Moving Week Rankings Shows Love for the Active Teams in Division I

Moving Week Rankings Shows Love for the Active Teams in Division I

NEW ORLEANS – It’s moving week for the indoor track & field National Team Computer Rankings in Division I. In the first few weeks of the season, rankings are tabulated using a mixture of current and past season data. Now, it’s all about this season. With the exception of combined events, only in-season marks from the NCAA’s official qualifying lists are used in tabulation. As a result, the second week in February is always “moving week” where teams can swap several spots up or down.

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

The national rankings on the men’s side still have Arkansas and Florida in the No. 1 and 2 spots, respectively. However, with the point margin between the squads at 166.98 to 166.09, it is a virtual tie for nation’s top spot.

Texas A&M has made a slow climb throughout the season, but now stand at No. 3 after a five-spot bump. Junior transfer Ameer Webb has made the biggest difference for A&M’s climb as he ranks No. 1 in the NCAA in the 200 meters (20.79) and in the top ten in the 60 (6.66). In addition, Texas A&M has the No. 2-ranked DMR in the country.

At No. 7, Arizona State jumped 17 spots from No. 24 as a result of moving week and are in the top ten for the first time since 2010. The Sun Devils boast six national top-ten marks. Sophomore Ryan Milus has clocked a 6.58 in the 60 meters at altitude (converts to 6.60 for NCAA seeding). Sophomore Bryan McBride cleared 7-5 (2.26m) last weekend in the high jump (at altitude) to rank third nationally in that event.

The SEC leads all conferences with seven teams in the nation’s top 25. The Big Ten follows with five. The Big 12 and Pac-12 each have four in the nation’s top 25.

For the nation’s women, two-time defending champion Oregon was unfazed by moving week as they stay at No. 1 – a place they’ve been since the preseason. Freshman English Gardner is among many Ducks with significant performance this season. Last weekend in Albuquerque, Gardner clocked the collegiate-leading time in the 60 meters (7.17A) and the season’s fourth-best time in the 200 (23.34A).

Clemson moved up to No. 2 this week to better their all-time best ranking. The Tigers have three collegiate-leading marks as Marlena Wesh is tops in the 400 meters (52.21) and Bridgette Owens and Brianna Rollins share the CL in the 60 hurdles (7.97).

Texas A&M went from No. 9 to No. 5 to enter the nation’s top five for the first time this year. No. 6 Kansas, No. 7 Florida, and No. 8 Tennessee are in the top 25 for the first time this year. The Gators zoomed 25 spots up the poll this week after clocking a top-five 4×400 (3:33.22A) and sophomore Cory McGee notching a top-five seed in the mile last weekend.

Among women’s squads, five teams from the SEC, Big 12, and Pac-12 are in the nation’s top 25. The SEC leads the country in ranking points with 543.49.

Now the attention turns to championship season for indoor track & field. This upcoming weekend, championships will be held by the America East, Atlantic 10, Atlantic Sun, Big East, MEAC, Metro Atlantic, and the Patriot League. This past weekend, Monmouth swept league titles in the Northeast Conference.

The 2012 NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships will be held in Nampa, Idaho, on March 9-10.



Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25)

2012 Week #4 — February 14

next ranking: February 21
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Arkansas 166.98 SEC Chris Bucknam (4th) 1
2 Florida 166.09 SEC Mike Holloway (10th) 2
3 Texas A&M 126.13 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 8
4 LSU 112.24 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 3
5 Arizona 90.48 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 5
6 Texas 89.79 Big 12 Bubba Thornton (17th) 4
7 Arizona State 81.09 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 24
8 Virginia Tech 73.19 ACC Dave Cianelli (11th) 9
9 Mississippi State 72.81 SEC Steve Dudley (2nd) 18
10 Indiana 65.25 Big Ten Ron Helmer (5th) 12
11 Minnesota 64.64 Big Ten Steve Plasencia (4th) 10
12 Stanford 57.04 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 7
13 Kansas State 51.81 Big 12 Cliff Rovelto (20th) 16
14 BYU 48.95 West Coast Mark Robison (12th) 14
15 Nebraska 47.83 Big Ten Gary Pepin (29th) 13
16 Auburn 44.83 SEC Ralph Spry (15th) 23
17 Penn State 42.53 Big Ten Beth Alford-Sullivan (6th) 32
18 Georgia 42.01 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 22
19 Ohio State 40.92 Big Ten Robert Gary (6th) 15
20 Oregon 40.82 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 21
21 Florida State 40.24 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 6
22 Mississippi 39.70 SEC Joe Walker (28th) 19
23 Oklahoma 37.91 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 11
24 Princeton 35.80 Ivy Fred Samara (35th) 48
25 Northern Arizona 35.59 Big Sky Eric Heins (5th) 27
Dropped out: No. 17 Wisconsin, No. 20 Iowa, No. 25 Iona


Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 666.46 7
2 Big 12 388.36 4
3 Big Ten 365.33 5
4 Pac-12 326.28 4
5 ACC 211.75 2
6 Big East 115.01
7 Mountain West 65.11
8 Summit League 62.46
9 Ivy 53.11 1
10 West Coast 48.95 1



Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25)

2012 Week #4 — February 14

next ranking: February 21
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Oregon 188.07 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 1
2 Clemson 146.62 ACC Lawrence Johnson (4th) 3
3 LSU 144.79 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 2
4 Arkansas 139.42 SEC Lance Harter (22nd) 4
5 Texas A&M 79.87 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 9
6 Kansas 74.00 Big 12 Stanley Redwine (12th) 24
7 Florida 72.65 SEC Mike Holloway (5th) 32
8 Tennessee 67.06 SEC J.J. Clark (11th) 17
9 Texas Tech 65.12 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 8
10 Southern Illinois 64.36 Missouri Valley Connie Price-Smith (11th) 11
11 UCF 63.50 Conference USA Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) 5
12 Texas 61.98 Big 12 Bev Kearney (20th) 6
13 Iowa State 60.17 Big 12 Corey Ihmels (5th) 14
14 BYU 57.25 West Coast Patrick Shane (2nd) 7
15 Arizona 54.05 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 10
16 Wisconsin 52.37 Big Ten Jim Stintzi (8th) 29
17 Stanford 50.65 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 23
18 Ohio State 48.10 Big Ten Karen Dennis (6th) 18
19 California 48.03 Pac-12 Tony Sandoval (20th) 70
20 Georgetown 46.86 Big East Patrick Henner (5th) 27
21 Florida State 43.43 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 12
22 Washington 38.74 Pac-12 Greg Metcalf (10th) 28
23 Michigan State 37.97 Big Ten Walt Drenth (6th) 48
24 South Carolina 37.26 SEC Curtis Frye (16th) 44
25 UC Santa Barbara 35.95 Big West Pete Dolan (23rd) 30
Dropped out: No. 13 Georgia, No. 15 Baylor, No. 16 Southern Miss, No. 19 Oklahoma, No. 21 Arizona State, No. 22 Stony Brook, No. 25 Michigan


Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 543.49 5
2 Big 12 431.78 5
3 Pac-12 411.03 5
4 ACC 253.74 2
5 Big Ten 245.57 3
6 Big East 144.03 1
7 Missouri Valley 143.29 1
8 Conference USA 113.84 1
9 Mountain West 74.34
10 West Coast 59.75 1




About the Rankings

For more on the rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …

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.