Lincoln (Mo.) Men Take Lead at Halfway Mark; GVSU Women Keep Wide Margin in Division II

Follow @USTFCCCA

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.