USTFCCCA News & Notes
Lincoln, GVSU Still Tops in D-II; Southern Connecticut Men, U-Mary Women Rejoin Top Ten
NEW ORLEANS – As the dust settles on the conference championship weekend, the national team rankings for NCAA Division II indoor track & field still has the same teams at the top as was the week previous. The Blue Tigers of Lincoln University of Missouri lead the men’s standings for the third-straight week while the women of Grand Valley State hold to the No. 1 position for the seventh time in seven tries.
Rankings this week are a relection of all data reported to TFRRS through Sunday, Feb. 27. Next week’s rankings will only include those who declared and were accepted to compete in the NCAA Division II Indoor Championships. The NCAA will release the championship fields today (Tuesday, March 1) by Noon ET on flashresults.com.
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 #6 – March 1 |
|||
| next ranking: SUNDAY, March 6 (Week 7) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 182.73 | 1 |
| 2 | Ashland | 127.84 | 3 |
| 3 | Saint Augustine’s | 125.78 | 2 |
| 4 | Adams State | 115.82 | 6 |
| 5 | Abilene Christian | 114.73 | 5 |
| 6 | Central Missouri | 109.88 | 4 |
| 7 | Emporia State | 99.72 | 9 |
| 8 | Southern Connecticut | 98.76 | 12 |
| 9 | Findlay | 98.34 | 7 |
| 10 | Johnson C. Smith | 77.28 | 8 |
| 11 | UMass Lowell | 73.07 | 13 |
| 12 | Chadron State | 68.18 | 11 |
| 13 | MSU Moorhead | 63.26 | 18 |
| 14 | American International | 62.51 | 14 |
| 15 | Grand Valley State | 62.32 | 10 |
| 16 | Shippensburg | 58.39 | 30 |
| 17 | Grand Canyon | 54.81 | 16 |
| 18 | Pittsburg State | 52.78 | 22 |
| 19 | Stonehill | 48.19 | 19 |
| 20 | Colorado Mines | 47.86 | 15 |
| 21 | Lake Erie | 44.90 | 20 |
| 22 | Western Washington | 40.96 | 21 |
| 23 | Queens (N.C.) | 40.54 | 49 |
| 24 | Western State | 38.73 | 17 |
| 25 | Augustana (S.D.) | 33.65 | 23 |
| Dropped out: No. 24 Bowie State, No. 25 Minnesota State | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | MIAA | 497.02 | 4 |
| 2 | GLIAC | 399.37 | 4 |
| 3 | RMAC | 331.88 | 4 |
| 4 | Northeast-10 | 299.25 | 4 |
| 5 | CIAA | 251.92 | 2 |
| 6 | NSIC | 177.52 | 2 |
| 7 | PSAC | 142.10 | 1 |
| 8 | Lone Star | 120.65 | 1 |
| 9 | GNAC | 68.93 | 1 |
| 10 | PacWest | 54.81 | 1 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division II |
|||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #6 – March 1 |
|||
| next ranking: SUNDAY, March 6 (Week 7) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Grand Valley State | 285.15 | 1 |
| 2 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 162.70 | 2 |
| 3 | Ashland | 159.15 | 3 |
| 4 | Neb.-Omaha | 131.57 | 4 |
| 5 | Adams State | 129.46 | 5 |
| 6 | Johnson C. Smith | 102.65 | 6 |
| 7 | Central Missouri | 99.29 | 8 |
| 8 | Western State | 75.11 | 7 |
| 9 | Shippensburg | 66.42 | 10 |
| 10 | U-Mary | 59.70 | 12 |
| 11 | New Haven | 59.66 | 9 |
| 12 | Virginia State | 46.27 | 13 |
| 13 | Saint Augustine’s | 46.15 | 11 |
| 14 | Angelo State | 42.81 | 14 |
| 15 | Winona State | 42.09 | 16 |
| 16 | Augustana (S.D.) | 38.82 | 24 |
| 17 | Missouri Southern | 38.78 | 18 |
| 18 | Grand Canyon | 38.50 | 15 |
| 19 | Southern Connecticut | 36.67 | 35 |
| 20 | New Mexico Highlands | 35.26 | 39 |
| 21 | Wayne State (Neb.) | 34.29 | 19 |
| 22 | Fort Hays State | 33.29 | 17 |
| 23 | Chadron State | 30.91 | 26 |
| 24 | Western Washington | 29.30 | 20 |
| 25 | Findlay | 27.14 | 25 |
| Dropped out: No. 21 Pittsburg State, No. 22 Northern Michigan, No. 23 UMass Lowell | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | GLIAC | 540.97 | 3 |
| 2 | MIAA | 519.59 | 5 |
| 3 | RMAC | 338.82 | 4 |
| 4 | NSIC | 229.44 | 4 |
| 5 | CIAA | 206.71 | 3 |
| 6 | PSAC | 147.45 | 1 |
| 7 | Northeast-10 | 144.18 | 2 |
| 8 | Lone Star | 69.53 | 1 |
| 9 | GNAC | 53.60 | 1 |
| 10 | CCAA | 42.84 | |
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.