McMurry, Wartburg Lead-Off D-III Outdoor Season as Early National Leaders

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

April 6, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The first national team computer rankings of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) for the 2011 NCAA Division III outdoor track & field season were released on Wednesday. On top of the division’s rankings — based solely on meet results from the first few weeks of the outdoor season — are McMurry’s men and Wartburg’s women.

National Computer Rankings:
PDFs:
Top 25 | Full by Team | Full by Event | Event-by-Event
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index:Top 10 Teams by Region
Dual Meet RPI: Website

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division III

Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #1 – April 6

next ranking: April 13
Rank School Points Last Week
1 McMurry 243.19
2 La Verne 137.25
3 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 137.09
4 Central (Iowa) 135.40
5 North Central (Ill.) 113.27
6 Monmouth (Ill.) 113.24
7 Augustana (Ill.) 109.22
8 Whitworth 106.89
9 Redlands 105.01
10 Washington (Mo.) 101.68
11 Baldwin-Wallace 100.54
12 Haverford 86.02
13 Willamette 75.93
14 UW Oshkosh 71.67
15 UW Whitewater 70.77
16 Rowan 70.35
17 Cal Lutheran 62.01
18 Ohio Northern 60.10
19 Occidental 55.14
20 Williams 49.69
21 Calvin 48.46
22 UW La Crosse 46.34
23 Ramapo 42.86
24 Christopher Newport 41.91
25 Hamline 35.63
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SCIAC 542.22 5
2 ASC 284.48 1
3 OAC 255.19 2
4 CCIW 246.74 2
5 Northwest Conference 233.52 2
6 WIAC 226.69 3
7 UAA 207.27 1
8 IIAC 175.33 1
9 Centennial 128.12 1
10 Midwest Conference 126.88 1

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division III

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #1 – April 6

next ranking: April 13
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Wartburg 172.56
2 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 156.53
3 UW Oshkosh 145.88
4 Whitworth 126.58
5 MIT 119.38
6 Methodist 117.79
7 Texas Lutheran 108.16
8 Rhodes 107.51
9 Calvin 106.34
10 George Fox 98.06
11 Middlebury 92.47
12 Central (Iowa) 81.61
13 Redlands 75.62
14 North Central (Ill.) 74.14
15 Cal Lutheran 72.40
16 Illinois College 62.34
17 Williams 61.53
18 Nebraska Wesleyan 59.38
19 Willamette 57.39
20 UW Eau Claire 56.57
21 Linfield 54.15
22 UW Whitewater 50.75
23 St. Thomas (Minn.) 47.85
24 Monmouth (Ill.) 47.16
25 Centre 43.68
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference
Points
Top 25 Teams
1 Northwest Conference
350.86
4
2 SCIAC
341.78
3
3 WIAC
305.43
3
4 IIAC
303.66
2
5 SCAC
236.08
2
6 NESCAC
227.68
2
7 MIAC
173.56
1
8 NEWMAC
157.87
1
9 USA South
156.37
1
10 Midwest Conference
154.08
2

 

About the Rankings
For more on the national team rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
http://www.ustfccca.org/rankings/division-iii-rankings

Rankings are determined by a mathematical formula, which is based on current national descending order lists. This is what’s used to compile a team’s ranking. The purpose and methodology of the 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.

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.