I'm still a layman when it comes to judging. But a couple of things from my perspective:
1) Olympic/Competitive gymnastics and NCAA gymnastics are very different in a number of ways and scoring is one of them. I'm not really sure there is an equivalent in other sports. Gotta think about it. Seems that the Olympic scoring is alot more scrutinized. In order to get a 10, you really do have to be perfect. While the NCAAs is less rigid, the atmosphere is more fun and that seems to fit how the judges view every performance.
2) The last few years in NCAA has seen a big trend in 10s. This is especially true with the bigger programs (Oklahomas, LSUs, Floridas, Utah, UCLAs) Judges want to award them more readily it seems. Not sure if that is on purpose so to get more attention to the sport or join in on the social media viralness of 10s.
3) NCAA is really more a team sport than competitive gymnastics is. Basically all these gymnasts at the Power conferences are Level 10 gymnasts that is they have competed all their sporting lives. They have performed for many years under the Olympic/competitive auspices and now you often scores build from the first competitor. So if a team starts high already and the other team members keep doing well, i think the trend does sway judges to keep scoring higher.
if you are on twitter/X you should follow College Gym News @collegegymnews, they usually do a weekly or maybe its bi-weekly look at all the 10s that happened and rejudge them.
