Lincoln’s Women Makes Move to No. 1 in D-II Outdoor Team Rankings
NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) announces the association’s week-one National Team Computer Rankings for the 2011 outdoor track & field season in NCAA Division II. Abilene Christian’s men hangs on to the top spot found intially in the preseason rankings, but Lincoln (Mo.) jumped seven spots to take over second. On the women’s side, Lincoln (Mo.) made a three-position upward move to No. 1.
For Lincoln’s women, it is the first time they have been ranked as the nation’s top outdoor team using the current ranking procedure. In addition, their 4.56-point lead over No. 2 Grand Valley State is the slimmest margin recorded for the national outdoor rankings since the process began last year.
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event
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 #1 – April 5 |
|||
| next ranking: April 12 | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Abilene Christian | 217.85 | 1 |
| 2 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 203.91 | 9 |
| 3 | Adams State | 193.83 | 2 |
| 4 | Saint Augustine’s | 151.99 | 3 |
| 5 | Central Missouri | 147.61 | 5 |
| 6 | Angelo State | 146.35 | 4 |
| 7 | Ashland | 136.07 | 6 |
| 8 | Western State | 125.90 | 11 |
| 9 | Johnson C. Smith | 118.12 | 7 |
| 10 | Alaska Anchorage | 106.50 | 10 |
| 11 | Cal State LA | 104.15 | 8 |
| 12 | Pittsburg State | 89.32 | 12 |
| 13 | Grand Valley State | 74.49 | 13 |
| 14 | Western Washington | 72.82 | 14 |
| 15 | Texas A&M-Kingsville | 68.44 | 17 |
| 16 | Neb.-Kearney | 67.56 | 23 |
| 17 | Chico State | 62.12 | 15 |
| 18 | Colorado Mines | 61.04 | 16 |
| 19 | Findlay | 60.12 | 22 |
| 20 | Augustana (S.D.) | 51.70 | 21 |
| 21 | Fort Hays State | 51.07 | 19 |
| 22 | Southern Connecticut | 50.88 | 20 |
| 23 | UPR Rio Piedras | 47.03 | 18 |
| 24 | Emporia State | 41.14 | 33 |
| 25 | Missouri Southern | 38.50 | 38 |
| dropped out: No. 24 UNC Pembroke, No. 25 Indianapolis | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | MIAA | 589.72 | 6 |
| 2 | RMAC | 483.71 | 4 |
| 3 | Lone Star | 473.06 | 3 |
| 4 | GLIAC | 333.28 | 3 |
| 5 | CIAA | 307.73 | 2 |
| 6 | CCAA | 224.92 | 2 |
| 7 | PSAC | 200.34 | |
| 8 | GNAC | 197.52 | 2 |
| 9 | NSIC | 135.70 | 1 |
| 10 | Northeast-10 | 121.62 | 1 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division II |
|||
Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #1 – April 5 |
|||
| next ranking: April 12 | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Lincoln (Mo.) | 225.18 | 4 |
| 2 | Grand Valley State | 220.62 | 1 |
| 3 | Adams State | 168.35 | 2 |
| 4 | Johnson C. Smith | 142.12 | 3 |
| 5 | UC San Diego | 134.22 | 5 |
| 6 | Ashland | 122.72 | 6 |
| 7 | Abilene Christian | 120.19 | 8 |
| 8 | Fort Valley State | 115.72 | 7 |
| 9 | Central Missouri | 105.14 | 9 |
| 10 | Shippensburg | 90.45 | 11 |
| 11 | Saint Augustine’s | 87.37 | 10 |
| 12 | Western State | 85.63 | 17 |
| 13 | Cal State LA | 81.44 | 13 |
| 14 | Winona State | 78.46 | 12 |
| 15 | Chico State | 74.90 | 14 |
| 16 | Western Washington | 71.65 | 19 |
| 17 | Pittsburg State | 70.81 | 15 |
| 18 | Slippery Rock | 69.40 | 16 |
| 19 | Alaska Anchorage | 65.15 | 18 |
| 20 | Angelo State | 57.20 | 20 |
| 21 | Augustana (S.D.) | 50.27 | 21 |
| 22 | Western Oregon | 46.20 | 23 |
| 23 | Indiana (Pa.) | 44.93 | 22 |
| 24 | New Mexico Highlands | 43.69 | 93 |
| 25 | Seattle Pacific | 41.31 | 24 |
| dropped out: No. 25 Fort Hays State | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference |
Points
|
Top 25 Teams
|
| 1 | MIAA |
534.23
|
3
|
| 2 | GLIAC |
433.62
|
2
|
| 3 | CCAA |
371.42
|
3
|
| 4 | RMAC |
360.58
|
3
|
| 5 | PSAC |
308.87
|
3
|
| 6 | NSIC |
289.90
|
2
|
| 7 | GNAC |
254.50
|
4
|
| 8 | Lone Star |
248.79
|
2
|
| 9 | CIAA |
248.43
|
2
|
| 10 | SIAC |
166.88
|
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.
