Earlier this season, Jeff Graba mentioned on a broadcast that his team might be one of the youngest in the NCAA, with the majority of routines coming from underclassmen. Well, we heard this question and had to find out the answer! Who is the youngest team in the NCAA this year? And how are those young gymnasts changing the trajectory of their respective teams? Let’s dive into the data to find out.
Methodology
To determine the age of each team, we assigned a score to each gymnast based on their class year: 1 for freshmen, 2 for sophomores, 3 for juniors, and 4 for seniors or above. Years are based on the official team rosters, a redshirt freshman scored as a freshman, and so on. We then averaged this score across every competitive routine this season for each team. An average age score of 2.5 would mean that routines were equally spread across all class years. Then to understand the impact that the underclassmen had on the team, we compared each team’s ranking at the end of the regular season between last year and now.
Overall Results
To answer the question that Jeff Graba posed, Auburn is not the youngest team in the NCAA this year. In fact, Auburn is only the 23rd youngest team.
The title for youngest team goes to Utica, followed closely by Wilberforce. Those are the only two teams with an age score less than two. This is not surprising given those teams are in their second and first years, respectively, and need more time to develop upperclassmen. Of the schools in the Power Four conferences, Illinois has the youngest squad with an age score of 2.16, just narrowly beating Michigan, who has an age score of 2.17. Across all teams, the average age score was 2.65, meaning teams skew slightly towards upperclassmen.
The oldest team in the NCAA this year was Oregon State with an age score of 3.32. The Beavers were one of two teams that used zero freshmen in lineups this entire season, the other being Denver.
Impact of Young Teams on the Rankings
In the chart below, you can see the spread of team age scores in relation to how the team’s rank either changed since last year. There is no clear trend of the impact of age on the change in rankings of the team.
We are going to focus now on the 27 teams with an average age of 2.5 or less, and break them up into three groups: new talent that is elevating the team (rank increased by three positions or more), new talent that is just replenishing old routines (rank within two positions of last year), and teams in rebuilding years (rank decreased by three positions or more).
Elevating
We have 13 teams that fall into the elevating category, the largest of the three categories. This isn’t surprising because when a strong freshman comes in who can level up a program, they are more likely to compete. West Virginia had the biggest rank increase of the group, despite being the third youngest of this group, moving up 17 spots this year as compared to last year.
| Team | Age Score | Rank Change |
| Utica | 1.79 | +3 |
| Yale | 2.14 | +3 |
| West Virginia | 2.32 | +17 |
| Georgia | 2.32 | +10 |
| Simpson | 2.35 | +5 |
| Southern Utah | 2.36 | +9 |
| Cortland | 2.38 | +4 |
| Utah State | 2.41 | +13 |
| Rutgers | 2.43 | +12 |
| Brown | 2.44 | +5 |
| UW-Whitewater | 2.46 | +7 |
| Winona State | 2.47 | +6 |
| Iowa | 2.49 | +14 |
Replenishing
Next, we have the eight teams that were able to pick up right where they left off with their young lineups.
| Team | Age Score | Rank Change |
| UW-Eau Claire | 2.11 | +2 |
| Brockport | 2.11 | +1 |
| Illinois | 2.15 | +2 |
| Northern Illinois | 2.34 | -1 |
| Air Force | 2.34 | +2 |
| Bowling Green | 2.36 | -2 |
| Auburn | 2.44 | -1 |
| UW-La Crosse | 2.48 | 0 |
Rebuilding
Finally, we have five teams that are in rebuilding years. These are teams that probably would have used more upperclassmen had they been available, but due to injuries or other circumstances had to rely on their younger teammates often.
| Team | Age Score | Rank Change |
| LIU | 2.12 | -4 |
| Michigan | 2.16 | -6 |
| New Hampshire | 2.35 | -3 |
| Ohio State | 2.40 | -8 |
| Penn State | 2.41 | -3 |
At the end of the day, there’s no one right strategy for how to use the talent on a roster across the classes. New talent can be unpredictable, but when it works out, it can really take a program to new heights. And if nothing else, new faces keep our sport fresh and exciting to watch each season!
READ THIS NEXT: Data Deep Dive: Simulating Conference Championships if Realignment Hadn’t Happened
Article by Claire Harmon
