D-I Week One Outdoor Rankings: No Change to Number Ones, LSU Women Move to No. 2

Follow @USTFCCCA

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) released week one national computer rankings for NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field on Tuesday. Florida’s men and Texas A&M’s women remain in the top spots, a place both teams held in the preseason. The LSU women took over the No. 2 spot from Oregon who moved down to No. 3.

Clemson’s women are making their first-ever apperance (since rankings began in 2008) in the national outdoor top five. Arizona’s women are in the national outdoor top ten for the first time since rankings began as well.

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 #1 – April 5
next ranking: April 12
Rank	School	Points	Last Week
1	Florida	404.85	1
2	Texas A&M	329.68	2
3	Texas Tech	282.77	3
4	Florida State	272.29	4
5	LSU	211.24	5
6	Mississippi State	183.65	8
7	Southern California	168.90	6
8	Stanford	158.15	7
9	Nebraska	154.04	9
10	Oregon	136.69	12
11	Minnesota	133.96	10
12	Kansas	126.55	26
13	Arkansas	123.70	14
14	Texas	114.28	17
15	BYU	113.14	11
16	Auburn	111.50	18
17	Oklahoma	111.32	15
18	Virginia Tech	105.10	16
19	Kansas State	98.74	19
20	South Carolina	92.17	20
21	UCLA	92.13	24
22	Georgia	90.82	23
23	Mississippi	88.10	13
24	Alabama	87.25	22
25	Princeton	84.23	30
dropped out: No. 21 Washington, No. 25 California
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank	Conference	Points	Top 25 Teams
1	SEC	1455.61	9
2	Big 12	1450.68	7
3	Pac-10	890.66	4
4	ACC	603.32	2
5	Big Ten	479.52	1
6	Mountain West	262.44	1
7	BIG EAST	225.12
8	Southland	180.85
9	Ivy League	141.71	1
10	Big South	114.18
USTFCCCA
NCAA Division I
Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings
2011 Week #1 – April 5
next ranking: April 12
Rank	School	Points	Last Week
1	Texas A&M	344.02	1
2	LSU	326.85	3
3	Oregon	306.54	2
4	Oklahoma	215.66	4
5	Clemson	209.01	6
6	Southern California	196.88	5
7	Texas	184.66	7
8	Florida State	158.95	8
9	Arkansas	152.25	9
10	Arizona	145.75	11
11	Tennessee	143.68	15
12	Auburn	140.67	10
13	Texas Tech	136.74	13
14	Baylor	129.96	24
15	Arizona State	116.27	16
16	Stanford	114.23	12
17	SMU	109.69	20
18	Washington State	106.69	22
19	BYU	102.46	17
20	Colorado	98.79	21
21	Miami (Fla.)	97.34	18
22	Penn State	97.29	19
23	Southern Illinois	95.29	25
24	TCU	92.09	27
25	UCF	84.83	45
droppped out: No. 14 Kansas, No. 23 Indiana
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank	Conference	Points	Top 25 Teams
1	Big 12	1389.69	6
2	Pac-10	1177.68	6
3	SEC	1044.65	4
4	ACC	783.86	3
5	Big Ten	398.26	1
6	Conference USA	346.48	2
7	Mountain West	314.71	2
8	BIG EAST	266.92
9	Missouri Valley	170.17	1
10	Big West	117.52

 

 

 

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.