In D-I, Teams Make Top Five Moves Prior To Final Week of Regular Season

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

May 10, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) released week six national computer rankings for NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field on Tuesday. While Texas A&M’s men and LSU’s women remain at the No. 1 posts heading into their respective conference championships, Florida surpassed LSU for the No. 2 spot on the men’s side, and Clemson’s women moved to national top three for the first time in computer-ranking history.

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 #6 – May 10

next ranking: May 17
Rank School Points Last Week
1 Texas A&M 347.96 1
2 Florida 329.57 3
3 LSU 293.70 2
4 Florida State 284.47 4
5 Texas Tech 250.13 5
6 Texas 172.76 6
7 Southern California 172.32 7
8 Nebraska 152.47 8
9 Virginia Tech 151.73 9
10 Arizona 147.76 10
11 Arkansas 147.39 15
12 Stanford 136.59 11
13 Baylor 135.52 13
14 Georgia 127.30 12
15 BYU 126.07 17
16 Oklahoma 122.40 14
17 Kansas 110.99 18
18 Mississippi 107.01 16
19 Penn State 91.06 19
20 Oregon 89.57 20
21 UCLA 87.84 23
22 Mississippi State 85.01 21
23 Washington 83.08 28
24 Auburn 76.03 22
25 Kansas State 71.96 32
dropped out: No. 24 TCU, No. 25 New Mexico
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 Big 12 1516.83 8
2 SEC 1304.08 7
3 Pac-10 881.22 6
4 ACC 670.17 2
5 Big Ten 400.28 1
6 Mountain West 324.98 1
7 BIG EAST 159.16
8 Southland 154.58
9 Ivy League 128.01
10 Big Sky 110.58

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division I

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #6 – May 10

next ranking: May 17
Rank School Points Last Week
1 LSU 320.76 1
2 Texas A&M 287.46 2
3 Clemson 277.70 4
4 Southern California 215.46 5
5 Oregon 212.88 3
6 Oklahoma 208.78 6
7 Arkansas 203.22 8
8 Arizona 171.13 7
9 Baylor 162.77 10
10 Texas 157.64 9
11 Texas Tech 138.30 11
12 Arizona State 136.48 12
13 Auburn 134.74 13
14 Nebraska 119.79 14
15 Colorado 115.42 15
16 Kansas State 107.88 16
17 UCF 103.30 17
18 Georgia 98.02 19
19 West Virginia 96.86 46
20 Southern Illinois 96.53 20
21 Tennessee 96.40 21
22 North Carolina 96.00 18
23 Washington State 94.28 22
24 SMU 94.28 23
25 Kansas 93.94 25
dropped out: No. 24 Stanford, No. 25 Kansas
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference
Points
Top 25 Teams
1 Big 12
1485.88
9
2 Pac-10
1096.47
5
3 SEC
1085.03
5
4 ACC
692.20
2
5 Conference USA
435.33
2
6 BIG EAST
409.44
1
7 Big Ten
396.20
8 Mountain West
269.15
9 Missouri Valley
164.27
1
10 Big West
103.57

 

 

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.