D-II Outdoor T&F Week Two National Team Rankings Released

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

April 12, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) announces the association’s week two National Team Computer Rankings for the 2011 outdoor track & field season in NCAA Division II. The men of Abilene Christian again are listed at No. 1 while Adams State’s men moves from No. 3 to No. 2 in the latest release. On the women’s side, the top nine spots stay at the same positions from a week ago.

PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings
| Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index Top 10 Teams

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division II

Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #2 – April 12

next ranking: April 19
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Abilene Christian 213.43 1
2 Adams State 201.06 3
3 Lincoln (Mo.) 194.91 2
4 Central Missouri 146.84 5
5 Saint Augustine’s 146.44 4
6 Ashland 137.68 7
7 Angelo State 137.45 6
8 Johnson C. Smith 125.26 9
9 Western State 123.55 8
10 Alaska Anchorage 99.17 10
11 Pittsburg State 91.87 12
12 Cal State LA 90.54 11
13 Neb.-Kearney 75.69 16
14 Grand Valley State 73.70 13
15 Emporia State 72.31 24
16 Western Washington 70.64 14
17 Texas A&M-Kingsville 69.78 15
18 Colorado Mines 62.59 18
19 Chico State 62.48 17
20 Findlay 56.28 19
21 Indianapolis 55.56 28
22 Augustana (S.D.) 51.61 20
23 Southern Connecticut 50.44 22
24 Fort Hays State 47.84 21
25 Harding 42.64 27
dropped out: No. 25 Missouri Southern
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 MIAA 607.84 5
2 RMAC 492.84 4
3 Lone Star 458.25 3
4 GLIAC 346.12 3
5 CIAA 303.35 2
6 CCAA 207.27 2
7 GNAC 187.25 2
8 PSAC 185.85
9 NSIC 138.63 1
10 Northeast-10 114.11 1

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division II

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #2 – April 12

next ranking: April 19
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Lincoln (Mo.) 247.40 1
2 Grand Valley State 231.21 2
3 Adams State 167.03 3
4 Johnson C. Smith 144.17 4
5 UC San Diego 135.80 5
6 Ashland 117.14 6
7 Abilene Christian 111.64 7
8 Fort Valley State 111.01 8
9 Central Missouri 108.82 9
10 Winona State 93.40 14
11 Saint Augustine’s 92.51 11
12 Western State 82.67 12
13 Shippensburg 82.33 10
14 Cal State LA 79.77 13
15 Pittsburg State 77.34 17
16 Chico State 71.94 15
17 Western Washington 71.17 16
18 Slippery Rock 60.45 18
19 Alaska Anchorage 59.56 19
20 Angelo State 51.78 20
21 Augustana (S.D.) 46.10 21
22 Indiana (Pa.) 44.86 23
23 Western Oregon 44.37 22
24 Seattle Pacific 44.35 25
25 New Mexico Highlands 42.07 24
dropped out: none
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 MIAA
566.43
3
2 GLIAC
431.48
2
3 CCAA
368.68
3
4 RMAC
364.07
3
5 NSIC
295.03
2
6 PSAC
287.51
3
7 CIAA
252.59
2
8 GNAC
246.85
4
9 Lone Star
236.83
2
10 SIAC
142.41
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.