UNC Gymnastics 2026-2027

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
UNC Gymnastics 2026-2027 Overview

Athletes Not Returning:


NameReasonNotes
Gwen FinkGraduated
  • #3 NQS on vault in 2026 (9.850)
  • #1 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.875)
  • #2 NQS on beam in 2026 (9.870)
  • #5 NQS on floor in 2026 (9.815)
Kaya ForbesGraduated
  • #2 NQS on vault in 2026 (9.895)
  • #3 NQS on floor in 2026 (9.865)
  • Competed bars twice in 2026, 9.533 average
Paige PrejeanGraduated
  • #4 NQS on vault in 2026 (9.825)
  • #2 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.860)
Claire StippichGraduated
  • #5 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.800)
  • #5 NQS on beam in 2026 (9.805)
  • Competed floor four times in 2026, 9.808 average
Amy WozniakGraduated
  • 1 bars exhibition in 2026

Athletes Returning from 2025-2026:

Note: although no athlete on the current roster has formally claimed a redshirt, multiple are eligible. These athletes are noted with an asterisk (*) next to their class year, which currently assumes no redshirt will be claimed.

NameClassNotes
Elly KingSenior
  • Competed vault 5 times in 2026, 9.770 average
  • Competed floor 5 times in 2026, 9.680 average
  • Out for second half of 2026, reason unknown
Neve KingSenior*
  • #6 NQS on vault in 2026 (9.790)
  • #7 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.715)
  • Missed 2024 season due to injury
Jessica NaranjoSenior
  • #3 NQS on beam in 2026 (9.870)
  • #2 NQS on floor in 2026 (9.875)
Molly NeinsteinSenior*
  • 1 floor exhibition in 2026
  • Did not compete in 2024 or 2025
Camryn RuedaSenior*
  • #4 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.810)
  • #6 NQS on floor in 2026 (9.800)
  • Competed beam five times in 2026, 9.615 average
  • Missed 2025 season due to injury
TaeLyn CantyJunior*
  • Did not compete in 2025 or 2026
Regan McBrideJunior
  • Competed beam once in 2026 for 9.750
  • Labrum tear in 2025 offseason (per CGN)
  • Appears to be beam-only specialist
JoJo ValahovicJunior
  • #1 NQS on vault (9.905) and beam (9.890) in 2026
Hannah AokiSophomore
  • #6 NQS on beam in 2026 (9.710)
  • #4 NQS on floor in 2026 (9.825)
Jillian FisherSophomore*
  • Did not compete in 2026
Sydney SeabrooksSophomore
  • #5 NQS on vault in 2026 (9.825)
  • #6 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.785)
  • #4 NQS on beam in 2026 (9.840)
  • #1 NQS on floor in 2026 (9.940)
  • Second team All-America on floor
Anna Pearl StanleySophomore
  • #3 NQS on bars in 2026 (9.825)
  • 2 vault exhibitions in 2026

Newcomers for 2026-2027:

NameClassNotes
Sophia BankyFreshman
  • Buckeye (OH)
  • 12th on vault at 2026 DP Nationals (All Star)
Cecilia "CC" Cooley5th
  • Grad transfer from Denver
  • #1 NQS on bars (9.865), beam (9.910), and floor (9.930) for Denver in 2026
  • Competed vault 7 times in 2026, 9.746 average
Kathryn "Katie" CrossFreshman
  • Wildfire (CA)
  • 4th AA at 2026 DP Nationals
  • Top 10 national finishes on vault and floor
  • Scored 10.0 on vault in 2026 (Yurchenko 1.5)
Sarah SaviskyFreshman
  • Everest (NC)
  • 24th AA at 2026 DP Nationals
  • National vault runner-up
  • Scored 10.0 on vault in 2026 (FHS pike half)

HS Class of 2027 Commits:

NameNotes
Payton Chandler
  • WOGA (TX)
  • 13th AA at 2026 DP Nationals
  • Competed HOPES/elite from 2020-2023
Brielle Rousseau
  • Gym World (OH)
  • 9.575 bars, 8.975 beam at 2026 Ohio state meet
  • Season ending surgery after 2026 state meet
 
Last edited:

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
2027 Season Detailed Outlook: Vault

So, who are we losing and what’s the potential of our returners?


By average score, our vaulters ranked as follows in 2026:
  1. Kaya Forbes (9.869 average, 9.895 NQS, 9.925 high)
  2. JoJo Valahovic (9.823 average, 9.905 NQS, 9.925 high)
  3. Gwen Fink (9.818 average, 9.850 NQS, 9.9 high)
  4. Sydney Seabrooks (9.806 average, 9.825 NQS, 9.85 high)
  5. Paige Prejean (9.798 average, 9.825 NQS, 9.85 high)
  6. Neve King (9.786 average, 9.790 NQS, 9.825 high)
  7. Elly King (9.770 average, no NQS, 9.825 high)
Although this ranking includes average, NQS, and high score, I’m choosing to rank by average due to the NQS still only counting six meets for individuals. We are losing our #1, #3, and #5 vaulters by average score – half of our “best case scenario” lineup. We will return four athletes who have competed vault in NCAA (Valahovic, Seabrooks, and the King twins), plus Anna Pearl Stanley, who did a couple of exhibitions and hovered in the 9.7 range.

At this point, our expectation should be to consistently hit a 196.5 team score, which would mean an average individual score of 9.825. We really don’t want to be counting many, if any, scores in the 9.7s, which means that in a perfect world the Kings would improve their scoring potential (particularly their landings), and/or we’d bring in four new vaulters capable of meeting the level of Valahovic and Seabrooks.

Where does CC Cooley fit into all of this?

At Denver, Cooley competed vault in the first 7 meets of the season with an average score of 9.746. Her high was 9.825, and she did not vault enough times to earn an NQS. In other words, she fits right in with the Kings in terms of scoring potential.

How about the newcomers? Who’s making the lineup? And what do their Level 10 numbers mean in the context of NCAA?

For the newcomers, I am looking at their average and high vault scores from the 2026 DP season, plus Jillian Fisher’s DP scores from the 2025 season.
  1. Sarah Savisky (9.784 average, 10.0 high)
  2. Katie Cross (9.716 average, 10.0 high)
  3. Jillian Fisher (9.654 average, 9.775 high) (in 2025)
  4. Sophia Banky (9.5525 average, 9.7 high)
As a rule, Level 10 scoring is stricter than NCAA. In NCAA Division 1, 9.8 is sort of the bare minimum for acceptability, but in Level 10 that bar is lower – around 9.5 or 9.6. Specifically on vault, there are some key differences in scoring between NCAA and Level 10 that you need to contextualize these scores. First, in Level 10 the athletes vault twice and only count the higher of the two scores, which means the scores can mask consistency issues. Second, the start values are higher in Level 10 – vaults that typically start from a 9.95 in NCAA get a 10.0 start value in Level 10, and vaults that start from a 10.0 in NCAA start from a 10.1 in Level 10. This means that the delta between “a good Level 10 score” and “a good NCAA score” is less on vault than on the other events.

Cross and Savisky both have 10.0 start value vaults and are near locks to be in the lineup. There’s well-earned optimism that they can replace the scoring potential of Fink and Forbes (even if Cross ends up downgrading to a Yurchenko full). Fisher and Banky will be competing for lineup spots but are less of a sure thing and will be fighting with Cooley and the Kings for the remaining two spots.

In 2027 will we be better on vault, worse on vault, or about the same?

So far it’s looking like the answer is “about the same.” We have two clear replacements for Fink and Forbes, but none of the other athletes we’re bringing in are quite at Prejean’s level. Our net depth on vault is up, which is a plus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3397char

Jriv23

All-Conference
Jul 31, 2025
2,013
2,089
113
Thanks for the wonderful detailed information CosmicHeel. I wished that we could have gotten 1 or 2 more quality transfers to come in. It appears that this program is on the rise.
 

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
2027 Season Detailed Outlook: Bars

So, who are we losing and what’s the potential of our returners?


By average score, our bars athletes ranked as follows in 2026:
  1. Gwen Fink (9.856 average, 9.875 NQS, 9.95 high)
  2. Camryn Rueda (9.807 average, 9.810 NQS, 9.9 high)
  3. Claire Stippich (9.781 average, 9.8 NQS, 9.825 high)
  4. Anna Pearl Stanley (9.739 average, 9.825 NQS, 9.85 high)
  5. Paige Prejean (9.727 average, 9.860 NQS, 9.925 high)
  6. Neve King (9.725 average, 9.715 NQS, 9.825 high)
  7. Sydney Seabrooks (9.653 average, 9.785 NQS, 9.875 high)
  8. Kaya Forbes, 9.533 average, no NQS, 9.775 high)
Ruh-roh! We’re losing our best bar worker by a long shot, plus our #3, #5, and a solid depth option in Kaya Forbes. If you look at NQS, we're losing #1, #2, and #5. Jessica Naranjo is a fifth returner we have who has competed bars in NCAA, but she hasn’t done it since her freshman year and given all the tinkering Durante did with the lineup this year, it feels like we would have seen Naranjo if she had a routine ready to go.

It’s also worth mentioning that while Rueda did very well on bars this year, she was the beneficiary of a lineup strategy that Durante may or may not employ in 2027. It’s called “Bridgeying” (named for Florida gymnast Bridgey Caquatto, sister of our “now you see her, now you don’t” former assistant coach). “Bridgeying” involves placing the gymnast with the highest scoring potential in the #5 slot and a clean gymnast with a lower ceiling in the #6 spot, in the hopes of stealing a tenth here or there by riding the momentum of the previous score. This is not to take anything away from Rueda, who had an excellent season. But Durante was able to employ Bridgeying, and boost Rueda’s score, because she had an incredibly consistent 9.9 machine in Gwen Fink. Now she doesn’t.

As I noted in the vault analysis, we need to be targeting an average individual routine score of 9.825, keeping 9.7s to a minimum. This is where the built-in deductions in King’s and Seabrooks’ routines (the Pak Salto for both) becomes an issue. If they keep that form error, any routine without a stuck landing is unlikely to go over 9.8 unless they get lucky and the judges ignore the error in the Pak (which does happen). But that should be a major point of focus for both of them in the offseason.

Where does CC Cooley fit into all of this?

In terms of her NQS and high score, Cooley is right up there with Gwen Fink, though she was not quite as consistent as Fink, hence a lower average in the 9.7 range. She’ll be in the lineup and probably anchor, but she’s not quite at Fink’s level and I don’t think we’ll see her used to boost someone else’s score the way Fink was.

How about the newcomers? Who’s making the lineup? And what do their Level 10 numbers mean in the context of NCAA?

For the newcomers, I am looking at their average and high vault scores from the 2026 DP season, plus Jillian Fisher’s DP scores from the 2025 season.
  1. Jillian Fisher (9.483 average, 9.75 high) (in 2025)
  2. Katie Cross (9.363 average, 9.825 high)
  3. Sarah Savisky (9.059 average, 9.675 high)
  4. Sophia Banky (8.636 average, 9.125 high)
It’s worth noting that Cross’s average would be much higher if not for the 7.85 she put up in the first week of the 2026 season. But as a group, our 2026 freshmen were not recruited for their bars. Based on their scores, it seems highly unlikely that we’ll see Banky or Savisky on bars. That leaves Cross and Fisher, who are basically locks to make the lineup by default.

In 2027 will we be better on bars, worse on bars, or about the same?

The answer appears to be “worse” and that’s a problem because bars was an event where we needed to improve. It appears we only have seven athletes who are even realistic possibilities for the lineup, and if one of them gets injured things could get scary in a hurry. We basically need another Prejean who comes out of nowhere to have a strong bars set as an upperclassman. Or another transfer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3397char

Jriv23

All-Conference
Jul 31, 2025
2,013
2,089
113
I just hope and pray that our coaching staff are looking at the portal to bring much added help with the bars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOB1937

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
I just hope and pray that our coaching staff are looking at the portal to bring much added help with the bars.

I don't have a great read -- nor does anyone outside the program I suspect -- on how many of the 20 roster spots are fully funded. I assume the answer is "at least 15" because we had 17 on the roster last year and only two were originally recruited as walk-ons. But I also assume that in allocating money for the additional scholarships created by the rule change, that gymnastics would have been in line behind soccer, field hockey, and women's lacrosse at minimum for funding priority. I'm not working under the assumption that there were five funded openings this past year that Durante just chose not to fill.

But if you assume we have budget to offer scholarships to at least 15 people, then we should have at least one more opening because we're graduating five scholarship athletes and bringing in four. Although I suppose Rueda made a strong case for a scholarship based on her performance this season (if she doesn't already have one), so maybe one is going to her. But I agree we need more athletes. We had 17 on roster this year but really only relied on 12 (Canty and Fisher were out, Neinstein and Wozniak only did exhibitions, and McBride only competed once), and we got luckier with injuries than we usually do. You want more depth than that, and there's still a ton of athletes in the portal.

The beam and floor analysis are more labor-intensive and I'll do those next week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3397char

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
2027 Season Detailed Outlook: Beam

So, who are we losing and what’s the potential of our returners?


By average score, our beam athletes ranked as follows in 2026:

  1. JoJo Valahovic, (9.844 average, 9.890 NQS, 9.95 high)
  2. Neve King (9.755 average, no NQS, 9.85 high)
  3. Regan McBride (only competed once for 9.75)
  4. Sydney Seabrooks (9.740 average, 9.840 NQS, 9.9 high)
  5. Jessica Naranjo (9.727 average, 9.870 NQS, 9.9 high)
  6. Gwen Fink (9.697 average, 9.870 NQS, 9.95 high)
  7. Hannah Aoki (9.643 average, 9.710 NQS, 9.85 high)
  8. Camryn Rueda (9.615 average, no NQS, 9.85 high)
  9. Claire Stippich (9.587 average, 9.805 NQS, 9.9 high)
The good news is that we have fewer losses on beam and more depth than any other event, the bad news is that we can’t hope to improve our overall team ranking in 2027 without significant progress on beam. Beam is a more complicated event than the others that merits a bit more of a data deep dive. The following table lists, for each athlete who competed beam multiple times in 2026 (read: not McBride), their number of routines competed and the number of routines that were hits, just OK, or misses.

Name# Routines# Hits (9.8+)# OK (9.6-9.775)# Misses (<9.6)Hit Rate (%)Miss Rate (%)
Valahovic13120192.317.69
Naranjo1273258.3316.67
Stippich952255.5622.22
Fink1162354.5527.27
Rueda63215016.67
Seabrooks1366146.157.69
King52214020
Aoki833237.525

In this chart, a “hit” is a routine that scores 9.8 or higher. That translates into a routine with no significant wobbles, falls, or connection issues. An “OK” routine is a routine that scores between 9.6 and 9.775. These routines would have either had a collection of little issues or one moderate error (a bigger wobble, etc.). A “miss” is a routine that goes below 9.6, which usually means a fall, a broken connection, and/or multiple significant wobbles.

Of our 2026 beam team, only Valahovic can claim a record of consistent hits. At the other end of the spectrum, our two seniors (Fink and Stippich) had the highest miss percentage.

But the line item that intrigues me the most is Seabrooks’. She led off the beam lineup in all 13 meets this year, and more than half of those routines were below 9.8, meaning that in more than half our meets we led off with a beam score that we’d ideally be dropping. Think of the psychological impact that probably had on the five athletes competing after her. I never loved the concept of a freshman as the leadoff. That’s tremendous pressure to place on Seabrooks, and 9.6-9.7 beam routines are usually the nervy ones. Also, because she was either #5 or #6 in the floor lineup all season, that means that in road duals she was going straight from floor (the most exhausting event) to beam with very little break.

Valahovic, Naranjo, and Seabrooks are presumably locks to make the lineup again next year, and I’d put a healthy McBride on that list as well. One of these four will probably be the leadoff next season, because I don’t see them repeating the freshman leadoff experiment (more on that below). It won’t be Valahovic or Naranjo because they have too much upside. But McBride should probably be in the conversation along with Seabrooks.

For the remaining two lineup spots, we’re likely to see Rueda, King and, Aoki fending off the newcomers, which brings us to…

Where does CC Cooley fit into all of this?

Cooley is a lock to make this lineup. Of our returners, only Valahovic had a higher average or high score than Cooley in 2026. Cooley also only had one fall in 2026. She, Valahovic, and Naranjo will likely be our consistent back three.

How about the newcomers? Who’s making the lineup? And what do their Level 10 numbers mean in the context of NCAA?

For the newcomers, I am looking at their average and high beam scores from the 2026 DP season, plus Jillian Fisher’s DP scores from the 2025 season.
  1. Sophia Banky (9.375 average, 9.9 high)
  2. Jillian Fisher (9.304 average, 9.475 high) (in 2025)
  3. Katie Cross (9.25 average, 9.625 high)
  4. Sarah Savisky (8.943 average, 9.425 high)
Beam is arguably the apparatus where it’s most difficult to extrapolate Level 10 scores to college performance. That’s because beam is primarily a mental event, and the mental game of college gymnastics is completely different than the mental game of Level 10. I think most gymnasts would say that the mental game of beam is tougher in college, because of the potential for your performance to impact your team (and the potential for your teammates’ performances to impact yours). This is where Fisher arguably has an edge over the freshmen, because she’s at least experienced the college gymnastics environment even if she hasn’t competed yet. That said, some gymnasts really come into their own on beam in college.

Based on scores and consistency, I wouldn’t bet money on any of the freshmen (or Fisher, for that matter) being in the lineup – none of them have demonstrated a consistency or scoring potential where you’d say “yes, definitely use her on beam.” It’s entirely possible we see zero freshmen in the lineup next season. Of the true freshmen, I’m only expecting to see Banky – Savisky’s scores aren’t there and (spoiler alert for floor) Cross will definitely be in the other three lineups and I don’t see Durante rushing her into the all-around based on how Seabrooks was managed in 2026.

In 2027 will we be better on beam, worse on beam, or about the same?

I think better, but we need to be A LOT better and I’m not sure we’ll be A LOT better. Based on 2026 metrics Cooley will likely score higher than our graduating seniors, and having McBride back is a big plus. Once you slot Cooley and McBride into the spots vacated by Stippich and Fink, that takes the pressure off the freshmen to be big contributors on beam. But we need to sort out the leadoff situation, so we need to hope for a sophomore glow-up for Seabrooks and/or a new lineup strategy. And a renewed coaching focus on mental toughness, so that one mistake doesn’t cause a disastrous chain reaction like what happened multiple times this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jriv23 and 3397char

3397char

All-American
Moderator
Jun 30, 2025
3,325
6,901
113
2027 Season Detailed Outlook: Beam

So, who are we losing and what’s the potential of our returners?


By average score, our beam athletes ranked as follows in 2026:

  1. JoJo Valahovic, (9.844 average, 9.890 NQS, 9.95 high)
  2. Neve King (9.755 average, no NQS, 9.85 high)
  3. Regan McBride (only competed once for 9.75)
  4. Sydney Seabrooks (9.740 average, 9.840 NQS, 9.9 high)
  5. Jessica Naranjo (9.727 average, 9.870 NQS, 9.9 high)
  6. Gwen Fink (9.697 average, 9.870 NQS, 9.95 high)
  7. Hannah Aoki (9.643 average, 9.710 NQS, 9.85 high)
  8. Camryn Rueda (9.615 average, no NQS, 9.85 high)
  9. Claire Stippich (9.587 average, 9.805 NQS, 9.9 high)
The good news is that we have fewer losses on beam and more depth than any other event, the bad news is that we can’t hope to improve our overall team ranking in 2027 without significant progress on beam. Beam is a more complicated event than the others that merits a bit more of a data deep dive. The following table lists, for each athlete who competed beam multiple times in 2026 (read: not McBride), their number of routines competed and the number of routines that were hits, just OK, or misses.

Name# Routines# Hits (9.8+)# OK (9.6-9.775)# Misses (<9.6)Hit Rate (%)Miss Rate (%)
Valahovic13120192.317.69
Naranjo1273258.3316.67
Stippich952255.5622.22
Fink1162354.5527.27
Rueda63215016.67
Seabrooks1366146.157.69
King52214020
Aoki833237.525

In this chart, a “hit” is a routine that scores 9.8 or higher. That translates into a routine with no significant wobbles, falls, or connection issues. An “OK” routine is a routine that scores between 9.6 and 9.775. These routines would have either had a collection of little issues or one moderate error (a bigger wobble, etc.). A “miss” is a routine that goes below 9.6, which usually means a fall, a broken connection, and/or multiple significant wobbles.

Of our 2026 beam team, only Valahovic can claim a record of consistent hits. At the other end of the spectrum, our two seniors (Fink and Stippich) had the highest miss percentage.

But the line item that intrigues me the most is Seabrooks’. She led off the beam lineup in all 13 meets this year, and more than half of those routines were below 9.8, meaning that in more than half our meets we led off with a beam score that we’d ideally be dropping. Think of the psychological impact that probably had on the five athletes competing after her. I never loved the concept of a freshman as the leadoff. That’s tremendous pressure to place on Seabrooks, and 9.6-9.7 beam routines are usually the nervy ones. Also, because she was either #5 or #6 in the floor lineup all season, that means that in road duals she was going straight from floor (the most exhausting event) to beam with very little break.

Valahovic, Naranjo, and Seabrooks are presumably locks to make the lineup again next year, and I’d put a healthy McBride on that list as well. One of these four will probably be the leadoff next season, because I don’t see them repeating the freshman leadoff experiment (more on that below). It won’t be Valahovic or Naranjo because they have too much upside. But McBride should probably be in the conversation along with Seabrooks.

For the remaining two lineup spots, we’re likely to see Rueda, King and, Aoki fending off the newcomers, which brings us to…

Where does CC Cooley fit into all of this?

Cooley is a lock to make this lineup. Of our returners, only Valahovic had a higher average or high score than Cooley in 2026. Cooley also only had one fall in 2026. She, Valahovic, and Naranjo will likely be our consistent back three.

How about the newcomers? Who’s making the lineup? And what do their Level 10 numbers mean in the context of NCAA?

For the newcomers, I am looking at their average and high beam scores from the 2026 DP season, plus Jillian Fisher’s DP scores from the 2025 season.
  1. Sophia Banky (9.375 average, 9.9 high)
  2. Jillian Fisher (9.304 average, 9.475 high) (in 2025)
  3. Katie Cross (9.25 average, 9.625 high)
  4. Sarah Savisky (8.943 average, 9.425 high)
Beam is arguably the apparatus where it’s most difficult to extrapolate Level 10 scores to college performance. That’s because beam is primarily a mental event, and the mental game of college gymnastics is completely different than the mental game of Level 10. I think most gymnasts would say that the mental game of beam is tougher in college, because of the potential for your performance to impact your team (and the potential for your teammates’ performances to impact yours). This is where Fisher arguably has an edge over the freshmen, because she’s at least experienced the college gymnastics environment even if she hasn’t competed yet. That said, some gymnasts really come into their own on beam in college.

Based on scores and consistency, I wouldn’t bet money on any of the freshmen (or Fisher, for that matter) being in the lineup – none of them have demonstrated a consistency or scoring potential where you’d say “yes, definitely use her on beam.” It’s entirely possible we see zero freshmen in the lineup next season. Of the true freshmen, I’m only expecting to see Banky – Savisky’s scores aren’t there and (spoiler alert for floor) Cross will definitely be in the other three lineups and I don’t see Durante rushing her into the all-around based on how Seabrooks was managed in 2026.

In 2027 will we be better on beam, worse on beam, or about the same?

I think better, but we need to be A LOT better and I’m not sure we’ll be A LOT better. Based on 2026 metrics Cooley will likely score higher than our graduating seniors, and having McBride back is a big plus. Once you slot Cooley and McBride into the spots vacated by Stippich and Fink, that takes the pressure off the freshmen to be big contributors on beam. But we need to sort out the leadoff situation, so we need to hope for a sophomore glow-up for Seabrooks and/or a new lineup strategy. And a renewed coaching focus on mental toughness, so that one mistake doesn’t cause a disastrous chain reaction like what happened multiple times this season.
IIRC, Beam seemed pretty promising at the start of last season; a solid improvement from two years ago. Then the critical mistakes started setting in later in the season, tanking a couple of meets just when we hoped to maintain our NQS ordinal ranking.

the point being, I think we were close and showed early we could put out a reliable rotation. Of course that is probably what you always say in gymnastics.

And just maybe we regressed to the mean after showing more consistency early than maybe our team was capable of sustaining?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CosmicHeel

3397char

All-American
Moderator
Jun 30, 2025
3,325
6,901
113
2027 Season Detailed Outlook: Bars

So, who are we losing and what’s the potential of our returners?


By average score, our bars athletes ranked as follows in 2026:
  1. Gwen Fink (9.856 average, 9.875 NQS, 9.95 high)
  2. Camryn Rueda (9.807 average, 9.810 NQS, 9.9 high)
  3. Claire Stippich (9.781 average, 9.8 NQS, 9.825 high)
  4. Anna Pearl Stanley (9.739 average, 9.825 NQS, 9.85 high)
  5. Paige Prejean (9.727 average, 9.860 NQS, 9.925 high)
  6. Neve King (9.725 average, 9.715 NQS, 9.825 high)
  7. Sydney Seabrooks (9.653 average, 9.785 NQS, 9.875 high)
  8. Kaya Forbes, 9.533 average, no NQS, 9.775 high)
Ruh-roh! We’re losing our best bar worker by a long shot, plus our #3, #5, and a solid depth option in Kaya Forbes. If you look at NQS, we're losing #1, #2, and #5. Jessica Naranjo is a fifth returner we have who has competed bars in NCAA, but she hasn’t done it since her freshman year and given all the tinkering Durante did with the lineup this year, it feels like we would have seen Naranjo if she had a routine ready to go.

It’s also worth mentioning that while Rueda did very well on bars this year, she was the beneficiary of a lineup strategy that Durante may or may not employ in 2027. It’s called “Bridgeying” (named for Florida gymnast Bridgey Caquatto, sister of our “now you see her, now you don’t” former assistant coach). “Bridgeying” involves placing the gymnast with the highest scoring potential in the #5 slot and a clean gymnast with a lower ceiling in the #6 spot, in the hopes of stealing a tenth here or there by riding the momentum of the previous score. This is not to take anything away from Rueda, who had an excellent season. But Durante was able to employ Bridgeying, and boost Rueda’s score, because she had an incredibly consistent 9.9 machine in Gwen Fink. Now she doesn’t.

As I noted in the vault analysis, we need to be targeting an average individual routine score of 9.825, keeping 9.7s to a minimum. This is where the built-in deductions in King’s and Seabrooks’ routines (the Pak Salto for both) becomes an issue. If they keep that form error, any routine without a stuck landing is unlikely to go over 9.8 unless they get lucky and the judges ignore the error in the Pak (which does happen). But that should be a major point of focus for both of them in the offseason.

Where does CC Cooley fit into all of this?

In terms of her NQS and high score, Cooley is right up there with Gwen Fink, though she was not quite as consistent as Fink, hence a lower average in the 9.7 range. She’ll be in the lineup and probably anchor, but she’s not quite at Fink’s level and I don’t think we’ll see her used to boost someone else’s score the way Fink was.

How about the newcomers? Who’s making the lineup? And what do their Level 10 numbers mean in the context of NCAA?

For the newcomers, I am looking at their average and high vault scores from the 2026 DP season, plus Jillian Fisher’s DP scores from the 2025 season.
  1. Jillian Fisher (9.483 average, 9.75 high) (in 2025)
  2. Katie Cross (9.363 average, 9.825 high)
  3. Sarah Savisky (9.059 average, 9.675 high)
  4. Sophia Banky (8.636 average, 9.125 high)
It’s worth noting that Cross’s average would be much higher if not for the 7.85 she put up in the first week of the 2026 season. But as a group, our 2026 freshmen were not recruited for their bars. Based on their scores, it seems highly unlikely that we’ll see Banky or Savisky on bars. That leaves Cross and Fisher, who are basically locks to make the lineup by default.

In 2027 will we be better on bars, worse on bars, or about the same?

The answer appears to be “worse” and that’s a problem because bars was an event where we needed to improve. It appears we only have seven athletes who are even realistic possibilities for the lineup, and if one of them gets injured things could get scary in a hurry. We basically need another Prejean who comes out of nowhere to have a strong bars set as an upperclassman. Or another transfer.
Bars appears to have regressed two years in a row. I know events can ebb and flow with individual talent coming and going but it is tough to watch a strength become a weakness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CosmicHeel

Jriv23

All-Conference
Jul 31, 2025
2,013
2,089
113
Can we not recruit someone in the portal to help with the beam? or Is there anyone in the portal that we can get to help out with the beam? Just wondering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CosmicHeel

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
IIRC, Beam seemed pretty promising at the start of last season; a solid improvement from two years ago. Then the critical mistakes started setting in later in the season, tanking a couple of meets just when we hoped to maintain our NQS ordinal ranking.

the point being, I think we were close and showed early we could put out a reliable rotation. Of course that is probably what you always say in gymnastics.

And just maybe we regressed to the mean after showing more consistency early than maybe our team was capable of sustaining?
I agree -- it's really hard to pinpoint the source of beam issues in particular because it's such a mental event. But if I were to try to diagnose the issue (beyond the leadoff issue I mentioned above), I'd point to the fact that Durante tinkered with the lineup a *lot* this season, and I think that may have impacted the athletes. Aoki, Rueda, Fink, and Stippich were all benched for one or more meets after a miss. That's not really a way to show confidence in those athletes, and it probably rattled everyone else. And then mental issues have a tendency to snowball over the course of a season.

And honestly? Durante's teams have a bit of a reputation for struggling mentally on beam. It's followed her through multiple schools at this point.

Bars appears to have regressed two years in a row. I know events can ebb and flow with individual talent coming and going but it is tough to watch a strength become a weakness.
We were actually 14th in the nation on bars in 2025! The problem, as you said, is that all the great bars workers Durante inherited have now cycled out of the program, and the athletes who replaced them tend to be more leg-eventers. And that makes a certain amount of sense because we were really hurting for depth on the leg events when we hired Durante, but it does feel a bit like there's been an overcorrection.

Can we not recruit someone in the portal to help with the beam? or Is there anyone in the portal that we can get to help out with the beam? Just wondering.
Most of the top athletes in the portal have landed somewhere by now, but there's still plenty of athletes in there. Whether we can get them is another story. If we do keep recruiting though, the focus needs to be bars. The good news is that good-on-bars athletes tend to also be good on beam.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3397char

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
So we did recently host one of the displaced Iowa State incoming freshmen for an official visit. She ended up choosing Michigan State, but that tells me we do intend to keep adding to next year's roster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jriv23 and 3397char

3397char

All-American
Moderator
Jun 30, 2025
3,325
6,901
113
Texas State the first program in TX? They are in the pac-12 now???

Who had that on their bingo card? SMU should still jump in; they can easily out recruit Texas State. Apparently Texas State cut gymnastics 40 years ago.



Apparently the new Pac-12 in gymnastics will be:

  1. Oregon State
  2. Boise State
  3. Utah State
  4. Southern Utah
  5. Texas State
The history of Texas State gymnastics:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CosmicHeel

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
2027 Season Detailed Outlook: Floor

So, who are we losing and what’s the potential of our returners?


By average score, our floor team ranked as follows in 2026:
  1. Sydney Seabrooks (9.915 average, 9.94 NQS, 9.95 high)
  2. Jessica Naranjo (9.856 average, 9.875 NQS, 9.925 high)
  3. Kaya Forbes (9.835 average, 9.865 NQS, 9.9 high)
  4. Claire Stippich (9.808 average, no NQS, 9.85 high)
  5. Hannah Aoki (9.790 average, 9.825 NQS, 9.85 high)
  6. Camryn Rueda (9.789 average, 9.8 NQS, 9.925 high)
  7. Gwen Fink (9.775 average, 9.815 NQS, 9.85 high)
  8. Elly King (9.680 average, no NQS, 9.8 high)
We will return five athletes who competed floor in 2026. Maybe. One pattern that has developed with this program is that when an athlete gets injured, there’s a lengthy delay before she comes back on floor and sometimes she doesn’t come back at all. This is where Elly King’s absence from the second half of the season looms large. We don’t know why she was out, and we never saw her in a boot or anything, but this is something to keep an eye on. Speaking of which, JoJo Valahovic’s absence from the floor lineup was the biggest head-scratcher of the season. We can probably chalk it up to injury management, but since we don’t know why she was held out we have no benchmark to predict if/when she’ll be back. So I’m proceeding under the assumption that Valahovic will be unavailable on floor again next year.

The good news is that we are returning our top two, and Seabrooks/Naranjo are locks for the lineup next year if they’re healthy. I also think Rueda can be a lock if the coaches rework her routine…those leaps are an issue and she was lucky to get some of the scores she did this season (see the bars post for an explanation of Bridgeying and its impact on scores).

Where does CC Cooley fit into all of this?

Cooley is a lock to make the floor lineup in 2027, with an NQS and average that bests everyone on our 2026 team but Seabrooks. Hopefully Seabrooks, Cooley, and Naranjo will be our back three and we won’t employ Bridgeying next year (and can max out their scores).

How about the newcomers? Who’s making the lineup? And what do their Level 10 numbers mean in the context of NCAA?

For the newcomers, I am looking at their average and high floor scores from the 2026 DP season, plus Jillian Fisher’s DP scores from the 2025 season.
  1. Katie Cross (9.63 average, 9.85 high)
  2. Sarah Savisky (9.525 average, 9.7 high)
  3. Sophia Banky (9.51 average, 9.75 high)
  4. Jillian Fisher (9.425 average, 9.65 high) (in 2025)

    I’m not expecting to see Fisher on floor this season since it appears a leg injury is what kept her out of 2026, and the pattern is you typically sit out floor the season after a leg injury. As for the freshmen, this is where it gets kind of confusing. In Level 10, three tumbling passes remains the norm but college gymnasts are increasingly only doing two passes (and this pattern absolutely holds at UNC). So we may see them significantly rework their routines. I could see any of the three freshmen making the floor lineup. Of the three, only Banky has an E-value pass but all of them have solid tumbling. Cross and Banky also have pretty good leaps, which is an area where we historically leave points on the table. The video I saw of Savisky’s routine omitted everything between the tumbling passes. In terms of performance quality, only Cross had what I would call a “college-y” floor routine in Level 10 and she pulled it off very well. Rueda, Aoki, and King (if she’s healthy) will definitely have competition for their lineup positions from the three freshmen.

    In 2027 will we be better on floor, worse on floor, or about the same?

    On paper we will be better, with Cooley showing the capability to replace Forbes’ score and three strong freshmen coming in. But the coaches’ approach to injury management make floor SUCH a hard event to predict. The Naranjo/King/King class was also a great floor class on paper and none of those three ended up competing the event their freshman year (Neve still hasn’t)!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3397char

Jriv23

All-Conference
Jul 31, 2025
2,013
2,089
113
I wonder if JoJo could have had a mental health issue. That would cause a person like her to sit out for the season, but it does make you wonder what is going on.
 

CosmicHeel

Sophomore
Aug 2, 2025
107
168
43
Sarah Brown (Penn State HC) just accepted the head coach position at the new Texas State program, which should mean the portal is open for Penn State gymnasts. Something to keep an eye on. I very much doubt this will be a repeat Clemson situation where she takes a bunch of athletes with her and they sit out a year.