Division III National Rankings Keep North Central Men, Move UW Oshkosh Women To Top
North Central (Ill.)’s men stays atop the men’s computer rankings for another week. On the women’s side, UW Oshkosh move back ahead of Wartburg for the national top spot.
National Computer Rankings:
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index: Top 10 Teams by Region
Dual Meet RPI: Website
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #4 – February 16 |
|||
| next ranking: February 23 (Week 5) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | North Central (Ill.) | 199.59 | 1 |
| 2 | UW La Crosse | 129.10 | 2 |
| 3 | Amherst | 103.54 | 10 |
| 4 | UW Stevens Point | 92.51 | 4 |
| 5 | SUNY Cortland | 77.81 | 36 |
| 6 | Central (Iowa) | 77.41 | 23 |
| 7 | UW Whitewater | 73.79 | 3 |
| 8 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 72.82 | 13 |
| 9 | SUNY Geneseo | 61.39 | 7 |
| 10 | UW Oshkosh | 58.96 | 5 |
| 11 | Buffalo State | 42.58 | 20 |
| 12 | Haverford | 42.19 | 6 |
| 13 | Farmingdale State | 41.91 | 12 |
| 14 | MIT | 41.11 | 56 |
| 15 | Baldwin-Wallace | 39.05 | 15 |
| 16 | Bates | 38.61 | 9 |
| 17 | St. Thomas (Minn.) | 38.54 | 18 |
| 18 | Wartburg | 38.28 | 14 |
| 19 | Allegheny | 37.68 | 55 |
| 20 | Washington (Mo.) | 36.00 | 8 |
| 21 | NYU | 34.95 | 43 |
| 22 | UW Eau Claire | 32.21 | 16 |
| 23 | UW Platteville | 31.52 | 35 |
| 24 | Springfield (Mass.) | 27.08 | 38 |
| 25 | Chicago | 26.96 | 19 |
| Dropped out: No. 11 Monmouth (Ill.), No. 17 TCNJ, No. 21 Hamline, No. 22 Mount Union, No. 24 Principia, No. 25 Southern Maine | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | WIAC | 443.71 | 6 |
| 2 | SUNYAC | 257.76 | 3 |
| 3 | CCIW | 240.93 | 1 |
| 4 | NESCAC | 197.75 | 2 |
| 5 | IIAC | 131.71 | 2 |
| 6 | OAC | 124.88 | 1 |
| 7 | UAA | 110.58 | 3 |
| 8 | MIAC | 99.19 | 1 |
| 9 | NJAC | 77.31 | |
| 10 | NEWMAC | 76.78 | 2 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #4 – February 16 |
|||
| next ranking: February 23 (Week 5) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | UW Oshkosh | 187.25 | 2 |
| 2 | Wartburg | 182.72 | 1 |
| 3 | MIT | 104.67 | 5 |
| 4 | Williams | 100.63 | 3 |
| 5 | TCNJ | 71.02 | 16 |
| 6 | Ithaca | 67.38 | 6 |
| 7 | Ramapo | 60.38 | 9 |
| 8 | Wellesley | 59.58 | 34 |
| 9 | North Central (Ill.) | 56.68 | 7 |
| 10 | Middlebury | 53.94 | 32 |
| 11 | UW La Crosse | 49.09 | 15 |
| 12 | Methodist | 48.79 | 10 |
| 13 | Illinois College | 46.31 | 14 |
| 14 | Wheaton (Mass.) | 43.87 | 13 |
| 15 | Amherst | 43.22 | 27 |
| 16 | Monmouth (Ill.) | 42.87 | 46 |
| 17 | Chicago | 40.63 | 19 |
| 18 | Illinois Wesleyan | 39.53 | 4 |
| 19 | Gustavus Adolphus | 38.43 | 17 |
| 20 | Tufts | 37.90 | 12 |
| 21 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 37.15 | 18 |
| 22 | Carthage | 33.80 | 8 |
| 23 | UW Whitewater | 31.68 | 23 |
| 24 | Moravian | 31.21 | 25 |
| 25 | Keene State | 29.52 | 11 |
| Dropped out: No. 20 SUNY Geneseo, No. 21 Johns Hopkins, No. 22 UW Platteville, No. 24 Farmingdale State | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference |
Points
|
Top 25 Teams
|
| 1 | WIAC |
349.93
|
3
|
| 2 | IIAC |
267.71
|
1
|
| 3 | NESCAC |
251.26
|
4
|
| 4 | NEWMAC |
213.67
|
3
|
| 5 | NJAC |
184.56
|
2
|
| 6 | CCIW |
132.79
|
3
|
| 7 | Midwest Conference |
119.66
|
2
|
| 8 | OAC |
117.39
|
|
| 9 | UAA |
94.75
|
1
|
| 10 | Empire 8 |
68.23
|
1
|
About the Rankings
For more on the national team rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
/rankings/division-iii-rankings
Rankings are determined by a mathematical formula, which is based on current national descending order lists. This is what’s used to compile a team’s ranking. The purpose and methodology of the 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.
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.
