

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