Oklahoma won the national title six whole days ago, which is like a thousand years ago. Sorry, Oklahoma. We’re moving on. What have you done for us lately? Basically nothing? That’s what I thought.
The 2017 season is just around the corner, as long as that corner is really, really far away. We don’t know anything real about 2017 yet, but we do know which valuable gems and enthusiastic leaders in the training gym we won’t see next year, along with which bright new lights full of possibilities and undiagnosed shin problems will be joining the teams in their place.
Detailed looks at each team and roster will come much later, when the season approaches and I actually vaguely know who these JO gymnasts are, but let’s call this a preliminary glance at who’s coming and who’s going on each team now that the 2016 season is closed and locked away forever and the traditional eight-month moratorium has been placed on the terms “parity,” “yurchenko arabian,” “confident leadoff,” and “life lessons.” I’ve placed the top teams into various categories based on the current outlook and added the RQSs for the routines they will lose after 2016.
This is, of course, assuming that people do what they’re supposed to and don’t suddenly turn pro or run off to join a traveling circus or whatever.
The Tigers certainly lose a few critical routines, the most important being Savona’s floor, though they already gained some experience with life after Savona’s vault and floor when she was out early this season (and life after Wyrick’s bars when she didn’t compete in the postseason). They survived, for the most part. Several of these openings should be filled by people already on the roster, and while I don’t think we can have any expectations for Priessman at this point because any week she’s healthy enough to compete is just a bonus, Kelley should do more next year. Add to that this freshman class, and I think there’s every reason to expect LSU 2017 to be stronger than LSU 2016.
Beers – VT – 9.905; UB – 9.690; FX – 9.915
Sims – FX – 9.868
Alabama is in a similar position to LSU in terms of not losing that many routines, though Alabama’s losses carry a bit more significance, especially on floor with the team’s two strongest floories departing. They’ll need some of the upperclassmen like Brannan to step up and be a little more Beersy on those events and a little less middle-of-the-lineupy, but with increased contribution from a potential star like Ari Guerra who didn’t figure at all by the end of the season and the introduction of Maddie Desch and Wynter Childers, Alabama’s first-ever recruit who’s also a citizen of District 1, I’m not too worried about the look of Alabama’s future roster. Continue reading Comings and Goings→
Gather round, darling children, and learn about the NCAA national championship, a far-off magical land where all the most glorious gymnasts assemble in an arena made of gumdrops and frozen tears for a battle royale to see who can force the biggest fake smile after her teammate falls on beam. It’s always a really close contest.
As is only traditional, let’s begin at the start. The first of the two semifinals will take place in the void between the dimensions on April 15th at 2:00 ET/11:00 PT and should be a doozy.
Competing teams (starting event) [2] Florida (bye before floor) [3] LSU (bye before bars) [6] Auburn (vault) [9] Georgia (beam) [16] Minnesota (floor) [18] Stanford (bars)
An argument can be made for five of these six teams advancing without having to concoct very many insane circumstances at all (sorry, Minnesota, but it would take a splatfest from the others). The big five should all expect to score into the 197s and will be disappointed by anything less than that. Even though we see 197s fall all over the place during the regular season, it’s not a given that the challenging teams will reach that plateau in this meet as scores tend to tighten at nationals (tend being the operative word). The highest score that has ever failed to advance from a semifinal is 197.025, an ignominious mark shared by Utah 2014 and Michigan 2015. That’s not a particularly impressive score these days during the regular season, but 197 remains a thing at the national championship.
To some extent, we’re in the dark about how scoring will play out in the semifinals because we’re entering a whole new era. Starting this year, six judges will work each event beginning with the semifinals. Will that depress the scores? Possibly. That’s two more whole people who have to be slipped a roll of cash under the bathroom door, which is a lot of work. I’m exhausted just thinking about it.
This was instituted in an attempt to prevent a heap of ties for event winners now that those titles will be decided on Friday as well, and in case you’re wondering, it’s terrible. Theoretically, having more judges and more oversight for scores at the most important meet is a great idea, but this is also going to result in a ton of really ugly-decimal scores that will be inconsistent with the round-number scores we’ve seen all season long. It’s the most unappealing thing I’ve ever heard. I just want to buy a crate of apples and stab them all about it.
So…to the teams!
FLORIDA and LSU Closer to nationals, I’ll do a Super Six preview, which is ludicrous to do before we know who has qualified to Super Six but when has this blog ever been unludicrous? I’ll save a more detailed discussion of Florida and LSU and how they match up against the other title contenders for that preview since they should both be in the mix. Of course, there’s still the semifinal to get through, and counting a fall could ruin the year for any team at this point, but these two are the clear favorites to emerge from this semifinal. If either doesn’t make it, it’s an upset. For the rest of the teams in this group, it isn’t.
Florida looked distinctly meh at regionals, and while that’s a near-annual tradition that shouldn’t necessarily indicate anything real, the score was a far-from-peak 196.725. I’m not expecting a 196.725 to make Super Six. By contrast, Florida also looked a little meh at regionals last year, but the score was still 197.475. Just a sliver of doubt begins to creep in, though I would be surprised by a repeat of those weak landings once we get to nationals. Another significant contributor to Florida’s low score was the Kennedy Baker ankle situation. She landed short on her double pike on floor and was pulled from vault as a precaution, and with normal hits from her on those events, Florida is close to—if not at—197 already, even with the same blah landings. Baker is essential to Florida’s title hopes, so the amount that ankle does/does not affect her will be a critical storyline on semifinal day.
LSU did not have the same issues as Florida at regionals, comfortably breaking 197 and sliding through to qualification without a question. Very reassuring. Except nothing is reassuring ever. Most doubts as to LSU’s ability to fulfill expectations this year are based on traumatic flashbacks to last season, when the Tigers were in an essentially identical position and seemed a sure qualifier to Super Six until three falls on beam happened. It didn’t come out of the blue last year. LSU had an iffy but manageable beam performance at regionals right before, which is why that 9.6 and 9.7 action from this year’s regionals did not help alleviate any of those flashbacks.
Still, this is prognostication about the likelihood of counting falls, which is a fool’s game, but that’s what it would take to knock Florida or LSU out of this. Based on the quality of the gymnastics we’ve seen this season, both of these teams should be in the hit-and-advance category. Elimination with a hit meet would be a massive shock.
AUBURN v. GEORGIA v. STANFORD Basically, I could copy-and-paste the “Auburn v. Michigan v. Stanford” section from the regional previews here and just replace the word Michigan with Georgia. It would be upsettingly accurate and appropriate, hearkening back to some of my frustrations with the repetitiveness of the current postseason assignments. We more or less just did this, and if everything goes to plan, it will be these three teams facing off against each other, only now it’s a fight for one spot instead of two. The comparison is particularly congruent because Michigan was thwarted by the beam at regionals, and Georgia is Georgia. Just swap one for the other.
As I said then, I still consider Stanford the challenger of the group rather than a likely qualifier because of those weaknesses on vault and floor. Everything worked out at regionals because bars and beam came through as they were supposed to and the other teams had errors, but at some point relying on just two events won’t be enough. Still, if Stanford’s first-place tie at regionals taught us anything, it’s that this is more than possible. Georgia misses beam, Auburn repeats its uninspiring regionals performance, and hello Stanford once again.
Auburn had a slow start to the year, with some untimely injuries and lost magical routines that needed replacing, but ultimately showed far fewer low points than either Stanford or Georgia. That’s why Auburn ranks the best of the group on three of the four events, and maintaining that commitment to fewer lows is Auburn’s path to qualification here. If I were to name the most talented of these three teams on each event, I would give vault and floor to Georgia and bars and beam to Stanford. It’s close, but that’s what I would do. At the same time, Georgia and Stanford are also more prone to faltering on the other events and throwing in weak meets in general, which gives Auburn the opportunity to jump into the top three by virtue of being the steadiest and least horrifying.
I suppose Auburn is the safest choice, but if the others, particularly Georgia, come through with a real hit on the weak events, they have higher potential score and could leave Auburn behind.
Beam beam beam. That repetition of the same word three times is always appropriate, but beam is particularly critical for each of these three teams’ qualification hopes. We’re all well acquainted with Georgia’s crusade against the troll that lives under the beam and occasionally pops out to force Brittany Rogers to answer his questions three, but if Georgia conquers beam, I would argue that Georgia becomes the favorite to advance. If we total the teams’ RQSs on the other three events, Georgia has the edge over Auburn by a tenth. Still, Auburn is ranked higher, defeated Georgia in their dual meet, and scored higher at SECs. Because of beam. When the teams met in the regular season, Auburn won the meet by .050 and won beam by .050. BEAM.
They really do balance each other out elsewhere. Georgia has the edge on vault, Auburn boasts more reliable sticks on bars. Georgia has Jay, Box, and Marino on floor. Auburn has Atkinson, Demers, and Rott. Auburn has not been as dominant on beam this season as last season, but Milliet, Demers, and Atkinson? That should be a stellar group, and with everything else too close to call, beam remains Auburn’s chance to pick up some ground in spite of the uninspiring score from regionals.
Beam is just as critical for Stanford, but in a somewhat different way. It’s not critical in the please-don’t-fall kind of way (although not falling is always a good idea), but more in the you-probably-need-a-49.500 kind of way. I don’t know how realistic that score is for a beam lineup that misses Vaculik and Wing, but because the scores on vault and floor will be somewhere around 49.1-49.2 on a solid day, the beam number needs to be large. Those vaults have been getting the “none for Gretchen Wieners” treatment all season, which isn’t tenable in semifinals. A 49.1 is not a Super Six score, which means by default, bars and beam must be world-beating to catch a hit meet from any of the top four seeds here. Bars delivered at regionals. Now beam needs to as well.
Stanford competes on bars and beam in the first two rotations so will let us know fairly early if this meet is a thing. The combined bars and beam score from regionals was 98.750, and if Stanford isn’t at least equal to that here, I have a hard time envisioning qualification or a 197. Top three at the halfway point is essential. If Stanford isn’t top three after three rotations, that’s it. Ground won’t be gained on floor and vault. Stanford must lead from the front. It’s not ideal, but Stanford had the same rotation order last year and was able to get the big scores early and use them to hold off a surging Michigan by a slim margin at the end.
Starting on beam, Georgia will compete on what presumably will be its lowest and highest scoring events in the first half of the meet, so an acceptable halfway score probably means something around 98.600. If we say 49.200 on beam and 49.400 on floor, that’s a solid number and one that is fully attainable for these lineups. Since Auburn gets to finish on floor during the year of the insane final-rotation floor scores, Georgia will want a healthy lead heading to the end of the meet to buffer against a Rott, Demers, Atkinson festival of 9.9s that could change the game at the last minute.
The fourth rotation is the serious one to watch here. Georgia goes to vault, Auburn goes to beam, and Stanford goes to floor. This is the Gymdogs’ opportunity to pounce. They should win this rotation by a couple tenths given the events on which the others will be competing, so Georgia’s margin (or lack thereof) at this point will tell us who holds the power.
MINNESOTA Poor Minnesota, I’ve left you out of this completely, but Minnesota’s victory for the season is advancing to this stage. Until about March, that seemed unrealistic, but Minnesota held to the plan exactly at regionals by staying close with Denver on three events and then being clearly better on beam to establish a margin. Well, not exactly to the plan since Mable fell on floor, but mostly to the plan. If Mable doesn’t fall on floor in the semifinals, she’s one of the legitimate contenders for the all-around title in her final attempt. Minnesota has gone through some…issues…since 2013 when the team last qualified in Mable’s freshman year, so it’s sort of fitting to return to nationals in her senior year. It’s been a long road, but…poetic-sounding things about how it has come back around.
If Minnesota were to have a path to qualification, it would be through weathering a disaster meet from all corners. Minnesota is rooting for insanity and chaos. Say, Georgia and Auburn both have a beam catastrophe and Minnesota outscores Stanford by enough on vault and floor. It could happen, but it’s quite dependent on the performance of the other teams, not the performance of Minnesota. I do expect a competitive beam score for Minnesota since Mable and Nordquist would be late-lineup beamers for any team in this competition, and a mid-196 would be quite a worthy result.
THE PACE Stanford and Minnesota will certainly need to exceed their RQSs to have a chance to qualify out of this meet (and the same applies to Auburn since Georgia’s event-by-event RQSs are actually higher than Auburn’s), but the rotation-by-rotation RQSs do provide a sense of where teams are expected to score/rank at various points in the meet so we can tell who is exceeding those expectations as we go.
Rotation 1: Minnesota 49.270, Auburn 49.250, Stanford 49.230, Georgia 49.180, Florida BYE, LSU BYE Minnesota begins on floor and would need this exact kind of number to have any hope, but the Stanford bars and Georgia beam RQSs underestimate their capabilities (posssssibly). I’d say Stanford will expect and need the lead after one event. Not-last after beam may be the victory for Georgia.
Rotation 2: Stanford 98.425, Minnesota 98.390, Florida 49.505, LSU 49.370, Auburn 49.250, Georgia 49.180 Even RQS, which isn’t a particularly pretty picture for Stanford, tells us that Stanford should have a lead after two events, but the score will need to be bigger than this for Stanford to hold on. Stanford needs a giant lead after the second rotation. For Florida and LSU, as long as they can get relatively close to their RQSs on each event, they’ll be fine and dandy.
Rotation 3: Florida 98.925, LSU 98.725; Georgia 98.565; Auburn 98.545; Stanford 98.425; Minnesota 98.390 And this is why Stanford would need a much higher score after two events. Stanford needs to be top three once everyone has done two events, and RQS has them 5th. Nope. I really hope the race between Georgia and Auburn is as close as this the whole way because it’s going to make for an excellent finish. The rotation order gives us a relatively neck-and-neck picture throughout, and neither should ever leave the other behind. Rotation 4: Georgia 147.980, Auburn 147.760, Minnesota 147.570, Stanford 147.475, Florida 98.925, LSU 98.725 After that all-important fourth rotation, event RQS has Georgia leading Auburn by two tenths, which is the margin what we should be looking for if we want those two to end in a tie. When Auburn is on floor and Georgia is on bars for the last event, I’d take Auburn gaining about two tenths. Variation from that two-tenth margin will tell us who has the advantage. Except for the fact that inevitable falls will render all this moot, but if it goes to plan, this is the guideline. If Minnesota really is this close heading to beam, they’ll be over the moon.
Rotation 5: Minnesota 196.755, Stanford 196.595, Florida 148.425, LSU 148.270, Georgia 147.980, Auburn 147.760 High 196s like this would be a great result for Minnesota and would put the Gophers in a ripe position to take advantage of other teams’ mistakes, but Stanford should do better than this pace, in spite of this being quite similar to the result from regionals. A mid-196 is not going to be good enough, or an acceptable result for Stanford, even if the others have a sloppy meet. RQS tells us that Florida and LSU should have pulled away from the pack by multiple tenths at this point, which is why they should advance without all that much trouble given a normal hit.
Rotation 6: Florida 197.855, LSU 197.715, Georgia 197.260, Auburn 197.205, Minnesota 196.755, Stanford 196.595 The event RQSs give this thing to Georgia by a half tenth, while the overall meet RQSs give it to Auburn by a tenth and a half, hence Auburn’s higher ranking. That’s why I’m so hopeful for a really close contest. Once Georgia figured out beam (ish, sort of, not really), it became clear that these two teams are exceptionally evenly matched. Which brings us back to the quality of the beam hit. RQS assumes a relatively weak beam hit for Georgia, so the first rotation will provide a framework for which team seems to be the favorite.
Onward! Following the cue of the wildly circuitous Road to Rio we’ve been hearing about for the past year (I feel like there might be more efficient ways to get to Rio, like a plane or something), we move along the Road to Lovely Metropolitan Fort Worth from our first stop in Iowa to Minnesota. Wait, are we going the right direction? This feels wrong. Who’s navigating this trip? TRAUTWIG!!!???
Competing teams (starting event) [2] Florida (bye before bars) [11] Denver (beam) [16] Minnesota (floor) [20] Missouri (bye before floor) [28] Ohio State (bars) [31] BYU (vault)
Competing individuals Iowa State (Haylee Young – AA; Meagan Sievers – AA; Sydney Converse – VT, BB; Briana Ledesma – VT, FX; Hilary Green – UB; Alex Marasco – BB; Kelsey Paz – FX) Air Force (Kara Witgen – AA; Jamie Lewis – AA) UW-Whitewater (Mackenzie Smith – UB)
The favorite – Florida
Much like Oklahoma, the Florida Gators enter regionals as the heavy favorite and should win comfortably, pretty much running away with it after the first rotation, even though they’ll be on a bye. The win at SECs helps reinforce Florida’s status as a comfortable pick to win a fourth-straight title, though the sheer competitiveness of that meet, along with getting outscored by Oklahoma by multiple tenths that day, indicate that it’s far from a safe proposition. Florida was challenged by multiple other teams during a well-hit meet. Mostly well-hit.
That brings us to the Sloan problem. You’re the one who’s not supposed to be a problem! What is happening? For regionals, Florida does have the leeway to make a couple errors or count a fall and still advance, but it’s imperative that Sloan work out whatever is happening on beam and why. She has fallen on three of her last five beam routines, and while one of the other two hits was a 10.000, that’s not a very Sloan-like record at all. At nationals, the Gators don’t just need a hit from her. They need a 9.950. That’s how close and high-scoring this thing is going to be. We know Sloan can pull it together, as she mas many times before. As an elite, she had a bit of a Mikulaky reputation for falling on beam on the first day and then hitting on the second day, and even two seasons ago, Bridget was a beam disaster heading into the final Saturday and then got a 20 at Super Six. She needs to Sloan it out again. Our main focus in this meet will be lower down the standings, but Sloan’s beam routine in rotation three is a must-watch.
The fight – Denver v. Minnesota This regional contest is among the more delectable because, aside from providing a potentially close race right down to the end, it guarantees a somewhat unexpected qualifier to nationals. While all three of the contenders here have advanced to nationals in the recent past (Minnesota in 2013, Missouri in 2010, Denver in 2007, 2008), none are what would be considered perennial qualifiers. Someone is going to be spoiling the old party. Also, the Jessica Lopez era was EIGHT years ago?
Denver and Minnesota have both hit tremendous highs this season marked by historically significant scores, but some of those scores have been a little…creative, particularly that weekend of meets during which these two teams squared off twice and split the series.
For instance, this Julia Ross bars routine got a 9.900, which I use to illustrate high scores and because it’s one of the key routines for Denver that isn’t Nina McGee’s floor. They have others.
More likely, claiming the second spot here will require a mid-high 196, which is why this placement is such a juicy opportunity, not just for Denver and Minnesota but for Missouri as well. That’s a fairly conceivable score for all three, and this is the most open chance to make nationals any of these schools has seen for a while or is likely to see for a while. There’s no UCLA, or Michigan, or Georgia, or Stanford, or any of the other dangerous, big-reputation 2-3 seeds that must be defeated to make nationals. The task presented to these teams is simply to beat their peers. Dangerously attainable. It’s a doubly important opportunity for Denver and Minnesota because this is the last year of McGee and Mable, so it will be much harder next season once they’ve dropped that vital scoring potential (though it should be noted that Denver’s freshman class for next year is legit, including Maddie Karr from TCT who won the Nastia last year and Sam Ogden from WOGA who was elite for a hot minute this quad).
For much of the season, Minnesota looked like an also-ran, hovering in the 195s and unable to break through for a massive score, but the recent 197s coupled with this being a home meet make the Gophers much more of a threat. But how much will home be a factor? Minnesota hasn’t scored all that well at home this year, with those recent big totals all coming on the road. The one instance this year when these schools did meet at a neutral venue (at Air Force), Minnesota won by a couple tenths without a home advantage.
Minnesota’s event rotation, beginning on floor and ending on beam, isn’t as devastatingly terrible as it usually seems because beam is such an important event for this team. It’s the one event where they are clearly stronger than Denver, and no pair of routines is more critical to Minnesota’s success than Mable and Nordquist on beam. Ending the day with those two routines is not a bad deal at all (even if starting on floor is a bit of a pain that may somewhat neutralize another important score). A Hanna Nordquist end-of-meet senior-year home beam routine with nationals on the line is like judge catnip, though it will fall in the fifth rotation instead of the sixth, when Minnesota ends on a bye.
Denver, meanwhile, will look to break out on floor in the third rotation with that parade of power culminating in Nina McGee’s near-automatic 9.950. McGee has scored under 9.925 on floor just twice this season, which is why the team would be disappointed with any rotation total under 49.300. Denver’s floor should be the highest-scoring event of the meet for any team not named Florida and must be greater than what Minnesota scores on floor in the first rotation if Denver is going to snatch a qualifying spot.
While both teams have one vault that usually scores quite well (guess who it comes from…), vault isn’t a big difference maker for either, staying relatively even and 9.800y for both teams. Bars will tell us more. It has been a comfortable score for Denver this year and has been somewhat terrifying for Minnesota, as per tradition. That’s not to say Minnesota can’t score well on bars. Holst and Mable can both bring in big numbers on one of Mable’s good days, but she also has bad days on bars that often send the rotation down below the 49 line. It has to be a Mable good day, in all the ways, but especially on bars to prevent Denver from having two big asset events over Minnesota.
By the halfway point in the meet, both teams will have gone on floor, so Denver will hope to have a lead of at least a tenth or so (as long as they get through that opening beam rotation) and a score around 98.500. That would be somewhat challenging for Minnesota to match unless its floor scores are soaring, so Minnesota will be hoping things stay closer to 98.350-98.400 after two events, a much more attackable score in the second half of the meet.
The spoiler – Missouri
Missouri has proven capable of 196.6 both at home and on the road this season and therefore cannot be eliminated from consideration if we expect the qualifying score to hover close to that range. Sure, both Denver and Minnesota are capable of scoring higher, so their performances will dictate whether Missouri is in contention or not, but if a few too many Gophers and Pioneers look a little 9.775, Missouri can jump right in. The major question is whether floor can be competitive in a group filled with teams eager to take advantage of 2016’s loose floor scoring to drive up the total. Missouri struggled on floor at SECs with several weak landings and, in fact, has not exceeded 49.150 on floor on the road all season. Staying 49.1s is unlikely to challenge without the help of falls from others. Floor is Missouri’s first event, which will tell us whether this is the road-season-high kind of day it will take to put the pressure on Denver and Minnesota. This performance will also be a useful case study (along with Kentucky’s) as to whether silly SEC scoring has driven Missouri’s stock up to an artificial level or whether the mid-196s are a true reflection of quality.
Shauna Miller is also one to keep an eye on. She had a nightmare at SECs, and while she’s not as critical to the team this year as she was in 2015 since Porter and Ward have taken up some of her duties, Missouri will struggle to put up a solid team score without a hit AA from Miller.
And the rest Ohio State is more competitive than most of the #5 seeds nationally, but it’s difficult to envision a school has rested in the 195s all year suddenly advancing out of this region against teams that should be scoring much higher. Challenging Missouri for 4th is a realistic proposition, and hitting 196.000 is a very attainable goal and would constitute a solid day, but once we get past a couple excellent routines from Mattern, Harrison, and Hofland, the rest of the lineups don’t manage enough 9.8s to get a total into the mid 196s. BYU is in a similar position, though less likely to reach that 196.000 plateau. The Cougars have settled into this range of teams that usually make it to regionals, popping in as a #6 seed, but don’t look close to challenging for anything better or regaining the glory of yore.
Individuals The qualification fight between Denver and Minnesota features two of the strongest AAers in the country in Mable and McGee. It would be unacceptable for either to miss nationals. We have to unite as a family and make sure it doesn’t happen. In the most likely outcome, one will qualify with a team and (as long as there’s no fall involved) the other will make it as one of the two AA individuals from this regional. Their scoring potential is just too high compared to the others. If something weird and unfortunate does happen somewhere, they’ll both be in the hunt to make nationals as an event specialist on perhaps a couple apparatuses (as will Hanna Nordquist for beam if Minnesota doesn’t make it), but let’s hope it doesn’t get to that point.
With one spot presumably taken by one of them, Missouri’s Morgan Porter looks the most likely to take the other spot. She’s currently ranked #20 in the AA and has scored at least 39.325 in her last five AA appearances. That seems the most believable setup for the two qualifying spots, though Shauna Miller is back in the AA and could put up a strong score if she’s suddenly having a much better day in the AA, and Ciara Gardner is another option for Minnesota if team qualification is not in the cards. Missouri would also consider Ward on vault and beam a possibility as an event specialist, but she’d have to beat Florida’s whole lineup, which seems unlikely.
If there are mistakes from that favored group of AAers, then we could see challenges come from Mattern and Harrison for Ohio State and Halliday for BYU, but they’re more likely to hang in the 49.1-49.2 range. They’ll need things not to go to plan for the higher-seeded teams to get in.
AFTERNOON SESSION Michigan, Nebraska, Minnesota, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State
Dating from time immemorial (so, 2012 when Nebraska joined the Big Ten), the quest for conference supremacy has been a fight between the Wolverines and the Huskers, attempting to answer the age-old question of which is better, a weird tiny skunk-bear or an ear of corn. The big two. This year, I don’t see much reason to change the world order.
That would have been an easier proclamation to make before the underwater hallucination circus that was that Big Five meet at Penn State, suddenly won by Minnesota and a bucket of cracky judging, but other than ensuring that we don’t ignore Minnesota’s 197 potential in the postseason, that meet shouldn’t really change the statuses of Michigan as favorite, Nebraska as next-best-favorite, Minnesota as also-almost-next-best-favorite, and Iowa as hey-you’re-a-team-this-year.
In spite of losing to Nebraska earlier in the season, Michigan’s scoring potential remains the highest among the teams in this competition, and there’s a solid argument to be made that Michigan is the strongest team in the conference on all four apparatuses. At least, that’s what the rankings tell us. Really, Michigan is the top team on all four apparatuses***, and *** means AHHHBEAM. As it always does.
Three of Michigan’s last four beam scores have been under 49, each including at least two falls, and the team has not hit 6-for-6 on beam since February 14th. So that’s not ideal. Of significant concern, the falls are coming from everyone at various times, most recently their two best beamers in Artz and Chiarelli. At this point in the season, with nine or ten realistic Super Six contenders, we’re looking for any reason to doubt a team, and a month of beam falls is a reason to doubt a team. The Wolverines have still managed scores in the high 196s and low 197s with these beam mistakes, but it should take more than a 197.0 to win a major conference title in the current scoring climate, so it’s quite hard to see Michigan winning while also counting a fall. Beam is up in the fourth rotation for them, so we won’t truly know where the competition stands until then.
The positive we can draw from the high 196s-low 197s with beam falls is that if Michigan does hit five beam routines, we’ll see a mid-197, which really should be enough to sweep up the title. Michigan has a vault difficulty edge, featuring the highest score in the country in Karas, and three floor workers in Artz, Chiarelli, and Karas who should all be going 9.900+. It will be tough for the other teams in the country to match both of those assets.
Coming off two straight 197s, however, Nebraska looks the most likely team to do it, having regained the potential to challenge a hit meet from Michigan by restoring a modicum of depth in the last couple weeks. This long-awaited return to the 197 club has been marked by a sudden and somewhat unexpected influx of floor 9.9s, particularly from gymnasts who had not been floor stars in previous seasons like Breen and Laeng. The Huskers are still forced to use some backup routines they would rather not be, particularly on bars, which means a higher potential for 9.700-9.750s. Danger-zone scores. The situation on bars has been exacerbated by Jennie Laeng’s elbow injury. She’s by far their best bars worker, but in spite of returning on the other three events, she has remained out on bars, which depresses the scoring potential. Very uncharacteristically, vault has been the weak event for the Huskers this season. Normally, Nebraska is able to rely on fantastic blocks to stick a bunch of fulls and overcome possible deficiencies on other events, but vault has lagged behind the others this season, often barely breaking 49 and putting the Huskers all the way down at 18th nationally. Nebraska begins the championship on floor and vault, so we’ll know a lot about how competitive they’ll be rather early on. If Nebraska isn’t at a good 98.600 after two rotations, I have a hard time envisioning them beating a hit meet from Michigan. But with a 98.600+, we’ve got a thing. That should be at least where Michigan is after two events (vault and bars), and with Michigan finishing on floor and Nebraska on beam, Nebraska would need a lead heading toward the end of the meet.
Minnesota, huh? This is an intensely important season for the Gophers since it’s the last stand of Lindsay Mable, Hanna Nordquist, and Maddie Hanley. Next year, we’re going to have some questions. Those questions all begin with “who.” Mable, and Nordquist’s beam, can lead Minnesota to a competitive score, and as we saw last weekend, the Gophers are capable of beating the top teams in the conference.
(This isn’t from last week. Just deal with it.)
Expecting a repeat of that victorious 197.4, particularly that 49.675 on beam, however, is unrealistic in a normal meet. More likely, Minnesota is going to be in the solid-196 hoping-to-take-advantage-of-mistakes category. Minnesota is a pretty beam team, an entertaining floor team, and can score solidly on most other events on the right day, but they probably lack the vault difficulty and bars consistency to make another huge 197 run under sober circumstances. A real bars hit for over 49.2-49.3 in the first rotation would be a signal that something’s going on.
Also keep an eye on Lindsay Mable for the conference AA title. Could be a good one between her and Karas and Artz (if everything’s OK after last week’s bizarreness).
Because of the qualification rules, we’ve ended up with a scenario where the next two strongest contenders, Iowa and Illinois, have been relegated to the morning session, while Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan State will compete in the afternoon. So a few notes on those three first.
Penn State did score 197 at the Big Five meet (at home), shattering their previous season best by nearly a point and making some marked improvements, including but not limited to hitting five beam routines in the same week. Amazing how much better the score looks when that happens. Highlights like Nicole Medvitz’s form and Kiera Brown’s bars and sudden 2016 beam resurgence (that makes Georgia want to go, “OK, just kidding…”) may lead PSU to a relatively competitive score, but challenging the top teams is highly unlikely. With regionals qualification already assured, there’s less on the line here other than setting up for a regionals-upset push by showing another hit beam and a dangerous total.
It’s a very similar story for Ohio State, just with fewer likely 9.9s, which makes that last-ditch push for a high 196 less realistic.
Michigan State also pulled out a relatively magical performance at the Big Five meet to beat the odds and get into this session, though this meet for the Spartans is not about challenging for a title or moving toward a regionals upset bid. It’s about getting to regionals. In that respect MSU’s performance is more important than that of any of these other teams. Michigan State currently sits in the dreaded 36th spot, vulnerable to being knocked out of regionals depending on how things play out on Saturday. Maryland (competing in the first session) is one of the teams looking to move ahead, so after Maryland’s performance earlier in the day, we’ll have a better sense of what Michigan State needs to score in order to advance. As of this moment, it would take a 196.250 to clinch qualification, which is a lot to expect. The Spartans finish on floor, by far their highest-scoring event, which could be a benefit if this season’s tendency toward late-meet floor extravagance in the scores continues into championships.
MORNING SESSION Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers
I wouldn’t totally disregard the teams in this session since Iowa and Illinois have both mustered competitive scores this year, though competitive means mid-196s (more impressive for Iowa because that’s not the expectation, while Illinois has under-performed this season). That score will not be high enough to challenge for a title, so unless one of these teams surges early with a couple 49.2+ rotations, our eyes may primarily be on Maryland’s fight to qualify.
Maryland will not determine its own destiny and will have to wait for the likes of Bowling Green, Michigan State, and Central Michigan to compete later on to see how everything shakes out, but Maryland’s final score will be the first to come in among the bubble teams and will dictate what the other teams need to score later on, giving us a more accurate estimate of the type of performance the others need. The higher it is, the harder it gets for everyone else.
Regardless of the result, this will be Rutgers’ last meet of the season, so there’s not much to say in terms of previewing the performance at championships, other than that Groden and Shank impressed at the Big Five meet. Both sophomores, that’s an encouraging base for the next couple seasons.
I’m a little surprised to see Iowa relegated to the first session as I would place the Hawkeyes as the #4 favorite to win, and a close #4 not all that far behind Minnesota. Iowa put in a tied-for-season-high showing at the Big Five, but since that was the circus meet, it wasn’t nearly good enough to make a splash. There were some OOB and landing problems on floor, and Iowa had the misfortune of starting on beam before things got really fancy later in the day. Those issues combined to shove them down the rankings. Iowa will probably have to put up too many 9.7s early in the lineups, especially on vault, to be in serious contention for a 197, but a performance well into the 196s (along with winning this session) should be the expectation.
The Hawkeyes are currently ranked 18th so will also be fighting to keep that coveted final seeded spot at regionals (allowing them to head into a regional with two other tough teams instead of possibly three). They will, however, be at the mercy of Stanford (in 19th but with a much higher maximum score). Stanford will pass Iowa with a mid 196, which really should happen given any kind of a hit meet, meaning Iowa’s most realistic path to a seeding will be to leapfrog Washington, currently in 17th. That will take a 196.575, so that’s the score to watch for Iowa.
The injury to Giana O’Connor at the Big Five meet was the cherry on top of the disappointment sundae that has been Illinois’s 2016 season, a season that began with such a promising and talented roster. Things weren’t looking too good even when O’Connor and Horth were competing, but if the team’s two best AAers are both out, Illinois’s scoring expectations probably drop down into the high-195s, low-196s zone, which isn’t competitive enough in this group. There would still be 9.9s remaining on the team from Buchanan, Kato, and Leduc on a good day, but some 9.6s would also have to jump into lineups to fill out those spots, which is untenable.