National Rankings for Division II: Week 5

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

February 22, 2011   

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 …
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.