

As Conference Championships Loom, Little Changes to the Nation’s Top 10 in Division I
NEW ORLEANS – The latest USTFCCCA national team computer rankings of the indoor track & field season are out for NCAA’s Division I. After a light week for many of the teams across the top 25, the rankings made only small changes as we head into the weekend in which a majority of the nation’s conferences will contest their championship meets.
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index: Top 15 Teams by Region
Division I Conference Championship Central
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division I |
|||
Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #5 – February 22 |
|||
next ranking: March 1 (Week 6) | |||
Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
1 | Florida | 167.42 | 1 |
2 | LSU | 158.45 | 2 |
3 | Indiana | 92.88 | 3 |
4 | Texas A&M | 86.75 | 4 |
5 | Arkansas | 80.81 | 5 |
6 | Stanford | 77.35 | 7 |
7 | BYU | 72.71 | 6 |
8 | Texas | 72.51 | 8 |
9 | Oklahoma | 71.80 | 10 |
10 | Penn State | 71.42 | 9 |
11 | Florida State | 67.27 | 11 |
12 | Oregon | 64.34 | 12 |
13 | Nebraska | 60.77 | 17 |
14 | Arizona | 58.23 | 15 |
15 | Iowa | 57.33 | 14 |
16 | Wisconsin | 56.32 | 13 |
17 | Alabama | 55.91 | 19 |
18 | Texas Tech | 55.00 | 18 |
19 | Kansas State | 54.69 | 20 |
20 | Minnesota | 54.09 | 25 |
21 | Washington | 52.69 | 16 |
22 | Ohio State | 52.41 | 21 |
23 | Virginia Tech | 49.07 | 35 |
24 | Georgia | 43.51 | 22 |
25 | Clemson | 41.74 | 23 |
Dropped out: No. 24 Auburn | |||
Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
1 | SEC | 661.99 | 5 |
2 | Big 12 | 489.93 | 6 |
3 | Big Ten | 424.50 | 6 |
4 | Pac-10 | 343.52 | 4 |
5 | ACC | 262.23 | 3 |
6 | Mountain West | 81.68 | 1 |
7 | Big Sky | 62.58 | |
8 | Conference USA | 59.29 | |
9 | BIG EAST | 58.01 | |
10 | Big South | 44.29 | |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division I |
|||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #5 – February 22 |
|||
next ranking: March 1 (Week 6) | |||
Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
1 | Oregon | 199.08 | 1 |
2 | LSU | 147.16 | 2 |
3 | Texas | 120.45 | 3 |
4 | Arkansas | 118.29 | 4 |
5 | Texas A&M | 112.61 | 5 |
6 | Tennessee | 98.54 | 6 |
7 | Florida State | 94.62 | 7 |
8 | Oklahoma | 83.28 | 9 |
9 | UCF | 79.17 | 8 |
10 | BYU | 70.91 | 10 |
11 | Nebraska | 68.39 | 11 |
12 | Arizona | 67.05 | 12 |
13 | Michigan | 60.62 | 13 |
14 | Southern Illinois | 55.46 | 14 |
15 | Clemson | 49.92 | 15 |
16 | TCU | 49.20 | 16 |
17 | Texas Tech | 47.46 | 17 |
18 | Connecticut | 41.66 | 19 |
19 | Duke | 41.43 | 24 |
20 | Baylor | 40.96 | 18 |
21 | Florida | 39.52 | 22 |
22 | Stony Brook | 39.10 | 27 |
23 | Stanford | 37.60 | 21 |
24 | Auburn | 37.17 | 23 |
25 | Arizona State | 36.96 | 20 |
Dropped out: No. 25 Indiana | |||
Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
Rank | Conference |
Points
|
Top 25 Teams
|
1 | Big 12 |
561.86
|
6
|
2 | SEC |
537.56
|
5
|
3 | Pac-10 |
390.37
|
4
|
4 | ACC |
271.17
|
3
|
5 | Big Ten |
204.64
|
1
|
6 | BIG EAST |
181.07
|
1
|
7 | Conference USA |
165.97
|
1
|
8 | Mountain West |
162.45
|
2
|
9 | Missouri Valley |
121.05
|
1
|
10 | America East |
45.99
|
1
|
About the Rankings
For more on the rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
/rankings/division-i-rankings
The purpose and methodology of the national team computer rankings is to create an index that showcases the teams that have the best potential of achieving the top spots in the national-title race – not as a method to compare teams head-to-head.
The Regional Index is determined using a similar method as national rankings, but on a smaller scale, comparing teams versus others within the same region. The result is a ranking that showcases squads with better all-around team potential — a group makeup critical for conference or similar team-scored events. A team may achieve a better regional ranking than a counterpart that has a better national ranking. Historically, some teams are better national-championship teams than conference-championship teams, having a few elite athletes that score very well in a diverse environment where teams do not have entries in more than a few events. Some teams are better at conference championships or similar team-scored events where they enter, and are competitive, in many of the events.
How a team fares in a national championship, conference championship, or scored meet with only a couple or few teams (like a dual or triangular) can be very different, given the number of events, competition, scoring, and makeup of entries — thus the rationale behind each of the ranking systems. Similar arguments about team makeup and rankings can also be found in swimming & diving and wrestling as their sports also have a similar trichotomy when it comes to team theory.