Top Five Teams Remain Intact in D-I; Preseason Marks Go Away Next Week

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

April 19, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) released week three national computer rankings for NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field on Tuesday. In both men’s and women’s rankings, the top five teams remained unchanged from positions a week ago. Rankings next week will include only marks from the 2011 season (excluding combined events) and could result in the first shakeups to the rankings for the outdoor season.

PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index Top 15

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division I

Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #3 – April 19

next ranking: April 26
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Florida 416.47 1
2 Texas A&M 337.48 2
3 Texas Tech 268.21 3
4 Florida State 252.74 4
5 LSU 225.65 5
6 Southern California 183.60 7
7 Mississippi State 179.61 6
8 Stanford 148.65 8
9 BYU 144.90 15
10 Nebraska 144.68 10
11 Texas 144.15 9
12 Arkansas 136.14 12
13 Oregon 128.34 11
14 Virginia Tech 126.61 16
15 Minnesota 122.84 13
16 Arizona 120.44 26
17 Auburn 119.98 18
18 Kansas 119.60 14
19 Georgia 109.81 21
20 Oklahoma 104.66 17
21 Baylor 98.98 19
22 Mississippi 97.28 20
23 South Carolina 89.00 22
24 UCLA 83.92 23
25 Alabama 82.45 25
dropped out: No. 24 Kansas State
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 1509.42 9
2 Big 12 1469.26 7
3 Pac-10 901.23 5
4 ACC 570.00 2
5 Big Ten 422.40 1
6 Mountain West 292.25 1
7 Southland 208.18
8 BIG EAST 197.00
9 Ivy League 136.69
10 Big South 110.66

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division I

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #3 – April 19

next ranking: April 26
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Texas A&M 370.53 1
2 LSU 339.69 2
3 Oregon 298.47 3
4 Southern California 256.96 4
5 Clemson 212.43 5
6 Oklahoma 201.64 7
7 Texas 198.56 6
8 Arizona 159.67 9
9 Arkansas 152.24 8
10 Arizona State 149.12 14
11 Auburn 141.69 11
12 Florida State 136.53 10
13 Tennessee 135.16 13
14 Baylor 128.00 12
15 Texas Tech 112.71 15
16 Colorado 111.42 17
17 Stanford 107.14 16
18 SMU 100.77 29
19 Washington State 93.89 18
20 Georgia 91.91 19
21 Miami (Fla.) 90.44 21
22 Southern Illinois 90.02 22
23 TCU 85.93 24
24 BYU 85.89 26
25 Kansas 85.50 25
droppped out: No. 20 Washington, No. 23 Penn State
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 Big 12
1421.38
7
2 Pac-10
1262.76
6
3 SEC
1068.24
5
4 ACC
742.00
3
5 Conference USA
357.93
1
6 Big Ten
354.41
7 BIG EAST
338.09
8 Mountain West
303.07
2
9 Missouri Valley
160.82
1
10 Ivy League
88.10

 

 

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