China since they are already qualified. I’m also not including injured gymnasts that we know will miss worlds (like Rebeca Andrade) or gymnasts who have been deemed ineligible like Mai Murakami, in an effort to provide the most realistic picture of the race as it could play out at worlds. That means I’m saying Japan’s group of five must include the four gymnasts already named—since we know they’re going to worlds—and the fifth gymnast is selected only from those eligible through the inane selection procedures.
**I’m defining major international meets as FIG world cup events, continental championships, and larger-scale multi-nation competitions: Jesolo, Gymnix, the DTB Team Challenge, and the FIT Challenge.
| 1. FRANCE – 166.531 |
||||
| Melanie DJDS | 14.433 | 14.033 | 13.733 | 13.833 |
| Lorette Charpy | 13.600 | 14.100 | 13.666 | 12.566 |
| Marine Boyer | 0.000 | 11.966 | 14.100 | 13.300 |
| Coline Devillard | 15.000 | 0.000 | 12.300 | 12.833 |
| Carolann Heduit | 13.366 | 13.900 | 11.666 | 12.700 |
|
166.531 |
43.033 | 42.033 | 41.499 | 39.966 |
| If you’re using domestic scores, you’d put Juliette Bossu in there for her bars score instead of Carolann Heduit, but either way France is looking very strong right now as long as the major players stay/get healthy. This is a comfortably Olympic-level group of routines. |
||||
| 2. ITALY – 165.514 | ||||
| Alice D’Amato | 14.633 | 14.400 | 12.466 | 12.700 |
| Asia D’Amato | 14.633 | 14.033 | 11.967 | 12.900 |
| Elisa Iorio | 13.633 | 14.300 | 13.350 | 12.633 |
| Giorgia Villa | 14.300 | 13.533 | 13.766 | 12.666 |
| Lara Mori | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12.633 | 13.866 |
| 165.514 | 43.566 | 42.733 | 39.749 | 39.466 |
| This year, expect an Italian team packed with those new seniors to deliver the kind of scores on bars Italy hasn’t enjoyed in quite some time. I’m still a little worried about this group’s scores and consistency on beam and floor (be honest, you wouldn’t be that surprised to see one of the old standbys swoop to do those two events at worlds, would you?), but Italy is on track for its best team result in a while, and at just the right time. |
||||
| 3. CANADA – 165.496 | ||||
| Ellie Black | 14.500 | 14.266 | 13.800 | 13.266 |
| Ana Padurariu | 13.533 | 14.666 | 14.333 | 13.600 |
| Rose Woo | 13.733 | 12.366 | 11.366 | 12.400 |
| Victoria Woo | 13.666 | 13.433 | 12.600 | 12.833 |
| Laurie Denommee | 13.566 | 12.866 | 13.133 | 13.100 |
| 165.496 | 41.899 | 42.365 | 41.266 | 39.966 |
| Once Moors and Olsen compete at Pan Ams, we’ll have a better sense of how they influence the team score because they’d certainly be included in the best five (plugging in their scores from nationals, Canada would zoom to the top, but scores from Canadian Nationals, especially on floor, are notoriously 5-ish tenths higher than reality). Either way, Canada is in an exceptionally solid position for Olympic team qualification. Shouldn’t be a problem at all. | ||||
| 4. GREAT BRITAIN – 164.664 | ||||
| Alice Kinsella | 14.200 | 13.800 | 13.566 | 13.100 |
| Ellie Downie | 14.500 | 14.066 | 13.333 | 13.466 |
| Amelie Morgan | 14.100 | 13.900 | 13.033 | 12.666 |
| Claudia Fragapane | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 13.600 |
| Phoebe Jakubczyk | 13.558 | 11.733 | 11.700 | 12.833 |
| 164.664 | 42.800 | 41.766 | 39.932 | 40.166 |
| Great Britain hasn’t done a ton of non-domestic competing so far this year, but when they have, it’s been successful (like the European Championship), so this ends up being pretty close to a first choice team, just probably with a Fenton or a Simm or a Becky in there. Or more than one. | ||||
| 5. NETHERLANDS – 163.847 | ||||
| Sanna Veerman | 14.100 | 14.133 | 12.166 | 11.833 |
| Eythora Thorsdottir | 13.600 | 13.866 | 13.550 | 13.666 |
| Tisha Volleman | 14.000 | 13.000 | 12.366 | 13.333 |
| Naomi Visser | 13.800 | 14.100 | 13.433 | 13.200 |
| Sara van Disseldorp | 13.366 | 12.200 | 12.666 | 12.733 |
| 163.847 | 41.900 | 42.099 | 39.649 | 40.199 |
| Netherlands has put up some reassuring performances recently, and if van Gerner gets back and Lieke continues this trajectory in her return as well, this can be a very formidable group. |
||||
| 6. BELGIUM – 162.963 | ||||
| Maellyse Brassart | 13.600 | 13.300 | 13.166 | 13.100 |
| Jade Vansteenkiste | 13.733 | 12.866 | 11.333 | 13.233 |
| Fien Enghels | 0.000 | 14.200 | 13.033 | 12.866 |
| Nina Derwael | 13.566 | 15.233 | 13.633 | 13.066 |
| Dorien Motten | 13.666 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 11.866 |
| 162.963 | 40.999 | 42.733 | 39.832 | 39.399 |
| We have seen a change this year for Belgium, an introduction of depth. For the last quad+, Belgium has fielded a competitive team, but an exact specific five had to be healthy (and as Mys and Waem left, Kinkcaert and Brassart took their places in that five). If people like Hermans and Klinckaert were out (as we’ve seen recently), Belgium just wouldn’t have a team score. Now, new seniors like Enghels and Vansteenkiste have come in to give Belgium a little more buffer for someone critical being out. |
||||
| 7. GERMANY – 162.514 | ||||
| Kim Bui | 13.800 | 14.400 | 12.766 | 13.233 |
| Elisabeth Seitz | 14.500 | 14.233 | 12.466 | 13.200 |
| Pauline Schäfer | 13.450 | 13.266 | 13.666 | 0.000 |
| Isabelle Stingl | 13.600 | 11.333 | 12.566 | 13.050 |
| Leah Grießer | 13.133 | 13.150 | 12.800 | 12.800 |
| 162.514 | 41.900 | 41.899 | 39.232 | 39.483 |
| Germany really should be one of the 9 qualifying teams at worlds this year and is too talented not to make the Olympics as a full squad—Seitz, Schäfer, Bui, Scheder, Voss is still such a formidable-seeming group—but what we’re seeing right now is a German team that’s exceptionally reliant on a select group of veterans all being healthy at the same time. You worry whether that next generation of backup routines/future stars is coming along or not. | ||||
| 8. AUSTRALIA – 160.633 | ||||
| Georgia-Rose Brown | 13.700 | 13.633 | 12.266 | 12.400 |
| Emily Whitehead | 13.633 | 13.233 | 12.833 | 12.500 |
| Emma Nedov | 13.333 | 13.333 | 14.100 | 13.033 |
| Elena Chipizubov | 12.866 | 12.166 | 13.200 | 12.766 |
| Georgia Godwin | 13.733 | 13.500 | 13.266 | 12.766 |
| 160.663 | 41.066 | 40.466 | 40.566 | 38.565 |
| This spring, we’ve seen an Australia squad that’s attempting to make a push out of the borderline territory and into the qualifying group of 9. This 8th-place position is therefore encouraging, the lingering issue being that Japan and Brazil are both lurking below Australia here…for reasons that we’ll get to. | ||||
| 9. JAPAN – 160.464 | ||||
| Asuka Teramoto* | 14.600 | 13.266 | 13.333 | 13.600 |
| Hitomi Hatakeda* | 13.933 | 13.566 | 12.900 | 12.300 |
| Aiko Sugihara* | 14.100 | 12.866 | 13.000 | 12.000 |
| Nagi Kajita* | 13.033 | 11.766 | 11.366 | 12.833 |
| Ayaka Sakaguchi | 14.100 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 160.464 | 42.800 | 39.698 | 39.233 | 38.733 |
| The * indicates athletes who have been named to the worlds team already and therefore must be included here. This is, of course, not the highest-scoring possible team Japan could come up with, but if they stick to these selection procedures, it could be the team that happens. Of the remaining eligible athletes, Ayaka Sakaguchi or Kiko Kuwajima seem to make the most sense for that last spot because they can deliver a DTY and a beam and floor routine, though they’ve only rarely competed outside of domestic competitions. Still expect Japan to be a couple points better than this, but it is perhaps worth being a little concerned if they send a team like this. |
||||
| 10. UKRAINE – 160.463 | ||||
| Valeria Osipova | 13.933 | 12.400 | 12.266 | 12.400 |
| Anastasia Bachynska | 14.000 | 13.566 | 13.533 | 12.700 |
| Diana Varinska | 13.500 | 13.966 | 12.866 | 12.966 |
| Angelina Radivilova | 13.900 | 12.367 | 13.333 | 13.033 |
| Yana Fedorova | 13.555 | 12.667 | 10.600 | 11.100 |
| 160.463 | 41.833 | 40.199 | 39.732 | 38.699 |
| Ukraine should be considered a major outsider for an Olympic spot, but the team is quite a bit better than last year’s 20th-place showing would indicate (they didn’t have a particularly great competition and didn’t yet have Bachynska). If Varinska and Bachynska both have legit meets at the same time, the score can be competitive. | ||||
| 11. BRAZIL – 159.445 | ||||
| Flavia Saraiva | 14.600 | 13.266 | 13.033 | 13.666 |
| Thais Fidelis | 13.566 | 12.300 | 12.933 | 13.266 |
| Carolyne Pedro | 13.733 | 12.566 | 12.233 | 12.933 |
| Jade Barbosa | 0.000 | 13.650 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| X | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 159.445 | 41.899 | 39.482 | 38.166 | 39.865 |
| Things are not quite as dire as all this, even without Andrade. Brazil went all-in on a very specific group of gymnasts in international meets early in the year, so there’s not a lot of backup scores to use right now. If you were to give the team the scores from Lorrane Oliveira and Jade Barbosa from nationals (high but still), they’re in the mid 162s, which is probably more reflective of where this team is without Andrade. In the 9, but not safely so. | ||||
| 12. HUNGARY – 159.281 | ||||
| Sara Peter | 14.533 | 0.000 | 9.450 | 12.533 |
| Nora Feher | 12.966 | 13.550 | 12.800 | 12.466 |
| Dorina Böczögo | 13.750 | 12.650 | 0.000 | 13.000 |
| Csenge Bacskay | 14.100 | 0.000 | 12.266 | 11.733 |
| Zsofia Kovacs | 13.933 | 14.000 | 13.450 | 11.333 |
| 159.281 | 42.566 | 40.200 | 38.516 | 37.999 |
| We’ve seen from Hungary’s team results in Europe this quad that the potential for contention is there. This is not yet a top-12 country, but Hungary has a good crop of new seniors this year and should be at least somewhere in the vicinity of the qualification spots at worlds. | ||||
| 13. ROMANIA – 158.730 | ||||
| Iulia Berar | 13.266 | 12.533 | 12.950 | 0.000 |
| Carmen Ghiciuc | 13.466 | 11.933 | 13.100 | 10.933 |
| Denisa Golgota | 14.500 | 12.966 | 13.500 | 13.866 |
| Ana Maria Puiu | 13.600 | 12.100 | 13.233 | 12.900 |
| Maria Holbura | 13.233 | 11.300 | 12.533 | 12.966 |
| 158.730 | 41.566 | 37.599 | 39.833 | 39.732 |
| Romania will not arrive at worlds with the expectation of Olympic qualification, but the way things have been going, the fact that it’s not completely out of the question feels like a win. | ||||
| 14. SPAIN – 158.446 | ||||
| Alba Petsico | 13.600 | 12.566 | 12.033 | 12.766 |
| Laura Bechdeju | 13.400 | 13.100 | 12.033 | 13.250 |
| Ana Perez | 13.666 | 13.733 | 12.733 | 13.500 |
| Nora Fernandez | 13.766 | 13.266 | 11.500 | 11.600 |
| Cintia Rodriguez | 13.333 | 12.333 | 13.033 | 12.733 |
| 161.682 | 41.032 | 40.099 | 37.799 | 39.516 |
| There’s some hearty talent in this generation of Spanish gymnasts, and a few newbies who are showing competitive scores on select pieces. There’s probably not enough depth to get up into the fancy places, but the scores haven’t been too, too far away so far this year. |
Right now, I would say the next tier is countries like South Korea, Switzerland, and Mexico, but they’re currently a step lower, closer to a 154 kind of team total based on the scores so far in 2019
1. Oklahoma SoonersNQS: 198.115
Previous ranking: 1
| Road Score 1: | 198.200 |
| Road Score 2: | 198.075 |
| Road Score 3: | 198.050 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.325 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 198.275 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.975 |
| NQS: | 198.115 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 198.185
Oklahoma recorded its 5th 198 of the season in defeating Alabama over the weekend, clinching the overall #1 ranking for the postseason and leaving only one question—whether the team can use its performance at Big 12s to break the all-time RQS (NQS…) record of 198.120, set by Oklahoma last season. That requires a score of 198.000 to tie, 198.025 to break.
2. UCLA BruinsNQS: 197.885
Previous ranking: 2
| Road Score 1: | 198.025 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.900 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.700 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.325 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 198.025 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.775 |
| NQS: | 197.885 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 198.010
UCLA’s “we’re honoring Miss Val by being all over the place” competition did nothing to change the team’s NQS, but because the NQS was high enough to begin with, UCLA is already set at finishing the season #2 regardless of what happens at the conference championship.
3. LSU TigersNQS: 197.680
Previous ranking: 4
| Road Score 1: | 198.175 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.450 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.250 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.150 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.900 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.650 |
| NQS: | 197.475 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.865
Possible ranking range: 3-4
Our first shakeup in the rankings comes as a result of LSU traveling to the land that COP forgot to score a 198.175 at Arizona, just enough to pass up Florida for #3 in the rankings and therefore get Olympic order in the evening session at the SEC Championship. LSU will be looking to score a 197.950 at SECs, the number required to clinch this ranking position regardless of Florida’s score. Since SECs are in New Orleans this year, LSU will enjoy the benefit of being the de facto home team while also getting to use the number as a road score.
4. Florida GatorsNQS: 197.675
Previous ranking: 3
| Road Score 1: | 198.025 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.500 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.325 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.025 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.850 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.675 |
| NQS: | 197.675 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.815
Possible ranking range: 3-4
With a week off, Florida was not able to improve its NQS and has fallen behind LSU in the rankings. Florida will also not be able to control its own destiny for that #3 ranking position as LSU has the higher maximum possible NQS following SEC Championships. Which means that Florida could win SECs and still find itself ranked below LSU if the meet is super close and both teams are getting season-high-type scores, allowing LSU to take advantage of having that higher maximum. Florida’s goal will be to win SECs by more than a tenth AND have LSU stay below that 197.950 marker. If both teams go 198, LSU is staying ahead regardless of who wins.
5. Denver PioneersNQS: 197.540
Previous ranking: 5
| Road Score 1: | 197.775 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.450 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.225 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 197.725 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.675 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.625 |
| NQS: | 197.540 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.650
Denver ventured back out on the road over the weekend to score a perfectly acceptable low 197, enough to improve the team’s NQS and stay at #5 but not enough to challenge the higher-ranked teams. Denver is now one of the set teams—able to go no higher and no lower than 5th regardless of the score at Big 12s.
6. Utah UtesNQS: 197.375
Previous ranking: 6
| Road Score 1: | 197.450 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.375 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.250 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 197.975 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.625 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.175 |
| NQS: | 197.375 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.535
Possible ranking range: 6-8
Utah scored a road season high against Georgia, but as the final score was 197.450, it didn’t make a huge dent against the other teams in this portion of the rankings. We can expect a big number at Pac-12s (once again, Utah as the de facto home team for a road meet), and Utah will need a least a moderately solid number because even though the Utes can move no higher than 6th this weekend, there is still a threat from Georgia and Michigan. That threat can be snuffed out by Utah scoring 197.425 at Pac-12s.
1. Oklahoma SoonersNQS: 198.025
Previous ranking: 1
| Road Score 1: | 198.200 |
| Road Score 2: | 198.075 |
| Road Score 3: | 198.050 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.325 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.975 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.825 |
| NQS: | 198.025 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 198.125
Meets remaining: 3
Road meets remaining: 1
Oklahoma’s return to the land of the 198s over the weekend brought the team NQS over the 198 barrier—making Oklahoma the 5th team in history to achieve that feat, following Oklahoma 2017 and 2018 and UCLA 2003 and 2004. We’re now back on record watch, as Oklahoma could match its own all-time NQS record (198.120) at today’s meet against Iowa State with a score of 198.300 and would break it with a 198.325. Absolutely possible the way things have been going. Oklahoma is already guaranteed to be safely at #1 heading into conference championships regardless of what happens until then.
Now, about the absences of Trautman and Nichols (on two events). You would think Oklahoma is not going to score 198s in real life if that keeps up into elimination meets, but also nothing matters anymore and there are no deductions, so whatever.
2. UCLA BruinsNQS: 197.885
Previous ranking: 2
| Road Score 1: | 198.025 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.900 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.700 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.325 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 198.025 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.775 |
| NQS: | 197.885 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.995
Meets remaining: 2
Road meets remaining: 1
UCLA notched its 5th-best score in program history on Sunday with a 198.325 against Stanford—a marked improvement over the showing against Oklahoma the previous week but also one where the score overpromises on the quality of the performance, surprise surprise. This result further entrenches UCLA in that #2 position as no one else can come very close to catching the Bruins this weekend. UCLA also cannot catch Oklahoma, even if VAL! 2019 is evaluated exactly as we expect it to be next Saturday.
3. Florida GatorsNQS: 197.675
Previous ranking: 3
| Road Score 1: | 198.025 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.500 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.325 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.025 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.850 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.675 |
| NQS: | 197.675 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.815
Meets remaining: 1
Road meets remaining: 1
Florida snatched its second 198 of the season in its home finale, though things are not quite as solid for Florida heading into the final weekend of non-championship meets since Florida will be on a rest week. Probably a nice idea before SECs, but it does mean that Florida is potentially vulnerable to losing the #3 ranking if things go just, just right for LSU. LSU would need to match its season high with a 198.150+ on the road at Arizona to pass Florida—so not easy but not impossible.
4. LSU TigersNQS: 197.475
Previous ranking: 4
| Road Score 1: | 197.450 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.250 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.125 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 198.150 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.900 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.650 |
| NQS: | 197.475 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.680
Meets remaining: 2
Road meets remaining: 2
Not to be outdone, LSU was the 4th team to manage a 198 over the weekend, going 198.150 in its home finale for a top-5 score in program history and opening up the possibility of passing Florida for #3 this weekend as noted above. It’s the flat road scores that have kept LSU from challenging the top three, and an opportunity to rectify that has now been presented.
But. LSU must also worry about getting passed this weekend. Despite having a higher peak NQS than Denver and therefore controlling the situation, Denver still has quite a low road score to get rid of and is therefore more likely to improve its NQS by a larger amount. If Denver manages another season high, LSU is going to need to go 198s again to guarantee staying at #4. LSU is also potentially vulnerable to Utah but would have to put up an unusably low number for that to come into play.
5. Denver PioneersNQS: 197.365
Previous ranking: 6
| Road Score 1: | 197.775 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.450 |
| Road Score 3: | 196.350 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 197.725 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.675 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.625 |
| NQS: | 197.365 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.650
Meets remaining: 2
Road meets remaining: 2
Our first change in the rankings this week comes with Denver jumping up into the #5 spot ahead of an idle Utah team. Despite recording one of the top 5 scores in program history (ALMOST LIKE A THEME!), Denver did not improve its NQS too much because the team already had three home scores among the top scores in program history. There wasn’t much to change. There will be much to change, however, this next weekend on the road since Denver still has that low 196 road score flapping around in there. Even if the road score are a little more conservative next week, that 196.350 is infinitely beatable and Denver presenting a threat to LSU is realistic. Utah, meanwhile, does present a threat to Denver this week, Denver looking to score 196.950 to be assured of retaining #5.
6. Utah UtesNQS: 197.315
Previous ranking: 5
| Road Score 1: | 197.375 |
| Road Score 2: | 197.250 |
| Road Score 3: | 197.150 |
| Home/Road Score 1: | 197.975 |
| Home/Road Score 2: | 197.625 |
| Home/Road Score 3: | 197.175 |
| NQS: | 197.315 |
Maximum possible NQS after next meet: 197.480
Meets remaining: 2
Road meets remaining: 2
Utah dropped a spot to Denver by not competing over the weekend, though #6 may be the new normal because Utah has a much lower peak NQS after the coming meets than LSU and Denver do. Denver has totally upended that LSU/Utah regional showdown the rankings had been pointing toward for so many weeks. Whether Utah has a shot to get back to #5 this week is in Denver’s hands, even if Utah’s visit to Georgia on Saturday is scored exactly as you expect it to be. Utah will also be focused on staying ahead of Michigan, which can be assured with a 197.550.
