McMurry, Wartburg Still On Top of the D-III National Rankings

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

April 13, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The second 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. McMurry’s men and Wartburg’s women remain the top teams in the calculated rankings for the second-straight week.

National Computer Rankings:
PDFs:
Top 25 | Full by Team | Full by Event | Week-by-Week
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 #2 – April 13

next ranking: April 20
Rank School Points Last Week
1 McMurry 208.53 1
2 Central (Iowa) 136.14 4
3 La Verne 123.37 2
4 UW La Crosse 121.41 22
5 Washington (Mo.) 119.30 10
6 UW Oshkosh 110.58 14
7 North Central (Ill.) 106.15 5
8 Augustana (Ill.) 94.49 7
9 Monmouth (Ill.) 93.46 6
10 Whitworth 92.86 8
11 UW Whitewater 92.48 15
12 Nebraska Wesleyan 91.61 36
13 Redlands 85.94 9
14 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 79.41 3
15 Baldwin-Wallace 76.02 11
16 Haverford 63.28 12
17 Calvin 59.78 21
18 UW Stout 54.32 47
19 Cal Lutheran 53.37 17
20 Ohio Northern 52.22 18
21 Rowan 52.13 16
22 Willamette 45.85 13
23 UW Platteville 45.70 93
24 Ramapo 40.77 23
25 Greenville 40.70 26
dropped out: No. 19 Occidental, No. 20 Williams, No. 24 Christopher Newport, No. 25 Hamline
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 WIAC 466.21 5
2 SCIAC 409.81 4
3 UAA 250.04 1
4 CCIW 238.99 2
5 ASC 236.35 1
6 OAC 216.91 2
7 Northwest Conference 177.16 2
8 IIAC 167.33 1
9 NESCAC 117.47
10 NJAC 114.75 2

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division III

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #2 – April 13

next ranking: April 20
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Wartburg 238.40 1
2 UW Oshkosh 191.74 3
3 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 135.81 2
4 Methodist 133.56 6
5 Whitworth 116.42 4
6 MIT 98.01 5
7 Central (Iowa) 94.15 12
8 Texas Lutheran 84.35 7
9 Calvin 77.58 9
10 George Fox 70.05 10
11 Williams 69.60 17
12 Rhodes 63.83 8
13 UW La Crosse 63.23 29
14 UW Eau Claire 63.12 20
15 Ithaca 62.73 30
16 Illinois College 61.66 16
17 Nebraska Wesleyan 58.33 18
18 Cal Lutheran 51.36 15
19 Greenville 51.21 27
20 UW Platteville 50.01 59
21 UW Whitewater 49.16 22
22 Linfield 46.94 21
23 North Central (Ill.) 46.60 14
24 Middlebury 43.96 11
25 Willamette 43.91 19
dropped out: No. 13 Redlands, No. 23 St. Thomas (Minn.), No. 24 Monmouth (Ill.), No. 25 Centre
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference
Points
Top 25 Teams
1 WIAC
456.05
5
2 IIAC
434.24
2
3 Northwest Conference
285.31
4
4 SCIAC
269.09
2
5 NESCAC
183.37
2
6 SCAC
181.89
1
7 MIAC
160.38
8 USA South
150.35
1
9 UAA
146.51
10 CCIW
140.02
1

 

 

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.