Road to Nationals (the new official NCAA gym ranking site, so you can finally let yourself forget how to spell troester) has released the annual coaches poll, and it did not disappoint, mostly because of one special hero's first place vote.
(Full results at the link above.)
Obviously, the biggest story and only thing I care about is that some snarky little sass monster voted for Boise State as the #1 team and won the coaches poll along with all of our hearts. Well played, stranger. Next year, all of the coaches need to do comedy rankings and just vote for the University of Texas and Madeleine Albright. You have your instructions.
If we have to care about something else, I guess it's worth noting that Oklahoma is the #1 team in a bit of an upset over three-time defending champions Florida. Oklahoma is a completely worthy choice for #1 and will be right there competing for the top spot all season long, so it's hardly a scandal or even much of a question. It's not Boise State. But it is interesting. My first instinct was that K.J. has clearly taken over as the new Rhonda and general beloved leader of the coaching sorority, while Florida didn't get near the same number of first-place votes as Oklahoma because of the change in head coach. Realistic possibility. (Although Georgia did still manage the #1 ranking the year after Suzanne left.)
But checking out the number of voters this season might tell a different part of the story. Major kudos to RTN for getting a whole 66 coaches to vote in the poll this year instead of the usual barely 4. The last couple years, 31 coaches participated, so the sample is greater than double this year. (PROOF OF ADDITION SKILLS!) With a lot more coaches voting and not just the usual suspects, perhaps there was a desire from them to support the team that isn't from the big SEC/Pac-12 powers, all other things being pretty much equal at this point in the year. Perhaps. Last year, Oklahoma got 8 first-place votes and this year 29, so something clearly changed. Whether it's perception of Florida, perception of Oklahoma, or voting demographics, the world may never know.
Elsewhere, there's not that much to report. The coaches have Utah higher than I did, which is understandable given the finish last season, and UCLA is perhaps a little high based on last year's performance + losing Peszek. But also the Valorie Factor. Illinois is a few spots lower than I had (and therefore obviously under-ranked duh), but the Illini didn't make nationals last year. It's always hard to get a good ranking after not making nationals. At least the coaches have hopped onto the Cal wagon with the rest of us.
First things first, Simone Biles is going pro and will not compete in NCAA. It's a completely understandable decision. In her specific case, the lure of going pro is virtually undeniable. Unlike some other pro gymnasts who commit to an NCAA program as a clear Plan B if things don't work out, I get the feeling that Simone really did want to compete for UCLA but was in an untenable position. Let's direct our fury at the antiquated, unrealistic rules that require her to choose in the first place.
It is a positive for the profile of gymnastics as a whole in the United States to have someone as successful and marketable as Simone able to take advantage of everything being a professional athlete entails. If everything goes to plan, she's going to be a damn star, with her dominance, cheerful personality, and natural presence in front of a camera (she's not one of the I'm So Honored robots, and I hope they don't turn her into one). Usually I rail against people going pro at this point in the quad because you just don't know what's going to happen, but everyone and their dog knows Simone is going to the Olympics if she's healthy, so this isn't like a Bieger situation.
But mostly, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the new NCAA rules, which are finally published and official. (Thanks to super sleuth Cordelia Price for the twitter red alert.) Take a look. This is basically just confirmation of the information that circulated a few months ago, but now it's all real, and we have to deal with it. Let's break down the major developments.
1) Yurchenko full and Yurchenko 1/2, 9.95 start value.
Al Trautwig would like me to take this opportunity to remind you that the start value is the value at which the vault starts.
This is the big one. Shockingly, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other so far. Something had to be done about the omnipresence of Yfulls in NCAA gymnastics. It's everyone, all the time. But it remains to be seen whether downgrading the vault is that solution. There are a number of people on top teams (like Scaman) who will be able to upgrade realistically and safely back to a 10.0 SV vault, which should change the dynamic of the vault lineups at showcase meets, but for the most part, teams will still be performing their same lineups packed with Yfulls because they don't have more difficult vaults or different entries to do. The Yfull will remain by far, far, far the most-performed vault in NCAA, even with this change. It will just score lower. Although, if we see even a small upswing in the number of Omelianchiks performed, then I'll be a happy camper.
The argument against downgrading the full has long been that it makes it even harder for the second-tier teams to compete and inhibits (DUN DUN DUN) parity, since only the top teams will be able to put up the 1.5s. I used to subscribe to this argument more than I do now. It's not like the second-tier teams were an inch away from making Super Six and now they have no chance. They weren't getting there anyway. This won't change that dynamic and perhaps will allow some less traditional vaults to stand out.
I do, however, wonder what this will do for the equivalency of scoring across the four events. Currently, vault and floor enjoy a slight advantage over bars and beam in total scoring, but it's not major or definite, and they're all within reason. Hopefully this doesn't degrade the vault scores too much to the point where it becomes the clear lower-scoring event. How about we agree that execution judging gets .050 stricter on the other events to maintain the balance with all these yfulls?
But overall, I appreciate that this adds a new wrinkle to proceedings (whether or not it solves the problem in any substantive way) and provides an extra element of strategy. Which teams are going to take the plunge and start throwing a bunch of 1.5s, and which teams will play it safe with their fulls and hope to get through on execution over teams throwing potentially sloppier 1.5s? (What a very elite question!) It could also change the lineups. Someone like Breanna Hughes for Utah has a 1.5, but hasn't been making the vault lineup. Does having a 1.5 put her over the edge? (Or will that happen anyway because every single Utah gymnast graduated after last year?)
Also, the judging aspect should get interesting. And by interesting, I mean infuriating. So no change there. How are these vaults going to be scored? Currently, 1.5s get a little bit of scoring forgiveness compared to equivalently executed fulls. Does that unwritten boost go away now that the 1.5 advantage is codified, or does it stay? Is 9.950 going to be a realistic score for a great full, or will it be reserved solely for almost-great 1.5s? We're all going to be watching those vault scores like damn vultures. Get ready, judges. You thought we were critical before? Bring me all the fine-toothed combs in the land!
Final note: Vulture-eyed Uncle Tim noted that while the Yfull has been downgraded, the Yurchenko piked full still starts from a 10.0. Yeah. Nothing has better encapsulated the nonsense of NCAA gymnastics rule procedures than that. Someone needs to clean that oversight up. Can you imagine? Coaches frantically telling everyone to be really sure to pike their straight vaults at the end. "It's totally piked! I swear! 10!"
