National Rankings for Division II: Week 5
NEW ORLEANS – Lincoln (Mo.)’s men and Grand Valley State’s women remain the No. 1 teams in NCAA’s Division II, indoor track & field, according to the week-five release of the USTFCCCA’s national computer team rankings. Ashland’s men reclaimed a top three spot from Central Missouri while Shippensburg moves back into the national top ten on the women’s side.
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index: Top 10 Teams by Region
Division II Conference Championships Central
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division II |
|||
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 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 177.96 | 1 |
| 2 | Saint Augustine’s | 141.56 | 2 |
| 3 | Ashland | 138.70 | 4 |
| 4 | Central Missouri | 132.07 | 3 |
| 5 | Abilene Christian | 125.61 | 6 |
| 6 | Adams State | 116.77 | 5 |
| 7 | Findlay | 99.49 | 7 |
| 8 | Johnson C. Smith | 81.27 | 9 |
| 9 | Emporia State | 76.63 | 12 |
| 10 | Grand Valley State | 73.78 | 8 |
| 11 | Chadron State | 71.19 | 17 |
| 12 | Southern Connecticut | 70.11 | 10 |
| 13 | UMass Lowell | 66.44 | 11 |
| 14 | American International | 64.74 | 14 |
| 15 | Colorado Mines | 57.97 | 13 |
| 16 | Grand Canyon | 57.79 | 15 |
| 17 | Western State | 57.39 | 16 |
| 18 | MSU Moorhead | 53.56 | 25 |
| 19 | Stonehill | 50.65 | 18 |
| 20 | Lake Erie | 42.11 | 23 |
| 21 | Western Washington | 41.02 | 20 |
| 22 | Pittsburg State | 40.03 | 19 |
| 23 | Augustana (S.D.) | 39.96 | 21 |
| 24 | Bowie State | 34.08 | 22 |
| 25 | Minnesota State | 32.94 | 24 |
| Dropped out: none | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | MIAA | 482.30 | 4 |
| 2 | GLIAC | 392.10 | 4 |
| 3 | RMAC | 358.08 | 4 |
| 4 | CIAA | 283.69 | 3 |
| 5 | Northeast-10 | 268.85 | 4 |
| 6 | NSIC | 175.62 | 3 |
| 7 | Lone Star | 134.75 | 1 |
| 8 | PSAC | 126.93 | |
| 9 | GNAC | 67.61 | 1 |
| 10 | PacWest | 57.79 | 1 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division II |
|||
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 | Grand Valley State | 290.55 | 1 |
| 2 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 161.54 | 2 |
| 3 | Ashland | 160.33 | 3 |
| 4 | Neb.-Omaha | 139.84 | 5 |
| 5 | Adams State | 126.84 | 4 |
| 6 | Johnson C. Smith | 113.76 | 6 |
| 7 | Western State | 80.92 | 7 |
| 8 | Central Missouri | 74.89 | 8 |
| 9 | New Haven | 62.28 | 9 |
| 10 | Shippensburg | 61.66 | 11 |
| 11 | Saint Augustine’s | 60.43 | 15 |
| 12 | U-Mary | 56.82 | 10 |
| 13 | Virginia State | 49.35 | 12 |
| 14 | Angelo State | 45.70 | 16 |
| 15 | Grand Canyon | 43.41 | 14 |
| 16 | Winona State | 41.24 | 13 |
| 17 | Fort Hays State | 41.08 | 29 |
| 18 | Missouri Southern | 39.23 | 18 |
| 19 | Wayne State (Neb.) | 38.13 | 19 |
| 20 | Western Washington | 33.91 | 22 |
| 21 | Pittsburg State | 29.42 | 30 |
| 22 | Northern Michigan | 29.42 | 17 |
| 23 | UMass Lowell | 27.49 | 26 |
| 24 | Augustana (S.D.) | 26.38 | 21 |
| 25 | Findlay | 26.35 | 25 |
| Dropped out: No. 20 Southern Connecticut, No. 23 Winston-Salem State, No. 24 Minnesota State | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | GLIAC | 563.25 | 4 |
| 2 | MIAA | 516.16 | 6 |
| 3 | RMAC | 327.04 | 2 |
| 4 | CIAA | 244.02 | 3 |
| 5 | NSIC | 217.46 | 4 |
| 6 | PSAC | 144.46 | 1 |
| 7 | Northeast-10 | 119.24 | 2 |
| 8 | Lone Star | 78.78 | 1 |
| 9 | GNAC | 50.88 | 1 |
| 10 | CCAA | 50.75 | |
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.
