Why does the CSCAA use dual-meet format to rank teams?

The answer we have heard most often: dual-meet matchups compose most of the season. Championship-format meets are special events. So the more reliable ranking comes from comparing teams using a dual-meet format.

This is nonsense. The major invitationals - not dual-meet schedules - reliably match-up the ranked teams. When is the last time Emory swam Denison in a dual-meet? But they swim each other in an invitational every season. Same with NYU and Chicago. We can go on like this.

And sure, Kenyon - for example - tends to have dual-meets against ranked opponents. But they also swim these same teams (Denison and CWRU come to mind) in championship-format meets.

Does the outcome of those dual-meets at least help predict other, more important, outcomes later in the season? Not really.

For example: the outcome of that annual dual-meet between Kenyon and Denison does not correlate with the order of finish at NCAC championships later the same season. Since COVID, about 50% of the time the winner of that dual-meet finished first at conference champs later that season. About 50% of the time, they did not.

Back to the CSCAA poll:

Here is how the CSCAA men’s top 20 look in a simulated championship format meet. We use the same meet simulator used by the CSCAA for their ranking. We just use the championship-meet scoring, not the dual-meet scoring. (And we only include 20 teams because that is the limit imposed by the simulator.)

Keep in mind, with MIT, you have to remove Tobe Obochi. It makes a difference.