Data current as of April 23, 2026 | Age eligibility cutoff: August 1, 2026 (swimmer remains 13 or 14 as of 8/1/2026) The Girls 13-14 LCM record book spans nearly five decades of American swimming history. Sippy Woodhead's 1978 200 free sits alongside Grace Koenig-Song's 2024 50 breast. Amanda Beard's breaststroke marks from 1996 share the page with records set as recently as last summer. Against that backdrop, this winter's SCY field — led by the exceptional Finola Whelehan and the versatile Lauren Lonsdale — is one of the more compelling 13-14 classes in recent years. What follows is a candidate-by-candidate look at the current field, built from 2025–26 SCY performance and projected forward using classical conversion. Last-season LCM reference times are included throughout as a real-world check on what the projections actually mean in a 50-meter pool. Sprint Freestyle 50 Freestyle — NAG: 24.98 | Rylee Erisman (2024) The sprint free field is genuinely fast, but the gap to Erisman's 2024 record is real. All three candidates project in the 26.17–26.41 range — more than a second above the mark — and in the 50 free at 13-14, that distance matters. Natalia Lesniewska (14) leads at 22.86 SCY (26.17 projected), though her last-season LCM reference of 27.03 puts her over 2 seconds above the record on actual swims. Zaryna Wardlay (14) follows at 23.02 SCY (26.35 projected), with a last-season LCM time of 26.42 — her real performance is slightly ahead of her own projection, reflecting sound long course efficiency. Lauren Lonsdale (14) rounds out the group at 23.07 SCY (26.41 projected), with a 26.62 last-season LCM reference. The record has solid protection — a 1+ second gap in the 50 free at this age is not trivial. This is a developmental watch rather than a near-term threat. 100 Freestyle — NAG: 54.03 | Missy Franklin (2009) Franklin's 100 free has stood for 17 years, and the current field isn't projecting close enough to challenge it this summer. Natalia Lesniewska and Finola Whelehan (14) lead at nearly identical SCY bests — 49.34 and 49.37 — projecting to 56.37 and 56.40 LCM, both roughly 2.3–2.4 seconds above the record. Whelehan's last-season LCM reference of 56.75 is the most advanced real 100 free LCM time in this group, though it still sits 2.72 seconds short of the mark. Lauren Lonsdale rounds out the group at 49.68 SCY (56.74 projected), with a 57.37 last-season LCM reference. The record is comfortably protected. Whelehan leads on real long course performance, but the margin remains clear. Distance Freestyle 200 Freestyle — NAG: 1:58.53 | Sippy Woodhead / Claire Weinstein (1978 / 2022) One of the more unusual records in USA Swimming history — a tie between a 1978 swim and a 2022 performance that matched it exactly. The 200 free is the most interesting event in this dataset. Finola Whelehan projects to 1:59.69 from her 1:44.95 SCY — just 0.98% above the record on paper, which is genuinely notable. Her last-season LCM reference of 2:02.08 is the necessary context: she was still 3.55 seconds above the record in actual competition last summer, meaning how much of her winter improvement she carries into 50-meter pools is the key unknown. Lauren Lonsdale projects to 2:01.40, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:02.73. Kate Allen (14) rounds out the group at 2:02.76 projected, with a 2:06.13 last-season LCM reference. Whelehan's projection is the most compelling number in the girls dataset — breaking 2:00 LCM at 14 would be a significant achievement. Her 2:02.08 last-season LCM reference sets the realistic starting point. This is the event to watch most closely this summer. 400 Freestyle — NAG: 4:07.15 | Sippy Woodhead (1978) Woodhead's 400 free has survived 48 years of challengers. Lauren Lonsdale leads at 4:14.46 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 4:15.61 at Futures Sacramento — her real performance closely matches her projection, and she's already been the closest any current 13-14 swimmer has come to this record in recent memory. That said, 7+ seconds at the 400 free level is still a substantial gap. Autumn McIntosh (14) projects to 4:17.93, though her last-season LCM reference of 4:32.98 reflects a field that is still developing long course form in this event. Kate Allen is third at 4:18.78 projected, with a 4:26.56 last-season LCM reference. The record is protected by a meaningful margin. Lonsdale's 4:15.61 last-season LCM time leads the field on real performance — her continued development is the storyline, not the record itself. 800 Freestyle — NAG: 8:28.54 | Becca Mann (2012) All three candidates project well above Mann's mark, with last-season LCM references in the 9:14–9:28 range confirming the field is still building toward this event in long course. Autumn McIntosh leads at 8:44.49 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 9:15.68. Willa Kulp (14) and Madison Suchecki (14) follow at 8:56.87 and 8:57.90 projected, with last-season LCM references of 9:14.71 and 9:28.67 respectively. Mann's record is well protected. The more interesting story is how much of this field's winter improvement carries over to their first long course swims of the summer. 1500 Freestyle — NAG: 16:11.98 | Becca Mann (2012) Autumn McIntosh leads at 16:51.01 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 17:44.72 — nearly a minute above the record on actual swims. Lauren Lonsdale follows at 17:01.10 projected, with a 17:34.35 last-season LCM reference. Harper Rauch (13) rounds out the group at 17:05.10 projected, with a 17:48.73 last-season LCM reference — the youngest candidate here, with the longest runway ahead. The record is not under pressure this cycle. McIntosh and Lonsdale both project under 17:05 — solid times in their own right, even if Mann's mark remains comfortably distant. Backstroke 50 Backstroke — NAG: 28.57 | Phoebe Bacon (2017) A data note: the top-ranked candidate, Jasmine Phillips (14), shows a SCY time of 17.42 with a projected LCM of 19.94 — consistent with a relay split or non-standard event entry rather than a standalone 50 back. Her last-season LCM reference of 37.60 confirms this. She is excluded from this analysis. Noel Defrancisco (14) leads at 24.88 SCY (28.22 projected), which clips the record on paper. Her last-season LCM reference of 35.52 makes the context clear: her long course backstroke development is still in early stages, and the projection is well ahead of where she's actually been in a 50-meter pool. Samantha Engel (14) follows at 25.41 SCY (28.81 projected), with a 40.54 last-season LCM reference. The last-season LCM references tell the definitive story here. Both candidates are well above the record in real competition — the projections reflect SCY speed, not current long course form. 100 Backstroke — NAG: 1:00.26 | Regan Smith (2016) Finola Whelehan posts the most eye-catching projection in the entire girls dataset: 1:00.09 from her 53.05 SCY — fractionally under Smith's 2016 mark on paper. Her last-season LCM reference of 1:04.47 provides the realistic context — a 4.21-second gap from her last known long course performance to the record. That's a large step in a single season for the 100 back. Lillie Dirito (13) follows at 1:00.77 projected, with a 1:10.13 last-season LCM reference indicating very limited long course backstroke experience. Lauren Lonsdale is third at 1:01.82 projected, with a more grounded 1:06.08 last-season LCM reference. Whelehan's SCY backstroke is exceptional and the projection reflects that honestly. But her 1:04.47 last-season LCM time is where the conversation actually starts — the record is a separate target that will require real improvement in long course form. 200 Backstroke — NAG: 2:09.16 | Missy Franklin (2009) The top three projections — 2:12.92, 2:12.96, 2:13.11 — are tightly bunched, all roughly 3–4 seconds above Franklin's record. Lauren Lonsdale leads on real performance: her last-season LCM reference of 2:15.86 puts her within 6.7 seconds of the record in actual competition, making her the most credible long course 200 back swimmer in this group. Finola Whelehan is essentially tied on projection at 2:12.96, but her last-season LCM reference of 2:25.17 reflects very early-season long course exposure in this event. Lillie Dirito (13) rounds out the group at 2:13.11 projected, with a 2:26.56 last-season LCM reference. Lonsdale's 2:15.86 is the most meaningful real data point in this event. The record still has 6+ seconds of real-world protection, but she's the swimmer with actual form here. Breaststroke 50 Breaststroke — NAG: 31.80 | Grace Koenig-Song (2024) Jordan Xanthos (14) is the clear standout in breaststroke. Her last-season LCM reference of 32.84 — set at Junior Nationals last July — is 3.27% above the record, and her projection of 32.91 is consistent with that baseline. In the 50 breast a 1+ second gap is real, but racing at Junior Nationals level is meaningful context. Anna Heumann (14) follows at 33.20 projected, with a 35.62 last-season LCM reference from a January meet. Emma Fouke (14) is third at 33.21 projected, with a 33.96 last-season LCM reference — the most aligned with her projection of the three. Xanthos leads this event clearly in both projection and real performance. The record has protection at this level, but she's the swimmer most worth tracking in breaststroke across the summer. 100 Breaststroke — NAG: 1:08.09 | Amanda Beard (1996) A 30-year-old record with a clear cushion over the current field. Jordan Xanthos leads at 1:01.54 SCY (1:10.31 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:12.02 — nearly 4 seconds above the record in real competition. Payton Garnsey (14) follows at 1:10.70 projected, with a 1:13.26 last-season LCM reference. Marina Didenko (14) rounds out the group at 1:10.82 projected, with a 1:13.54 last-season LCM reference. Beard's record has lasted three decades with good reason. Last-season LCM times in the 1:12–1:13 range tell the story — the field has genuine ground to cover before this mark is under pressure. 200 Breaststroke — NAG: 2:25.75 | Amanda Beard (1996) Madeleine Szymanowski (14) and Ziva Liu (14) lead at nearly identical projections — 2:31.24 and 2:31.42 — both roughly 5.5 seconds above the record. Last-season LCM references of 2:36.49 and 2:37.56 confirm that gap is real. Marina Didenko rounds out the group at 2:32.71 projected, with a 2:40.68 last-season LCM reference. The record is protected. Szymanowski and Liu are closely matched and both improving — their competition within this group is the more relevant story this summer. Butterfly 50 Butterfly — NAG: 26.18 | Claire Curzan (2019) All three candidates project in the 28.28–28.45 range — roughly 8–9% above Curzan's mark — which is a substantial gap in a sprint event. Helen Manak (14) leads at 24.85 SCY (28.28 projected), with no last-season LCM reference available. Lizzie Anderson (14) follows at 24.98 SCY (28.43 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 28.69 — her real LCM time is ahead of her own projection, indicating solid long course fly efficiency. Gianna Mattrey (14) rounds out the group at 25.00 SCY (28.45 projected), with a 28.85 last-season LCM reference. The record is not under pressure from this field. Anderson's long course conversion efficiency stands out within the group, but the gap to the record remains wide. 100 Butterfly — NAG: 58.61 | Claire Curzan (2019) Finola Whelehan projects to 59.22 — 0.61 seconds and about 1% above Curzan's record. Her last-season LCM reference of 1:01.16 puts her 2.55 seconds above the mark in real competition. That's a meaningful step in the 100 fly for one summer. Natalia Lesniewska and Helen Manak both project around 1:02, with last-season LCM references of 1:06.42 and 1:05.85 — both clearly off the pace in real terms. Whelehan is the only candidate with a projection in the vicinity of the record. The 2.55-second gap from her last-season LCM time to Curzan's mark is a realistic target to monitor, not a prediction. The record is protected; Whelehan is the name to watch. 200 Butterfly — NAG: 2:07.01 | Mary Meagher (1979) A record that has survived 47 years. Finola Whelehan projects to 2:10.03 — 3 seconds above the mark — but her last-season LCM reference of 2:29.92 from a May meet reflects very early-season long course 200 fly exposure, making this a developmental baseline rather than a competitive reference. Marina Didenko and Grace Gannon (13) project around 2:17, with last-season LCM references of 2:22.87 and 2:22.35 — more representative of real competitive level. Meagher's 1979 record is not under meaningful pressure from this field. A 3-second projected gap is real, and last-season LCM references in the 2:22–2:29 range confirm the distance. Individual Medley 200 IM — NAG: 2:12.53 | Teagan O'Dell (2021) Finola Whelehan projects to 2:12.98 — just 0.45 seconds and 0.34% above O'Dell's record on paper. Her last-season LCM reference of 2:19.61, however, is 7+ seconds above the mark — among the largest projection-to-reference gaps in her entire profile. Lauren Lonsdale is the more grounded candidate here: her last-season LCM time of 2:15.79 sits 3.26 seconds above the record, and her projection of 2:15.17 closely matches that baseline — a sign that her IM long course form is already well developed. Kate Allen rounds out the group at 2:16.01 projected, with a 2:21.01 last-season LCM reference. Lonsdale's 2:15.79 is the most credible real-world indicator in this event — she's been closer to the record than either other candidate in actual competition. Whelehan's SCY 200 IM is exceptional, but the LCM version still has a larger gap to close. 400 IM — NAG: 4:39.76 | Becca Mann (2012) Finola Whelehan projects to 4:42.76 — 3 seconds and 1.07% above the record — but her last-season LCM reference of 5:02.95 reveals just how early in her long course 400 IM development she currently is. Lauren Lonsdale is again the more grounded comparison: her last-season LCM time of 4:46.27 is actually faster than her current projection of 4:46.81, meaning her real long course 400 IM form is ahead of what conversion math would predict. Madison Suchecki rounds out the group at 4:47.67 projected, with a 4:57.74 last-season LCM reference. The record has real protection. Lonsdale's 4:46.27 last-season LCM time is the most credible real performance in this event — she's already been within 6.5 seconds of the record in actual competition. Overall Picture Finola Whelehan (14) is the standout performer in this dataset by SCY metrics, with projections that clip or approach several records. The consistent theme across her profile is a meaningful gap between her SCY form and her current LCM results — most pronounced in the 200 IM, 400 IM, 100 back, and 200 fly. The 2025–26 long course season is a test of how much of her winter improvement she can carry into 50-meter pools. The 200 free (0.98% projected gap, last-season LCM reference 3.55 seconds above the record) and 100 fly (1.04% projected gap, last-season LCM reference 2.55 seconds back) are the events where that test is most worth following. Lauren Lonsdale (14) is the more proven long course performer. Her last-season LCM times in the 400 free (4:15.61), 200 IM (2:15.79), 200 back (2:15.86), and 400 IM (4:46.27 — ahead of her own projection) are the most advanced real-world references in those respective events. Her LCM form and her projected times align closely, which is a sign of efficient long course conversion. Event-specific names: Jordan Xanthos leads the breaststroke field clearly, with a Junior Nationals LCM reference that puts her at the top of the real-performance picture. Zaryna Wardlay is worth noting in the 50 free for her LCM efficiency. And Lillie Dirito (13) in backstroke has two full summers remaining as a 13-14-year-old. All projections use classical SCY-to-LCM conversion. Converted times are estimates only. Last-season LCM reference times are from the 2024–25 season. Age eligibility based on August 1, 2026 cutoff (swimmer remains 13 or 14 as of 8/1/2026).

Data current as of April 22, 2026 | Age eligibility cutoff: August 1, 2026 (swimmer remains 12 or under as of 8/1/2026) The long course season is now underway, and this winter's short course results have already painted a compelling picture of where the Girls 11-12 LCM NAG records stand heading into the summer. The 11-12 class this cycle is deep and talented, with several swimmers projecting into competitive range of marks held by names like Claire Tuggle, Kayla Han, and Beth Botsford — some of which have stood for decades. Below is a look at each standing record, the current top candidates based on 2025–26 SCY performance, a classical conversion projection of what those times could translate to in long course, and each swimmer's last-season LCM reference time as a real-world baseline. The Record Holders & The Candidates 50 Freestyle — NAG: 26.21 | Missy Franklin (2008) Franklin's 2008 sprint mark has aged remarkably well. The top three candidates convert in the 28.15–28.25 range — roughly 2 seconds above the record — but the field is tight and fast. Adry Francis (12) leads at 24.64 SCY (28.15 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 29.85 showing real improvement potential. Yara Tsybulina (12) follows at 24.69 SCY (28.21 projected), and already owns a 29.00 last-season LCM time — the closest any candidate in this event gets on actual swims. Morgan Wu (12) rounds out the group at 24.73 SCY (28.25 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 29.47. Tsybulina's 29.00 last-season LCM time puts her within 2.79 of the record on actual swims. The record is safe, but this is a genuinely fast sprint field. 100 Freestyle — NAG: 56.87 | Lia Neal (2008) Another 2008 record that has proven durable. Amelia Alsina (12) leads at 52.99 SCY (1:00.42 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:05.42 — meaning her projection is nearly 5 seconds ahead of where she's been in long course, leaving real uncertainty about how she translates. Madison Lord (12) follows at 53.43 SCY (1:00.91 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:04.31 that shows better real-world long course speed. Yara Tsybulina is third at 53.49 SCY (1:00.97 projected), and her last-season LCM reference of 1:02.40 is the most advanced real baseline in this event — already sub-1:03. Lord and Tsybulina both have last-season LCM references meaningfully ahead of their projections — a strong sign of long course efficiency. The record still has a comfortable margin, but this event has legitimate depth. 200 Freestyle — NAG: 2:02.21 | Claire Tuggle (2017) Penelope Chao (12) projects to 2:06.78 LCM from her 1:51.33 SCY, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:13.40 — showing meaningful long course experience and a clear development arc. Vanessa Kuo (12) follows at 1:51.77 SCY (2:07.26 projected), though her 2:20.76 last-season LCM reference suggests her conversion may not yet reflect what she's capable of in long course. Amelia Alsina rounds out the group at 1:54.25 SCY (2:10.02 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:20.63 also well behind her projection. Chao's 2:13 last-season LCM reference gives her the most credible long course baseline in this event. The record has nearly 5 seconds of protection, but her trajectory is the clearest. 400 Freestyle — NAG: 4:17.65 | Kayla Han (2021) A 2021 record with a meaningful cushion. Penelope Chao leads at 4:27.40 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 4:39.98 — showing she's already been competitive at this distance in long course. Vanessa Delev (12) follows at 4:30.08 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 4:41.94 confirming solid long course 400 free experience. Vanessa Kuo is third at 4:34.62 projected, though her last-season LCM reference of 4:53.48 from a May time trial suggests she's still building her long course distance form. Chao and Delev both have last-season LCM times in the 4:39–4:42 range, comfortably inside the 4:50 threshold. Neither is near Han's record yet, but both are moving in the right direction. 800 Freestyle — NAG: 8:50.58 | Kayla Han (2021) Penelope Chao leads at 9:08.86 projected — about 18 seconds above the record — with no prior LCM 800 reference available, meaning this summer may be among her first serious looks at the event in a 50-meter pool. Vanessa Kuo projects to 9:23.67, also with no prior LCM 800 reference. Emma Lynch (12) rounds out the group at 9:29.68 projected, and is the only candidate with a last-season LCM 800 reference of 10:02.25 — showing she's still early in her long course distance development despite a strong SCY baseline. The 800 free is largely uncharted territory for this field in long course. Chao's projection is the closest, but with no last-season LCM baseline to calibrate against, it's one to simply watch this summer. 1500 Freestyle — NAG: 16:48.12 | Bella Rongione (2012) Vanessa Kuo leads at 18:09.21 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 18:53.83 — meaning she's already raced this event and is likely to improve significantly. Ziqi Sun (12) follows at 18:28.65 projected, with a last-season LCM time of 19:15.02 as a reference. Yara Tsybulina is third at 18:35.61 projected with no prior LCM 1500 reference available. Rongione's 2012 record is safely protected. Kuo's consistent presence across every distance free event makes her the swimmer to follow in this range heading into summer. 50 Backstroke — NAG: 29.36 | Maggie Wanezek (2018) Morgan Wu leads at 29.94 projected from her 26.43 SCY — within 0.58 of the record on paper. Her last-season LCM reference of 32.60, however, shows that her SCY form and LCM form are still meaningfully different, so the projection may be optimistic at this stage. Kyra Tan (12) follows at 30.83 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 33.11. Yara Tsybulina is third at 30.88 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 34.91 — also suggesting significant long course development ahead in backstroke. Wu's projection is the closest of any candidate in the entire dataset to a standing record. Her 32.60 last-season LCM time is the reality check. How much she closes that gap this summer is the key question. 100 Backstroke — NAG: 1:03.08 | Beth Botsford (1994) The oldest record in this dataset by over a decade — set in 1994 — and the most protected mark on the board. Morgan Wu leads at 1:04.58 projected from her 57.10 SCY, but her last-season LCM reference of 1:11.71 shows she's still far from converting that SCY form into long course results. Claire Liu (12) follows at 1:06.11 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:11.07. Penelope Chao rounds out the group at 1:06.28 projected, with the most credible last-season LCM baseline at 1:08.54 — already inside the 1:09 barrier last summer. Botsford's 1994 record has seen 32 years of challengers. Chao's 1:08.54 last-season LCM time is the most meaningful number in this event — she's been the closest to the record of anyone in this field. 200 Backstroke — NAG: 2:15.17 | Elizabeth Beisel (2005) Penelope Chao leads at 2:20.07 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:25.75 — showing consistent long course backstroke form and a credible development path. Vanessa Delev follows at 2:21.23 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:27.53. Claire Liu rounds out the group at 2:22.06 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:32.24 that places her further behind in real terms. Beisel's 2005 record has 5+ seconds of protection over the projected field. Chao's last-season LCM reference is the most advanced real baseline, and she looks like the swimmer most likely to make noise in this event. 50 Breaststroke — NAG: 32.96 | Zoe Skirboll (2017) Yan Zheng (12) leads at 34.60 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 36.58 — showing she's been swimming this event in long course and improving. Lillian Rowold (12) follows at 35.09 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 36.99. Reagan Walsh (12) rounds out the group at 35.57 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 36.63 — the tightest gap between projection and last-season LCM of the three, suggesting solid long course breaststroke efficiency. The record has roughly 1.6–2.6 seconds of protection. All three candidates have last-season LCM times in the 36.5–37.0 range, confirming the conversion gap is real. 100 Breaststroke — NAG: 1:09.87 | Carly Geehr (1997) A 1997 record that has outlasted nearly three decades of challengers. Yan Zheng leads at 1:14.38 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:18.97 — showing her conversion is ahead of her actual long course form at this stage. Lillian Rowold follows at 1:16.51 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:20.64. Shelby Bigby (12) rounds out the group at 1:16.88 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:20.45 nearly identical to Rowold's. The record is well protected at over 4 seconds above the top projection. Geehr's 1997 mark has proved remarkably durable — and this field still has ground to cover in real long course swims before it comes into view. 200 Breaststroke — NAG: 2:34.28 | Annie Zhu (2007) Yan Zheng leads at 2:43.67 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:57.61 — confirming real development ahead in long course. Vanessa Kuo follows at 2:45.48 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:57.17 from an April meet. Claire Liu rounds out the group at 2:45.52 projected with no prior LCM 200 breast reference available. Zhu's 2007 record has nearly 10 seconds of protection. Last-season LCM times in the 2:57 range confirm how much runway remains in this event. 50 Butterfly — NAG: 27.91 | Claire Curzan (2017) Morgan Wu leads at 28.89 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 30.08 — about 1 second above her projection, suggesting she converts reasonably in fly. Claire Liu follows at 29.92 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 32.18 — notably behind the projection, indicating real development potential in long course. Mia Douglas (12) rounds out the group at 30.04 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 31.41. Wu's 28.89 projection is the closest to Curzan's record of any butterfly candidate in the dataset. Her last-season LCM reference of 30.08 suggests she translates reasonably well, and a sub-29 swim this summer is within reach. 100 Butterfly — NAG: 1:01.41 | Audrey Derivaux (2022) A recent record with some recency protection, but this event has genuine depth. Morgan Wu leads at 1:03.86 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:07.46 — a clear sign of development ahead. Evyn Cain (12) follows at 1:05.76 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:08.24 closely aligned with her projection. Vanessa Delev rounds out the group at 1:05.91 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:07.80 — essentially matching her projection, a sign of strong long course butterfly efficiency. The record has about 2.5 seconds of protection over Wu's projection. Delev's last-season LCM time of 1:07.80 is the most credible baseline in this event, already showing she swims fly well in a 50-meter pool. 200 Butterfly — NAG: 2:15.02 | Cassidy Bayer (2012) Vanessa Delev leads at 2:24.72 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:30.89. Morgan Wu follows at 2:25.10 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:32.24. Penelope Chao rounds out the group at 2:25.55 projected, and her last-season LCM reference of 2:28.80 is the most advanced real mark in this event — ahead of both Delev and Wu in actual long course swims. The record has nearly 10 seconds of protection. Chao's 2:28.80 stands out as the most meaningful last-season LCM reference across all three candidates. 200 IM — NAG: 2:18.69 | Teagan O'Dell (2019) Penelope Chao leads at 2:24.29 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:29.06 — a credible long course IM baseline showing she handles the four-stroke format well in a 50-meter pool. Claire Liu follows at 2:25.27 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:30.59. Vanessa Delev rounds out the group at 2:26.72 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:30.53 — nearly identical to Liu's. Three candidates projecting in the 2:24–2:27 range, all with last-season LCM times in the 2:29–2:30 window. The record has about 6 seconds of protection, but this is the deepest and most experienced IM field in the dataset. 400 IM — NAG: 4:50.70 | Kayla Han (2021) Penelope Chao leads at 5:03.21 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 5:13.73 — showing meaningful 400 IM long course experience. Vanessa Kuo follows at 5:07.20 projected, though her last-season LCM reference of 5:37.31 from an April meet suggests limited 400 IM long course racing history. Vanessa Delev rounds out the group at 5:13.16 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 5:20.26 — the most closely aligned with her projection, indicating solid conversion in this event. Han's 2021 record has over 12 seconds of cushion. Chao's 5:13 last-season LCM reference is the most relevant real benchmark, and Delev's close alignment between projection and last-season LCM time is an encouraging sign of long course readiness. Recurring Names & Overall Takeaways The Girls 11-12 LCM field this cycle features a compact group of swimmers who show up across a wide range of events: Penelope Chao (12) is the most complete swimmer in the dataset, appearing in the 200–800 free, 100–200 back, 200 fly, 200 IM, and 400 IM. Her last-season LCM references are the most credible real-world baselines across multiple events — particularly the 100 back (1:08.54), 200 back (2:25.75), and 200 IM (2:29.06). Morgan Wu (12) leads the sprint and butterfly picture, with projections in the 50 back, 50 fly, 100 fly, and 200 fly that are among the closest to standing records in the dataset. Her 50 back projection of 29.94 is within 0.58 of Wanezek's NAG on paper — the tightest gap in the entire dataset. Vanessa Delev (12) is a consistent presence across back, fly, and IM, with last-season LCM references that closely match her projections — a sign of efficient long course conversion. Yan Zheng (12) leads all three breaststroke events with strong SCY performances, though her last-season LCM references confirm the conversion gap in breast remains real. Yara Tsybulina (12) is the most credible sprint threat in the dataset, with a last-season LCM time of 1:02.40 in the 100 free already well ahead of her SCY-based projection — the kind of long course efficiency that makes her a name to watch once competition begins. No record appears on the verge of falling this cycle, but the 50 back (Wu), 100 back (Chao), and 50 fly (Wu) are the events where the gap between current ability and the standing mark is narrowest. The long course season will tell which swimmers close the gap between what their short course times suggest and what they can actually do in a 50-meter pool. All projections use classical SCY-to-LCM conversion. Converted times are estimates only. Prior LCM reference times are from the 2024–25 season. Age eligibility based on August 1, 2026 cutoff. ((swimmer remains 12 or under as of 8/1/2026))

Data current as of April 22, 2026 | Age eligibility cutoff: August 1, 2026 (swimmer remains 12 or under as of 8/1/2026) The long course season is now underway, and this winter's short course results have shaped a clear picture of where the Boys 11-12 LCM NAG records stand heading into the summer. The field this cycle has genuine depth, with several events featuring multiple swimmers projecting within striking range — and one record already sitting within a conversion margin that makes it worth circling on the calendar. A notable context note: several records in this dataset were set in 2025 by Ayden Tan and Sahiel Pai, meaning they carry strong recency protection. Those marks won't fall easily, but they're worth tracking as baselines for what this age group can achieve at its current ceiling. Below is a look at each standing record, the current top candidates based on 2025–26 SCY performance, a classical conversion projection, and each swimmer's last-season LCM reference time as a real-world baseline. The Record Holders & The Candidates 50 Freestyle — NAG: 24.95 | Ayden Tan (2025) Set just last summer, Tan's 50 free mark is fresh and well protected. Hunter Gumbayan (12) leads at 23.01 SCY (26.34 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 28.41 — showing real development ahead before approaching the record. Maverick McMeeking (12) follows at 23.15 SCY (26.50 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 27.49 that's the most advanced real sprint baseline in this event. Alexander Kovtounenko (12) rounds out the group at 23.22 SCY (26.57 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 27.74. McMeeking's 27.49 last-season LCM time is the headline — he's already been within 2.54 of Tan's record on actual swims. The record is protected, but McMeeking is the one to watch once the pools open. 100 Freestyle — NAG: 54.91 | Ayden Tan (2025) Another 2025 Tan mark. Maverick McMeeking leads at 50.80 SCY (57.99 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 59.52 — already sub-60 in long course, and the only candidate in this event with a last-season LCM time that credibly suggests sub-58 potential is coming. Jayson Clark (12) follows at 51.28 SCY (58.52 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:01.00. Hunter Gumbayan rounds out the group at 51.34 SCY (58.59 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:03.55 — notably behind both his projection and McMeeking's real baseline. McMeeking's 59.52 last-season LCM reference makes him the clearest real-world threat in this event. The record still has over 4 seconds of protection, but his trajectory is steep. 200 Freestyle — NAG: 1:59.72 | Winn Aung (2015) This is one of the most compelling events in the dataset. Hunter Gumbayan projects to 2:06.54 from his 1:51.12 SCY, with a last-season LCM reference of 2:10.60 — a real, credible long course 200 free baseline that puts him within 10.88 seconds of the record on actual swims. Maverick McMeeking follows at 1:51.91 SCY (2:07.42 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:13.91. Jackson Gardner (12) is third at 1:52.44 SCY (2:08.01 projected), but his last-season LCM reference of 2:19.05 suggests he still has meaningful ground to cover in the 50-meter pool. Gumbayan's 2:10 last-season LCM time is the most advanced in this event, and his projection is the closest to the record. This is an event worth monitoring through the summer. 400 Freestyle — NAG: 4:12.52 | Matthew Hirschberger (2011) A 2011 record with a comfortable margin on paper, but Hunter Gumbayan projects to 4:26.62 and already has a last-season LCM time of 4:33.39 from last summer — the most significant last-season LCM baseline of any distance free candidate in the boys dataset. Adrian Adriano (12) follows at 4:32.69 projected, though his last-season LCM reference of 5:07.38 from a May state meet suggests he's still early in long course distance development. Jude Ciesielski (12) rounds out the group at 4:33.12 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 4:51.15 showing better real-world alignment. Gumbayan's 4:33 last-season LCM reference is a genuine baseline. The record still has over 20 seconds of protection, but he's already in a range that puts the long-term trajectory of this mark in question. 800 Freestyle — NAG: 8:48.44 | Jude Burkhart (2024) Set in 2024, this is one of the more recently established records in the dataset. Hunter Gumbayan leads at 9:14.33 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 9:39.65 — showing real long course 800 free experience and a meaningful development arc. Jackson Gardner follows at 9:15.51 projected with no prior LCM 800 reference, meaning this may be his first serious attempt at the event in long course. Bronson Jenner (12) rounds out the group at 9:17.51 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 10:21.20 from last summer — the largest gap between projection and last-season LCM of any candidate in this event. Burkhart's 2024 record has roughly 26 seconds of protection over the top projection. Gumbayan's 9:39 last-season LCM time makes him the only candidate with credible long course 800 experience. 1500 Freestyle — NAG: 16:44.67 | Nicholas Caldwell (2006) A 2006 record with a substantial margin. Bronson Jenner leads at 17:37.88 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 19:35.06 — a significant gap that indicates this will be his first real competitive attempt at the event in a 50-meter pool. Boardie Fouke (12) follows at 17:52.42 projected, with a last-season LCM reference of 18:40.91 more aligned with a real race performance. Alexey Zaitev (12) rounds out the group at 18:00.98 projected with no prior LCM 1500 reference available. The record is safely protected at nearly a minute above the top projection. Jenner's last-season LCM reference is the only real benchmark in this event, and it suggests the conversion projections may be optimistic for now. 50 Backstroke — NAG: 27.45 | Ronald Dalmacio (2017) Dalmacio holds three backstroke records in this dataset, and the 50 back has the smallest projected gap. Kallen McDowall (12) leads at 26.58 SCY (30.10 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 35.08 — notably behind his projection, suggesting limited long course backstroke experience so far. Qianpu Ye (12) follows at 26.85 SCY (30.40 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 34.16. Jayson Clark rounds out the group at 26.88 SCY (30.44 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 32.61 — the most advanced last-season LCM backstroke baseline of the three. The record has roughly 2.7–3.0 seconds of protection over the field on projections alone. Clark's 32.61 last-season LCM time puts actual performance furthest from the record for now, but his SCY speed is the most aligned. 100 Backstroke — NAG: 59.43 | Ronald Dalmacio (2017) This is the most intriguing backstroke event in the dataset. James Hubbard (12) leads at 55.65 SCY (1:02.97 projected) — just 3.54 seconds above the record on paper. His last-season LCM reference of 1:11.43, however, reveals a substantial gap between his SCY form and his long course results, making the projection a genuine question mark. Alexey Zaitev follows at 57.74 SCY (1:05.29 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:08.62 — a more grounded baseline that aligns better with his SCY-to-LCM conversion. Qianpu Ye rounds out the group at 57.97 SCY (1:05.55 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:10.27. Hubbard's projection is the most eye-catching in the entire backstroke picture, but his last-season LCM time of 1:11 is the reality check. Zaitev's 1:08.62 last-season LCM reference is actually the most credible threat to the record on real swims. 200 Backstroke — NAG: 2:10.01 | Ronald Dalmacio (2017) The third and final Dalmacio backstroke record. James Hubbard leads at 2:02.28 SCY (2:18.13 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:28.66 — a large gap between projection and real performance. Alexey Zaitev follows at 2:02.62 SCY (2:18.51 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:25.72 — much more aligned with his projection and suggesting better long course efficiency. Jackson Gardner is third at 2:05.61 SCY (2:21.83 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:29.62. Zaitev's 2:25.72 last-season LCM time puts him within 15 seconds of Dalmacio's record on actual swims — the most credible real threat across the backstroke trifecta. His prior-to-projection alignment is notably strong. 50 Breaststroke — NAG: 31.36 | Sahiel Pai (2025) Set in 2025 — one of the freshest marks in the dataset. Joe Kennedy (12) leads at 30.13 SCY (34.44 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 41.65 from a May meet — suggesting very limited long course breaststroke experience to date. Jiaming Liu (12) follows at 30.26 SCY (34.59 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 35.09 — the most grounded last-season LCM reference in this event, confirming he has actually raced it. August Le (12) rounds out the group at 30.29 SCY (34.62 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 36.14. Liu's 35.09 last-season LCM time is the only meaningful competitive baseline here, already within 3.73 of Pai's record. The record is protected, but Liu is the swimmer with real long course breaststroke experience in this field. 100 Breaststroke — NAG: 1:07.97 | Sahiel Pai (2025) Another 2025 Pai mark with strong recency protection. Jiaming Liu leads at 1:04.83 SCY (1:13.96 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:18.45 — showing he's raced the event but still has ground to cover. Ethan Zhang (12) follows at 1:05.12 SCY (1:14.28 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:20.86. Qianpu Ye rounds out the group at 1:06.05 SCY (1:15.32 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:18.78 closely aligned to Liu's real baseline. Pai's 2025 record has about 6 seconds of protection over the top projection. Liu and Ye both have last-season LCM times in the 1:18 range, confirming the field still has real development ahead. 200 Breaststroke — NAG: 2:27.88 | Ethan Dang (2014) Ethan Zhang leads at 2:22.22 SCY (2:41.86 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:59.21 — a steep gap between projection and real performance, indicating his long course breaststroke is still developing significantly. Jiaming Liu follows at 2:23.36 SCY (2:43.13 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:55.14. Jude Ciesielski rounds out the group at 2:23.84 SCY (2:43.66 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:54.25 — the most aligned with his projection and the most advanced last-season LCM baseline in this event. The record has roughly 14 seconds of protection over the top projection. Last-season LCM times in the 2:54–2:59 range confirm the field is still well short of threatening Dang's 2014 mark. 50 Butterfly — NAG: 26.22 | Michael Andrew (2012) Archer Hougas (12) leads at 24.62 SCY (28.03 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 29.41 — showing he's been in long course competition and is improving. Billy McCaslin (12) follows at 24.85 SCY (28.28 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 30.76. Martin Kovac (12) rounds out the group at 25.00 SCY (28.45 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 29.18 — the most competitive last-season LCM baseline of the three, already notably ahead of McCaslin's real reference. Andrew's 2012 record still has nearly 2 seconds of protection over the top projection. Kovac's 29.18 last-season LCM reference is the most credible real baseline in this event, ahead of where his projection might suggest. 100 Butterfly — NAG: 58.74 | Chas Morton (1983) The oldest record in the entire dataset — set in 1983 — and it may finally be facing its most serious challenge in years. Alexander Kovtounenko projects to 1:03.05 from his 55.54 SCY, with a last-season LCM reference of 1:05.70 — already within 6.96 of the record on real swims. Archer Hougas follows at 55.63 SCY (1:03.15 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:07.00. Jackson Gardner rounds out the group at 56.76 SCY (1:04.40 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 1:09.66 — notably further from the record in real swims. Morton's 1983 mark has been on the books for 43 years. Kovtounenko's 1:05.70 last-season LCM reference puts him within 7 seconds on actual competition swims — and his conversion math puts him at 1:03. This is the record to watch most closely this summer. 200 Butterfly — NAG: 2:11.07 | Dean Jones (2018) Jackson Gardner leads at 2:02.75 SCY (2:19.05 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:34.63 — a significant gap suggesting he's still early in his long course 200 fly development. Jude Ciesielski follows at 2:05.19 SCY (2:21.76 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:29.80 — better aligned. Alexander Kovtounenko rounds out the group at 2:05.82 SCY (2:22.46 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:24.38 — the most advanced last-season LCM baseline in this event, already inside 2:25. Kovtounenko's 2:24.38 last-season LCM reference is the standout real number here — well ahead of both Gardner and Ciesielski on actual swims. The record still has 13 seconds of protection, but Kovtounenko's long course form is already noteworthy. 200 IM — NAG: 2:12.80 | Ayden Tan (2025) A 2025 record with strong recency protection. Qianpu Ye leads at 2:03.91 SCY (2:20.74 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:30.58 — showing he's raced the event but still has ground to cover. Olin Woo (12) follows at 2:06.55 SCY (2:23.67 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:40.35 — a large gap that suggests his SCY IM form hasn't yet translated to long course. Hunter Gumbayan rounds out the group at 2:07.31 SCY (2:24.51 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 2:45.85 from a May meet — also well behind the projection. Tan's 2025 mark has about 8 seconds of protection over the top projection. Ye's 2:30.58 last-season LCM reference is the most relevant real benchmark, and the field still has meaningful long course IM development ahead. 400 IM — NAG: 4:42.54 | Richard Poplawski (2019) Jackson Gardner leads at 4:25.52 SCY (5:01.13 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 5:26.72 — a large gap that indicates this summer may be his first serious long course 400 IM campaign. Jude Ciesielski follows at 4:27.33 SCY (5:03.14 projected) with no prior LCM 400 IM reference available. Grant Brown (12) rounds out the group at 4:31.46 SCY (5:07.72 projected), with a last-season LCM reference of 5:16.67 — the only last-season LCM 400 IM baseline in this group. Poplawski's 2019 record has over 18 seconds of protection. Brown's 5:16 last-season LCM reference is the only real benchmark, and the field still has significant long course IM development ahead before this record comes into view. Recurring Names & Overall Takeaways The Boys 11-12 LCM field this cycle is defined by several strong multi-event swimmers, with a genuine headline story in the butterfly events: Hunter Gumbayan (12) is the most complete swimmer in the dataset, appearing across all four freestyle events and the 200 IM. His last-season LCM references are the most advanced real baselines in the distance free picture — particularly his 2:10.60 in the 200 free and 4:33.39 in the 400 free. Alexander Kovtounenko (12) is the butterfly standout. His 1:05.70 last-season LCM reference in the 100 fly and 2:24.38 in the 200 fly are the most credible real-world performances of any butterfly candidate — and his SCY times project him squarely at Morton's 1983 100 fly record. Jackson Gardner (12) appears across the 200–800 free, 200 back, 100 fly, 200 fly, and 400 IM — a broad profile, though his last-season LCM references are generally further from his projections than other candidates, suggesting real long course development is still ahead. Maverick McMeeking (12) is the clearest sprint free threat, with a 27.49 last-season LCM time in the 50 free and a sub-60 last-season LCM reference in the 100 free — the most developed sprint long course résumé in the dataset. Alexey Zaitev (12) is the backstroke and distance free name to watch, with last-season LCM references in the 100 back (1:08.62) and 200 back (2:25.72) that are the most credible real threats to Dalmacio's 2017 marks. The event to watch most closely this summer is the 100 butterfly — Morton's 1983 record has been on the books for 43 years, and Kovtounenko's existing long course form suggests the gap between current ability and the record is narrower than the historical age of the mark implies. All projections use classical SCY-to-LCM conversion. Converted times are estimates only. Prior LCM reference times are from the 2024–25 season. Age eligibility based on August 1, 2026 cutoff. (swimmer remains 12 or under as of 8/1/2026)

Data current as of April 20, 2026 | Age eligibility cutoff: August 1, 2026 (swimmer remains 10 or under as of 8/1/2026) The long course season is now underway, and this winter's short course results have already painted a compelling picture of where the Boys 10&Under NAG records stand. Several marks — some reaching back over a decade — are facing meaningful pressure from a strong and geographically diverse field of age-eligible swimmers. Below is a look at each standing record, the current top candidates based on 2025–26 SCY performance, and a classical conversion projection of what those times could translate to in long course. Projections are estimates, not predictions — but they're useful for calibrating just how close (or far) the records really are. The Record Holders & The Candidates 50 Freestyle — NAG: 27.42 | Winn Aung (2013) Aung's 2013 sprint marks have proven durable, but this cycle's field may be the most credible threat in years. Gabriel Brown (10) leads with a 25.76 SCY — projecting to 29.39 LCM — and already owns a real LCM best of 29.83 from last summer, which is well within striking range of the record. Robert Legg (10) is close behind at 25.99 SCY (29.65 projected), with a last season LCM best of 30.09 that confirms he converts well. Christian Briscoe (10) rounds out the group at 26.39 SCY (30.09 projected), showing solid improvement from his 31.20 LCM reference last spring. Brown's 29.83 real LCM best is the headline here — he's already been within 0.41 of the record. This one is worth watching closely this summer. 100 Freestyle — NAG: 1:00.67 | Winn Aung (2013) The 100 free tells a similar story. Gabriel Brown leads again at 55.01 SCY (1:02.66 projected), with a last season LCM best of 1:04.29 — already competitive at this age. Robert Legg follows at 56.47 SCY, projecting to 1:04.28, and his real LCM best of 1:04.82 is essentially in line with that projection. Isen Wolfe (10) rounds out the group at 56.99 SCY (1:04.86 projected), with a 1:06.14 last season LCM best showing continued progress. The record holds for now, but Brown's trajectory across the sprint and distance free events makes him the most compelling 10-under story on the boys' side this cycle. 200 Freestyle — NAG: 2:11.32 | Winn Aung (2013) This is the most compelling event in the dataset. Gabriel Brown projects to 2:12.83 LCM from his 1:56.78 SCY — just 1.51 seconds above the NAG record. His last season LCM best of 2:16.77 already shows strong long course form, and given the gap between his SCY level and what he's already done in the 50-meter pool, a sub-2:12 swim this summer is a realistic outcome. Robert Legg (2:00.49 SCY, 2:16.94 projected) and Isen Wolfe (2:03.89 SCY, 2:20.72 projected) are further back, though Wolfe's last season LCM best of 2:21.93 closely mirrors his projection. This is the record most likely to fall in 2026. Brown's conversion math puts him right on top of it, and his existing LCM best confirms he can perform in long course. 400 Freestyle — NAG: 4:36.22 | Adam Hinshaw (2004) The oldest record in this dataset by a wide margin — set in 2004 — and it may finally be in genuine jeopardy. Gabriel Brown projects to 4:35.80 LCM from his 5:09.02 SCY, which would be a record by 0.42 seconds. His last season LCM best of 4:54.47 shows there's still meaningful ground to cover in actual long course swimming, but the trajectory is steep. Robert Legg projects to 4:45.17 and Isen Wolfe to 4:48.77 — both well off the record, but showing healthy development with last season LCM bests in the 4:55–5:00 range. The conversion puts Brown just under the record, but his real LCM best of 4:54 suggests the projection may be optimistic. Still, a 22-year-old NAG finally has a legitimate challenger. 50 Backstroke — NAG: 30.82 | Ayden Tan (2023) One of three records Ayden Tan set in 2023, and arguably the most protected of the group given how recently it was established. Gabriel Brown leads at 29.06 SCY (32.86 projected), but his last season LCM best of 34.32 from an April meet last year indicates limited long course backstroke experience so far. Micah Pearson (10) follows at 29.49 SCY (33.33 projected), though his only LCM reference appears to be a 100 back time — suggesting his 50 back LCM history is minimal. Hoshi Aono (10) rounds out the group at 29.76 SCY (33.63 projected), with a 36.07 last season LCM best that leaves room to improve. All three candidates project 2+ seconds above the record. Safe for now — Tan's 2023 marks are proving resilient. 100 Backstroke — NAG: 1:07.40 | Ronald Dalmacio (2015) Gabriel Brown leads the 100 back field with a 1:01.12 SCY (1:09.04 projected) — just 1.64 seconds above the record on paper. His last season LCM best of 1:12.09 suggests the projection is ahead of where he's been in long course, but given his development arc across other events, meaningful improvement is plausible. Hoshi Aono (10) and Isen Wolfe (10) both project to the 1:12.67–1:12.73 range, with last season LCM bests of 1:16.85 and 1:16.14 respectively — a clear signal that both have been improving steadily in long course. Brown's projection is intriguing, but his real LCM baseline puts this record at arm's length for now. One to watch mid-summer. 50 Breaststroke — NAG: 35.65 | Matthew Limbacher (2011) A 2011 record that has held through several strong cycles. The current field converts in the 38.1–39.2 range — a gap that keeps it comfortable. George Xuan (10) leads at 33.45 SCY (38.13 projected), with a last season LCM best of 40.53, while Gabriel Brown is right behind at 33.74 SCY (38.45 projected) with a 40.48 last season LCM best. The two are nearly identical on paper. Zhecheng Zhu (10) rounds out the group at 34.40 SCY (39.18 projected), though his last season LCM best of 47.17 from a June league meet suggests very limited long course breaststroke experience to date. Record is well protected. Xuan and Brown are neck-and-neck and both improving, but a 2.5-second gap is real at this age. 100 Breaststroke — NAG: 1:18.56 | Ayden Tan (2023) Another 2023 Tan record, and like the 50 back, it still has a comfortable cushion. Gabriel Brown leads at 1:12.31 SCY (1:22.26 projected), with a last season LCM best of 1:28.80 — indicating his projection is well ahead of where he's been in long course breast. George Xuan follows at 1:12.86 SCY (1:22.87 projected) and already has a real LCM best of 1:28.76 — nearly identical to Brown's. Isen Wolfe (10) is third at 1:14.41 SCY (1:24.60 projected), with a 1:33.41 LCM reference that suggests he's still early in his long course breaststroke development. Tan's 2023 marks continue to hold. The field is developing but not yet threatening. 50 Butterfly — NAG: 29.91 | Carson Foster (2012) Carson Foster's 2012 mark is still standing, and the current field converts in the 31.5–32.6 range — about 1.6–2.7 seconds off on paper. Robert Legg leads at 27.77 SCY (31.52 projected), with a last season LCM best of 31.77 that is essentially in line with his conversion — a strong sign of LCM efficiency. Gabriel Brown follows at 28.21 SCY (32.01 projected), with a 32.84 last season LCM best showing improvement is coming. Christian Briscoe (10) rounds out the group at 28.77 SCY (32.63 projected), already having gone 32.90 in long course last summer. Legg's 31.77 real LCM best is the most telling number here — he's already been within 1.86 of the record and converts cleanly. 100 Butterfly — NAG: 1:05.98 | Andrew Rogers (2015) A tight three-way race at the top of this event. Gabriel Brown leads at 1:01.91 SCY (1:10.12 projected), with a real LCM best of 1:10.33 — meaning his prior long course performance is already close to his projection, a strong sign. Robert Legg follows at 1:02.14 SCY (1:10.38 projected), and notably already has a 1:10.10 real LCM best — fractionally better than Brown's. Sean Northup (10) rounds out the group at 1:02.96 SCY (1:11.29 projected), with a 1:12.66 last season LCM best showing steady progress. Brown and Legg are essentially tied on projection, and both have real LCM bests right in the 1:10 range. The record has a 4-second cushion, but this event has two swimmers already operating at a high long course level. 200 IM — NAG: 2:27.38 | Ayden Tan (2023) The third and final Tan record in this dataset, and the most recently set. Gabriel Brown projects to 2:29.34 from his 2:11.66 SCY — just 1.96 seconds above the record on paper — making this, alongside the 200 free, one of the two most vulnerable records in the dataset. His last season LCM best of 2:35.03 suggests the projection is ahead of where he's been, but his development curve across all four strokes is steep. Robert Legg (2:17.08 SCY, 2:35.36 projected) and Isen Wolfe (2:19.39 SCY, 2:37.92 projected) are further back, with both showing healthy improvement from their last season LCM bests. Another record where Brown's conversion math puts him right on the doorstep. Whether his long course IM catches up to his SCY form this summer is the central question. Recurring Names & Overall Takeaways The Boys 10&Under field this cycle is defined by one dominant story and a genuinely competitive supporting cast: Gabriel Brown (10) appears in every single event in this dataset — an almost unprecedented level of cross-discipline breadth at this age. His projections in the 200 free, 400 free, and 200 IM all sit within striking distance of standing NAG records. Robert Legg (10) is the strongest challenger to Brown across the sprints and fly events, with a long course track record that closely mirrors his conversion projections — a sign of genuine LCM efficiency. Isen Wolfe (10) is a consistent mid-distance presence across free, back, breast, and IM, with last season LCM bests that largely align with his projections. George Xuan (10) and Christian Briscoe (10) are event-specific threats — Xuan in breaststroke, Briscoe in the sprints — both with developing long course résumés. The 200 free and 200 IM are the records to watch most closely this summer. Both involve Brown projecting within 2 seconds of marks that have stood since 2013 and 2023 respectively. Whether his short course form translates cleanly to long course — and how much he's improved since last summer — will be the defining question of the Boys 10&Under NAG landscape in 2026. All projections use classical SCY-to-LCM conversion. Converted times are estimates only. Age eligibility based on August 1, 2026 cutoff. (swimmer remains 10 or under as of 8/1/2026)

Data current as of April 17, 2026 | Age eligibility cutoff: August 1, 2026 (swimmer remains 10 or under as of 8/1/2026) The long course season is now underway, and this winter's short course results have already painted a compelling picture of where the Girls 10&Under NAG records stand heading into the summer. Several marks — some dating back a decade — are drawing serious attention from a talented and deep crop of age-eligible swimmers. Below is a look at each standing record, the current top candidates based on 2025–26 SCY performance, and a classical conversion projection of what those times could translate to in long course. Projections are estimates, not predictions — but they're useful for calibrating just how close (or far) the records really are. The Record Holders & The Candidates 50 Freestyle — NAG: 28.15 | Adele Zyniewicz (2016) At over a decade old, this record has outlasted a lot of challengers. The current projection gap is real — the top three candidates convert in the 29.8–30.9 range — but Adeline Farrier (10) is worth watching closely. Her 26.17 SCY this season is genuinely fast for 10-and-under, and her last season LCM best of 32.19 leaves plenty of room to grow once she's swimming in a 50-meter pool. Lola Southard (10) is right behind at 26.43 SCY. Neither is converting near the record on paper, but both swimmers are moving quickly and long course efficiency tends to look different from these projections in practice. Record looks safe for now, but the class of 2026 bears watching if either swimmer takes a big LCM step forward. 100 Freestyle — NAG: 1:01.29 | Leah Hayes (2016) Another 2016 record, this one held by Leah Hayes, who also owns the 200 free NAG. The field here is strong. Adeline Farrier leads with a 57.80 SCY, projecting to 1:05.76 LCM — well off the record but showing genuine distance speed for her age. More interesting is Olivia Covey (10), whose last season real LCM best of 1:07.83 already suggests she translates well to long course. Her 59.10 SCY this season projects to 1:07.20, which aligns closely with what she's already done. Record remains comfortably protected, but Covey's LCM track record makes her one to watch once pools open. 200 Freestyle — NAG: 2:14.39 | Leah Hayes (2016) Hayes holds three records in this dataset, and the 200 free may be her most durable. The converted projections for the top three candidates (2:24–2:27) fall roughly 10–13 seconds short on paper. Addie Farrier leads the field at 2:07.54 SCY (projects to 2:24.77), with Olivia Covey (2:29.24 last season LCM best) and Hadley Wheeler (10) close behind. Wheeler, whose 2:09.83 SCY at the NT Texas Age Group Championship is her season-best, also showed meaningful improvement in LCM last summer. The gap is too large for a realistic challenge this cycle, but Covey's existing 2:29 LCM provides a genuine baseline. Here's the new section to insert — place it after the 200 Freestyle section and before 50 Backstroke: 400 Freestyle — NAG: 4:37.41 | Claire Tuggle (2015) Another 2015 record with a comfortable margin. The projected gap here is significant — all three candidates convert in the 5:02–5:07 range, leaving roughly 25–30 seconds between the field and Tuggle's mark. Adeline Farrier leads at 5:39.37 SCY (5:02.89 projected) with no last season LCM reference, meaning this may be her first real crack at the 400 free in long course. Hadley Wheeler (10) is close behind at 5:42.50 SCY (5:05.68 projected) and already has a real LCM best of 5:23.81 from last summer — the most meaningful baseline in this group. Reign Belzer (10) rounds out the field at 5:44.11 SCY (5:07.12 projected), with a last season LCM best of 5:13.05 that actually puts her ahead of her own conversion — a good sign for her long course efficiency at distance. The record is well protected for now. But Belzer's 5:13 real LCM swim is the most interesting data point — she's already well ahead of what the conversion math suggests. 50 Backstroke — NAG: 32.18 | Miriam Sheehan (2015) Sheehan's 2015 marks in the 50 and 100 back have proven remarkably resilient. The 50 back field is led by Reign Belzer (10), who has posted a 30.11 SCY — converting to a projected 34.02 LCM — alongside a last season LCM best of 36.61 that shows she still has ground to cover in the long course pool. Adeline Farrier is right there at 30.38 SCY (34.32 projected), and Annie Ma (10) rounds out the group at 30.98 SCY. Ma's LCM best of 39.46 is notably farther back than her SCY projection suggests, hinting at limited LCM experience so far. All three candidates convert 1.8–2.8 seconds above the record. Safe for now. 100 Backstroke — NAG: 1:09.36 | Miriam Sheehan (2015) This is one of the more interesting events on the list. Adeline Farrier leads with a 1:04.01 SCY (projecting 1:12.25), but her only last season LCM reference of 1:19.96 indicates she hasn't had much long course backstroke experience yet — meaning the projection may actually be conservative if she adjusts well. Hadley Wheeler (10) also deserves attention: her 1:05.63 SCY (1:14.05 projected) comes with a 1:19.85 last season LCM best, nearly identical to Farrier's. Reign Belzer (10) is third at 1:07.17 SCY, but she notably has a real LCM mark of 1:16.82 from last summer — already a bit ahead of where her projection might suggest. Record still has a comfortable margin, but this event has three swimmers developing in parallel. One to revisit mid-summer. 50 Breaststroke — NAG: 36.06 | Leah Hayes (2016) The Hayes trifecta continues. The 50 breast is where things get interesting in a different way: Sophia Hunter (10) and Iris Liu (9) both project in the 38.5–38.6 range from their SCY bests, but their last season LCM references tell very different stories. Liu already has a real LCM best of 40.24 — notably ahead of Hunter's 1:02.10 (which appears to be a 100 breast time listed as her only LCM reference, suggesting limited 50 breast LCM history). Emma Zhang (10) rounds out the group at 34.83 SCY (39.66 projected), with a 41.12 last season LCM best. Liu's 40.24 LCM best at age 9 is the most telling data point here — she's already swimming it and will have another full summer. 100 Breaststroke — NAG: 1:17.74 | Meghan Lynch (2014) The oldest record in this dataset, and perhaps the most fortified. Iris Liu (9) leads at 1:15.99 SCY (1:26.35 projected), followed closely by Emma Zhang (10) at 1:16.61 SCY. Notably, Zhang already owns a real LCM best of 1:26.25 — better than her own projection — which is a strong sign that her SCY-to-LCM conversion is efficient. Shay Kaplan (10) is third at 1:16.95 SCY with no last season LCM reference on record. The record has stood for over a decade for a reason. But Liu at 9 years old with a 1:15 SCY is a name to file away for the next cycle. 50 Butterfly — NAG: 29.48 | Miriam Sheehan (2015) Addie Farrier tops the fly events as well, with a 27.57 SCY that projects to 31.30 LCM — about 1.8 seconds above the record. Lola Southard (10) and Eva Rossetti (10) follow at 28.59 and 28.81 SCY respectively, projecting to 32.43 and 32.68. All three showed improvement from their last season LCM bests (33.66, 34.97, 34.14), which is an encouraging sign. None are projecting close to Sheehan's record, but the event is competitive within the age group. 100 Butterfly — NAG: 1:07.07 | Raquel Maldonado (2019) The most recently set record in the dataset, and it shows — this one has more cushion. Adeline Farrier leads at 1:02.14 SCY (1:10.38 projected), with Lola Southard and Reign Belzer both projecting around 1:12.4–1:12.6. Southard's last season LCM best of 1:35.11 suggests she's still very early in her long course 100 fly development. Belzer, by contrast, already has a 1:17.20 from last summer, making her the most experienced of the three in this event. Maldonado's 2019 mark still has meaningful protection. The field is developing, not threatening — yet. 200 IM — NAG: 2:28.70 | Kayla Han (2019) Another recent-era record that won't go quietly. Adeline Farrier leads with a 2:21.70 SCY (2:40.49 projected), followed by Hadley Wheeler (2:24.04 SCY, 2:43.08 projected) and Olivia Covey (2:24.92 SCY, 2:44.06 projected). Wheeler and Covey both have last season LCM IM bests in the 2:49–2:55 range, suggesting their projections are actually ahead of where they've been — a good sign for development, but also a reminder that conversion math doesn't always hold in the IM. The 200 IM record appears safe for 2026, but the three-way competition at the top of this event is worth following. Recurring Names & Overall Takeaways A few swimmers show up across multiple events, suggesting broad talent rather than specialist profiles: Adeline Farrier (10) appears in nearly every freestyle, backstroke, and butterfly event — arguably the most versatile 10-under swimmer in this dataset. Reign Belzer (10) surfaces in backstroke, breaststroke, and butterfly, with some of the most developed last season LCM reference times of any candidate. Olivia Covey (10) and Hadley Wheeler (10) are consistent mid-distance threats across free and IM events. Iris Liu (9) stands out as the youngest candidate on the list — appearing in both breaststroke events with times that are already competitive for her age group heading into next season. None of the records appear on the verge of falling based on projections alone, but several — particularly the 2015 Sheehan backstroke marks and the 2014 Lynch 100 breast — have been standing long enough that continued pressure from this crop will eventually tell. The long course season will reveal who converts well and who has even more in the tank than the short course numbers suggest. All projections use classical SCY-to-LCM conversion. Converted times are estimates only. Age eligibility based on August 1, 2026 cutoff. (swimmer remains 10 or under as of 8/1/2026)

When you're grinding through swim meets, long practices, or intense dryland sessions, hydration isn’t just about water—it's about replacing the electrolytes you lose through sweat. If you’re tired of sugary sports drinks or messy powders, there’s a simpler solution that fits right in your swim bag. 🧂 Meet Your New Go-To: SaltStick Electrolyte FastChews [image: 61OzUcIGqnL._AC_SL1049_.jpg] Price: $34.99 Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. These chewable electrolyte tablets are designed for athletes who want fast, effective hydration without relying on drinks. Whether you're mid-meet or between sets, just chew and go—no mixing, no hassle. ⚡ Why Swimmers Love FastChews ✅ Fast Absorption Unlike traditional sports drinks, these chewable tablets are formulated to absorb quickly into your system—helping you recover electrolytes faster when it matters most. ✅ Essential Electrolytes in Every Bite Each chew delivers key minerals lost through sweat: Sodium Potassium Calcium Magnesium These are critical for muscle function, preventing cramps, and maintaining endurance in the water. ✅ Clean, Athlete-Friendly Ingredients No artificial colors or sweeteners Non-GMO Vegan Allergen-free Simple, effective, and made with performance in mind. ✅ Portable & Resealable The resealable pouch makes it easy to toss into your swim bag. No spills, no mess—just grab, chew, and reseal. 🏊‍♂️ Perfect For Swim meets and competitions Long training sessions Dryland workouts Outdoor sports like cycling, hiking, or running Hot environments where sweat loss is high 🕒 How to Use Chew 2 tablets every 30 minutes during exercise Drink water as needed No mixing or preparation required Think of them like a performance-focused version of a sweet tart—easy and effective. 🏁 Final Verdict: A Must-Have for Serious Swimmers If you’re looking for a convenient, fast-acting, and clean way to stay hydrated without relying on drinks, SaltStick FastChews are a game changer. They’re especially useful during swim meets where time and convenience matter. 👉 Ready to upgrade your hydration strategy? Grab your pack here: https://amzn.to/4clOTwU Stay sharp, stay hydrated, and keep crushing your sets 💪

When summer rolls around, outdoor relaxation becomes a top priority—whether you're heading to the beach, going to a swim meet, or having a pool party in your backyard. But let’s be honest: sitting directly on hot sand, rough pavement, or damp grass can quickly ruin the experience. That’s where the Oileus Low Beach Chair comes in—a lightweight, ultra-portable solution designed to keep you comfortable anywhere your summer takes you. 🪑 Product Overview [image: 61y8xnsLR9S._AC_SL1200_.jpg] Price: $84.99 Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. 🌟 Key Features That Make a Difference ✅ Comfortable & Breathable Design With cooling mesh fabric that promotes airflow Prevents overheating during long sunny days Includes padded armrests for added relaxation ✅ Built for Durability Constructed with heavy-duty steel frame Uses industrial-grade 600D Oxford mesh Supports up to 300 lbs without compromising stability ✅ Lightweight & Travel-Friendly Weighs only 6.5 lbs Folds down compactly for easy storage Comes with a carry bag for effortless transport ✅ Smart Storage Solutions Built-in cup holder for drinks Handy side storage bag for essentials like phones, sunscreen, or books ✅ Stability on Any Surface Features anti-sink leg caps Large footpads prevent sinking into sand or soft ground Low seat design enhances balance and comfort 🏕️ Perfect For Any Outdoor Setting This chair isn’t just for the beach. Its versatile design makes it ideal for: 🌊 Beach days and seaside relaxation 🏕️ Camping and backpacking trips 🌿 Backyard lounging 🎣 Fishing excursions 🎪 Outdoor festivals or picnics 💡 Why This Chair Stands Out Unlike bulky outdoor chairs, the Oileus Low Beach Chair strikes the perfect balance between comfort, portability, and durability. You won’t need to sacrifice convenience for relaxation—it delivers both. Its ergonomic curved seat, breathable materials, and thoughtful extras (like storage and cup holders) make it feel like a premium experience without the premium hassle. 🛒 Final Verdict: Is It Worth It? If you're planning to spend more time outdoors this summer, this chair is a smart, practical investment. It’s designed to make your outdoor experience more enjoyable—no matter where you are. 👉 Ready to upgrade your summer comfort? Grab yours here: https://amzn.to/4dRQWdf Stay cool, stay comfortable, and make the most of your summer adventures! ☀️

When summer hits, the beach, poolside lounging, and outdoor gatherings become part of everyday life. But enjoying the sunshine shouldn’t come at the cost of your comfort—or your skin. That’s where the MFSTUDIO 7ft Patio Beach Umbrella with Fringe steps in, blending style, portability, and serious sun protection into one must-have accessory. [image: 61mXanYWQfL._AC_SL1500_.jpg] 🌴 Why This Beach Umbrella Stands Out ✨ Chic Fringe Design for a Luxe Vibe Turn heads wherever you go. The elegant tassel fringe gives this umbrella a resort-style aesthetic, instantly upgrading your beach or pool setup into something straight out of a vacation magazine. 🛡️ UPF50+ Sun Protection Made with coated polyester fabric, this umbrella blocks up to 98% of harmful UVA and UVB rays, helping you stay cool and protected during long sunny days. 💪 Durable & Wind-Resistant Build Premium teak wood metal pole with natural grain finish Reinforced with 8 flexible fiberglass ribs This combination ensures strength, stability, and longevity—even in breezy beach conditions. 🔄 Adjustable Tilt Mechanism No need to constantly reposition your umbrella. The easy tilt function lets you adjust the angle as the sun moves, keeping you shaded from morning to sunset. 🎒 Lightweight & Travel-Friendly Weighing just 6.6 lbs, it’s easy to carry and store in the included bag—perfect for: Beach trips Swim meets Picnics Backyard lounging 🏖️ Perfect For Beach days with family or friends Poolside relaxation Outdoor events and picnics Garden or backyard shade Swim meets and competitions 💡 Key Benefits at a Glance Stylish fringe design for standout appeal Strong UV protection (UPF50+) Durable construction with flexible ribs Adjustable tilt for all-day shade Lightweight and easy to transport Versatile for multiple outdoor settings ⚠️ Pro Tip For best longevity, close the umbrella during strong winds to prevent damage and extend its lifespan. 💬 Final Thoughts The MFSTUDIO 7ft Fringe Beach Umbrella isn’t just about shade—it’s about comfort, protection, and style all in one. Whether you're lounging by the ocean or cheering at a swim meet, this umbrella delivers both function and flair. 👉 Ready to upgrade your summer setup? Check it out here 💲 Price: $99.99 Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. Make this summer cooler, safer, and a whole lot more stylish 🌊☀️

The 2026 NCSA Summer Championships will be held July 22–26, 2026 at the Indiana University Natatorium in Indianapolis, Indiana. This meet is open to qualified USA Swimming athletes age 18 and under and is expected to fill quickly. What swimmers may care about The meet is conducted in LCM (Long Course Meters). All events are seeded LCM first, then SCY. Qualifying period: January 1, 2025 through July 13, 2026. Swimmers may compete in 3 individual events per day and 8 total. There are no upper time limits. All entry times must be provable in SWIMS. Unproven times may result in: $100 fine per swim Scratch from event Team losing tier status Observed high school times only are accepted. Foreign meet times not in SWIMS are not accepted. Block party times are not accepted. Distance events (800/1500): May qualify using 800 / 1500 / 1000 / 1650 Alternate standards are seeded last No time trials will be offered. Bonus events Swimmers qualified for individual events may enter bonus events based on the following: Qualifying Times Bonus Events Relay Only 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 4+ 0 Bonus rules Bonus swims must be: 200m or less Provable in SWIMS Entered in LCM Exception: 400 Free and 400 IM may be entered using SCY if the bonus standard is met 800 and 1500 are NOT eligible for bonus swims Bonus standards (400 Free / 400 IM) SCY LCM Event SCY LCM 5:02.09 4:30.99 400/500 Free 4:41.59 4:14.79 4:32.09 5:09.99 400 IM 4:09.59 4:47.09 What coaches may care about Entries must be submitted through USA Swimming OME Entry deadline: July 13, 2026 (5:00 PM ET) Late entries allowed only for: First-time qualifiers Achieved after deadline Late entry deadline: July 19, 2026 Seeding order: LCM → SCY All times must be: Provable in SWIMS Relay rules: Max 2 relays per event Relay times must be provable (team or aggregate) Positive check-in required for: 800 / 1500 freestyle Scratch rules: No-show penalty: Scratch from remaining events OR $100 fine Finals format: E, D, C, B, A finals E final limited to 16 & under swimmers What parents may care about Venue: IU Natatorium (approx. 4,700 seating capacity) Parking available in attached garage (fees controlled by facility) Concessions available onsite Awards: Top 8 individual and relay medals Strict safety rules: No deck changing No recording in locker rooms No drones allowed All athletes must follow: USA Swimming Safe Sport policies MAAPP (Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy) Event format highlights Prelims and finals format for most events Distance events (800 / 1500): Timed finals Swum slowest → fastest Fastest heat swims in finals Swimmers must provide: Their own timers and counters for distance events Relays: Timed finals Swum during finals session Schedule overview Dates: July 22–26, 2026 Prelims: 8:30 AM start Finals: 5:00 PM start Quick checklist For swimmers Verify times are in SWIMS Track bonus eligibility Watch positive check-in deadlines Be ready for distance event requirements For coaches Submit entries via OME before July 13 Verify all times are provable Track: Bonus entries Relay entries Event limits Prepare for scratch deadlines and penalties For parents Book travel early (meet fills fast) Review venue parking and policies Plan for full-day sessions Full meet packet 2026 NCSA Summer Championships Meet Announcement

[image: 8164VGOIAWL._SL1500_.jpg] When the summer sun is blazing, nothing hits quite like a cold, refreshing freeze pop. The Fla-Vor-Ice Popsicle Variety Pack (100 Count) is your go-to solution for staying cool, hydrated, and satisfied all season long—without breaking the bank. 🌈 Big Flavor, Bigger Variety This bulk pack comes loaded with a colorful mix of crowd-pleasing flavors: 🍓 Strawberry 🍇 Grape 🍊 Orange 🍋 Lemon-Lime 🍒 Berry Punch 🌴 Tropical Punch There’s something for everyone, making it perfect for families, parties, or just stocking up your freezer for those hot afternoons. ❄️ Easy, Fun, and Ready in Minutes No prep required—just: Toss them in the freezer Wait until frozen Cut the top Push up and enjoy It’s that simple. Whether kids grab them after playing outside or adults reach for a guilt-free treat, these pops deliver instant refreshment. 🍏 Made with Real Ingredients These freezer pops are crafted with real fruit juice, giving them a naturally satisfying taste. You can feel better about serving them compared to overly artificial snacks. 💪 Light & Guilt-Free Treat Looking for something sweet without the extra calories? ✅ Only 20 calories per pop ✅ 0 grams of fat ✅ Great for both kids and adults They’re a smart alternative to heavier desserts, especially during warmer months. 🎉 Perfect for Any Summer Occasion Bring them out for: Backyard BBQs 🍔 Poolside lounging 🏊 Post-bike ride cool-downs 🚴 Kids’ birthday parties 🎂 With 100 pops in a box, you’ll always have enough to share—or keep all to yourself. ⚠️ Important Delivery Tip Since these are heat-sensitive, be sure someone is available to receive your package. Exposure to sunlight or high temperatures during delivery may cause melting or damage. 🛒 Final Thoughts The Fla-Vor-Ice Popsicle Variety Pack is a summer essential—affordable, flavorful, and incredibly convenient. Whether you're hosting a gathering or just trying to stay cool, this 100-count pack delivers unbeatable value and refreshment. 👉 Grab yours here: https://amzn.to/4mJYrp2 Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary.

Thanks everyone who supported the channel a while ago, we ended up taking a break and we are trying to post more again. Everyone sub to https://www.youtube.com/@RCSWIM I realized after getting notified that someone upvoted my old post that the link doesnt even work T^T so here is the actual channel link!

please subscribe to https://www.youtube.com/@CoopyJ me and my friend started it and would love some support. we are both swimmers and know how hard it is to get recognition for swimming content when your not famous. Our goal is to help grow the Swim community. We mainly post shorts right now but we want to do meet or practice vlogs when we get some more subs. so please

I was wondering if I should do galloping as a 14 year old and if not, when I should start.

This post tracks recruiting status across academically strong U.S. universities (roughly U.S. News top-30 range) in men’s swimming. The goal is to help Class of 2027 swimmers and families understand where opportunities may still exist. Note: This uses the same school list as the women’s version. Some schools (Rice, Vanderbilt, UCLA) do not currently have men’s swimming programs and are included for consistency in the academic comparison. How to use this Focus on 2027 slack → this is what matters for current juniors Positive slack = potential openings Negative slack = class may already be full or over-committed Use swimmer links to compare your times directly Important notes (read before using) Commit lists are not fully complete, especially for some D3 programs Departure counts are estimated based on current rosters Power Points (PI) are based on current SwimCloud data and may change School selection is based on general U.S. News ranking tiers, not a fixed single-year ranking Some schools listed may not have active men’s swimming programs (see note above) All data is for reference only, not a guarantee of recruiting outcomes Method 2026 slack = seniors + graduates − known 2026 commits 2027 slack = juniors − known 2027 commits Divers are excluded from departure estimates #1 Princeton Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 6 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 3 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: -1 2026 commits Yury Kuzmenko (3.45 PI) Isaiah Tucker (6.55 PI) Michael Geh (6.81 PI) Peter Vu (10.97 PI) 2027 commits Nemanja Maksic (8.76 PI) Cade Vieler (8.84 PI) Jose Enrique Rodriguez Ramirez (9.98 PI) Jack Cunningham (10.85 PI) Kannen Crossland (11.05 PI) Jonny Palamar (13.33 PI) #2 MIT Conference: NEWMAC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Aasish Dangol (16.72 PI) Jamie Brinsfield (17.76 PI) Andrew Koek (17.88 PI) Garic Shao (17.91 PI) Jayden Chan (20.54 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #3 Harvard Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 2 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 3 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 3 2026 commits George Dovellos (6.98 PI) Owen Lin (7.35 PI) Adam Bradley (7.41 PI) Botond Kovacs (10.32 PI) 2027 commits Francesco Ceolin (3.56 PI) Yuri Plaksin (7.61 PI) #4 Stanford Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 7 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 4 2027 slack: -3 2026 commits Evangelos Efraim NTOUMAS (1.77 PI) Nathan Foucu (2.18 PI) Maxwell Stanislaus (4.16 PI) Tyler Phillips (7.35 PI) Davi Carvalho (8.39 PI) Enzo Desviat Ruiz (10.40 PI) Connor Ohl (12.94 PI) 2027 commits Luke Vatev (1.07 PI) Yi Zheng (1.29 PI) Connor Christopherson (3.82 PI) Owen Ekk (4.93 PI) Jacob Bougaieff (6.22 PI) Alex Pletcher (6.90 PI) Soren Carlson (13.59 PI) #4 Yale Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 1 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 6 2026 commits Justin Cvetkov (5.65 PI) Louis Joos (7.32 PI) Cannon Martenson (13.47 PI) Ethan Wang (15.00 PI) Burak Iloglu (16.66 PI) 2027 commits Edward Zhang (12.22 PI) #6 University of Chicago Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 4 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits Alex Wu (12.65 PI) Ethan Wang (16.78 PI) Kevin Zhan (20.51 PI) Kanish Chakraborty (22.19 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #7 Duke Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 2 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 1 2026 slack: -4 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 3 2026 commits Yavuz Omer Aga (6.20 PI) Charlie Zuhoski (7.86 PI) Sam Hennenfent (12.76 PI) Ethan Bathala (13.90 PI) Rawlings Leachman (16.16 PI) 2027 commits Jonathan Packles (10.71 PI) Rostik Khilko (17.19 PI) #7 Johns Hopkins Conference: Centennial Conference 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 3 2027 slack: 3 2026 commits Alistair Guth (20.20 PI) Matt Brailita (21.88 PI) Matthew Ko (23.19 PI) William Thurk (23.27 PI) Nicolas Aldana Huelga (23.80 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #7 Northwestern Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 3 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: -2 2027 departures (Jr.): 10 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Brandon Ha (1.64 PI) Zack Kusch (7.78 PI) Mike Marder (12.50 PI) Ben Whiteford (13.40 PI) Jack Chiappetta (16.58 PI) Caleb Romero Serrano (16.81 PI) 2027 commits Kealan Tupper (11.40 PI) Spencer Belbot (15.46 PI) Taylor Thongintra (15.87 PI) #7 Penn Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 1 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 3 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Matt Vatev (3.60 PI) Ethan Chung (8.97 PI) Lewis Zhang (13.09 PI) Velizar Filipov (14.89 PI) Winston Fan (18.37 PI) Adam Polzien (21.18 PI) Max Rodbell (22.95 PI) 2027 commits Ben Liang (17.16 PI) #11 Caltech Conference: SCIAC 2026 commits: 0 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: 4 2027 departures (Jr.): 4 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits None listed yet. 2027 commits None listed yet. #12 Cornell Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 6 2026 commits Nate Yoon (8.34 PI) Yaron Li (8.83 PI) Jeremy Ting (9.36 PI) Nathaniel Malcolm (13.69 PI) Chengze Duan (14.51 PI) Enzo Balbuena (14.95 PI) Charles Wang (15.15 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #13 Brown Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 8 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 8 2027 slack: 8 2026 commits Aaron Bell (7.25 PI) Noah Chen (8.23 PI) Kian Olsson (9.18 PI) Reed Harris (12.64 PI) Myles Koff (16.16 PI) Avi Stahl (17.29 PI) Abir Bhatia (18.11 PI) Jack Ketchum (21.96 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #13 Dartmouth Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Sawyer Stolarczyk (8.30 PI) Alex Menshutkin (14.93 PI) JD Chen (15.63 PI) Kaideng Zhao (17.74 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #15 Columbia Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 10 2026 slack: 5 2027 departures (Jr.): 10 2027 slack: 10 2026 commits Krish Jain (8.36 PI) Kyle Li (8.50 PI) Tristan McCain (13.41 PI) Levi Skaistis (14.68 PI) Cory Han (15.50 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #15 California Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 2 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 9 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Baylor Stanton (1.00 PI) Jordan Ragland (1.14 PI) Tim Wu (1.77 PI) Albert Smelzer (2.31 PI) Aukan Goldin (5.67 PI) 2027 commits Davis Jackson (1.02 PI) Thi Rai (6.07 PI) #17 Rice Conference: American Athletic Conference 2026 commits: 0 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 0 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 0 2027 slack: 0 2026 commits None listed yet. 2027 commits None listed yet. #17 UCLA Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 0 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 0 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 0 2027 slack: 0 2026 commits None listed yet. 2027 commits None listed yet. #17 Vanderbilt Conference: SEC 2026 commits: 0 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 0 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 0 2027 slack: 0 2026 commits None listed yet. 2027 commits None listed yet. #20 Carnegie Mellon Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 13 2027 slack: 13 2026 commits Justin Brown (14.74 PI) Christian Wong (15.75 PI) Jacob Kim (16.57 PI) Jimin Chung (18.93 PI) ZiQiu Wang (20.53 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #20 Michigan Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 5 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 9 2026 slack: 5 2027 departures (Jr.): 4 2027 slack: -1 2026 commits Nathan Muratory (3.10 PI) Aiden Moy (4.79 PI) Oliver Shao (5.96 PI) Lucas Young (8.04 PI) 2027 commits Allen Gyang (6.94 PI) Anthony Dornoff (8.42 PI) Charles Howard (8.44 PI) Boone Wilcox (9.67 PI) Ben Luginski (12.41 PI) #20 Notre Dame Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 0 2027 slack: 0 2026 commits James Darcy (5.10 PI) Grant Lilly (6.35 PI) Ryan Quinn (6.51 PI) Finn Martin (9.22 PI) Brayden Jones (13.24 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #20 Washington University in St. Louis Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 1 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 8 2026 slack: 7 2027 departures (Jr.): 2 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Tobin Howe (19.09 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #24 Emory Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 6 2026 commits Doug Sims (16.75 PI) Jared Goldstein (18.04 PI) Cole Radnay (18.44 PI) Zach Geller (20.60 PI) Anthony Pham (22.55 PI) Ethan Samuels (23.80 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #24 Georgetown Conference: Big East 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 1 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 5 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 6 2026 commits Holden Brown (12.60 PI) Lucas Knapp (13.52 PI) Maxon Brienza (14.77 PI) Oliver Stabach (20.49 PI) 2027 commits Dan Bellach (17.70 PI) #26 North Carolina Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 2 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 2 2026 slack: -5 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits Evan Gluck (5.03 PI) Isaac Carsel (7.84 PI) Luka Jovanovic (8.93 PI) Blake Hill (10.32 PI) Kuba Shaw (10.54 PI) Yofang Yu (11.10 PI) Jackson DeBruin (13.56 PI) 2027 commits Issac Adanin (11.93 PI) Hampton Stuecker (13.38 PI) #26 Virginia Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 6 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 2 2026 slack: -2 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 0 2026 commits Micah Davis (1.64 PI) Ian Heysen Ricci (1.93 PI) Gerhardt Hoover (5.74 PI) Nathan Carr (8.90 PI) 2027 commits Luc Dionne (5.83 PI) Juan Vallmitjana (6.68 PI) William Shoesmith (7.59 PI) Joey Campagnola (7.66 PI) Michael Powell (7.89 PI) Daniel Branon (8.92 PI) #28 USC Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 2 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 4 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 6 2026 commits Andrew Maksymowski (6.48 PI) Ryan McDonald (11.76 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #29 UC San Diego Conference: Big West 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 4 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits Dash DeAnda (14.10 PI) Darmen Yessengeldy (15.31 PI) Daniel King (16.22 PI) Andrew Vet (16.56 PI) Henry Baumhover (17.32 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #30 Florida Conference: SEC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 3 2027 slack: -1 2026 commits junwoo kim (1.85 PI) Liam Smith (5.42 PI) Zoltan Bagi (5.80 PI) Tai Pearson (8.46 PI) Santi Alzate (9.03 PI) 2027 commits Griffin Oehler (1.60 PI) Trent Allen (2.24 PI) Julian Granison (8.32 PI) Luke Zardavets (9.66 PI) #30 Texas Conference: SEC 2026 commits: 3 2027 commits: 3 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 10 2026 slack: 7 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits Rowan Cox (1.12 PI) Austin Carpenter (2.21 PI) Laon Kim (4.26 PI) 2027 commits Luka Mijatovic (1.00 PI) Ellis Crisci (2.39 PI) Ian Call (4.57 PI) Tip Click any swimmer profile to compare your times directly against committed athletes. Final Notes This is a directional view of the current recruiting landscape. Actual recruiting decisions depend on: team needs coach priorities academics timing Use this as a guide, not a final answer. Data & Accuracy Some swimmer links or commits may be incomplete or incorrect. If you spot anything off, please comment so we can update it. Commit information and Power Index (PI) are based on publicly available data, primarily sourced from SwimCloud, at the time of writing.

When the summer heat kicks in, staying cool becomes a daily challenge—especially at the pool, beach, or during outdoor adventures. That’s where the Portable Handheld Turbo Fan with 100-Speed Control comes in. Compact, powerful, and designed for all-day comfort, this is one of the smartest cooling essentials you can grab this season. [image: 61GxnRDUHoL._AC_SL1500_.jpg] 🌬️ Why This Fan Stands Out This isn’t your average handheld fan—it’s engineered with advanced airflow technology and user-focused features that make a real difference in hot conditions. 🔋 Long-Lasting Cooling Power Equipped with a 4000mAh rechargeable battery Delivers 5 to 23 hours of runtime depending on speed Fully recharges in just 2–3 hours via USB-C Perfect for all-day outings, commutes, or travel 🎯 Precision Airflow Control (1–100 Levels) Unique scroll wheel control lets you fine-tune airflow Choose anything from a gentle breeze to a powerful gust Built-in LED display shows: Wind speed level Battery percentage Operating mode ⚡ Turbo Cooling Performance High-speed 11000 RPM brushless motor Advanced 6-blade turbo design Produces airflow up to 10m/s Cools you down 3× faster than standard fans 👜 Designed for Life on the Go 🔄 Foldable & Versatile 135° foldable design for easy storage Functions as both: Handheld fan Desktop fan 🪶 Lightweight & Portable Weighs only 216g (lighter than most smartphones) Fits easily into: Purses Backpacks Pockets 🎗️ Hands-Free Convenience Includes an anti-lost lanyard Wear it around your neck or wrist for effortless cooling 🌞 Perfect For These Summer Moments Whether you're lounging or on the move, this fan adapts to your lifestyle: 🏖️ Poolside relaxation 🏃 Outdoor workouts & sports 🚶 Daily commutes in the heat 🎒 Travel & road trips 🏫 School or office use 🎡 Festivals, concerts, and events 🎁 A Stylish & Practical Gift With its sleek design and universal appeal, this fan makes a great gift for: Friends and family Students Travelers Outdoor enthusiasts It comes ready-to-use with: USB-C charging cable Lanyard User manual 💰 Affordable Cooling Solution At just $14.99, this fan delivers premium performance without breaking the bank. Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. ✅ Final Verdict: A Summer Must-Have If you’re looking for a portable, powerful, and customizable cooling solution, this handheld turbo fan checks every box. It’s compact enough to carry anywhere, yet powerful enough to handle even the hottest days. 👉 Don’t sweat through summer—grab yours here: https://amzn.to/4ctLV8u Stay cool, stay comfortable, and enjoy every sunny moment out of the pool! 🌴❄️

This post tracks recruiting status across academically strong U.S. universities (roughly U.S. News top-30 range) in women’s swimming. The goal is to help Class of 2027 swimmers and families understand where opportunities may still exist. How to use this Focus on 2027 slack → this is what matters for current juniors Positive slack = potential openings Negative slack = class may already be full or over-committed Use swimmer links to compare your times directly Important notes (read before using) Commit lists are not fully complete, especially for some D3 programs Departure counts are estimated based on current rosters Power Points (PI) are based on current SwimCloud data and may change School selection is based on general U.S. News ranking tiers, not a fixed single-year ranking All data is for reference only, not a guarantee of recruiting outcomes Method 2026 slack = seniors + graduates − known 2026 commits 2027 slack = juniors − known 2027 commits Divers are excluded from departure estimates #1 Princeton Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 5 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Lanie Tietjen (6.32 PI) Phoebe Arbuckle (6.84 PI) Lillyana Caples (8.97 PI) Angela Kadoorie (9.88 PI) Victoria Edgar (14.47 PI) 2027 commits Isabel Wu (6.93 PI) Nora McCarthy (9.56 PI) Isabella Muir (9.61 PI) Claire Cheung (9.82 PI) Greta Myers (10.01 PI) #2 MIT Conference: NEWMAC 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 5 2026 slack: -2 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Myra Streit (16.64 PI) Ellen Jin (18.89 PI) Castiliya Asir (23.56 PI) Aleia Lueck (24.25 PI) Adriana Lauterborn (27.19 PI) Liv Wallace (29.83 PI) Angelina Valle (32.87 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #3 Harvard Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 5 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 8 2027 slack: 3 2026 commits Clare Custer (1.89 PI) Malia Ma (7.28 PI) Olivia Emmett (13.19 PI) Cindy Wu (13.44 PI) Frances Muir (14.83 PI) Emma Miner (19.85 PI) 2027 commits Amelia Gipson (10.20 PI) Charlotte Duijser (12.54 PI) Grace McCarthy (16.28 PI) Serene Jourdy (17.52 PI) Alexia Brockmann (21.16 PI) #4 Stanford Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 8 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 2 2027 slack: -2 2026 commits Clare Watson (1.06 PI) Skye Carter (2.21 PI) Taylor Klein (3.41 PI) Alyce Lehman (3.56 PI) KC Braeger (4.66 PI) Tanni Stevanato (7.01 PI) 2027 commits Ines Arnall (3.31 PI) Carolin He (5.16 PI) Izzy Riva (5.23 PI) Bree Smith (9.42 PI) #4 Yale Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 3 2026 slack: -3 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 1 2026 commits Siri Vanderlinden (5.07 PI) Ofek Adir (11.35 PI) Sophie Davies (12.68 PI) Shu Tong Du (15.40 PI) Elise Gratton (17.73 PI) Lauren Fishbein (19.12 PI) 2027 commits Lacey Strachan (8.98 PI) Sasha Karafin (9.24 PI) Enna O’Young (13.96 PI) Chloe Meyer-Blohm (15.97 PI) #6 University of Chicago Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 5 2026 commits Natalie Wu (20.73 PI) Sophianne Cortes (21.82 PI) Madison Lin (21.87 PI) Sara Miller (27.09 PI) Zoe Wong (28.64 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #7 Duke Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 8 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 8 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Riley Anderson (1.34 PI) Quinn White (6.14 PI) Gracyn Kehoe (9.61 PI) Lily Doyle (9.82 PI) Reese Reilly (9.84 PI) Addison Bitel (10.42 PI) Emory DeGuenther (11.23 PI) Alexa Simmons (12.00 PI) 2027 commits Nola Meekins (9.33 PI) Lila Sherman (10.29 PI) Sofia Oliveira (10.89 PI) Molly Lo (12.79 PI) #7 Johns Hopkins Conference: Centennial Conference 2026 commits: 3 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 5 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 5 2026 commits Sofia Ye (24.78 PI) Ella Chen (25.28 PI) Alicia Maehara (30.15 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #7 Northwestern Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 9 2027 slack: 5 2026 commits Flawia Kamzol (1.92 PI) Xintong WANG (7.28 PI) Iris Kim (9.00 PI) Bella Teply (9.02 PI) Aya Ferguson (9.27 PI) Sophia Oka-fedder (15.04 PI) 2027 commits Lucy Velte (1.00 PI) Annabeth Town (6.89 PI) Vanya Gojakovic (9.25 PI) Erin Griffis (12.48 PI) #7 Penn Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 3 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits Allison Liu (12.65 PI) Hailey K Preuss (13.52 PI) Katelynn Zhou (14.06 PI) Morgan Knox (17.16 PI) Sophia Gao (18.67 PI) 2027 commits Ginger Strickland (14.68 PI) Lori Jiang (15.16 PI) Brynn Lewis (16.34 PI) #11 Caltech Conference: SCIAC 2026 commits: 0 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 2 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 8 2027 slack: 8 2026 commits None listed yet. 2027 commits None listed yet. #12 Cornell Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Abby Lee (16.73 PI) Amy Chai (19.24 PI) Sarah Carrico (19.41 PI) Kate Lucyshyn (19.97 PI) Anna Nishnianidze (21.27 PI) Mae Winardi (23.74 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #13 Brown Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 1 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 8 2026 slack: 3 2027 departures (Jr.): 9 2027 slack: 8 2026 commits Nikko Tjahaya (13.03 PI) Claire Bacu (14.31 PI) Alegra Teixidor-Salerno (18.74 PI) Anna Pansing (19.24 PI) Delaney Schwab (20.87 PI) 2027 commits Hannah Oh (17.41 PI) #13 Dartmouth Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 1 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 8 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Lindsay Forebaugh (16.22 PI) Molly Mccorriston (16.62 PI) Madeline Crawford (16.79 PI) Kate Douglas (17.40 PI) 2027 commits Elise Nguyen (17.19 PI) #15 Columbia Conference: Ivy League 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 1 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 6 2026 commits Brisa Gao (13.06 PI) Katie Shaps (17.66 PI) Mary Bao (18.50 PI) Romy Kirby (20.55 PI) Maebelle Stern (21.34 PI) Angelina Lu (21.56 PI) Audrey Schroeder (22.27 PI) 2027 commits Tamara Kret (19.48 PI) #15 California Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 3 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 3 2026 slack: -4 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Rylee Erisman (1.00 PI) Kelsey Zhang (1.18 PI) Kassy Yeung (2.25 PI) Ava De Anda (3.14 PI) Egle Salu (3.15 PI) Halle West (4.76 PI) Isabel Wolk (5.85 PI) 2027 commits Sum Yiu Li (1.99 PI) Mia Su (2.97 PI) Alba Arnall (9.90 PI) #17 Rice Conference: American Athletic Conference 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 3 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 5 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 4 2026 commits Angelica Mom (13.64 PI) Winnie Liu (13.78 PI) Lauren Cochran (14.69 PI) Brianna Gough (15.20 PI) Camryn Jones (15.85 PI) 2027 commits Liliana Hineman (10.18 PI) Sophia Krutiy (13.92 PI) Lily Yung (15.91 PI) #17 UCLA Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 8 2027 commits: 6 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 4 2027 slack: -2 2026 commits Zoie Fjare (8.82 PI) Olivia Sina (11.08 PI) Alex Fox (11.20 PI) Ava Otteson (11.85 PI) Sora Koike (12.00 PI) Mia Bugarin (12.21 PI) Meredith O'Grady (16.19 PI) McKenna Carroll (17.15 PI) 2027 commits Alison Su (10.16 PI) Cadence Johnson (10.55 PI) Lilla Kapinya (11.43 PI) Karina Conover Hui (12.74 PI) Andi Taylor (13.48 PI) Alicia Budacsek (17.54 PI) #17 Vanderbilt Conference: SEC 2026 commits: 8 2027 commits: 2 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 8 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 5 2026 commits Sophie Pham (10.23 PI) Amanda Vu (11.52 PI) Brooke Miller (14.07 PI) Shayna Elgart (14.39 PI) Sydney Green (16.22 PI) Amanda Vileikis (18.10 PI) Kelly Qi (18.21 PI) Matilda White (19.05 PI) 2027 commits Ariel Kong (12.41 PI) Kinley Jones (16.67 PI) #20 Carnegie Mellon Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 13 2026 slack: 8 2027 departures (Jr.): 19 2027 slack: 19 2026 commits Gene Sunthornrangsri (12.74 PI) Sarah Chen (22.45 PI) Annie Flanagan (29.13 PI) Grace Xiang (30.81 PI) Cherry Lee (33.34 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #20 Michigan Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 3 2026 commits Gilaine Ma (5.70 PI) Gioia Balzano (5.83 PI) Hazel Huilman (8.26 PI) Miyaka Chang (9.34 PI) 2027 commits Sofia Szymanowski (2.81 PI) Wui Kiu Man (4.88 PI) Khanh Seaton (6.75 PI) Leila Stafford (7.23 PI) #20 Notre Dame Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 7 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 7 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 5 2027 slack: 1 2026 commits Averie Hager (4.32 PI) Jaylee Hager (9.76 PI) Catie Brenneman (10.85 PI) Camryn Tilger (12.30 PI) Ellie Bina (13.05 PI) Caroline Mulrooney (15.08 PI) Renee Nealon (16.31 PI) 2027 commits Sarah Paisley Owen (2.45 PI) Maris Williams (11.07 PI) Meghan Bluethmann (12.79 PI) Eleanor Geraghty (13.24 PI) #20 Washington University in St. Louis Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 2 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 8 2026 slack: 6 2027 departures (Jr.): 11 2027 slack: 11 2026 commits Kate Krueger (26.52 PI) Eva Lofthus (31.84 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #24 Emory Conference: UAA 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 12 2026 slack: 6 2027 departures (Jr.): 9 2027 slack: 9 2026 commits Lola Early (19.42 PI) Charlotte Brown (20.92 PI) Alisa Huang (21.13 PI) Aubrey Mitchell (23.03 PI) Rebecca Fury (27.76 PI) Sarah Wahl (28.13 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #24 Georgetown Conference: Big East 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 14 2026 slack: 9 2027 departures (Jr.): 16 2027 slack: 16 2026 commits Celia Watkins (15.75 PI) Kiana Koechlin (19.31 PI) Catherine Bu (19.59 PI) Colleen Tracy (22.44 PI) Ansley Sgrosso (24.08 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #26 North Carolina Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 5 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 4 2026 slack: -1 2027 departures (Jr.): 8 2027 slack: 3 2026 commits Defne Tanig (6.03 PI) Morgan Farlow (6.70 PI) Catherine Pawlaski (9.29 PI) Kenzie Sellars (12.10 PI) Nehir Oner (12.27 PI) 2027 commits Sloane Barr (8.41 PI) Maren Byrne (8.57 PI) Maren Berg (10.76 PI) Sofie Vanyo (12.18 PI) Maddy Boland (13.08 PI) #26 Virginia Conference: ACC 2026 commits: 9 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 5 2026 slack: -4 2027 departures (Jr.): 7 2027 slack: 7 2026 commits Smilte Plytnykaite (1.02 PI) Alyssa Sagle (1.06 PI) Jana Pavalic (1.06 PI) Jessica Thompson (1.52 PI) Molly Workman (1.87 PI) Roos Rottink (3.15 PI) Caden Martin (4.75 PI) OLIVIA HINE (5.71 PI) Sara Czirjak (6.19 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #28 USC Conference: Big Ten 2026 commits: 6 2027 commits: 3 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 6 2026 slack: 0 2027 departures (Jr.): 2 2027 slack: -1 2026 commits Ludovica Di Maria (6.28 PI) Brigitta Vass (6.61 PI) Maxine Clark (7.76 PI) Ella Gaca Thiele (7.83 PI) Rylee Hutchinson (8.50 PI) Hailey Weiler (10.87 PI) 2027 commits Rowyn Wilber (6.21 PI) Lexi Byrn (7.11 PI) Charlotte Milkie (8.52 PI) #29 UC San Diego Conference: Big West 2026 commits: 9 2027 commits: 0 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 11 2026 slack: 2 2027 departures (Jr.): 8 2027 slack: 8 2026 commits Megan Wang (8.65 PI) Sofia Wyzga (15.40 PI) Audrey Shambo (16.85 PI) Keira De Jong (18.41 PI) Lulu Groen (19.72 PI) Sofija Gelev (21.22 PI) Lexi Parkinson (22.01 PI) Addison Finn (22.99 PI) Madelyn Yeu (24.96 PI) 2027 commits None listed yet. #30 Florida Conference: SEC 2026 commits: 5 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 3 2026 slack: -2 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Valentina Procaccini (2.39 PI) Maddie Moreth (2.60 PI) Carla Serra (4.73 PI) Lillie McPherson (5.72 PI) Bomin Kim (6.12 PI) 2027 commits Abby Chan (1.55 PI) Kate Canales (4.70 PI) Blakely Hammel (5.16 PI) Ranumi Eashwarage (7.77 PI) #30 Texas Conference: SEC 2026 commits: 4 2027 commits: 4 2026 departures (Sr./Grad): 5 2026 slack: 1 2027 departures (Jr.): 6 2027 slack: 2 2026 commits Sydney Schoeck (1.00 PI) Mena Boardman (1.01 PI) Brynn Lavigueur (1.35 PI) Avery Klamfoth (3.22 PI) 2027 commits Audrey Derivaux (1.00 PI) Sadie Buckley (1.02 PI) Daisy Collins (1.88 PI) Milan Glintmeyer (4.24 PI) How to use this (practical) 2027 slack ≥ 7 → more opportunity 2027 slack 3–6 → selective but possible 2027 slack ≤ 2 → likely very limited Tip Click any swimmer profile to compare your times directly against committed athletes. Final Notes This is a directional view of the current recruiting landscape. Actual recruiting decisions depend on: team needs coach priorities academics timing Use this as a guide, not a final answer. Data & Accuracy Some swimmer links or commits may be incomplete or incorrect. If you spot anything off, please comment so we can update it. Commit information and Power Index (PI) are based on publicly available data, primarily sourced from SwimCloud, at the time of writing.

If your child burns easily in the sun, you already know how important proper protection is. Sunscreen helps—but it doesn’t last forever, especially during long days at the beach or pool. That’s where a high-quality UPF swim shirt comes in. 🛒 Product Overview UPF 50+ Swim Shirt Long Sleeve – Youth Kids UV Protection Rash Guard 💲 Price: $12.99 Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. [image: 71BMPw5EINL._AC_SX569_.jpg] 🌟 Why This Swim Shirt Is a Must-Have 🛡️ Superior Sun Protection (UPF 50+) This shirt blocks over 98% of harmful UVA and UVB rays, giving you peace of mind while your child plays outside. It’s like having built-in sunscreen that doesn’t wear off. 💧 Quick-Dry Comfort Made from lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric, this shirt: Dries fast after swimming Keeps kids cool and comfortable Prevents that post-swim chill Perfect for transitioning from water play to other outdoor activities. 😌 Gentle on Sensitive Skin Designed with kids in mind: Tagless neckline prevents itching Flatlock seams reduce chafing Soft fabric feels great even during all-day wear Ideal for children who are prone to irritation. 🏄 Built for Active Kids Whether your child loves: Swimming Surfing Fishing Hiking Beach play This versatile rash guard has them covered—literally. 🧼 Durable & Easy to Maintain Parents will love that this shirt: Holds up to rough play Is machine washable Maintains its shape and protection over time 🎯 Best Use Cases This swim shirt is perfect for: Beach vacations Pool days Summer camps Outdoor sports Kids who burn easily or have sensitive skin ✅ Final Verdict For under $15, this UPF 50+ swim shirt delivers serious sun protection, comfort, and durability. It’s an easy, affordable way to keep your child safe while they enjoy the outdoors. 👉 If your kid tends to sunburn quickly, this is one of the simplest upgrades you can make to their summer gear. Highly recommended for parents who want worry-free outdoor fun.

The 2026 USA Swimming Futures Championships will be held July 29 to August 1, 2026 at five sites: Austin, Texas; Greensboro, North Carolina; Knoxville, Tennessee; Madison, Wisconsin; and Sacramento, California. Entries are submitted through USA Swimming’s Online Meet Entry system, and each site is capped at 700 swimmers. The entry deadline is noon Mountain Time on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, or earlier if a site reaches capacity. What swimmers may care about The meet is conducted in LCM. The 800 and 1500 freestyle events, plus all relays, are timed finals. All other individual events are prelims and finals, with the fastest 32 swimmers from prelims advancing to finals. Finals are run in D, C, B, A order. The C and D finals are limited to the top 18-and-under swimmers who do not qualify for A or B finals. Prelims start at 9:00 a.m. and finals start at 5:30 p.m. Practice is available the day before competition and on meet days. Swimmers may enter any number of events they qualify for, but may only swim three individual events per day and six total individual events during the meet, excluding time trials. Bonus events are allowed based on how many qualifying events a swimmer has. Swimmers may enter the 50 butterfly, backstroke, and breaststroke if they have either the 50 standard or the corresponding 100 standard. The 800 and 1500 freestyle require positive check-in before the scratch deadline. Time trials may be offered at the Meet Referee’s discretion, with a limit of two per swimmer. What coaches may care about Teams and athletes may choose any Futures site until that site reaches capacity. Seeding order is LCM, then SCY, then non-conforming LCM, then non-conforming SCY, then bonus entries. There will be a virtual technical meeting the evening before Day 1 at 7:00 p.m. local time. Coaches are responsible for all information in the meet packet, technical meeting updates, and event website postings. Day 1 scratches close 15 minutes after the technical meeting ends. Later-day scratches are due 30 minutes after the start of the previous evening’s finals. Unproven entries must be cleared before the scratch deadline or the swimmer will be scratched. False or incorrect entry times may trigger a $100 penalty per time. If a site fills, swimmers who achieve a new qualifying standard before the late qualifying deadline may still add that event through the special NQS entry process. Late entries are allowed only if the site cap has not been reached, and they require a processing fee and higher event fees. Relay-only swimmers are allowed and may also swim time trials. Each team may enter up to two relays per event, but A and B relays must use eight different swimmers. Coaches must be current USA Swimming members in good standing and should be ready to show membership through the USA Swimming app. What parents may care about Team awards are presented for the top three men’s, women’s, and combined teams. Individual high-point awards go to the top-scoring male and female swimmers. Warm-up safety rules are strict: feet-first entries only except in designated sprint lanes and times. No fins, snorkels, paddles, or similar equipment are allowed in the competition pool. Deck changes are prohibited. Audio or visual recording is not allowed in locker rooms, restrooms, changing areas, or behind the blocks while athletes are in vulnerable positions. Athletes who are 18 or who turn 18 during the meet must complete Athlete Protection Training to remain eligible. Doping control may occur at the meet. The meet follows USA Swimming Safe Sport rules, including the Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy and mandatory reporting obligations. Site-by-site notes Site Venue Parking / tickets highlights Austin, TX Lee and Joe Jamail Texas Swimming Center Garage passes are sold before the meet. Greensboro, NC Greensboro Aquatic Center Daily parking is $5, coaches get complimentary parking passes at registration, and the facility is cashless for parking, tickets, and concessions. Knoxville, TN Allan Jones Intercollegiate Aquatic Center Limited public parking. All-session and daily ticket options are available. Madison, WI Soderholm Family Aquatic Center Paid campus parking is nearby, and children 6 and under are free. Sacramento, CA North Natomas Aquatic Center Free parking is available nearby, but parking at North Natomas Regional Park is restricted on Saturday because of the farmers market. Children 6 and under are free. Event format highlights The meet includes 50-meter butterfly, backstroke, and breaststroke events on Days 2 through 4, plus championship events such as 100 and 200 stroke races, 200 and 400 freestyle, 200 and 400 IM, distance freestyle, and relays. The fastest-seeded heats of the women’s and men’s distance freestyle events are swum during finals, while earlier heats are swum in the preliminary session in alternating women’s and men’s order. Order of events Day Event # Women Men Day 1 1 200 Meter Freestyle 2 Day 1 3 100 Meter Breaststroke 4 Day 1 5 200 Meter Butterfly 6 Day 1 7 200 Meter Medley Relay* 8 Day 1 9 800 Meter Freestyle^ - Day 1 10 - 1500 Meter Freestyle^ Day 1 11 200 Meter Freestyle Relay** 12 Day 2 13 100 Meter Freestyle 14 Day 2 15 400 Meter Individual Medley 16 Day 2 17 100 Meter Backstroke 18 Day 2 19 50 Meter Butterfly^^ 20 Day 2 21 800 Meter Freestyle Relay*** 22 Day 3 23 50 Meter Backstroke^^ 24 Day 3 25 400 Meter Freestyle 26 Day 3 27 100 Meter Butterfly 28 Day 3 29 200 Meter Breaststroke 30 Day 3 31 400 Meter Freestyle Relay*** 32 Day 4 33 200 Meter Individual Medley 34 Day 4 35 50 Meter Freestyle 36 Day 4 37 200 Meter Backstroke 38 Day 4 39 50 Meter Breaststroke^^ 40 Day 4 41 1500 Meter Freestyle^ - Day 4 42 - 800 Meter Freestyle^ Day 4 43 400 Meter Medley Relay*** 44 All heats of Events 7 and 8 will be contested in the preliminary session immediately after Event 6 and before Event 9. ** All heats of Events 11 and 12 will be contested in the finals session after Event 10. *** For all other relays, all but the fastest two seeded heats will be swum in preliminaries; the fastest two seeded heats will be swum at the end of that day’s finals session. ^ Distance freestyle heats are swum slowest to fastest, alternating women’s and men’s heats, with the fastest-seeded heats in finals. ^^ Athletes may enter the 50 Fly, Back, and/or Breast if they have achieved the 50 standard or the corresponding 100 standard. Quick checklist For swimmers Confirm qualifying times are visible in SWIMS and within the qualification period. Decide site choice early before the 700-swimmer cap is reached. Watch scratch and positive check-in deadlines, especially for distance events. Bring required waivers and be ready for warm-up and Safe Sport rules. For coaches Double-check proof of times before submitting OME entries. Print OME confirmations and attend the virtu al technical meeting. Track bonus entries, relay entries, and daily event limits carefully. Prepare for possible flighting, fly-over starts, and time trial procedures. For parents Book travel and hotels early because site caps and hotel availability may tighten. Review venue-specific parking, ticketing, and bag policies before arrival. Plan for full-day sessions with prelims in the morning and finals in the evening. Link to full meet information PDF

\When swim season hits, you need sunscreen that can keep up with water, sweat, and long days in the sun. Whether you're grinding through lap sets, hitting the beach, or coaching poolside, Banana Boat Sport Ultra SPF 50 is built for performance. Right now, this combo of spray + lotion gives you flexibility for every situation—without breaking the bank. 🧴 Product Overview 🎯 Banana Boat Sport Ultra SPF 50 Spray (Twin Pack) [image: 718YALMz0GL._SL1500_.jpg] Price: $13.97 (Sale) Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. ✅ Key Benefits 💦 80-minute water & sweat resistance — perfect for swim sessions ☀️ Broad-spectrum SPF 50+ — protects from both UVA & UVB rays 🌬 Lightweight spray formula — dries quickly, no greasy residue 🏃 Designed for active lifestyles — stays on through intense activity 🌱 Oxybenzone & octinoxate free — more skin- and reef-conscious 🏊 Best Use Cases Quick reapplication between swim sets Lifeguards, triathletes, and beach days Hard-to-reach areas like your back and shoulders 🧴 Banana Boat Sport Ultra SPF 50 Lotion (8oz) [image: 61XQhStOxrL._SL1500_.jpg] Price: $8.99 Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. ✅ Key Benefits ✨ Rubs in 100% clear — no white cast on any skin tone 💧 12-hour hydration — enriched with ceramides, aloe & vitamin E 💦 Water-resistant up to 80 minutes ☀️ Broad-spectrum SPF 50 — blocks ~98% of UVB rays 🌱 Free from oxybenzone & octinoxate 🏊 Best Use Cases Full-body base layer before swimming Dry or sensitive skin needing extra moisture Daily training sessions or long outdoor exposure ⚖️ Spray vs Lotion: Which Should You Use? Feature Spray Lotion Application Speed ⚡ Fast ⏳ Slower Coverage Control Medium High Hydration Low High Reapplication Easy Moderate Best For On-the-go Pre-swim base layer 👉 Pro Tip: Use the lotion before you head out, then bring the spray for quick reapplication. 🏆 Why This Combo Works for Swimmers 💪 Built for high-performance conditions (water + sweat) 🔁 Easy to layer and reapply throughout the day 🧴 Covers both convenience (spray) and protection (lotion) 💰 Budget-friendly compared to premium sport sunscreens 🔥 Final Verdict If you're serious about protecting your skin this swim season, the Banana Boat Sport Ultra SPF 50 combo is a no-brainer. You get: Reliable sun protection Strong water resistance Flexible application options 👉 Whether you're training in the pool or spending all day at the beach, this duo has you covered. 🛒 Grab Yours Before Peak Summer 👉 Shop Spray Twin Pack 👉 Shop Lotion (8oz) Stock up early—because once the heat hits, these tend to sell fast.

[image: 711PA0Kc7aL._AC_SL1500_.jpg] When you're at a swim meet, energy timing is everything. You don’t want a heavy drink sitting in your stomach—or a sugar crash right before you step up to the blocks. That’s where the So Good So You Organic Energy Mango Spinach Shot comes in: fast, light, and functional fuel for swimmers. ⚡ Why This Works for Swim Meets Swimmers need: Quick energy ⚡ Easy digestion 🥤 No bloating before races 🚫 This 1.7 oz shot checks all three boxes. 🧠 Fast-Acting Energy 95 mg natural caffeine (from coffeeberry) Comparable to a small cup of coffee—but easier to consume quickly between events Ideal for pre-race focus and alertness 🏊‍♂️ Lightweight & Portable Small enough to toss in your swim bag No need to sip or carry a bottle around Perfect for tight meet schedules 💪 الأداء Benefits for Swimmers ⏱ Pre-Race Boost Take it 15–30 minutes before your event for: Increased focus on the blocks Better reaction time Mental sharpness during races 🔁 Between Events Recovery Support 1 billion CFUs of probiotics → supports digestion under stress Vitamin C (20% DV) → helps immune support during long meets 🥭 Clean Energy, No Crash No artificial ingredients No heavy sugars weighing you down Smooth energy instead of spikes and crashes 🥤 Taste & Feel (Swimmer-Friendly) Flavor: Mango-forward, slightly green but refreshing Texture: Smooth, no pulp Stomach feel: Light—won’t sit heavy before a race 👉 Huge plus when you're nervous before an event. 🏁 Best Ways to Use at a Meet ✔️ Morning prelims: Replace or pair with light breakfast ✔️ Before finals: Quick boost without overloading your stomach ✔️ Long meet days: Use when energy dips between races 🌱 Clean Ingredients That Matter Organic mango & spinach juice Coffeeberry + moringa for natural caffeine No preservatives, non-GMO High Pressure Processing (HPP) keeps nutrients intact 💲 Price $4.01 per shot Prices are current as of the time of writing and may vary. ⚖️ Pros & Cons for Swimmers 👍 Pros Fast, clean energy before races Easy to carry and consume poolside No bloating or heaviness Added probiotics for gut balance under stress 👎 Cons Small size (not a full nutrition source) Needs refrigeration Slightly pricey for frequent meet use 🧠 Final Verdict: Swim Meet Ready? This shot is a great tool for competitive swimmers who want: A quick boost before races Clean ingredients without junk Something light and effective between events 👉 It won’t replace real meals—but as a targeted performance boost, it fits perfectly into your meet-day routine. 🔗 Grab It for Your Next Meet 👉 Check it out on Amazon Bottom line: If you need fast energy without the weight, this tiny shot can make a big difference when it counts most—right before you dive in.