By Sam Blacker on SwimSwam
Among the changes brought in by the new NCAA qualification system is one that may shape swimmers’ event focus in future seasons – not every event is equal.
The final row to qualify for NCAAs can be different for each event, depending on the number of conference champions who hit the automatic qualification time. The effect of that could influence the events in which swimmers try to qualify – if only the fastest 34 swimmers in the NCAA make the meet in the 100 breast, but the fastest 37 do so in the 100 fly, the event with almost 10% more non-conference champion spots may be seen as softer.
The men’s 50 free has received most attention, due to the fact that the final swimmer in was on row 22 – four rows higher than the final row that some other events got into the meet. While the women’s side does not have an outlier quite as extreme as that, there are slight differences in the row on which the cutline falls.
Before we can get into that, we need to look at a slight quirk of the cutline this year – one that effectively gives us two to consider.
“Apparent” Cutline
The time of the final non-conference champion (NCC) swimmer to qualify in an event. This is the time that an NCC swimmer would need to have beaten to qualify for the meet.“True” Cutline
The greater of: The time of the final swimmer to qualify who would still have qualified if they had not won their conference championship The time of the final non-conference champion (NCC) swimmer to qualify in an event This is the time that a current conference champion would have had to hit to qualify for the meet, in the incident that they had not won their conference and the winner from their conference had not hit the automatic qualifying time Examples include Alexa Reyna (400 IM, row 37) and Macey Hansen (1650 free, row 35)Consider this example from last year: the 500 free has 10 swimmers hit the ‘A’ cut, while the 100 back has seven. The 100 back is “topped up” to also have ten events, so that by the time you are adding the #11 row, it will be the #11 swimmer in each event.
Now consider this year. There are nine automatic qualifiers entered in the 100 breast, while the 400 IM has just seven entered. However, those are not the top swimmers in the event his year, so when you go to top up the 400 IM you are adding the #3 (Caroline Bricker) and #4 (Katie Grimes) swimmers in the NCAA this season.
Going onto the next row, in the 100 breast you are adding the #4 swimmer (McKenzie Siroky) while in the 400 IM you are adding the #6 swimmer (Aimee Canny), as the #5 seed in the 400 IM is SEC champion Ella Jansen. Carrying on, we end up with a different final row in each event for the “apparent” cutline – #34 for the 100 breast and #36 for the 400 IM.
What does that actually mean? If you were the 35th-fastest entrant in the 400 IM and didn’t win your conference title, you qualified. If you were the 35th-fastest entrant in the 100 breast and didn’t win your conference title, you didn’t*.
*Due to a scratch the 35th-fastest entrant in the 100 breast, Sarah Bennetts, is now qualified for the meet
However, we do have to consider the true cutline. In the 400 IM, the #37 seed on the pre-selection psych sheets was Alexa Reyna, who qualified automatically thanks to her win at Big 12s. She would have qualified in the event even without that conference title though, making it in as the final swimmer over Inez Miller thanks to having a better tiebreaker.
The tiebreaker this year is set as the AQ time divided by the swimmers time.
Therefore, the “true” cutline comes in on Reyna’s time of 4:09.22, four tenths slower than the “apparent” cutline of 4:08.80. This gives a slightly more real view of the effect of auto-qualification – in the 400 IM, five swimmers were under the “true” cutline while only four were under the “apparent” cutline, as Reyna in effect took what would have been her own spot.
Importantly, the “true” cutline is still at different points for different events. Which row this falls on provides the most accurate insight into how much each event was affected, and which one was the most difficult to qualify for this year.
Number Of Entered Swimmers Under The Cutline
The number of swimmers in each event underneath the cutline is relatively similar across all events. For both the “Apparent” and “True” cutlines the range is between 34 (100 breast) and 37 ( 100 back, 200 back, 100 fly, 400 IM [true cutline only]). Only three events see a change between these two – the 500 fee (up one), 1650 free (up two) and 400 IM (up one).
Under the old qualification system all events would have had a cutline between rows 39 and 40 on the pre-selection psych sheets.
Number Of Entered Swimmers Under The Cutline vs Cutline Changes (%) From 2025
There seems no particular connection between the cutline change from 2025 to 2026, and the row on which the cutline falls. The trend instead seems to be based on event group-specific splits: sprint free has the biggest drops, distance free the largest, and within those the changes are similar. Breaststroke does not follow that pattern as the 100 breast, the event with the lowest cutline, was 0.03% slower this year, while the 200 breast, one row higher, was 0.63% faster.
Cutline Changes From 2025 to 2026 (%)
Only six events in 2026 had a cutline faster than the 2025 cutline. As we have seen, sprint freestyle is the clearest area of improvement but the largest “True” cutline drop was in the 200 breast.
Number of Conference Champions In Each Event
There was a significant range in the number of conference champions entered in each event, but this has as much to do with event selection as with the new qualification system. In the 200 IM the ACC champion (Torri Huske) and Big Ten champion (Bella Sims) chose to swim other events on the final day, while the 100 fly had 10 of 11 champions entered be faster than the 51.99 cutline.
Number of Conference Champions Slower Than The Cutline In Each Event
Looking at the number of conference champions in each event slower than the cutline the 200 free and 1650 free look the most affected, but looking at the old system shows that the changes there were on the subtler side. While five swimmers are slower than the “Apparent” cutline of 1:44.00 in the 200 free, one of those (Morgan Lukinac) was the under the “True” cutline of 1:44.20, and three were under the old system cutline (Lukinac, Albane Cachot, and Tara Joyce).
The 200 back and 100 fly look to be the events were qualification was most similar to previous years, while sprint free and the 200 breast were the most affected – big cutline drops for all three of the cutlines here were coupled with at least two conference champions slower than those cutlines.
Read the full story on SwimSwam: Women’s NCAAs 2026: Which Event Was The Most Difficult To Qualify In With The New AQ System?
Hence then, the article about women s ncaas 2026 which event was the most difficult to qualify in with the new aq system was published today ( ) and is available on swimswam ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Women’s NCAAs 2026: Which Event Was The Most Difficult To Qualify In With The New AQ System? )
Also on site :