Arkansas’ Men Moves to Division I’s No. 1, Oregon Women Hold Top By Wide Margin

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

January 24, 2012   

NEW ORLEANS – The men’s team at Arkansas is the new No. 1 team in the country according to the latest National Computer Team Rankings released by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA). The Razorbacks – who were a very close No. 2 in the preseason rankings – took over the top spot from fellow SEC foe Florida who is the two-time defending national champions. Oregon’s women retain No. 1 for the 14th-consecutive week.

National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Regional Index PDFs:Top 15 by Region | Full by Team | Event-by-Event
Previous Rankings

Arkansas’ men were last ranked No. 1 on February 11, 2009 as part of a three-week tour at the top. The Razorbacks were able to eclipse the Gators in the latest ranking due in large part to the performance of freshman Andrew Irwin in the pole vault. The frosh has already leaped over the 18-foot mark (18-½, 5.50m), earning an automatic bid to the NCAA Indoor Championships.

Oregon’s women have mostly sat idle to begin the season, but their lead so far has been enough to hold off No. 2 LSU and No. 3 Arkansas.

The next round of computer rankings will be released on January 31. The 2012 NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships will be held in Nampa, Idaho, on March 9-10.

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2012 Week #1 — January 24

next ranking: January 31
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Arkansas 165.38 SEC Chris Bucknam (4th) 2
2 Florida 158.31 SEC Mike Holloway (10th) 1
3 LSU 125.80 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 3
4 Florida State 87.24 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 6
5 Texas 85.92 Big 12 Bubba Thornton (17th) 10
6 Indiana 75.18 Big Ten Ron Helmer (5th) 8
7 Stanford 74.27 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 7
8 Nebraska 73.84 Big Ten Gary Pepin (29th) 5
9 Texas A&M 73.28 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 12
10 Arizona 72.12 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 9
11 Ohio State 71.91 Big Ten Robert Gary (6th) 4
12 Virginia Tech 70.17 ACC Dave Cianelli (11th) 18
13 Oklahoma 66.00 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 23
14 Kansas State 64.38 Big 12 Cliff Rovelto (20th) 11
15 Wisconsin 63.91 Big Ten Ed Nuttycombe (28th) 13
16 BYU 59.40 West Coast Mark Robison (12th) 14
17 Iowa 57.69 Big Ten Larry Wieczorek (16th) 16
18 Minnesota 54.09 Big Ten Steve Plasencia (4th) 15
19 Oregon 52.90 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 17
20 Mississippi State 52.78 SEC Steve Dudley (2nd) 20
21 Mississippi 49.31 SEC Joe Walker (28th) 19
22 Iona 39.88 Metro Atlantic Ricardo Santos (4th) 22
23 Georgia 37.79 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 21
24 NC State 36.86 ACC Rollie Geiger (28th) 24
25 Northern Arizona 33.96 Big Sky Eric Heins (5th) 25
Dropped out: none

 

Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 641.72 6
2 Big Ten 495.59 6
3 Big 12 385.38 4
4 Pac-12 280.08 3
5 ACC 263.88 3
6 Big East 92.41
7 West Coast 59.40 1
8 Mountain West 50.81
9 Missouri Valley 50.67
10 Southland 41.56

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings

2012 Week #1 — January 24

next ranking: January 31
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Oregon 197.22 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 1
2 LSU 140.08 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 2
3 Arkansas 124.92 SEC Lance Harter (22nd) 3
4 Clemson 116.70 ACC Lawrence Johnson (4th) 5
5 Texas 112.36 Big 12 Bev Kearney (20th) 4
6 UCF 110.77 Conference USA Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) 6
7 BYU 84.89 West Coast Patrick Shane (2nd) 7
8 Texas Tech 80.52 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 8
9 Florida State 59.58 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 9
10 Southern Miss 55.62 Conference USA Kevin Stephen (5th) 13
11 Texas A&M 53.81 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 17
12 Arizona 53.12 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 10
13 Georgia 52.20 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 14
14 Ohio State 52.09 Big Ten Karen Dennis (6th) 11
15 Southern Illinois 51.14 Missouri Valley Connie Price-Smith (11th) 12
16 Baylor 49.24 Big 12 Todd Harbour (7th) 18
17 Tennessee 48.65 SEC J.J. Clark (11th) 28
18 Stony Brook 47.86 America East Andy Ronan (12th) 15
19 Oklahoma 46.78 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 21
20 Michigan 46.30 Big Ten James Henry (27th) 19
21 Arizona State 45.32 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 16
22 Connecticut 44.10 Big East Bill Morgan (9th) 20
23 Villanova 40.06 Big East Gina Procaccio (12th) 22
24 Stanford 38.63 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 23
25 Georgetown 34.57 Big East Patrick Henner (5th) 24
Dropped out: No. 25 Nebraska

 

Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 456.25 4
2 Big 12 432.65 5
3 Pac-12 407.18 4
4 ACC 268.08 2
5 Conference USA 233.31 2
6 Big Ten 227.51 2
7 Big East 173.14 3
8 Missouri Valley 121.20 1
9 West Coast 95.14 1
10 Mountain West 73.48

 

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.