How SR Rating works

Every SR Rating tile shows three composites with three different time horizons:

• Current (today) — your composite based on today’s PBs vs. the NCAA D1 cut.
• Projected (age 17) — your composite at end of high-school junior year (peak recruiting window). For swimmers already past 17, this just equals Current.
• College Ceiling (age 21) — your composite at college junior year. Shown as a range with low and high bounds because extrapolating four years forward has real developmental uncertainty.

Each composite reduces to the same tier ladder below, so a single number always maps to a single recruiting label.

For each event the swimmer has competed in:

event_score = (cut_time / your_time)³ × 1000

Where:

• cut_time is the NCAA D1 championship qualifying cut for that event and gender (we refresh annually from ncaa.org).
• your_time is the swimmer’s PB in hundredths.

When you swim the NCAA D1 cut exactly, your event_score = 1000. Faster than the cut climbs above 1000; slower drops below. The cubic curve (³) gives elite recruits more spread than a linear formula would, so coaches see meaningful differentiation between “at cut” and “3% under cut.”

We compute event_score for each of the 13 SCY college-relevant events. Then we sort them descending, take the top 4, and apply soft weights:

composite =
  0.39 × #1 event_score
+ 0.39 × #2 event_score
+ 0.16 × #3 event_score
+ 0.06 × #4 event_score

The aggressive top-2 weighting reflects how college coaches actually recruit — they look for specialists who can score in specific events, not all-rounders. Missing 3rd or 4th events default to 200 points (penalty without zeroing the swimmer).

An event scoring ≥ 1100 also gets a small “CONF” badge on the tile — it projects to A-final at a top conference.

SR Rating covers exactly the events college teams swim at NCAAs. Other events (50/200 strokes, 1000 free, relay legs) don’t contribute to the composite.

Composite numbers map to tiers calibrated against real D1 program rosters and recruiting outcomes. The thresholds were re-anchored in June 2026 after ground-truthing against actual mid-major roster times (a friend at a mid-major D1 program with a 45.x 100 FR is genuinely D1 Mid-Major caliber — the original calibration set the bar too high).

SR Projected (age 17) and SR College Ceiling (age 21) come from a log-linear regression on the swimmer’s recent race history. For swimmers aged 17+, we use a 4-year window to capture the full HS arc; for younger swimmers, 24 months keeps the signal recent.

The projection formula is anchored at the swimmer’s current PB:

projected_time(target_age) =
  current_pb × exp(slope × (target_age − current_age))

At target_age = current_age, the prediction equals current PB exactly. With a flat or stagnant slope (clamped to 0), the projection stays at current PB — we never claim improvement we don’t have evidence for.

Two physiological floors apply: 0.70 × current PB (no swimmer drops > 30% from their current PB) and 0.95 × NCAA D1 cut (no projection beyond ~world-record territory). These guard against runaway extrapolation for young, fast-improving swimmers.

The Ceiling (age 21) extends the same slope past age 17 with partial decay; the high end of the range uses the undecayed slope, the low end is current PB.

The data-driven projection assumes the swimmer’s observed slope reflects both biological (puberty) and training development. For a swimmer who’s already done with biology (post-pubertal), the projection overstates remaining upside. For a late developer like a 13-year-old who hit puberty at 10, the projection might also miss continued biological gains.

The optional maturity input on the Recruiting tab lets parents narrow this — 7 short questions about puberty onset, current height vs. expected adult height, growth velocity, voice change, and shoe stability. We map answers to a stage 1-5 and recompute Projected + Ceiling per-event using a stage-specific realized fraction.

• Stage 1-2 (early/mid puberty): biology continues, ceiling wide open.
• Stage 3 (late developer): ceiling toward optimistic.
• Stage 4 (late puberty active): partial development remaining.
• Stage 5 (post-pubertal): training-only improvement.

SR Rating is about absolute swimmer quality. Team Fit is about how much value you add to a specific program’s roster — accounting for who’s already there and who’s graduating.

fit_E = (1 − depth_E) × (1 + gap_bonus_E)

depth_E       = fraction of the program's roster in event E
                who are faster than your projected time
gap_bonus_E   = number of graduating conference A-finalists
                in event E, capped at 0.5

Each event’s score is multiplied by its fit factor, then aggregated using the same soft top-4 weighting as SR Rating. The composite is compared to that program’s typical recruit band to yield a Reach / Realistic / Stretch / Outside-range tier.

v1 pilots 12 marquee D1 programs with placeholder roster data calibrated against publicly-known program tier; real curated data lands as the pilot expands.

• SwimCloud Power Index uses a cubic formula like ours but anchored to NCAA D1 cut. We match their formula shape; we differ in weighting (slightly more inclusive than their [1, 1, 0.25, 0.02]) and in adding Team Fit and Projected perspectives.
• SwimIntel Impact Rating uses a linear formula anchored to top-conference A-final cut times. Their scale (0-100) compresses elite recruits; our cubic scale spreads them out so a Blue Chip 1400 reads meaningfully different from a Blue Chip 1100.
• Team Fit is unique to us — neither incumbent publishes per-program fit math.
• Projected + Ceiling with explicit maturity input is also unique to us. Surfacing “where you’ll be at recruiting peak” as a separate number from “where you are today” gives parents of younger or late-developing swimmers a more honest recruiting story.

The full DB’s top 10 by SR Rating Current — verified against the published rosters at Cal, Stanford, Texas, UVA, NC State, Indiana, and elite international clubs — are entirely Blue Chip / D1 Power 4 caliber: Bella Parker, Claire Curzan, Hubert Kos, Torri Huske, Katie Ledecky, Josh Liendo, Bella Sims, Luca Urlando, Ilya Kharun, Katharine Berkoff. The model is doing real work, not just producing pleasant numbers.

• The data-driven projection captures swimmers currently in active puberty (steep slope at 15-16). It misses late developers whose puberty wound down before our 24-month window. The parent maturity input addresses this; without that input, late developers may be under-projected.
• Tier thresholds are calibrated against current NCAA D1 norms. They’ll shift if the sport’s overall pace shifts significantly. We refresh annually.
• Team Fit pilot data is placeholder for many programs; the math is correct, the per-program calibration improves as we add real curated roster data.
• We don’t model international federation rankings, swimming scholarship dollars, or coach-relationship signals. Those are real recruiting factors SR Rating doesn’t capture.