Unless by “scrimmaging themselves” you meant to say scrimmaging other equally ranked opponents. But if you actually meant scrimmaging themselves, as in a team dividing themselves in half and scrimmaging their own teammates, then I stand by my assessment. Of course it’s helpful, but more can be learned facing a mid tier team and not hiding from lower ranked opponents who can surprise you. I believe this was a discussion point for the men several years ago when teams were thought to be avoiding UOP.
Nobody avoided UOP. There was a very specific reason nobody played them and it’s because their coach refused to play in the MPSF invite unless they changed the format so he didn’t have to play 2 games in a day. All I’m saying is, the big 4 practices are more valuable than playing a bunch of low level teams and beating them by 15 goals. It’s quality games that matter. So the actual number of games a team plays is meaningless. If I was a mid level team, yes I’d play as many games as I could. A UCLA men’s practice is more productive than them playing a D3 team or a low level D1 team. On the youth level I believe, which is a different topic, they play too many tournaments and lopsided games. Newport would be better off calling up Mission and any other top level club and host scrimmages between those teams on a Saturday.
With the rules as currently written and with interpretation as I have been taught via CWPA seminars, any contact in those situations is a penalty. Technically, a defender can try to make a play from behind on the ball–and ONLY the ball–but any other contact is going to be called.
You are correct, and as I mentioned, the reffs were calling it, and awarding the 5 meters. Sometimes the reffs seem to allow some contact, and somebody on the board was asking how come so many penalties (10) were called, and I was explaining what I observed.
Yup. I have to confess, that having started to officiate in an era when we got scolded for awarding fouls too early and “not allowing the natural goal”, that quick whistle is still not quite intuitive to me. Also remember that if the offensive player is HOLDING the ball, some contact may not be a foul. Some of those delayed calls may be being made when smart offensive players drop the ball the defender persists.
Zero from top 12 teams Hawaii, UCI, Indiana, Princeton, Michigan but 3 from Cal is surprising. Seven of 20 international also interesting, as are a couple CWPA Greek players not present.
Anyone know the process here? Submitted by own coach, by any coach? What happens after nominations?
I haven’t found an official explanation of the “Cutino Award Watch List” process but here’s what Google’s artificial intelligence algorithm says:
"The Peter J. Cutino Award Watch List, first introduced in 2022, is a collaborative effort between USA Water Polo, The Olympic Club, and the Association of Collegiate Water Polo Coaches (ACWPC).
"The selection of the 20 athletes for the list is driven by the following process:
"Selection Criteria & Process
Coach Nominations: The primary source for the list is nominations submitted by varsity college coaches from across the country. Coaches identify top-performing players based on their current impact and past achievements.
Performance Reflection: Selection is heavily influenced by a player’s performance in the previous season and their early-season dominance in the current year. For example, many players on the 2026 watch list were All-Americans in 2025.
Independent Status: It is important to note that the Watch List is independent of the actual Cutino Award voting process. Being on the list does not guarantee a nomination for the final award, and players not on the watch list can still be voted as finalists at the end of the season."
For its sources, Google cites an article from Swimming World magazine and an article from Cal’s website:
jeff: I completely agree about Lucas. I am not sure how she got overlooked. Then again, Lauren Steele did not make the Cutino watch list in 2024, the year that she ended up being a finalist for the award, which, IMHO, she should have won.
Coaches can submit their own players, no more than 3. Final 20 is made up based off amount of times a person is submitted. Sometimes there are ties - there were 22 athletes honored a couple of years back.
So each D1 head coach gets 3 votes? Or they can only submit 3 from their own program? I’m assuming participation isn’t 100% based on the distribution across teams.
What do you guys think is the strategy behind Stanford only 11 games so far this year. They will actually top out at 12 games, and 6 of those are their required conference games.
I just checked, and the last three years they averaged 25/26 games a year like most teams
IMO each school should have a mandatory amount of regular season games…at least 15-20. Why nobody wanted to schedule Stanford is a mystery to me??? Because they didnt want their regular season record blemished?? Who knows
And 3 of Stanford’s games were from the Kalbus Tournament, which they always participate in. So only 3 other non-conference games when teams like USC play 14 additional beyond Kalbus? Interesting comparison of strategies.
I would think this is a coaching decision. The last three years they always had 25/26 games.
Not much travel this year either
Don’t think people are dodging them and not inviting them to their tournaments.
On the men’s side, on Coaches Corner, Flasks talks about how much of a phisical grind the season is, so maybe this is an experiment to see how the girls perform in conference and NCAAs, after a less busy season.
Will be interesting to see results and if they win, what they do next year
