USTFCCCA News & Notes
Lincoln (Mo.) Men Take Lead at Halfway Mark; GVSU Women Keep Wide Margin in Division II
NEW ORLEANS – The halfway point is at hand of the NCAA Division II indoor track & field season. Individuals are well on their way to qualify for the national championships which will be held on March 12-13 in Albuquerque, N.M. As we are less than a month away from those championships, the Blue Tigers of Lincoln (Mo.) move to the No. 1 men’s position for the second time this year as rival Saint Augustine’s moved to No. 2. Grand Valley State’s women are again at No. 1, a place they have held since the beginning of the season.
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index: Top 10 Teams by Region
For the first time, Division II’s computer rankings this year were calculated using a mixture of best marks from the current and previous season. As customary using this procedure, fourth week rankings calculated and released by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) use data only from the current season (with exception of combined events) to formulate a team’s ranking score.
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division II |
|||
Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #4 – February 15 |
|||
| next ranking: February 22 (Week 5) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 179.45 | 2 |
| 2 | Saint Augustine’s | 164.29 | 1 |
| 3 | Central Missouri | 130.96 | 5 |
| 4 | Ashland | 129.64 | 4 |
| 5 | Adams State | 116.94 | 6 |
| 6 | Abilene Christian | 107.84 | 3 |
| 7 | Findlay | 104.75 | 9 |
| 8 | Grand Valley State | 92.47 | 7 |
| 9 | Johnson C. Smith | 86.96 | 12 |
| 10 | Southern Connecticut | 83.80 | 14 |
| 11 | UMass Lowell | 78.53 | 16 |
| 12 | Emporia State | 68.09 | 8 |
| 13 | Colorado Mines | 65.41 | 15 |
| 14 | American International | 63.30 | 10 |
| 15 | Grand Canyon | 62.41 | 23 |
| 16 | Western State | 59.04 | 13 |
| 17 | Chadron State | 56.51 | 11 |
| 18 | Stonehill | 51.21 | 17 |
| 19 | Pittsburg State | 45.20 | 22 |
| 20 | Western Washington | 41.40 | 20 |
| 21 | Augustana (S.D.) | 41.33 | 33 |
| 22 | Bowie State | 40.50 | 26 |
| 23 | Lake Erie | 38.16 | 29 |
| 24 | Minnesota State | 35.86 | 18 |
| 25 | MSU Moorhead | 34.71 | 32 |
| Dropped out: No. 19 Metro State, No. 21 Indiana (Pa.), No. 24 Missouri S&T, No. 25 Kentucky State | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | MIAA | 473.94 | 4 |
| 2 | GLIAC | 394.06 | 4 |
| 3 | RMAC | 360.96 | 4 |
| 4 | CIAA | 309.69 | 3 |
| 5 | Northeast-10 | 294.88 | 4 |
| 6 | NSIC | 167.95 | 3 |
| 7 | PSAC | 138.64 | |
| 8 | Lone Star | 123.90 | 1 |
| 9 | GNAC | 67.64 | 1 |
| 10 | PacWest | 62.41 | 1 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division II |
|||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #4 – February 15 |
|||
| next ranking: February 22 (Week 5) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Grand Valley State | 288.32 | 1 |
| 2 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 179.71 | 4 |
| 3 | Ashland | 150.36 | 2 |
| 4 | Adams State | 135.50 | 5 |
| 5 | Neb.-Omaha | 118.34 | 3 |
| 6 | Johnson C. Smith | 117.35 | 7 |
| 7 | Western State | 90.55 | 13 |
| 8 | Central Missouri | 83.93 | 6 |
| 9 | New Haven | 75.21 | 15 |
| 10 | U-Mary | 74.35 | 18 |
| 11 | Shippensburg | 64.45 | 8 |
| 12 | Virginia State | 63.72 | 43 |
| 13 | Winona State | 48.35 | 16 |
| 14 | Grand Canyon | 46.35 | 19 |
| 15 | Saint Augustine’s | 44.37 | 12 |
| 16 | Angelo State | 42.93 | 37 |
| 17 | Northern Michigan | 35.94 | 29 |
| 18 | Missouri Southern | 35.25 | 22 |
| 19 | Wayne State (Neb.) | 34.50 | 46 |
| 20 | Southern Connecticut | 31.46 | 49 |
| 21 | Augustana (S.D.) | 28.96 | 20 |
| 22 | Western Washington | 28.88 | 11 |
| 23 | Winston-Salem State | 28.52 | 75 |
| 24 | Minnesota State | 28.13 | 26 |
| 25 | Findlay | 27.33 | 25 |
| Dropped out: No. 9 Fort Hays State, No. 10 Indiana (Pa.), No. 14 Hillsdale, No. 17 New Mexico Highlands, No. 21 Pittsburg State, No. 23 Seattle Pacific, No. 24 East Stroudsburg | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | GLIAC | 568.34 | 4 |
| 2 | MIAA | 500.80 | 4 |
| 3 | RMAC | 292.36 | 2 |
| 4 | CIAA | 255.81 | 4 |
| 5 | NSIC | 240.46 | 5 |
| 6 | PSAC | 162.11 | 1 |
| 7 | Northeast-10 | 140.69 | 2 |
| 8 | Lone Star | 66.38 | 1 |
| 9 | CCAA | 57.93 | |
| 10 | PacWest | 46.35 | 1 |
About the Rankings
For more on the rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
http://www.ustfccca.org/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.