UNC Gymnastics 2026-2027

CosmicHeel said:

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 (%)
Valahovic	13	12	0	1	92.31	7.69
Naranjo	12	7	3	2	58.33	16.67
Stippich	9	5	2	2	55.56	22.22
Fink	11	6	2	3	54.55	27.27
Rueda	6	3	2	1	50	16.67
Seabrooks	13	6	6	1	46.15	7.69
King	5	2	2	1	40	20
Aoki	8	3	3	2	37.5	25

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.

Click to expand...

CosmicHeel said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. Oregon State
2. Boise State
3. Utah State
4. Southern Utah
5. Texas State