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