Arkansas, Oregon Still Top Teams as Conference Indoor Championships Loom
NEW ORLEANS – The latest USTFCCCA National Computer Team Rankings for Division I show a few changes from the previous week. The top four men’s teams stayed in the same spot, spurred by No. 1 Arkansas. Oregon still is the No. 1 team on the women’s side as LSU and Clemson switched positions, now standing at No. 2 and No. 3, respectively. This upcoming weekend will be many of the nation’s conference championships, including the SEC (at Kentucky), Big 12 (at Texas A&M), Big Ten (at Nebraska), MPSF (at Washington), and ACC (at Boston College).
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
Collegiate-Leading Marks | Best Marks by Football Players
Previous Rankings
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #5 — February 21 |
|||||
| next ranking: February 28 | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Arkansas | 164.42 | SEC | Chris Bucknam (4th) | 1 |
| 2 | Florida | 154.42 | SEC | Mike Holloway (10th) | 2 |
| 3 | Texas A&M | 121.81 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 3 |
| 4 | LSU | 112.49 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 4 |
| 5 | Texas | 85.18 | Big 12 | Bubba Thornton (17th) | 6 |
| 6 | Arizona | 83.64 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 5 |
| 7 | Arizona State | 77.80 | Pac-12 | Greg Kraft (16th) | 7 |
| 8 | Minnesota | 75.19 | Big Ten | Steve Plasencia (4th) | 11 |
| 9 | Virginia Tech | 71.50 | ACC | Dave Cianelli (11th) | 8 |
| 10 | Mississippi State | 70.52 | SEC | Steve Dudley (2nd) | 9 |
| 11 | Indiana | 61.77 | Big Ten | Ron Helmer (5th) | 10 |
| 12 | Stanford | 56.72 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 12 |
| 13 | Ohio State | 52.45 | Big Ten | Robert Gary (6th) | 19 |
| 14 | Kansas State | 51.92 | Big 12 | Cliff Rovelto (20th) | 13 |
| 15 | Nebraska | 50.14 | Big Ten | Gary Pepin (29th) | 15 |
| 16 | BYU | 48.70 | West Coast | Mark Robison (12th) | 14 |
| 17 | Auburn | 44.50 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 16 |
| 18 | Penn State | 41.25 | Big Ten | Beth Alford-Sullivan (6th) | 17 |
| 19 | Oregon | 40.69 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 20 |
| 20 | Florida State | 38.37 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 21 |
| 21 | Oklahoma | 37.45 | Big 12 | Martin Smith (7th) | 23 |
| 22 | Mississippi | 37.13 | SEC | Joe Walker (28th) | 22 |
| 23 | Northern Arizona | 36.41 | Big Sky | Eric Heins (5th) | 25 |
| 24 | Georgia | 36.02 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 18 |
| 25 | Princeton | 34.40 | Ivy | Fred Samara (35th) | 24 |
| Dropped out: none | |||||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 639.58 | 7 |
| 2 | Big 12 | 376.13 | 4 |
| 3 | Big Ten | 375.97 | 5 |
| 4 | Pac-12 | 311.93 | 4 |
| 5 | ACC | 205.76 | 2 |
| 6 | Big East | 133.82 | |
| 7 | Mountain West | 63.60 | |
| 8 | Summit League | 62.00 | |
| 9 | Ivy | 56.05 | 1 |
| 10 | MEAC | 53.82 | |
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #5 — February 21 |
|||||
| next ranking: February 28 | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Oregon | 187.45 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 1 |
| 2 | LSU | 150.09 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 3 |
| 3 | Clemson | 145.11 | ACC | Lawrence Johnson (4th) | 2 |
| 4 | Arkansas | 135.94 | SEC | Lance Harter (22nd) | 4 |
| 5 | Texas A&M | 75.61 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 5 |
| 6 | Florida | 69.45 | SEC | Mike Holloway (5th) | 7 |
| 7 | Kansas | 68.71 | Big 12 | Stanley Redwine (12th) | 6 |
| 8 | Tennessee | 63.80 | SEC | J.J. Clark (11th) | 8 |
| 9 | Southern Illinois | 62.71 | Missouri Valley | Connie Price-Smith (11th) | 10 |
| 10 | Ohio State | 59.98 | Big Ten | Karen Dennis (6th) | 18 |
| 11 | Texas | 59.64 | Big 12 | Bev Kearney (20th) | 12 |
| 12 | Texas Tech | 59.62 | Big 12 | Wes Kittley (13th) | 9 |
| 13 | Iowa State | 59.53 | Big 12 | Corey Ihmels (5th) | 13 |
| 14 | BYU | 56.69 | West Coast | Patrick Shane (2nd) | 14 |
| 15 | UCF | 54.79 | Conference USA | Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) | 11 |
| 16 | Arizona | 54.32 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 15 |
| 17 | Wisconsin | 53.27 | Big Ten | Jim Stintzi (8th) | 16 |
| 18 | Stanford | 49.18 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 17 |
| 19 | California | 46.94 | Pac-12 | Tony Sandoval (20th) | 19 |
| 20 | Georgetown | 46.19 | Big East | Patrick Henner (5th) | 20 |
| 21 | Florida State | 43.47 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 21 |
| 22 | South Carolina | 41.58 | SEC | Curtis Frye (16th) | 24 |
| 23 | Washington | 38.70 | Pac-12 | Greg Metcalf (10th) | 22 |
| 24 | Michigan State | 37.24 | Big Ten | Walt Drenth (6th) | 23 |
| 25 | UC Santa Barbara | 35.83 | Big West | Pete Dolan (25th) | 25 |
| Dropped out: none | |||||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 535.68 | 5 |
| 2 | Pac-12 | 412.83 | 5 |
| 3 | Big 12 | 412.22 | 5 |
| 4 | ACC | 261.68 | 2 |
| 5 | Big Ten | 255.45 | 3 |
| 6 | Big East | 190.34 | 1 |
| 7 | Missouri Valley | 136.75 | 1 |
| 8 | Conference USA | 99.01 | 1 |
| 9 | Mountain West | 72.19 | |
| 10 | West Coast | 59.18 | 1 |
About the Rankings
For more on the rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
/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.
