Two-Time Defending Champs Florida, Oregon Begin 2012 in No. 1 Position

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

January 10, 2012   

NEW ORLEANS – Florida’s men and Oregon’s women, both two-time defending NCAA Division I indoor track & field national champions, begin the 2012 season in familiar territory – as the nation’s No. 1 teams. The preseason national team computer rankings as calculated by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) projects the Gators and Ducks as the early paper favorites based largely on performance bests from returners.

PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event
Previous Rankings

Florida won their second-straight NCAA crown in 2011in scoring 52 points at the national championships to home team Texas A&M’s 40. The Gators lost jumpers Will Claye and 2011 Bowerman finalist Christian Taylor to the pro circuit for 2012, but return two-time 60-meter champion Jeff Demps, jumper Omar Craddock, sprinter Tony McQuay, heptathlete Gray Horn, and shot-putter Kemal Mesic among others.

Oregon’s women easily took the 2011 indoor national crown in scoring 67 points to nearest challenger Texas who scored 38. The Ducks return Jordan Hasay for her junior season. Hasay won the mile and 3000 meters at last year’s indoor championships. In addition, Oregon returns collegiate record holder in the pentathlon Brianne Theisen for a senior campaign.

The SEC and Big Ten each have six squads in the preseason top 25 among men’s squads. Five Big 12 teams are in the top 25 on the women’s side, followed by the Pac-12 with four.

The next round of computer rankings will be released on January 24. The 2012 NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships will be held in Nampa, Idaho, on March 9-10.

Here’s a look at how the indoor preseason No. 1 teams have fared at the NCAA Championships:

MEN Preseason No. 1 NCAA Finish NCAA Champ Preseason Rank
2008 Florida State 2nd Arizona State 19th
2009 Arkansas 8th Oregon 4th
2010 Florida State 12th Florida 2nd
2011 Florida 1st Florida 1st
2012 Florida ??? ??? ???
WOMEN Preseason No. 1 NCAA Finish NCAA Champ Preseason Rank
2008 LSU 2nd Arizona State 2nd
2009 Texas A&M 2nd Tennessee 2nd
2010 Texas A&M 5th Oregon 2nd
2011 Oregon 1st Oregon 1st
2012 Oregon 1st ??? ???

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2012 Preseason — January 10

next ranking: January 24
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) 2011 FINAL
1 Florida 150.54 SEC Mike Holloway (10th) 1
2 Arkansas 149.44 SEC Chris Bucknam (4th) 22
3 LSU 130.87 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 4
4 Ohio State 86.42 Big Ten Robert Gary (6th) NR
5 Nebraska 82.09 Big Ten Gary Pepin (29th) 20
6 Florida State 81.50 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 5
7 Stanford 76.51 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 8
8 Indiana 74.81 Big Ten Ron Helmer (5th) 6
9 Arizona 74.80 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 13
10 Texas 72.28 Big 12 Bubba Thornton (17th) 10
11 Kansas State 69.82 Big 12 Cliff Rovelto (20th) 18
12 Texas A&M 69.17 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 2
13 Wisconsin 64.25 Big Ten Ed Nuttycombe (28th) 50
14 BYU 62.40 West Coast Mark Robison (12th) 3
15 Minnesota 59.95 Big Ten Steve Plasencia (4th) 6
16 Iowa 59.49 Big Ten Larry Wieczorek (16th) 8
17 Oregon 53.63 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 26
18 Virginia Tech 53.56 ACC Dave Cianelli (11th) 15
19 Mississippi 49.60 SEC Joe Walker (28th) 11
20 Mississippi State 44.94 SEC Steve Dudley (2nd) 57
21 Georgia 42.57 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 26
22 Iona 39.88 Metro Atlantic Ricardo Santos (4th) 16
23 Oklahoma 39.08 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 13
24 NC State 37.43 ACC Rollie Geiger (28th) NR
25 Northern Arizona 34.06 Big Sky Eric Heins (5th) 39
Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 611.56 6
2 Big Ten 525.89 6
3 Big 12 350.36 4
4 Pac-12 281.60 3
5 ACC 255.33 3
6 Big East 67.97
7 Big Sky 66.98 1
8 West Coast 62.40 1
9 Mountain West 59.06
10 MEAC 49.71

 

Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2012 Preseason — January 10

next ranking: January 24
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) 2011 FINAL
1 Oregon 200.25 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 1
2 LSU 142.63 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 3
3 Arkansas 124.93 SEC Lance Harter (22nd) 4
4 Texas 112.27 Big 12 Bev Kearney (20th) 2
5 Clemson 111.83 ACC Lawrence Johnson (4th) 11
6 UCF 100.67 Conference USA Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) 21
7 BYU 85.81 West Coast Patrick Shane (2nd) 15
8 Texas Tech 70.09 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 36
9 Florida State 61.83 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 9
10 Arizona 59.78 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 7
11 Ohio State 57.99 Big Ten Karen Dennis (6th) 40
12 Southern Illinois 57.69 Missouri Valley Connie Price-Smith (11th) 21
13 Southern Miss 57.17 Conference USA Kevin Stephen (5th) 13
14 Georgia 53.38 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) NR
15 Stony Brook 48.21 America East Andy Ronan (12th) 30
16 Arizona State 47.75 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 40
17 Texas A&M 47.71 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 5
18 Baylor 47.66 Big 12 Todd Harbour (7th) 10
19 Michigan 45.21 Big Ten James Henry (27th) 18
20 Connecticut 44.24 Big East Bill Morgan (9th) 23
21 Oklahoma 43.10 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 6
22 Villanova 40.02 Big East Gina Procaccio (12th) 12
23 Stanford 36.71 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 15
24 Georgetown 34.84 Big East Patrick Henner (5th) 50
25 Nebraska 32.39 Big Ten Gary Pepin (32nd) 17
Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference
Points
Top 25 Teams
1 SEC
446.14
3
2 Pac-12
420.28
4
3 Big 12
410.15
5
4 ACC
265.55
2
5 Big Ten
235.59
3
6 Conference USA
227.33
2
7 Big East
175.99
3
8 Missouri Valley
126.00
1
9 West Coast
96.13
1
10 Mountain West
71.31

 

 

 

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.