Once Again in D-III, Top Two Stay, Number Three Changes

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

May 11, 2011   

NEW ORLEANS – The sixth week of 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. For the fourth-straight time on the men’s side and the second-straight time in the women’s rankings, the top two teams remained unchanged, but the No. 3 position again has been filled by a different school.

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 #6 – May 11

next ranking: May 18
Rank School Points Last Week
1 McMurry 192.51 1
2 North Central (Ill.) 158.26 2
3 UW-La Crosse 147.88 4
4 UW-Oshkosh 134.00 5
5 Augustana (Ill.) 111.13 18
6 Central (Iowa) 104.13 6
7 UW-Whitewater 99.22 7
8 La Verne 90.82 3
9 UW-Stout 81.46 13
10 Monmouth (Ill.) 77.67 20
11 Nebraska Wesleyan 77.28 11
12 Redlands 74.94 9
13 Whitworth 71.36 10
14 Calvin 69.61 8
15 Washington (Mo.) 68.27 12
16 SUNY Fredonia 63.93 19
17 Cal Lutheran 62.56 17
18 Moravian 61.55 16
19 Baldwin-Wallace 61.21 14
20 Haverford 61.03 15
21 UW-Platteville 55.84 34
22 Buffalo State 49.54 21
23 Wabash 48.96 24
24 Bates 46.39 22
25 Williams 45.76 29
dropped out: No. 23 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, No. 25 SUNY Cortland
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 WIAC 593.62 5
2 SCIAC 315.02 3
3 CCIW 303.17 2
4 ASC 204.28 1
5 OAC 193.43 1
6 SUNYAC 191.30 2
7 NESCAC 171.36 2
8 UAA 167.66 1
9 IIAC 138.86 1
10 Northwest Conference 125.95 1

USTFCCCA

NCAA Division III

Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2011 Week #6 – May 11

next ranking: May 18
Rank School Points Last Week
1 UW-Oshkosh 236.90 1
2 Wartburg 185.64 2
3 Williams 147.37 6
4 MIT 133.55 9
5 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 102.36 4
6 Methodist 98.66 3
7 Nebraska Wesleyan 98.64 10
8 Ithaca 88.58 5
9 UW-Eau Claire 80.77 40
10 Calvin 79.24 8
11 UW-Whitewater 72.25 12
12 Carthage 70.63 26
13 UW-La Crosse 68.46 28
14 Texas Lutheran 68.34 7
15 Middlebury 59.73 11
16 Illinois College 56.80 15
17 George Fox 54.86 14
18 Whitworth 54.59 17
19 Central (Iowa) 51.51 13
20 Illinois Wesleyan 46.00 16
21 North Central (Ill.) 44.42 19
22 Gustavus Adolphus 44.02 18
23 Willamette 41.46 33
24 Tufts 39.18 35
25 Carleton 39.14 20
dropped out: No. 21 Monmouth (Ill.), No. 22 Coe, No. 23 Linfield, No. 24 Occidental, No. 25 Wellesley
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 WIAC
535.92
4
2 IIAC
333.35
2
3 NESCAC
297.81
3
4 NEWMAC
223.14
1
5 SCIAC
220.17
1
6 CCIW
204.00
3
7 Northwest Conference
189.35
3
8 NJAC
134.05
9 MIAC
125.37
2
10 UAA
106.15

 

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.