The methodology of the National Qualifying Score (NQS) calculation has long been debated across the gymternet, with many criticizing that half the season or more does not factor into the regular season rankings. Many have proposed other ways of determining the rankings, including some members of our team, that range from simply counting more scores to completely changing the methodology altogether. Earlier this summer, the NCAA Women’s Gymnastics Committee discussed this topic and recommended that the NQS calculation be adjusted to include more meets. Although we don’t know the exact parameters of the suggestion, we thought it would be interesting to examine how a few different calculations would have changed the outlook of the 2025 season.
Methodology
As a reminder, NQS is calculated today by taking a team’s top six scores, three of which must be away meets, dropping the highest score, and averaging the remaining five. To add more meets to the NQS calculation, we experimented with both increasing the number of total meets and the number of away meets required to factor in.
| Total Meets Counted | Number of Away Meets | |
| Current Calculation | 6 | 3 |
| Alternative 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Alternative 2 | 8 | 3 |
| Alternative 3 | 8 | 4 |
In all three alternative calculations, we dropped the highest score and averaged the remaining meets. While a new calculation could also change how many and which scores get dropped (i.e. drop the two highest, drop the high and the low, etc.), the goal of the proposal as stated was to count more meets toward the final rankings. Therefore, we are assuming that no more than one score would be dropped.
Regular Season Rankings
Across the four different calculations, the rankings overall change slightly but not significantly. Grouping the rankings into four categories: (1) top 8 (seeds 1-2), (2) 8 to 16 (seeds 3-4), (3) 16 to 28 (avoid play-in), and (4) 29 to 36 (play-in), the only teams to switch category are the last three teams into regionals, which end up missing out on the postseason depending on the methodology used. Otherwise, all teams remain within their respective category and 17 team rankings remain unchanged across all four methodologies.
Top 8
The only change we see from adding meets to the NQS for the top eight teams is LSU vs. Oklahoma for the top spot. Once we go up to eight counting meets, regardless of whether three or four away meets need to count, Oklahoma’s season-long consistency brings it back to the top spot.
Nos. 8 to 16
In the remaining seeded positions, we see movement in the 10 through 14 spots, depending on how many meets factor in. Oregon State benefits from counting more meets, moving up four spots in the rankings, as long as the number of away meets remains the same. Once it has to count an additional away meet, it drops back down two of the four spots it gained. Stanford also benefits from counting eight meets, while Georgia and Minnesota drop in the rankings when adding additional meets.
Nos. 17 to 28
In the unseeded yet avoiding the play-in (in theory) ranks, we see movement in Nos. 22 to 26 when adding meets. Southern Utah and Ohio State benefit the most from counting additional scores, while North Carolina and Iowa lose out a few spots.
Nos. 29 to 36
Some of the most interesting movement we see from changing the rankings is at the bottom of the standings, around the last three in and the first three out. In 2025, we saw both Rutgers and UC Davis make regionals for the first time in over a decade. Unfortunately for both teams, counting eight meets would have knocked them out of the postseason. West Virginia would also miss out as soon as seven meets are counted. In their places, Towson, Central Michigan, and host Washington would have had a chance to make a run for the title. Central Michigan would be the biggest winner of counting eight meets, jumping up five spots in the rankings.
Regional Matchups
Although we can’t be sure what the committee would do exactly, we made our best predictions as to where each team would end up in regionals based on the new rankings. Despite around half the teams finishing in a different position, the regional matchups are largely unchanged. This is because geography plays such a strong role in placing the teams ranking 17 and below—and we saw above that no teams jumped between seeded and unseeded ranks. The regional projections for each location are below, with teams switching regional locations highlighted in pink. We also highlighted Stanford in the Salt Lake City regional in yellow, because although it would go to the same location, it would be the three seed instead of the four seed in one scenario.
University Park
Seattle
Tuscaloosa
Salt Lake City
Based on these changes, we would predict that the postseason outcome would have been largely the same. LSU and Oklahoma switching regionals likely would not have changed either team advancing to nationals. Alabama vs. California for the second spot out of Tuscaloosa would have been the same matchup. Even some of the regional semifinal upsets might have remained. The two big upsets we saw were Denver upsetting Stanford and Arizona upsetting Georgia. In all three alternate scenarios, Denver would go against either Stanford or Georgia. For Arizona, however, in two of the three alternate scenarios, Oregon State replaced Georgia, which may have been a more difficult upset.
Bubble Watch
Our last question around an expanded NQS calculation was whether the bubble watch would get less exciting. Counting more meets means the averages could be harder to move, and the rankings going into the conference championships may be the final rankings. Recalculating the week 11 rankings and comparing them to the final regular season rankings, we found two big changes.
First, of the 36 teams that make the postseason, when seven or eight meets are counted for the NQS, only two spots were up for grabs the final week, rather than the three available spots we saw last season. Towson, which ended up missing out on regionals last season, would have had a guaranteed spot going into its final meet if seven or eight meets counted. Western Michigan also would have joined the bubble watch list when eight meets counted, although it would have ultimately missed out regardless of the number of meets counting.
The other difference we noticed was the number of teams whose final rank was the same as its week 11 rank. Last season, we saw 13 teams’ position go unchanged the final week of competition. When seven or eight meets count with three away scores, that number goes up to 16, and when four away meets are required, it increases again to 17 teams whose rankings go unchanged in the final week.
Overall, it appears that increasing the number of meets that count toward the NQS would shake up the standings slightly, but the impact on the postseason would be minimal. In fact, being able to drop more scores may allow for more excitement and movement at the end of the season. We’re still awaiting a verdict on this proposal, but based on these results, we would love to see a proposal that has the rankings factor into most if not all postseason matchups rather than geography. With that additional change, counting more meets may have more of an impact on the outcomes of the gymnastics season.
READ THIS NEXT: Data Deep Dive: Naming Trends of College Gymnasts
Article by Claire Harmon
