5 Men’s Teams That Really Hit Their Tapers at NCAAs

Photo Courtesy: Peter H. Bick

NCAA DI Championship Editorial Coverage is proudly sponsored by Adidas. Visit All-American Swim for more information on our sponsor. For all the latest coverage, check out our event coverage page.

Hitting your taper as a team is what doing well at NCAAs is all about.

One of the keys to winning any swimming championship, or improving the stock of your program for future recruits, is being able to do better than your seeds and that’s done by having your entire team hit their taper.

University of Arizona economist Price Fishback has taken a look back at the past six years to see which teams have had the biggest seeding moves at the NCAA Division I Men’s Championships.

And, to say that Texas is one of the best teams at improving its seeds would be an understatement. Part of that could be because Texas is never threatened at its Big 12 Championships, so the Longhorns can afford to be a bit more beat up throughout February and just focus 100 percent on the Big Dance.

But, that doesn’t tell the complete story. In both 2012 and 2014, Texas and California pushed each other to new heights in terms of beating their seeds as both squads improved on their projected totals by more than 200 points. It could be said, looking at the numbers, that even in defeat, the Texas Longhorns are one of the best teams ever when it comes to fighting for every point.

2014 Texas

Although California wound up beating Texas, 468.5 to 417.5, for the title in 2014, it wasn’t for lack of trying by Texas as the Longhorns added more than 250 points from their seeds. In fact, Texas was predicted to finish no higher than fourth prior to the meet, but the Longhorns out-performed their seeds for one of the best coaching jobs ever in the illustrious career of head coach Eddie Reese.

2012 Texas

If it wasn’t for an overwhelming effort by California, that also featured a 200-point positive swing as well, Texas would have claimed the 2012 title with a nearly 250-point advance from its seeds. California picked up the team title, 535.5-491.0 against Texas, but the Longhorns went down swinging. This included some big wins in the 400 free relay and 800 free relay as well as a sprint freestyle sweep by Jimmy Feigen.

2014 California

With Texas holding a surprising lead heading into the final session of the meet, California put on a final-day show by continually improving on their projected finishes to wind up winning the meet by more than 50 points. The epitome of someone hitting their taper occurred, surprisingly, during the 1650 free. As head coach Dave Durden would say after the win, “Who would have thought that a miler from Cal would be the one to make such a difference in winning a team championship?” Jeremy Bagshaw, who was seeded 16th in the 1650 free coming into the meet, finished second in 14:39.00 behind Connor Jaeger’s 14:29.27 for a 16-point swing.

2012 California

The Golden Bears were projected to finish fourth at the 2012 meet. Following a 200-point swing from its seeds, the Golden Bears stood atop the mountain with the team title. While Cal had Swimmer of the Meet Tom Shields pulling in the big points with a pair of victories in the 100 back and 100 fly, top three swims by Martin Tarczynski, Martin Liivamagi and Trevor Hoyt were a huge part of picking up unexpected points.

2015 Texas

Usually, Texas has some otherworldly performances to try to keep itself in position to win or take second place. In 2015, Texas was without a doubt the top team coming into NCAAs. Then, instead of resting on its laurels and coasting to the title, it applied its standard points bump to crush the field by more than 100 points with 528 to win. California finished a distant second with 399 points. In fact, Texas moved up nearly 200 points from its seed projections.

In the ultimate display of total team dominance at the top and with its depth, Texas placed an unprecedented six swimmers into the championship final of the men’s 100-yard fly. Joseph Schooling, Jack Conger, Tripp Cooper, Will Glass, John Murray and Matt Ellis all were a part of the historic event for Texas, while Ohio State’s Matt McHugh and North Carolina’s Sam Lewis completed the field.

NCAA Division I Men's Championships Psych Sheet Scoring Differences

Here's how men's teams have historically done compared to their seeds in the past six years at the NCAA Division I Men's Championships. Special thanks to University of Arizona's Price Fishback for this wonderful contribution.

Team	Diff 2015	Diff 2014	Diff 2013	Diff 2012	Diff 2011	Diff 2010	Diff 2009
Alabama	-34	-18.5	19	1	6	-18	15
Arizona State		23	50	36	27	48	0
Auburn	-47	-3	-42.5	-51.5	-17.5	-81.5	94
Arizona	78.5	-32.5	90.5	-12	59	53	47
Brigham Young	10
California	139	216.5	116.5	209.5	55	173	-34
Columbia	-9
Denver	12
Duke	-22	36	54	3	35	50
Eastern Michigan			15	12			0
Florida	-72	-4	-8	7	-79	-56	68
Florida State	3	-45	-95	-9	17	18	-36
Georgia	-53.5	55	34	9.5	-28.5	-65.5	35
Georgia Tech	-13	-2.5				-30	-13
Hawaii	5
Indiana	53	28	-2	59	-46	41	16
Iowa	-4		14	-36	.
Kentucky		8	45	33		-86	12
Louisville	30.5	27	34	11	60	34	-31
Louisiana State		7	14	9	12	-16	0
Michigan	2	-66	-30	-82	-25	-115	5
Miami (Fla)	49
Minnesota	21	-8	18	18	-3	31	24
Missouri	60.5	91	47	44	31	44	0
North Carolina	7.5		-8	38.5	59	4	-35
North Carolina State	-91.5	-146.5	-21	.
Notre Dame	7	-21	-5	-5
Northwestern	-8	-1			5	5	0
Ohio State	36	-51	-14	-28	-49	-31	43
Pennsylvania State	1	-26	-3	-13	-17	14	-4
Pennsylvania	-7
Princeton	-33
Purdue	69	-4	5	-16	62	88	72
SMU	2	.	-11	.	-8	4	-4
Southern California	-54	25	30	-44	14	90	29
South Carolina	21	8	-15		-11	2	-4
Stanford	62	112	97	82.5	35	1	31.5
Texas A&M	1.5	-29	-8	34	59.5	17.5	80
Tennessee	-15	-29	-54	17	-21.5	24.5	1
Texas	197	253.5	134.5	246	147.5	106.5	79
UNLV	-7	20	9	.	-35	56	-15
Utah	22.5	-7	9
Virginia	-2	-6	-13	-4	47	75	-46
Virginia Tech	9	19	3	40	11	11	0.5
Wisconsin	-6	-28	28	-15	13	15	-11
Western Kentucky	12
Wyoming		3	-3	.	5	5
West Virginia		5			3	7	-2
Yale	-4

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use