Let Us Now Speculate About Olympic Selection

By Gavin Kentch

This is a reader-funded website. Virtually all of my income (for perspective: I took home less than $5,000 from Nordic Insights last year after paying staff) comes from reader contributions, which I sincerely appreciate. If you would like to support the site, including helping us get to the Olympics in February, you may do so here. Thank you.

I tried to avoid having this site frame every article out of Lake Placid last week as “In an Olympic year…,” but it is also true that these races were used to select a not-small number of domestic athletes for Olympic spots, particularly on the women’s side. Now, with racing wrapped up in Lake Placid, and only two World Cup races yet to come within the qualifying period, here is my take on who will be named to the 2026 Olympic team when the formal announcement is made next week.

This article is a mix of reading the selection document against points lists and standings and giving what I would call the only correct conclusion possible from the interplay of the two; some interpretation of how the selection document should be read (i.e., I am following the selection document, but there is some interpretation on my part of how it works); and, in one case, straight-up advocacy for discretionary selection of an athlete who, on my reading, might not otherwise be named to the team. I have tried, below, to be very clear as to which level of interpretation underlies each athlete listed.

You can find the USSS Olympic selection document here, and the relevant USSS points lists here. The World Cup discipline standings, meanwhile, may be found here.

One final bit of preamble: To review, there are, per the USSS document, four distinct avenues by which an athlete may be nominated to the team. If you have read any of my other team-naming pieces over the last several years, this progression is largely unchanged from what we have seen before.

• Criterion one: one or more top-eight performances in specific World Cup race formats that mirror the races on the Olympic program
• Criterion two: discretionary selection, based on athlete petitions (let’s call this DISCRETION discretion)
• Criterion three: ranking in the top 50 athletes per gender, in the World Cup sprint and/or distance standings, as of the close of the races in Oberhof next weekend
• Criterion four: discretionary selection, based largely on moving down internal USSS points lists in order (let’s call this discretion-lite, with potentially some leeway as to which points list to look at first depending on how things shake out, though in practice not really this year)

Criteria one and three are objective; criteria two and four are discretionary. Finally, all of this is subject to the sprinter-per-gender cap, aka the Annie Hart Rule. This rule states — I’m quoting from the USSS document here — “No more than four (4) sprint athletes per gender can be nominated to the Team via Selection Methods 1, 3, and 4.” If you want to know why we have this rule in place now, ask Eric Packer about his experience racing in Pyeongchang.

Okay. With that out of the way, here is my lay-expert take on who will be named to this year’s Olympic team for American cross-country skiing. Men first, because they are more straightforward. For both sections, there is first a list of names, then an explanation of the bases for selection. Finally, I note how things could change following the races in Oberhof this weekend.

Athletes are named here in order of (my interpretation of their) selection to the team.

Men

• Ben Ogden
• Gus Schumacher
• Jack Young
• Zak Ketterson
• JC Schoonmaker [or potentially: Kevin Bolger]
• Hunter Wonders
• Zanden McMullen
• [John Steel Hagenbuch, if an eighth quota spot opens up]

Ben Ogden

Ben Ogden is ranked fourth in the World Cup sprint standings, and 52nd in the distance standings. He is named to the team under criterion three, top-50 World Cup discipline rank, and counts as a sprinter.

Gus Schumacher

Gus Schumacher is ranked 15th in the World Cup distance standings, and 27th in the sprint standings. He is named to the team under criterion three, top-50 World Cup discipline rank, and counts as both a sprinter and a distance skier.

(If Schumacher’s sixth-place performance in the Tour de Ski 20km classic pursuit on January 1 counts as a top-eight result in a qualifying race, then slot him in ahead of Ogden under criterion one. But the USSS document specifically states that the qualifying classic distance race may be either “mass start or individual start”; inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; I don’t see “pursuit” listed; therefore let’s leave Schumacher here. This is largely academic, given the way team naming shakes out for the men, but this does explain why Schumacher follows Ogden.)

Jack Young

Jack Young is ranked 21st in the World Cup sprint standings; he is not ranked in the distance standings. He is named to the team under criterion three, top-50 World Cup discipline rank, and counts as a sprinter. That is three sprinters so far.

Zak Ketterson

Zak Ketterson is ranked 29th in the World Cup distance standings, and 56th in the sprint standings. He is named to the team under criterion three, top-50 World Cup discipline rank, and does not count as a sprinter. Still only three sprinters.

JC Schoonmaker (or potentially: Kevin Bolger)

Going into this weekend in Oberhof, JC Schoonmaker is ranked 36th in the sprint standings. Kevin Bolger is ranked 40th in the sprint standings. Both are ranked outside the top-50 in the distance standings (Bolger is 63rd there and Schoonmaker is 86th).

If the team were chosen today, both Schoonmaker and Bolger would be within the top-50 discipline standings for sprint. But there are three sprinters already named: Ogden, Schumacher, and Young.

(Why Schumacher, alongside Ogden and Young? “If an athlete is ranked in the Top 50 or 45 in both Distance World Cup and Sprint World Cup standings,” the USSS selection document reads, “then the athlete will be counted on both lists.” We are in top-50 territory, by the way, because Russians are racing on the World Cup this year; the document was drafted before the season began and had to account for two different potential scenarios. Sans Russia, it would be top 45.

I have for years now wanted to read the term “sprinter,” in this rule, as meaning something like “a pure sprinter,” or “an athlete who is ranked only in the sprint top-50.” But the only way to make sense of this additional language in the USSS document, quoted in the paragraph above, is to count the athlete on both lists. I don’t think that my original interpretation is right or better — it’s not, at least if we’re going to ascribe any meaning to the “on both lists” language — I’m just showing my work here, slash addressing a frequent question I receive.)

So: Ogden, Schumacher, and Young are, in that order, three sprinters already on the team. There can only be four. Best discipline ranking after Oberhof gets this final spot.

I am really trying to avoid presenting this as, like, “RUMBLE IN OBERHOF!”; I know and like both JC Schoonmaker and Kevin Bolger, a lot. Both men are extremely gracious human beings in addition to being fast skiers. But high-level sport often involves drawing dividing lines, and it appears that such a line will need to be drawn this weekend. Unless like Zak Ketterson makes the semis on Saturday and pips them both vis-à-vis sprint points. Stay tuned.

Hunter Wonders

There is no one left in the top-50 discipline standings among the American men, for either World Cup sprint or distance. We therefore move from World Cup racing (criterion three) on to domestic racing (criterion four). The four-sprinter cap has been met, so we move to the highest-ranked male distance athlete on the domestic points list, per sec. 6.2.4 and 7.2.B. of the selection document. This is Hunter Wonders; he makes the team under criterion four.

Zanden McMullen

We are still in criterion four. Still no sprint quota spots open. We move to the next-highest-ranked male distance athlete on the domestic points list. This is Zanden McMullen; he makes the team under criterion four.

(Again, we are still under sec. 7.2.B. here: “If the Sprinter Per Gender Cap has been met for the gender with remaining quota slot(s), the Selection Committee will automatically nominate the next highest ranked distance athlete of that gender on the 2026 Championship Selection List to the Team.”

If you’re reading this, USSS lawyers, this section is introduced by an asterisk; I would be a lot more comfortable if it had a corresponding asterisk somewhere in the text above. I’m not even trying to be cute when I say that; I’m pretty sure that what I’ve quoted here modifies only the text of sec. 7.2.B., but it could definitely be cleared up. Or maybe its call sign is the asterisk in sec. 6.2.4, two pages earlier in the document? Everyone makes fun of lawyers for shit like this, but also this is athletes’ careers on the line here; you owe it to them to be clear. Also should the bullet point on page 7 be an asterisk? I think so. Not certain. MS Word, which likes to automatically convert asterisks into bullet points unasked, is perhaps not your friend here.)

[John Steel Hagenbuch: The American men currently have seven quota spots allotted to them. If nothing changes, Steel Hagenbuch is, on my reading, the first man left off. If an eighth spot becomes available: We once more move to the next-highest-ranked male distance athlete on the domestic points list; this is John Steel Hagenbuch; he makes the team under criterion four. We will know if an additional quota spot is available on January 21 and 22. At least USSS will know; they will, understandably, probably be rather busy then. We will know a day or two later, once the dust settles and updated nominations are made public.]

This could all change if:

I previously highlighted the potential shakeup between Schoonmaker and Bolger for the final men’s sprint spot. That is, mathematically speaking, the most likely source of changes here. It is also not implausible that Zak Ketterson has a strong day on Friday, leading him to be treated as a fourth American sprinter alongside Ogden, Schumacher, and Young. This would probably lead to Steel Hagenbuch making the team as a third domestic skier, but we’ve got a lot of moving parts by that point so specific speculation may be ill-founded. There could also be one-off distance race performances this weekend so strong as to vault an athlete into the World Cup top-50 discipline standings, getting them in under criterion three and bypassing criterion four entirely.

This may seem unlikely in light of athletes’ historic results, but that’s why you play the games. First place in a World Cup race is worth 100 points. There are also bonus points available for top performances in a sprint qual, up to 15 points for first. 115 points would currently place someone 24th in the men’s World Cup sprint standings. 100 points would currently place someone 40th in the men’s World Cup distance standings. Not saying just saying.

No American man had won a distance World Cup for 40+ years; now Gus has done it twice in three seasons. Who’s to say it’s not someone else’s turn for a breakthrough this weekend? I wouldn’t be running this website for pennies per hour if I didn’t believe in American skiing. Go get ’em, boys.

Women

• Jessie Diggins
• Julia Kern
• Rosie Brennan
• Alayna Sonnesyn [or potentially: Sammy Smith]
• Novie McCabe
• Hailey Swirbul
• Lauren Jortberg
• Kendall Kramer [or potentially: Alayna Sonnesyn]

Jessie Diggins

Jessie Diggins is the only athlete on either list to make criterion one. She has qualified here, at least three times over. Diggins is named to the team under criterion one, top-eight results in qualifying race formats.

In the World Cup discipline standings, Diggins ranks first in distance and seventh in sprint. I think this means that she is also treated as a sprinter for purposes of the Annie Hart Rule. This is the only way to really make sense of the both-lists language in section 6.2.3, and the document’s discussion of the sprinter cap states that it applies not just to criteria three and four, but also to criterion one. So let’s treat Diggins as a sprinter going forward.

Julia Kern

Julia Kern is ranked 20th in the World Cup sprint standings, and 30th in the distance standings. She is named to the team under criterion three, top-50 World Cup discipline rank, and counts as a sprinter.

Rosie Brennan

Rosie Brennan is ranked 32nd in the World Cup sprint standings, and 51st in the distance standings. She is named to the team under criterion three, top-50 World Cup discipline rank, and counts as a sprinter. If she races on Sunday she will very likely re-enter the distance top 50, but she will still count as a sprinter regardless. There is not a comparable cap in the USSS document for distance skiers.

Alayna Sonnesyn [or potentially: Sammy Smith]

Alayna Sonnesyn is currently ranked 49th in the World Cup sprint standings. If the team were named today, she would be the last sprinter named off of World Cup results. This sounds in criterion three; Sammy Smith is then the top-ranked domestic sprinter under criterion four; three comes before four. Sonnesyn gets the fourth and final sprint spot, over Smith.

This, to my mind, does an injury to the qualification process, in substance though not in procedure. Smith won both sprint quals in Lake Placid, and both sprint finals. In the classic sprint qual, Smith was a staggering 7.55 seconds ahead of Swirbul in third. She was nearly twice as far ahead of Sonnesyn, who finished ninth. Smith was 14.64 seconds faster than Sonnesyn over a 1.5-kilometer sprint course.

The individual sprint at the 2026 Winter Olympics is a classic sprint. I will be blunt: If USSS selects, for the final sprint spot in Milano–Cortina, not the winner of a classic sprint qual in U.S. Nationals week but instead the athlete who finished nearly 15 seconds behind her in the same qual, then that feels to me like a failure of the criteria.

I would assume that Smith and her coaches have submitted, or will submit, a petition for discretionary selection along these lines. This would be processed under criterion two, what I am calling pure discretion. This comes before criterion three when it comes to selecting athletes (and, crucially, ordering the sprinters selected). USSS would then — if it accepts the petition — take Diggins under criterion one, Smith under criterion two, and Kern and Brennan under criterion three. This would in turn leave four sprinters selected, which unfortunately inures to Sonnesyn’s detriment.

(At least qua sprinting. All this said, Sonnesyn is currently ranked 53rd in the women’s distance standings, not far out of 50th. It would not take a particularly strong showing in Sunday’s 10km classic to vault her into the top 50 — currently a 43rd place, good for eight points, would do it. Sonnesyn would then make it in under criterion three, World Cup distance standings. Mutatis mutandis, this would then take a spot from the final athlete selected under criterion four, Kendall Kramer. Sonnesyn is listed as an alternate for Sunday’s distance race; at least one athlete ahead of her, Julia Kern, is currently stateside, so I am comfortable assuming that Sonnesyn will get a start in the distance race.)

This is obviously the section of the article where I am editorializing, if not full-on advocating. I don’t get a vote on who goes and people smarter than me do, so I feel like I’m not trying to unduly influence the selectors here. I am, however, trying to explain how the document works given the facts as they currently stand. 

Since I know that Alayna or someone in her orbit will read this, let me say that this is nothing personal. I am truly not trying to pick sides here; I am just trying to explain what feels to me like the best team. That is cold comfort when I have just advocated for someone else to be selected over you, an action that feels pretty damn close to picking sides; I fully get that. But I promise that I see this as a statement about overall team strength, not about individual skiers. 

Novie McCabe

Whoever the final sprinter may be, we now have four of them. And there are, currently, no additional American women ranked in the top-50 discipline standings, for either World Cup sprint or distance. We therefore move from World Cup racing (criterion three) on to domestic racing (criterion four). Again, Diggins, Kern, Brennan, and Sonnesyn/Smith are all sprinters, so the Annie Hart Rule is in effect.

We thus look at the top-ranked female distance athlete on the domestic points list, per sec. 6.2.4 and 7.2.B. This is Novie McCabe; she makes the team under criterion four.

I have been trying to just use lawyer brain here and bloodlessly apply criteria to data, but I have to speak up at this juncture: Another ski news website recently wrote that “Sammy Smith was the one skier at US Nationals to really make an impression in Lake Placid.” Personally speaking, I would say that coming back from a year-plus of opaque and unresolved health issues and THROWING THE EFF DOWN at Nationals with a first and second in the two distance races really made an impression on me, but that’s what makes horse races.

Hailey Swirbul

Speaking of throwing down: We are still in criterion four. Still no sprint quota spots open. We move to the next-highest-ranked female distance athlete on the domestic points list. This is Hailey Swirbul, a woman who won the 10km classic at U.S. Nationals by 44 SECONDS over the second American, teammate Novie McCabe (second overall, Erica Lavén, was a still-obscene 32 seconds in arrears). Swirbul makes the team under criterion four.

If I am wrong about this, I personally think that in the alternative Swirbul makes the team under criterion two, pure discretion, as her classic-skiing abilities are necessary for both team performance (the relay) and individual-event success (you tell me what four athletes you would slot in ahead of her for the 50km classic). But this is another example of a decision that I do not make. And, yes, I am advocating again.

Lauren Jortberg

We are still in criterion four. Still no sprint quota spots open. We move to the next-highest-ranked female distance athlete on the domestic points list. This is Lauren Jortberg; she makes the team under criterion four.

Kendall Kramer

Yet again: We are still in criterion four. Still no sprint quota spots open. We move to the next-highest-ranked female distance athlete on the domestic points list. This is Kendall Kramer; she makes the team under criterion four.

If space is still open, that is; as discussed above, Alayna Sonnesyn could claim a spot under criterion three on the basis of World Cup distance results. Kramer would at that point be the ninth athlete in line, and would not be named to the team. But also Kramer comes into this weekend having earned 22 World Cup distance points from Period 1 racing, to Sonnesyn’s 53, and so could theoretically outrank Sonnesyn if one of them has a very strong race and the other does not. This could be an unusually engaging interval-start race on Sunday.

This could all change if:

As I said above regarding the men, strong results this weekend have the potential to shake up these standings. 61 points in the 10km classic (a tenth-place finish) places an athlete in the women’s distance top-50, while for sprint it would take just 31 points, a 25th-place finish. There is clearly a harder road to hoe on the sprint side; I have already identified five athletes who have a claim to four sprint starts. Plus Saturday’s sprint is in skate, while the individual sprint in Milano–Cortina is in classic. (Jessie Diggins and Julia Kern are all but set in stone for the skate team sprint, is my presumption here, because, c’mon, who else would you choose for this.)

But, again, that’s why you play the games. Good luck to everyone racing in Oberhof this weekend, a group drawn from the much more expansive list found here.

What happens next

Per USSS, “U.S. Ski & Snowboard will nominate the Team to the USOPC [United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee] on January 20, 2026.” I assume a press release will issue shortly thereafter. There is the potential for the American men to receive an additional quota spot within the next few days, following the ensuing reallocation process. This is largely out of this country’s control, and is rather contingent on other countries declining quota spots that they have earned. I think we need at least three other countries to give back a men’s quota spot to be able to claim an eighth spot for the American men, but don’t quote me on that.

If an additional athlete is named to the team, that will occur on January 23.

If USSS media sends me an embargoed press release the night before, as often occurs, I will post it at the allowed time, probably ca. 8 a.m. Eastern Time the next day. If they do not, as is fully their prerogative, I will wake up around 7:30 Alaska Time on that day to take my kids to school, furiously check Instagram over breakfast like the rest of you to see who was named, do morning kid routine, and not really be in a position to post updates until around 9:30 a.m. Alaska Time (which is a leisurely 1:30 p.m. EST lol). So there is a not-zero chance that I will be the last outlet in the mediaverse to have the official team naming up next week, sorry. But I’m also the first one to tell you all this now; we all have our strengths.

Racing in Val di Fiemme begins with the women’s skiathlon on February 7. I will be there. Thank you so much to everyone who has donated to the GoFundMe; I’m just about at the point of not losing money by going to the Games now, depending on how much food costs on the ground (probably a lot). Exciting stuff. Oh also before Rule 40 kicks in at the end of this month, my deep thanks to Runners’ Edge Alaska, which will be underwriting this site’s Olympic coverage. I really appreciate their support. 

You’re reading this on Nordic Insights, one man’s labor of love dedicated to publicizing American skiing. We started with nothing and now we’re going to the Olympics. You can read more about our first three years here, and donate to the Olympics fund here. Thank you for consideration, and, especially, for reading.