This season we have fully incorporated our recruit ratings into our consideration of each incoming class.  Simply adding the CollegeGymFans.com star ratings and assembling these totals together to rank these teams simply won't work  Our star categories are too broad and our focus on quantitative assessments leave subtle and more subjective differences unaccounted for within the broad categories of the various star levels.  Therefore, some level of subjective evaluation needs to be considered in assessing the overall differences in the class. 

If you are interested in how we have developed our rankings, we have explained the process in detail in the section following the rankings.  It also explains the overall criteria versus other alternatives we have considered. 

This Year's Rankings

So, how did the teams stack up? Below are summaries of the Top Ten teams, our choice of additional teams to note, and a few more selected individuals.

Each team summary starts with a table.  Click on the athlete's name to see the link to an Instagram page or YouTube video collection for that athlete.  Following the table, we have summarized our ranking rationale and explained our view of the athlete's potential impact. 

The following abbreviations are used in the table:  WDPs = Women's Development Program L10 Nationals;  USAs = US Championships;  Regional = L10 Regionals;  Canadians:  Canadian Championships;  Europeans = European Championships; Worlds = World Championships; DNF: Did not finish (the season or meet). DNC:  Did not compete.  Results are primarily from the last two years and all assessments end when the athlete enters college.     7

Here's the CollegeGymFans.com Top Recruiting Classes for 2025-2026 (be sure to click on the highlighted links to see video clips, where available):

1. UCLA

The addition of Ashlee Sullivan and her outstanding 2025 enabled the Bruin class to slip just past the Sooner's, the early leader, in the final rankings.  The Bruin class stands out with three US senior elite National Team members in good health, featuring Sullivan, Matthews and Sumanasekera.  Each of them has the potential to be among the top gymnasts in the NCAA.  In addition, Eichman, who was injured prior to 2025, has fully recovered and is coming off the best elite season of her career.  Along with Callahan, this class also boots the Bruins with five 10.0 (potential) start value vaults.  

2.  OU

OU places 2nd in our ranking of classes, just behind UCLA.  Estep leads the class and Head Coach KJ Kindler sees AA potential, even in her first season.  Desmond is coming back strong after not competing for most of 2025.  Murphy is a former junior elite who excels on UB and BB.  Pawlak is another potential AAer but lasting impact of a wrist injury is limiting her and caused her to cut her 2025 season short.  Likewise, Roten suffered a major season injury before starting school.  Our ratings methodology considers injury and injury history in our ratings, but even though this ranking is more subjective, it plays a factor here.     

3.  Georgia

Georgia's new coaching staff started strongly, adding some top recruits and even having one athlete switch commitments to the Gym Dogs (Pierson).  Pierson is coming off perhaps her strongest elite season and Reingold has really risen the last two seasons of her L10 career.  Williams has graduated a year early and joining the team in time for the 2026 season.  This decision further boosts this class.  Although at times she has struggled with consistency that may have impacted her placements in major meets, the underlying talent to do high impact NCAA routines is there.  

4.  Florida

Florida's class slots in the #4 position, with three strong L10s and elite Disadore.   Dorbin and Sasson have been fixtures at the top of the L10 ranks and bring a high level of difficulty, including elite-level skills.  Disadore excels on VT and FX and has looked strong in 2025, despite retiring from elite during the season.  Together, the four will boost the Gators with 10.0 Start Value vaults, E skills on FX and consistency on UB/BB.    

5.  Utah

Utah's class is headed up by Stroud, who has been a strong and consistent force on the L10 scene.  She features clean execution0 and consistent performance, characteristics that should help her quickly adapt to NCAA competition.  Ryssman came on strong in 2025 and won a National title on UB and made the L10 National Team.  She has a Yurchenko 1 1/2 VT and a full-in on FX.  Christian was injured in 2025 but has high level elite skills across the events, like a double twisting Yurchenko and a double-double on FX. With the chance to edit down her sets, she could excel.  Curtis is a three-event gymnast who excels on VT, FX, and BB.  

6.  LSU

Ballou has been a standout of the highest order at L10 for numerous seasons.  She has the high skill level, amplitude and execution that set her apart and make her well prepared for future NCAA stardom.  Brinkman, who was originally committed to Clemson, had a very strong 2025.  She brings another big Yurchenko 1 1/2 and pike full-in on FX.  Mustari was a four-time L10 National Team member who won or tied for five National titles.  She is strongest on UB and BB but a knee injury and extended recovery set her back in 2025.  Wenner was also a strong competitor in L10, and tied for the BB title at the 2024 WDPs.  However, she has been dealing with successive concussions that have slowed her recovery.  

7.  Arkansas

Arkansas' large class is headlined by L10 standout Cucci, who has been a leading gymnast across all four events for the past several seasons.  She's slated to be an AA standout at the GymBacks from her rookie campaign.  Bare has been a solid L10 the last several seasons and excels on UB.  Campbell did not finish the 2025 season but was strong in 2024 and 2023.  Burton made the L10 National team in 2024 but did not compete post-season in 2025.  Elite Avery King has beautiful lines on UB and BB but has been limited by injury.  Jandorf brings a double layout on FX and is coming off a breakout L10 season.  

8. Iowa

Iowa slots in the #8, led by a pair of very strong L10s.  Ball, the daughter of OU coaches KJ Kindler and Lou Ball, won a National title on BB this past season.  She has also placed in the top 5 AA at the L10 Nationals the last two seasons.  Schriever, and Bowles were two commits who followed Head Coach Jen Llewellyn during the most recent GymHawk coaching change.  Schriever also made the L10 National team and won the UB at the '25 WDP meet.  She also brings a 10.0 start value vault.  Bowles has been a bit inconsistent at Nationals but has posted some top level scores as a L10.  She excels on UB with a great Ray.  DePaolo had a strong L10 season and excels on FX (front double twist).

9.  Alabama

Cawley is the clear leader of the Tide incoming class and is a two-time L10 National Team member.  She has the skills, execution and consistency to become a future Bama star.  Matters made the L10 National Team in 2025 and has really blossomed the last two seasons.  Ra-Akbar is a former US junior elite who switched to compete for Canada.  She's had some injury problems the past two seasons but appears to be back.  Tanriyasukur is an elite for Turkey with plenty of big-meet experience.  She is strongest on BB and FX.  Marshall was a late addition in the recruiting cycle who brings a potentially strong pike front half vault to the Tide.  

10.  Stanford

Stanford landed a huge surprise recruit in Olympic and European medalist Ana Barbosu of Romania. She is poised to make a huge impact on the Cardinal for 2026, with her high level of difficulty and strong execution.  An experienced international athlete on the biggest stages, she should excel once she has adapted to life in the US and the different demands of NCAA competition.  Another international elite, Williams of Sweden, is known for her excellent form and execution.  She is also another former AA finalist at the World Championships.  Three L10s complete the class.  Gronski has been known for her repertoire of unusual skills but also is a strong vaulter.  Siljander has excellent form and execution on BB and FX that could enable her to break through the lineups in her rookie season.  Finally, although Sagna has struggled with injury, her strength on UB will enable her to challenge for lineups there.  

Other Teams of Note

Two teams fell just outside of our Top Ten, with only very slight differences compared to teams that made the Top Ten.  The Top Ten teams shifted a lot over the past 18 months, with major injuries unfortunately coming into play.  Even gymnasts of equivalent ratings may vary in strengths and areas of improvement, and are being assessed relative to their ability to post top scores at the NCAA level.  The three below are listed in no particular order:

MSU

Michigan State's class is led by another international elite, Cosman, who was a US L10 but is also an Olympian for Romania.  She does bring a potential Yurchenko 1 1/2 and some strong sets on UB and BB.  Izzo has been a solid and consistent competitor at L10 while Marquart has excelled on VT (Yurchenko 1 1/2) and FX (full-in).  Unfortunately, Chism would have boosted this team even higher, but has not competed due to injury for the last two seasons.  Boggess is a specialist who excels on UB and BB with strong form and execution.   

Auburn

Torry leads the way, after dropping down to L10 in 2025 after competing elite in 2024.  She has a Yurchenko 1 1/2 on VT, clean UB execution and can be an AA force for Auburn.  Complementing her is Booth, a former US jr. elite who now competes for the UK.  Before her 2025 season ended with injury, she made an impact on the World Cup circuit and the UK national scene.  Consoli, who used to train elite, has been competing L10. 

Minnesota

Ostrum has the makings of the Gopher's next big star.  She brings some top skills on VT (Yurchenko 1 1/2) and FX along with consistency on BB and solid execution on all four events.  She's complemented by Saltzmann, who dropped down from elite to successfully compete L10 this past season.  The lower difficulty requirements in NCAA could let her high level of execution to enable her to have an immediate impact on UB, BB and FX.  Nguyen and Gullickson bring potential 10.0 start value vaults (Yurchenko 1 1/2 and pike front half, respectively).  

Other Outstanding Individuals

There are a wide variety of potential future standouts.  Here are just a few:

Gabriella von Frayen (Kentucky)

'25 WDPs: 2nd AA, 1st BB, 6th(t0 UB; '24 WDPs: 3rd AA, 2nd(t) FX, 3rd BB, 9th(t) VT, 10th(t) UB; 

Van Frayen is a former jr. elite who has excelled the last two seasons as a L10.  The switch has enabled her execution and form to shine and is well set to lead Kentucky.

Kimarra Echols (Missouri)

'25 WDPs: 5th(t) AA, 3rd(t) FX, 10th(t) UB; '24 WDPs: 3rd AA, 2nd FX, 4th VT, 4th(t) UB

Nichols has been a standout at L10 and executes her skills with excess amplitude and a high level of execution.  She should slot nicely as a top performer for the Tigers.

Scarlett Sonnenberg (BYU) 

'25 WDPs: 1st AA, 2nd UB, 2nd(t) BB, 6th(t) VT, 8th(t) FX; '24 WDPs: 6th AA, 8th(t) UB 

Sonnenberg has emerged as one of the top L10s in the US, and has continued to improve year after year.  At BYU, she is set to lead the Cougars to the next level of achievement.  

Myli Lew (Michigan)

'25 US Classic: 1st UB; '25 American Classic: 3rd AA, 2nd BB, 3rd UB; '24 American Classic: 2nd AA, 1st UB, 3rd BB

Lew has the skills and execution, especially on VT, UB and BB, to be a star.  Injuries have been an issue for her in the past, but with the reduced demands of the NCAA and careful pacing, she could excel.

Tonya Paulsson (Cal)

'25 World University Games: 3rd AA, 2nd BB; '25 Asian Champs: 4th AA, 5th UB, 6th FX;  '24: Szombathely Challenge Cup:  1st BB, FX, 2nd UB

Paulsson is a strong international elite, now competing for Taiwan, with strong execution, enviable toe point and excellent flexibility.  Her high level of difficulty and execution can help her lead the effort to rebuild at Cal. 

There are many other potential future superstars throughout the NCAA.  We invite you to check out the list of Newcomers or see our 2025 Recruit ratings. 

Background and a Word about our Methodology:

Assessing the strength of an incoming class is a challenging task.  In the past, we have considered a more quantitative approach that assessed meet placement and scoring.  Relying too heavily on scores is problematic for several reasons:  1.  Scoring variation exists in the club ranks, just as it exists in the NCAA.  Distinctions based on hundreds of a point can't be made when score variation adds 0.2 to 0.3 in uncertainty.  2.  Individual meets, especially those with event finals, may employ special rules or be in widely varying competitive environments (home gyms versus podium stadium meets).  3.  The rules in Level 10 and NCAA now differ significantly enough that bonus rules and compositional requirements can distort pure mathematical assessments.  These factors must be balanced by performance in head-to-head competition, in high stress head-to-head post-season meets with full, experienced judging panels, plus an evaluation of actual skill level and execution based on video.         

Predicting future success is also a challenging task.  There are many intangibles, such as how an incoming freshman adjusts to college, gels with the team or responds to new coaching styles.   Each new incoming class changes the dynamics within the team as a whole and there is no way for us to guess in advance how the dynamics will play out or contribute to overall team success.  The best we can do is look at the incoming class as a discrete unit.   We ask of ourselves; What does each athlete’s competition history, skills, execution and even injury history (if we know it) tell us about what she brings to the mix that makes up her incoming class?  Does the athlete have the potential to bring in scores of 9.85 to 9.9 or above?

Our methodology is based on a snapshot of each incoming class as they enter college for the first time.  In other words, we consider what we know about incoming frosh as they enter school in the fall.  For those joining their team mid-year, we consider what we know of them as of the time of their entrance in January.  Gymnasts that appear on the roster but are sitting out the year for any reason are counted.  However, gymnasts that are removed from rosters or retire before the start of the season are excluded.  Transfers are also excluded.  We set our timing to include all late signings as well as early graduations and mid-year starts.  This does produce more variation than if we stopped our evaluation after the early signing period or in the spring, but it also better captures trend and trajectory to make a more complete assessment.    

What we consider:

Competition History -  An athlete's competition results reveal how an athlete stands up to competition and how consistently she performs from one event to another, and meet to meet.   It is especially interesting to see how an athlete measures up against the competition in elite or rigorous Level 10 meets like the Nastia Liukin Cup and the Level 10 Nationals.  These meets typically involve more experienced judges, more consistent evaluation, head-to-head comparison and more pressure.  Decades of recruiting classes show that a strong history of top finishes in these major meets is a strong predictor of future NCAA success. 

Competition Trend -- The timing and trend of their success important.  Gymnasts that continue to rise in placement through their career more often than not hold that level or improve in college.  Continued success or even improvement over time also speaks to motivation, hard work and consistency.      

Skill and Routine Evaluation - Today, it is possible to view videos of an athlete either through online posts (e.g. YouTube.com, Instagram, Facebook) or meet coverage via streaming services or broadcast TV (e.g. FlipGym, Olympic Channel, etc).  Some college teams also give us peeks at preseason training videos.  We use these to get a look at the athletes’ skills and execution, and how their competition routines compare to NCAA requirements.  With significant differences between the NCAA code and the Junior Olympic (not to mention the Elite) code, gymnasts with stellar execution and no "built-in" deductions will have an easier time in the NCAA.  Gymnasts with FIG E skills, 10.0 Start Value (SV) vaults or exceptional levels of grace, expression or execution quality will also have an easier time posting scores of 9.9+.  On the other hand, under the L10 code, it is now possible to construct a routine that will get a strong L10 score (9.5+) and yet still be missing difficulty that will inhibit an athlete from getting the 9.85+ scores.  A highly difficult routine at the club level can merit a high score but still include minor but obvious execution errors that will hold back the score at the NCAA level.  In contrast, sometimes elite or high-level L10 gymnasts include skills that are in excess of the difficulty they need in the NCAA.  While elite gymnasts are heavily incentivized to add difficult skills, even in the Level 10 Development Program gymnasts are encouraged to add skills to avoid compositional deductions and get a 10.1 start value.  The risk/reward for adding these skills is pretty good, as long as no major mistake occurs.  However, a 0.05 or 0.1 execution deduction for an excess skill is a "10 killer" in the NCAA.  These excess skills are typically removed during college competition, unless they are 100% consistent, to maximize scoring potential.  Finally, in the case of elite gymnasts, some come to the NCAA missing special or compositional requirements that are important in the NCAA, like a qualifying dismount on UB or a two salto pass.  

Injury Status and History - Injury history is an unfortunate factor in recruiting.  Past major injuries like ACL tears, spinal problems and Achilles' tears can impact a gymnast's ability for an extended period of time.  Sometimes specific major injury information is available on an athlete.  Other times, a major injury or other break in training may be indicated by holes in a competition history.  To the extent that we can determine whether an injury history will potentially limit an athlete’s contribution over the course of her NCAA career, we factor that information into our ranking considerations.  We tend to view absences from competition before entering college negatively, unless otherwise explained.  Only injuries that occur before the start of NCAA training are included, including those after the date of signing.

Recruit Rating - the factors above have now been systemically integrated into our Recruit Rating system, starting with the Class of 2022.  This provides a primarily quantitative, standardized assessment for an individual recruit.  Teams are initially compared based on their composition of top-rated recruits, and then the ratings are further refined.

Potential Contribution - Ultimately, we place high value on recruits who have the potential to make some starting lineups and to consistently score 9.85 or better on their events. 

Balancing Class Size – We attempt to consider large incoming classes versus small classes.  A large incoming class, even if it is loaded with walk-ons and specialists, provides important depth and coverage on all events.   That depth can be especially important if a team suffers some key injuries.  A large class is also sometimes filled with exceptionally gifted specialists.  In contrast, a small class of, say, one or two exceptional all arounders can have just as much impact on their teams.  Over the course of time, a marquee athlete has the potential to bring in big scores of 9.95+ that can make the crucial difference to a team's overall ranking and success.  So, the size of recruiting class is factored along with our best estimate as to how the individual recruits will figure in lineups.