D-II Indoor Team Champs Abilene Christian, Grand Valley State Start Outdoor Season At Top

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

March 29, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) announces the association’s preseason National Team Computer Rankings for the 2011 outdoor track & field season in NCAA Division II. The men’s rankings are led by Abilene Christian in the preseason release while Grand Valley State leads all women’s teams. Both squads won NCAA indoor titles earlier in the month.

The NCAA Division II Outdoor Track & Field Championships will be held May 26-28 in Turlock, Calif., on the campus of Cal State Stanislaus.

Defending men’s team outdoor champion Saint Augustine’s starts the season at No. 3 while women’s defending outdoor team champion Angelo State begins at No. 20.

Preseason computer rankings are compiled using performance data from both the current 2011 outdoor season and the past season. Past-season data will be used in conjunction with current data through week three in calculating team scores.

PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event
Previous Rankings
| Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
2010 NCAA Scoring Breakdown

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division II

Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Preseason – March 29

next ranking: April 5, Week 1
Rank School Points 2010 FINAL
1 Abilene Christian 226.74 2
2 Adams State 196.92 4
3 Saint Augustine’s 159.52 1
4 Angelo State 156.82 9
5 Central Missouri 148.46 3
6 Ashland 131.78 6
7 Johnson C. Smith 122.46 11
8 Cal State LA 117.92 6
9 Lincoln (Mo.) 112.73 5
10 Alaska Anchorage 107.34 14
11 Western State 103.07 27
12 Pittsburg State 89.64 9
13 Grand Valley State 78.07 23
14 Western Washington 76.67 18
15 Chico State 63.88 8
16 Colorado Mines 62.41 12
17 Texas A&M-Kingsville 62.38 46
18 UPR Rio Piedras 58.88
19 Fort Hays State 53.97
20 Southern Connecticut 52.90 52
21 Augustana (S.D.) 51.73 33
22 Findlay 49.25 15
23 Neb.-Kearney 48.88 27
24 UNC Pembroke 48.30
25 Indianapolis 45.21 42
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 MIAA 485.55 4
2 Lone Star 484.79 3
3 RMAC 437.27 4
4 GLIAC 325.21 3
5 CIAA 321.58 2
6 CCAA 236.89 2
7 PSAC 210.64
8 GNAC 204.08 2
9 GLVC 142.01 1
10 NSIC 142.01 1

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division II

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Preseason – March 29

next ranking: April 5, Week 1
Rank School Points 2010 FINAL
1 Grand Valley State 221.05 3
2 Adams State 176.73 8
3 Johnson C. Smith 155.02 10
4 Lincoln (Mo.) 153.75 2
5 UC San Diego 146.33 16
6 Ashland 126.50 12
7 Fort Valley State 126.28 5
8 Abilene Christian 120.87 4
9 Central Missouri 109.64 25
10 Saint Augustine’s 93.00 11
11 Shippensburg 90.15 9
12 Winona State 88.53 13
13 Cal State LA 84.85 38
14 Chico State 76.52 18
15 Pittsburg State 76.24 21
16 Slippery Rock 74.40 21
17 Western State 71.94 26
18 Alaska Anchorage 67.37
19 Western Washington 56.25 18
20 Angelo State 55.38 1
21 Augustana (S.D.) 52.64 52
22 Indiana (Pa.) 50.82 20
23 Western Oregon 49.72 35
24 Seattle Pacific 45.14 17
25 Fort Hays State 43.67 43
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference
Points
Top 25 Teams
1 MIAA
476.41
4
2 GLIAC
442.75
2
3 CCAA
392.85
3
4 PSAC
320.94
3
5 RMAC
313.80
2
6 NSIC
310.53
2
7 CIAA
270.96
2
8 GNAC
248.90
4
9 Lone Star
240.87
2
10 SIAC
192.94
1

 

 

About the Rankings
For more on the rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
http://www.ustfccca.org/rankings/division-ii-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.