By James Sutherland on SwimSwam
A common question comes up every March when the psych sheets for the NCAA Championships are released and we start projecting how the team race will unfold: people want to know how diving will impact the standings.
We always score out the psych sheet, giving a rough indication of how things will fall, with the caveat that it doesn’t include diving.
That’s because the selection process for divers is different than swimmers. Rather than posting scores throughout the season that earn them a spot at NCAAs, the divers compete at one of five Zone Diving Championship meets to earn a berth at the biggest meet of the year.
Given that diving is, in a way, subjective, and the Zone meets usually take place after the women’s NCAA psych sheets have dropped, we don’t incorporate diving into our NCAA Championship predictions. But is it less predictive than swimming?
We’ve attempted to answer that question, or at least draw some conclusions based on 2026, by compiling what is essentially a diving psych sheet and then comparing it to the NCAA Championship results.
Below, find what the psych sheet would look like for each diving event at NCAAs using scores produced at one of the five Zone meets. Alongside each diver is their projected point total based on their seed, their actual NCAA result and point total, and the difference between each of them.
Under each event, we’ve included the “unseeded” scorers, which are the divers who didn’t post a top-16 score at their respective Zone meet, but cracked the top 16 at NCAAs.
Note that we’ve included each Zone score to determine a diver’s seed, but haven’t included their score at the NCAA Championships due to the numbers being different. Zone scoring adds a diver’s prelim and final scores together for one final tally, while at NCAAs, only the final score counts (or the prelim score for those who missed the final).
WOMEN’S 1-METER RESULTS
Rank Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change 1 Chiara Pellacani Miami (FL) 662.85 B 1st – 20 20 – 2 Elna Widerstrom Minnesota 652.95 D 7th -5 17 12 -5 3 Shiyun Lai Kansas 647.15 D 8th -5 16 11 -5 4 Sophie Verzyl South Carolina 646.25 B 2nd +2 15 17 +2 5 Camyla Monroy Florida 628.75 B 4th +1 14 15 +1 6 Desharne Bent-Ashmeil Tennessee 625.45 B 5th +1 13 14 +1 7 Margo O’Meara Miami (FL) 624.65 B 6th +1 12 13 +1 8 Ella Roselli Indiana 612.00 C 12th -4 11 5 -6 9 Lily Witte Indiana 599.65 C 27th -18 9 0 -9 10 Avery Worobel Purdue 594.80 C 9th +1 7 9 +2 11 Michelle Mazzara Ohio State 593.50 C 34th -25 6 0 -6 12 Lena Hentschel Ohio State 592.05 C 16th -4 5 1 -4 13 Viviana Del Angel Minnesota 590.45 D 13th – 4 4 – 14 Joslyn Oakley Texas A&M 589.55 D 15th -1 3 2 -1 15 Lotti Hubert Arkansas 589.10 D 10th +5 2 7 +5 16 Avery Giese Kentucky 587.65 C 40th -24 1 0 -1“Unseeded” Scorers
Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change Bayleigh Cranford Texas 584.40 D 3rd + 0 16 +16 Kiarra Milligan Michigan 578.70 C 11th + 0 6 +6 Sofia Knight UNC 563.35 B 14th + 0 3 +3Notes:
Top-16 Seeded Divers To Score: 13/16 The women’s 1-meter proved to be fairly predictable based on the Zone results, as seven of the top-eight seeds coming in made the NCAA final, led by champion Chiara Pellacani. LSU’s Pellacani was the top seed coming in and backed that up by defending her title, edging out South Carolina’s Sophie Verzyl by 0.25 points. The biggest outlier was Texas’ Bayleigh Cranford, who placed 3rd at NCAAs after her Zone score didn’t quite crack the top 16 coming in. Indiana’s Lily Witte was seeded 9th and ended up placing 27th, while Ohio State’s Michelle Mazzara was 34th after coming in seeded 11th. Looking at both of their dive-by-dive scores between Zones and NCAAs, they scored lower on all six dives in the NCAA prelims, so these were just two ‘off’ performances.WOMEN’S 3-METER RESULTS
Rank Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change 1 Sophie Verzyl South Carolina 784.70 B 1st – 20 20 – 2 Chiara Pellacani Miami (FL) 769.90 B 4th -2 17 15 -2 3 Desharne Bent-Ashmeil Tennessee 736.10 B 2nd +1 16 17 +1 4 Elna Widerstrom Minnesota 708.25 D 3rd +1 15 16 +1 5 Shiyun Lai Kansas 706.80 D 5th – 14 14 – 6 Bayleigh Cranford Texas 702.35 D 6th – 13 13 – 7 Viviana Del Angel Minnesota 699.20 D 15th -8 12 2 -10 8 Maria Sanchez-Moreno Arkansas 690.00 D 8th – 11 11 – 9 Lena Hentschel Ohio State 682.25 C 7th +2 9 12 +3 10 Camyla Monroy Florida 672.35 B 35th -25 7 0 -7 11 Abigail Baxter Nebraska 668.85 D 11th – 6 6 – 12 Molly Gray Stanford 666.10 E 24th -12 5 0 -5 13 Lynae Shorter Tennessee 664.45 B 19th -6 4 0 -4 14 Juliette Landi Auburn 659.75 B 10th +4 3 7 +4 15 Lily Witte Indiana 652.60 C 18th -3 2 0 -2 16 Daryn Wright Purdue 650.30 C 9th +7 1 9 +8“Unseeded” Scorers
Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change Kiarra Milligan Michigan 632.65 C 12th + 0 5 +5 Emilie Moore Stanford 586.70 E 13th + 0 4 +4 Katerina Hoffman Rutgers 649.65 A 14th + 0 3 +3 Kamryn Wong North Texas 616.15 D 16th + 0 1 +1Notes:
Top-16 Seeded Divers To Score: 12/16 Similar to the 1-meter event, the women’s 3-meter was very predictable based on Zone results. The top seed, Sophie Verzyl, won the title, and the top six seeds all finished in the top six at NCAAs. Additionally, the top eight seeds all finished in the top nine. While the finalists followed the psych sheet, the 10th through 16th-place finishers weren’t as predictable, with the women who took 12th, 13th, 14th and 16th were all seeded outside of scoring position coming in. Like swimming, there will always be a few divers who are seeded highly but don’t perform up to that level for various reasons. In this event, Florida’s Camyla Monroy stands out, placing 35th after coming in seeded 10th. Looking deeper into her results, she had two ‘off’ dives in the 3-meter prelims that scored lower than any of her dives at the Zone meet, which resulted in her falling down the standings. She performed well in the 1-meter and platform events, however.WOMEN’S PLATFORM RESULTS
Rank Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change 1 Ellie Cole Stanford 677.50 E 1st +1 20 20 – 2 Bayleigh Cranford Texas 668.55 D 5th -3 17 14 -3 3 Camyla Monroy Florida 649.00 B 8th -5 16 11 -5 4 Sofia Knight UNC 636.20 B 6th -2 15 13 -2 5 Viviana Del Angel Minnesota 626.50 D 4th +1 14 15 +1 6 Kayleigh Clark FSU 624.50 B 3rd +3 13 16 +3 7 Emily Hallifax Auburn 622.40 B 13th -6 12 4 -9 8 Maria Sanchez-Moreno Arkansas 600.45 D 12th -4 11 5 -6 9 Hannah Newbrook Ohio State 595.20 C 30th -21 9 0 -9 10 Ella Roselli Indiana 586.05 C 9th +1 7 9 +2 11 Daryn Wright Purdue 585.00 C 2nd +9 6 17 +11 12 Frida Zuniga Guzman ECU 565.05 B 15th -3 5 2 -3 13 Eden Cheng UCLA 557.80 E 10th +3 4 7 +3 14 Mia Prusiecki Ohio State 557.15 C 7th +7 3 12 +9 15 Sephora Ford Rutgers 555.10 A 16th -1 2 1 -1 16 Kate Miller USC 549.90 E 19th -3 1 0 -1“Unseeded” Scorers
Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change Emilie Moore Stanford 505.25 E 11th + 0 6 +6 Gabrielle Filzen Texas A&M 530.30 D 14th + 0 3 +3Notes:
Top-16 Seeded Divers To Score: 14/16 Women’s platform proved to be the most predictable event, with 14 of the top 16 seeded divers scoring at NCAAs. The top six finishers were all seeded in the top eight. Stanford’s Ellie Cole defended her top seed with a bullet, scoring a meet record 399.80 points in the NCAA final to beat runner-up Daryn Wright (343.45) by 56.35 points. Wright was a bit of an outlier, given that her Zone score ranked her 11th coming in, but she pulled off the runner-up finish. Her 343.45 score in the NCAA final was a marked improvement from her Zone final (324.90), resulting in her big jump up in position. The biggest drop relative to seed was Ohio State’s Hannah Newbrook, who scored 313.70 in the Zone C final but only mustered 234.80 in the NCAA prelims.WOMEN’S SCORED PSYCH SHEETS VERSUS ACTUAL
Below, find the scored women’s diving psych sheets total on the left alongside the points each team actually scored at NCAAs.
The results tell us that, for the most part, yes, Zone scores on the women’s side can give us a good indication of NCAA results in diving events.
Minnesota was the top-seeded team on paper, and although they didn’t perform as well as their seed, they still led the way, with Miami (FL) close behind. Purdue was the biggest improver, outscoring their seed by 21 points, while Indiana scored 15 points fewer than projected.
Team Zone Psych Points Real Points Difference Minnesota D 62 49 -13 Miami (FL) B 49 48 -1 Texas D 33 43 +10 South Carolina B 35 37 +2 Purdue C 14 35 +21 Tennessee B 33 31 -2 Stanford E 22 30 +8 Florida B 37 26 -11 Ohio State C 32 25 -7 Kansas D 30 25 -5 Arkansas D 24 23 -1 UNC B 15 16 +1 FSU B 13 16 +3 Indiana C 29 14 -15 Auburn B 15 11 -4 Michigan C 0 11 +11 UCLA E 4 7 +3 Nebraska D 6 6 – Texas A&M D 3 5 +2 Rutgers A 2 4 +2 ECU B 5 2 -3 North Texas D 0 1 +1 Kentucky C 1 0 -1 USC E 1 0 -1MEN’S 1-METER RESULTS
Rank Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change 1 Luke Sitz SMU 795.15 D 1st – 20 20 – 2 Bennett Greene Tennessee 793.00 B 3rd -1 17 16 -1 3 Matteo Santoro Miami (FL) 778.15 B 2nd +1 16 17 +1 4 Moritz Wesemann USC 773.30 E 5th -1 15 14 -1 5 Thomas Ciprick Tennessee 768.00 B 11th -6 14 6 -8 6 Max Fowler Georgia Tech 760.80 B 8th -2 13 11 -2 7 Jesus Agundez Florida 749.35 B 4th +3 12 15 +3 8 Jake Passmore Miami (FL) 743.80 B 12th -4 11 5 -6 9 Nicholas Harris Texas 739.85 D 47th -38 9 0 -9 10 Conor Gesing Florida 734.00 B 6th -4 7 13 +6 11 Ethan Swart Auburn 732.60 B 14th -3 6 3 -3 12 Collier Dyer Mizzou 732.30 D 18th -6 5 0 -5 13 Andrew Bennett Minnesota 727.00 D 23rd -10 4 0 -4 14 Jesus Gonzalez Florida 723.80 B 37th -23 3 0 -3 15 Nathaniel Grannis Purdue 711.40 C 30th -15 2 0 -2 16 Tyler Wills Purdue 710.15 C 40th -24 1 0 -1“Unseeded” Scorers
Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change Elias Petersen Utah 687.10 E 7th + 0 12 +12 Gunnar Grubbs Stanford 646.90 E 9th + 0 9 +9 Zachary Welsh Purdue 708.80 C 10th + 0 7 +7 Raymond Winn IV Louisville 678.55 C 13th + 0 4 +4 Gage Dubois Arizona 667.55 E 15th + 0 2 +2 Jacob Jones Texas 655.70 D 16th + 0 1 +1Notes:
Top-16 Seeded Divers To Score: 10/16 It’s important to note off the top that two divers who competed at the Zone B Championships, Georgia’s Matthew Bray and South Carolina’s Charles Bayer, posted scores that ranked in the top 16 and would’ve seeded them to score at NCAAs, but they didn’t qualify due to the depth of Zone B. As a result, they were taken out of the psych sheet. Although the men’s events weren’t as predictable as the women’s, the top end of the men’s 1-meter came out pretty close to the psych sheets. SMU’s Luke Sitz held up as the top seed and won the title, and the top four finishers were seeded in the top five, and six of the top-seven finishers were top-eight seeds. Texas’ Nicholas Harris was coming in seeded 9th, but pulled out after his first dive in the preliminary round, officially finishing 47th. Three other divers seeded to score finished 30th or worse: Purdue’s Nathaniel Grannis and Tyler Wills, and Florida’s Jesus Gonzalez. On average, the three of them scored 77.77 points lower in the NCAA prelims than they did in their Zone final. Utah’s Elias Petersen made the final and ultimately placed 7th after his Zone score had him on the outside looking in coming into the meet. Of the six divers who scored after being ranked outside the top 16, the lowest Zone score belonged to Stanford’s Gunnar Grubbs, who snagged 9th at NCAAs with 343.00 points after his Zone E score was 646.90 (equivalent of 323.45).MEN’S 3-METER RESULTS
Rank Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change 1 Matteo Santoro Miami (FL) 895.55 B 4th -3 20 15 -5 2 Moritz Wesemann USC 879.85 E 3rd -1 17 16 -1 3 Bennett Greene Tennessee 865.75 B 8th -5 16 11 -5 4 Thomas Ciprick Tennessee 864.05 B 9th -5 15 9 -6 5 Jesus Agundez Florida 859.20 B 36th -31 14 0 -14 6 Luke Sitz SMU 847.70 D 2nd +4 13 17 +4 7 Collier Dyer Mizzou 839.75 D 1st +6 12 20 +8 8 Carson Paul LSU 822.95 D 23rd -15 11 0 -11 9 Frazer Tavener Tennessee 807.50 B 19th -10 9 0 -9 10 Conor Gesing Florida 806.75 B 5th +5 7 14 +7 11 Max Fowler Georgia Tech 802.35 B 11th – 6 6 – 12 Jesus Gonzalez Florida 800.20 B 25th -13 5 0 -5 13 Jake Passmore Miami (FL) 782.75 B 15th -2 4 2 -2 14 Joshua Sollenberger Indiana 782.05 C 40th -26 3 0 -3 15 Mohamed Farouk Miami (FL) 761.00 B 10th +5 2 7 +5 16 Daniel Knapp Notre Dame 760.80 C 13th +3 1 4 +3“Unseeded” Scorers
Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change Nicholas Harris Texas 752.20 D 6th + 0 13 +13 Luke Forester Texas 704.15 D 7th + 0 12 +12 Elias Petersen Utah 708.10 E 12th + 0 5 +5 Maxwell Miller Purdue 714.30 C 14th + 0 3 +3 Laurent Gosselin-Paradis USC 703.85 E 16th + 0 1 +1Notes:
Top-16 Seeded Divers To Score: 11/16 Similar to the 1-meter event, two divers posted top-16 scores out of the Zone B Championships but didn’t qualify: Georgia’s Matthew Bray and UNC’s Christopher Booler. Six of the top seven finishers in the event were seeded in the top nine, so the men’s 3-meter was still fairly predictable at the top end, though not as much as the other events. Mizzou’s Collier Dyer and SMU’s Luke Sitz, who both came out of the Zone D Championships, went 1-2 in the NCAA final after coming in as the 7th and 6th seeds, respectively. Miami (FL)’s Matteo Santoro had the highest Zone score of 895.55, but ended up 4th at NCAAs, while #2 ranked Moritz Wesemann of USC placed 3rd. The Tennessee duo of Bennett Greene and Thomas Ciprick were the 3-4 seeds coming in, and ended up 8th and 9th. Florida’s Conor Gesing moved up to 5th as the #10 seed, while his teammate Jesus Agundez fell from the 5th seed to 36th at NCAAs. With Jesus Gonzalez placing 25th after being seeded 12th, the Gators ended up -12 for the event, scoring 14 points after being seeded for 26. Texas made hay in this event, going +25 thanks to Nicholas Harris and Luke Forester going 6-7 after coming in unseeded. Utah’s Elias Petersen followed up his 7th-place finish in the 1-meter event by taking 12th here, giving him 17 total points after coming in seeded for none.MEN’S PLATFORM RESULTS
Rank Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change 1 Tyler Wills Purdue 899.45 C 2nd -1 20 17 -3 2 Jesus Gonzalez Florida 851.00 B 3rd -1 17 16 -1 3 Maxwell Weinrich Indiana 849.50 C 13th -10 16 4 -12 4 Andrew Bennett Minnesota 809.05 D 10th -6 15 7 -8 5 Mohamed Farouk Miami (FL) 776.10 B 25th -20 14 0 -14 6 Owen Redfearn Tennessee 776.00 B 21st -15 13 0 -13 7 Emilio Trevino Texas A&M 772.20 D 1st +6 12 20 +8 8 Grant Cates SMU 771.00 D 27th -19 11 0 -11 9 Carlos Vargas FSU 758.70 B 16th -7 9 1 -8 10 Ciro Mejia UNC 754.95 B 9th +1 7 9 +2 11 Mario Del Valle Jr Cal Baptist 753.35 E 45th -34 6 0 -6 12 Misha Andriyuk Stanford 747.85 E 5th +7 5 14 +9 13 Tanner Braunton Mizzou 738.40 D 11th +2 4 6 +8 14 Bennett Greene Tennessee 738.05 B 8th +6 3 11 +8 15 Gunnar Grubbs Stanford 737.15 E 12th +3 2 5 +3 16 Geoffrey Vavitsas Cal 734.70 E 22nd -6 1 0 -1“Unseeded” Scorers
Diver Team Zone Score Zone Actual Finish Place Change (vs Psych) Expected Points Real Points Point Change Carson Paul LSU 669.00 D 4th + 0 15 +15 Joshua Thai Cal 693.75 E 6th + 0 13 +13 Laurent Gosselin-Paradis USC 715.60 E 7th + 0 12 +12 Nathaniel Grannis Purdue 705.45 C 14th + 0 3 +3 Holden Higbie Purdue 643.25 C 15th + 0 2 +2Notes:
Top-16 Seeded Divers To Score: 11/16 Purdue’s Tyler Wills and Florida’s Jesus Gonzalez were the top two Zone scorers on platform, and they ended up taking 2nd and 3rd at NCAAs. Those two, along with NCAA champion Emilio Trevino out of Texas A&M, were the only three top-nine seeds to finish in the top nine, showing that this event was more unpredictable than others at the top end. Three of the top eight seeds finished well outside the points, with Miami (FL)’s Mohamed Farouk placing 25th as the #5 seed, Tennessee’s Owen Redfearn placing 21st as the #6 seed, and SMU’s Grant Cates placing 27th as the #8 seed. Beyond the top three finishers, the rest of the finalists in this event all drastically improved at NCAAs from Zones. LSU’s Carson Paul, Cal’s Joshua Thai and USC’s Laurent Gosselin-Paradis placed 4th, 6th and 7th, respectively, after being on the outside looking in coming in, while Stanford’s Misha Andriyuk took 5th as the #12 seed, and Tennessee’s Bennett Greene snagged 8th as the #14 seed.MEN’S SCORED PSYCH SHEETS VERSUS ACTUAL
Below, find the scored men’s diving psych sheets total on the left alongside the points each team actually scored at NCAAs.
Compared to the women, there was more variation in the men’s results. Tennessee led psych sheet scoring by a wide margin with 87 projected points, but they ended up getting overtaken by Florida in the meet, as the Gators scored 58 points to the Vols’ 53. All five of the top-scoring teams didn’t perform as well as their seed, the top three of which came out of Zone B.
Two Zone E teams, Stanford and Utah, were two of the top squads that outperformed projections, as the Cardinal put up 21 more points than their psych sheet total, while the Utes went +17. Texas also went +17.
Team Zone Expected Points Real Points Difference Florida B 65 58 -7 Tennessee B 87 53 -34 Miami (FL) B 67 47 -20 SMU D 44 37 -7 USC E 32 31 -1 Stanford E 7 28 +21 Purdue C 23 27 +4 Texas D 9 26 +17 Mizzou D 21 26 +5 Texas A&M D 12 20 +8 Georgia Tech B 19 17 -2 Utah E 0 17 +17 UNC B 7 9 +2 Minnesota D 19 7 -12 Louisville C 0 4 +4 Indiana C 19 4 -15 Notre Dame C 1 4 +3 Auburn B 6 3 -3 Arizona E 0 2 +2 FSU B 9 1 -8 LSU D 11 0 -11 Cal Baptist E 6 0 -6 Cal E 1 0 -1KEY TAKEAWAY
The data tells a pretty clear story. Similar to swimming, at the high-end, the top-seeded divers largely hold their positions or finish in the same range.
In the women’s events, the top seed won the title in all three events, and the top six to eight seeds made up the majority of each final. Things weren’t as clear-cut on the men’s side, but the top seeds still performed well for the most part.
This tells us that the Zone scores are useful in identifying the top contenders in each event. However, on the flip side, beyond the top eight seeds, things are much less predictable.
The back-half scoring positions (10th-16th) were all over the map, and a lot of seeded divers plummeted into the 25th-40th range in the standings, while several unseeded divers moved up and scored points.
This was more so the case for the men. The women were more predictable—on average, 13 of the 16 female divers seeded to score did so, while for the men, 10.67 of the 16 seeded to score landed in the top 16.
There’s also an element of randomness to the events, and due to the fact that Zone scores combine prelims and finals, and at NCAAs, the score is for one round, the NCAA results are more volatile.
Read the full story on SwimSwam: Are Zone Diving Scores A Good Predictor of NCAA Championship Performance?
Hence then, the article about are zone diving scores a good predictor of ncaa championship performance 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 ( Are Zone Diving Scores A Good Predictor of NCAA Championship Performance? )
Also on site :