By James Sutherland on SwimSwam
A few weeks ago, we published an article calling on SwimSwam readers to voice their opinions regarding the changes made to the NCAA Championships this season and potential reforms for the future.
The questions mirrored the survey that the College Swimming and Diving Coaches Association of America (CSCAA) sent out to Division I coaches following the conclusion of the season, and many of the results were similar as well.
There were 235 responses to SwimSwam’s Google Form, a slight increase compared to the Division I coaches survey, which had 214.
BRINGING BACK ‘B’ FINALS
The most overwhelming response, which was no surprise, was bringing back ‘B’ finals. After 91% of coaches supported it in the CSCAA survey, 91.9% of SwimSwam respondents strongly agree that consolation finals should be reinstated, while an additional 3.8% selected the “agree” option.
Less than 3% of respondents disagreed with reinstating ‘B’ finals, though of those seven people, two supported ‘B’ finals in the “additional feedback” section, and another called for adding ‘C’ finals, indicating they likely read the question backward.
One idea proposed by the CSCAA was implementing the ‘B’ finals at the beginning of the evening session (or immediately before the broadcast starts), and 45.9% of respondents said that was a “workable” solution.
Only 29.1% disagreed with it, while the remaining 24.9% were neutral/unsure. This question began with “From a high-performance and team management perspective,” and we did ask respondents who weren’t affiliated with a team to select neutral/unsure for questions that included that.
A different question—though somewhat confusingly worded—asked whether support for bringing back ‘B’ finals would drop if they were moved to the beginning of the session. A slight majority (50.2%) said they would still support the move, while 27.2% were neutral.
A common theme in the “additional feedback” section is that the previous format, with ‘B’ finals intact and the old event schedule, was fine, and all of the changes made this season didn’t make much sense for a variety of reasons.
“The old meet format should never have been changed,” one respondent said.
RELAY FORMAT
Over 73% of respondents said they were not satisfied with the relay format at the 2026 NCAA Championships.
The biggest gripe respondents had with the relay format was the fact that only the fastest-seeded heat swam during the evening session, while the rest of the teams raced during the prelims.
A massive 76.2% agreed or strongly agreed that all relays should be conducted in the same session, while 18.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Another question asked if people wanted to see the relays return to their old format, with prelims and finals used in the 200 and 400-yard relays, and opinions were split.
Nearly half of respondents, 47.0%, disagreed about returning to the prelims/finals format for relays, while 37.1% were in favor of it.
Specifically looking at the opening day of competition, which saw a change this year with the addition of a prelim session for early heats of the 1650 free and timed final relays, the CSCAA asked if people believed Wednesday’s events could be completed in one session.
Nearly 60% (59.9%) agree or strongly agree that it can be moved to a single session, while only 20.7% disagreed.
One respondent suggested that moving all the 1650 free heats to the evening wouldn’t work, but having all the relays race in the evening, along with the fastest heat of the mile, would. In this scenario, there would still need to be an extra session for the early heats of the 1650 free, though that could be moved to the afternoon (like it was in previous years on Saturday).
QUALIFYING PROCESS
More than half of respondents said they support providing multiple pathways to qualifying for the NCAA Championships, including the automatic qualifier avenue via winning a conference title.
More than 37% disagree.
There were several strong opinions in the “additional feedback” section regarding conference qualifiers. Many believe that having the automatic qualifier system is a positive thing, but the time standard should be fast enough that the swimmers have a reasonable shot at scoring at NCAAs. One former P4 swimmer said they’re in favor of it, but the time standards were too slow this year.
Others said the competition isn’t about handing out “participation trophies” and should simply have the fastest swimmers in attendance, period.
Others said that adding conference qualifiers, but removing ‘B’ finals, last year, made zero sense.
Another respondent said that if the NCAA is going to publish a single qualifying standard, all swimmers who meet it should qualify for the meet. If the number of swimmers is too large, make the standard quicker, they said.
Overwhelmingly, 72.2% of respondents support providing NCAA Championship access to the swimmers who lost a qualifying spot due to the automatic qualifiers from conference championships. The way the CSCAA posed this question, it seems to indicate that the previous qualifying procedure would return, meaning the same number of swimmers qualify as in prior years, and then the auto qualifiers from conference meets would be added after the fact.
A somewhat controversial pathway to NCAA qualification is through Last Chance Meets, though only 34.5% of respondents are in support of removing them, while 44.3% disagree and want to keep them.
One respondent said that conference championship meets should be a swimmer’s last chance for NCAA qualification, and another said that Last Chance Meets are “anti-ethical” to the sport. Similarly, one person said they believe Last Chance Meets aren’t monitored closely by NCAA officials—we’ve seen this issue come to light recently in Division III.
One respondent said that by the time Last Chance Meets roll around, swimmers have had chances to qualify at their mid-season invite, conference championship meet, and several dual meets. “Seems like enough,” they said, adding that they believe Last Chance Meets favors shorter events.
Another respondent questioned why Last Chance Meets are on the chopping block, arguing that for a sport based on time, it shouldn’t matter when a swimmer produces a time as long as it’s in before the qualification deadline.
OTHER NOTABLE RESPONSES
51.3% of respondents support a combined championship format with men and women competing at the same location on the same dates, while 32.2% disagreed. 55.5% of respondents support the idea of completely separating swimming and diving championships (likely moving diving to earlier in the week), 38.3% of whom strongly agreed with separating them. 26% disagreed. Many respondents voiced their support for moving diving to the start of the competition in the “additional feedback” section, referencing the ACC Championship format. They argued that having the diving events in the middle of the finals session resulted in a loss of momentum and interest for many viewers. In terms of diving and how much time of the broadcast during finals was spent on it, two-thirds of the responses that weren’t neutral to the question disagreed that diving finals at the 2026 NCAAs took an appropriate amount of time. “We are told that TV viewers don’t want to watch more than a couple of minutes of swimming. Is 45 minutes of diving really holding their attention?” one respondent asked. Some coaches said they value having diving in the middle of sessions to provide a break for the swimmers; it’s worth noting. Of the 65.8% of respondents who didn’t select neutral in a question about moving the season so it doesn’t straddle the winter/semester break, 59.3% of them (39% of total respondents) disagree with changing the season dates, while 40.6% (26.7% of total respondents) are in favor of at least exploring the possibility. Exactly 50% of respondents agree with expanding scoring through to the top 24 in each event, while 28.7% disagree with it. The question with the largest percentage of “strongly disagree” responses was the one regarding supporting reduced roster sizes for the NCAA Championships. More than half, 51.5%, strongly disagreed, while an additional 25.5% selected “disagree” for a total of 77.0%. Only 9.5% were in favor of reduced roster sizes. More than half of respondents, 53.4%, are in favor of adding stroke 50s to the NCAA Championship event lineup, while 35.0% are against it. One respondent added that they want to see the 100 IM added to the schedule.Read the full story on SwimSwam: We Asked, You Answered: Breaking Down The Responses To NCAA Championship Changes
Hence then, the article about we asked you answered breaking down the responses to ncaa championship changes 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 ( We Asked, You Answered: Breaking Down The Responses To NCAA Championship Changes )
Also on site :
- Could Austin Brown be the Bulls’ Own Bob Myers?
- Vaibhav Sooryavanshi faces Mohammed Shami test after nailing Bumrah-Hazlewood challenge
- Surging Cubs turn to Matthew Boyd vs. frustrated Phillies