USTFCCCA Polls & Rankings
D-I National Computer Rankings Hold Previous Week’s Top Three
NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) released week two national computer rankings for NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field on Tuesday. The top eight men’s teams remain unchanged from a week ago while the top three women’s squads remain in their previous-week positions. The Women of Troy at Southern California moved to their highest post of the season at No. 4.
Also on the women’s side, Georgia is making their first-ever appearance in the national outdoor computer rankings’ top 25.
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index Top 15
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division I |
|||
Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #2 – April 12 |
|||
| next ranking: April 19 | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Florida | 379.02 | 1 |
| 2 | Texas A&M | 337.08 | 2 |
| 3 | Texas Tech | 273.22 | 3 |
| 4 | Florida State | 269.27 | 4 |
| 5 | LSU | 228.29 | 5 |
| 6 | Mississippi State | 182.41 | 6 |
| 7 | Southern California | 181.82 | 7 |
| 8 | Stanford | 157.37 | 8 |
| 9 | Texas | 154.46 | 14 |
| 10 | Nebraska | 147.07 | 9 |
| 11 | Oregon | 137.22 | 10 |
| 12 | Arkansas | 128.84 | 13 |
| 13 | Minnesota | 127.24 | 11 |
| 14 | Kansas | 124.64 | 12 |
| 15 | BYU | 120.76 | 15 |
| 16 | Virginia Tech | 108.16 | 18 |
| 17 | Oklahoma | 107.72 | 17 |
| 18 | Auburn | 107.30 | 16 |
| 19 | Baylor | 100.76 | 31 |
| 20 | Mississippi | 98.95 | 23 |
| 21 | Georgia | 98.42 | 22 |
| 22 | South Carolina | 90.93 | 20 |
| 23 | UCLA | 87.60 | 21 |
| 24 | Kansas State | 85.54 | 19 |
| 25 | Alabama | 84.82 | 24 |
| dropped out: No. 25 Princeton | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | Big 12 | 1504.34 | 8 |
| 2 | SEC | 1455.32 | 9 |
| 3 | Pac-10 | 895.63 | 4 |
| 4 | ACC | 587.33 | 2 |
| 5 | Big Ten | 426.79 | 1 |
| 6 | Mountain West | 251.97 | 1 |
| 7 | Southland | 218.99 | |
| 8 | BIG EAST | 213.96 | |
| 9 | Ivy League | 145.90 | |
| 10 | Big South | 117.89 | |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division I |
|||
Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #2 – April 12 |
|||
| next ranking: April 19 | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Texas A&M | 353.28 | 1 |
| 2 | LSU | 344.09 | 2 |
| 3 | Oregon | 301.09 | 3 |
| 4 | Southern California | 223.36 | 6 |
| 5 | Clemson | 221.15 | 5 |
| 6 | Texas | 214.98 | 7 |
| 7 | Oklahoma | 206.18 | 4 |
| 8 | Arkansas | 155.97 | 9 |
| 9 | Arizona | 154.78 | 10 |
| 10 | Florida State | 147.99 | 8 |
| 11 | Auburn | 140.40 | 12 |
| 12 | Baylor | 140.28 | 14 |
| 13 | Tennessee | 138.63 | 11 |
| 14 | Arizona State | 132.88 | 15 |
| 15 | Texas Tech | 126.17 | 13 |
| 16 | Stanford | 101.96 | 16 |
| 17 | Colorado | 99.74 | 20 |
| 18 | Washington State | 98.45 | 18 |
| 19 | Georgia | 95.89 | 31 |
| 20 | Washington | 93.25 | 32 |
| 21 | Miami (Fla.) | 92.91 | 21 |
| 22 | Southern Illinois | 92.01 | 23 |
| 23 | Penn State | 88.77 | 22 |
| 24 | TCU | 88.39 | 24 |
| 25 | Kansas | 87.34 | 26 |
| droppped out: No. 17 SMU, No. 19 BYU, No. 25 UCF | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | Big 12 |
1437.75
|
7
|
| 2 | Pac-10 |
1226.44
|
7
|
| 3 | SEC |
1054.43
|
5
|
| 4 | ACC |
791.55
|
3
|
| 5 | Big Ten |
369.77
|
1
|
| 6 | Conference USA |
330.76
|
|
| 7 | Mountain West |
293.10
|
1
|
| 8 | BIG EAST |
273.20
|
|
| 9 | Missouri Valley |
160.19
|
1
|
| 10 | Ivy League |
101.32
|
|
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.
