Florida, Oregon Ranked No. 1 and Going For Three-Peats
NEW ORLEANS – On Friday, the NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships will begin in Nampa, Idaho. And, the same as every year, plenty of storylines – team and individual battles – expect to consume the two-day championships. The last USTFCCCA National Team Computer Rankings prior to the NCAA meet has both two-time defending champions – Florida’s men and Oregon’s women – as the No. 1 teams.
ESPN3 will stream the meet live on March 9 from 7:30-11:45 p.m. ET and March 10 from 8-11:15 p.m. ET. A tape delay of the championship will air Sunday, March 18 at 7:30 p.m. ET on ESPNU. NCAA.com and broncosports.com will stream what ESPN3 is not covering on Friday (Noon-7:30 p.m. ET) and Saturday (12:30-8 pm ET).
NCAA Accepted Entries: Full Lists | Most by Team | Most by Conference
National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Regional Index PDFs (FINAL):Top 15 by Region | Full by Team | Event-by-Event
Collegiate-Leading Marks | Best Marks by Football Players
Previous Rankings
National Top 5 Teams – NCAA Indoor History
MEN
#1 Florida – Two-time defending champs (2 total).
#2 Arkansas – Last title: 2006 (19 total – NCAA record). Last year finish: tied-22nd.
#3 Texas A&M – Last title: none (three-time defending outdoor champs). Last year finish: 2nd (best finish indoors).
#4 LSU – Last title: 2004 (2 total). Last year finish: 4th.
#5 Arizona – Last title: none (best finish: 10th, 2005 and 2006). Last year finish: tied-13th.
WOMEN
#1 Oregon – Two-time defending champs (2 total).
#2 Arkansas – Last title: none (best finish: 3rd, 2000). Last year finish: 4th.
#3 LSU – Last title: 2004 (11 total – NCAA record). Last year finish: 3rd.
#4 Clemson – Last title: none (best finish: 3rd, 2001). Last year finish: 11th.
#5 Texas A&M – Last title: none (three-time defending outdoor champs). Best finish: 2nd, 2009. Last year: 5th.
Defending National Champions Entered
(seed) in parentheses
MEN
60: Jeff Demps, Florida* (1)
Mile: Miles Batty, BYU (1)
3000: Elliott Heath, Stanford (8)
5000: Leonard Korir, Iona (3)
60H: Andrew Riley, Illinois (2)
4×400: Texas A&M* (6)
DMR: BYU (1)
WOMEN
200: Kimberlyn Duncan, LSU (2)
Mile: Jordan Hasay, Oregon (8)
3000: Jordan Hasay, Oregon (6)
60H: Brianna Rollins, Clemson (2)
4×400: Texas A&M (2)
HJ: Brigetta Barrett, Arizona (1)
PV: Tina Sutej, Arkansas (1)
LJ: Tori Bowie, Southern Miss (6)
SP: Julie Labonte, Arizona (2)
WT: Felisha Johnson, Indiana State (2)
PENT: Brianne Theisen*, Oregon (1)
* Two-time defending champions
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #7 — March 6 |
|||||
| next ranking: none, NCAA Championships | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Florida | 183.52 | SEC | Mike Holloway (10th) | 1 |
| 2 | Arkansas | 139.68 | SEC | Chris Bucknam (4th) | 2 |
| 3 | Texas A&M | 103.43 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 3 |
| 4 | LSU | 102.62 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 4 |
| 5 | Arizona | 99.00 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 5 |
| 6 | Mississippi State | 94.86 | SEC | Steve Dudley (2nd) | 12 |
| 7 | Texas | 89.34 | Big 12 | Bubba Thornton (17th) | 6 |
| 8 | Minnesota | 82.62 | Big Ten | Steve Plasencia (4th) | 9 |
| 9 | BYU | 81.11 | West Coast | Mark Robison (12th) | 8 |
| 10 | Arizona State | 78.43 | Pac-12 | Greg Kraft (16th) | 7 |
| 11 | Virginia Tech | 73.98 | ACC | Dave Cianelli (11th) | 11 |
| 12 | Florida State | 71.46 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 16 |
| 13 | Stanford | 67.71 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 10 |
| 14 | Indiana | 60.95 | Big Ten | Ron Helmer (5th) | 13 |
| 15 | Ohio State | 55.57 | Big Ten | Robert Gary (6th) | 17 |
| 16 | Kansas State | 52.78 | Big 12 | Cliff Rovelto (20th) | 15 |
| 17 | Georgia | 47.25 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 14 |
| 18 | Auburn | 43.13 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 19 |
| 19 | Nebraska | 34.71 | Big Ten | Gary Pepin (29th) | 18 |
| 20 | Mississippi | 33.93 | SEC | Joe Walker (28th) | 21 |
| 21 | NC State | 33.10 | ACC | Rollie Geiger (28th) | 22 |
| 22 | Wisconsin | 32.09 | Big Ten | Ed Nuttycombe (28th) | 31 |
| 23 | Illinois | 30.08 | Big Ten | Mike Turk (3rd) | 27 |
| 24 | Penn State | 29.89 | Big Ten | Beth Alford-Sullivan (6th) | 32 |
| 25 | Oregon | 29.83 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 20 |
| Dropped out: No. 23 Princeton, No. 24 Oklahoma, No. 25 Northern Arizona | |||||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 665.08 | 7 |
| 2 | Big Ten | 376.15 | 7 |
| 3 | Big 12 | 336.85 | 3 |
| 4 | Pac-12 | 330.56 | 4 |
| 5 | ACC | 246.62 | 3 |
| 6 | Big East | 139.34 | |
| 7 | West Coast | 81.11 | 1 |
| 8 | Mountain West | 59.99 | |
| 9 | Summit League | 51.09 | |
| 10 | MEAC | 38.67 | |
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #7 — March 6 |
|||||
| next ranking: none, NCAA Championships | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Oregon | 160.70 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 1 |
| 2 | Arkansas | 153.75 | SEC | Lance Harter (22nd) | 2 |
| 3 | LSU | 135.34 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 4 |
| 4 | Clemson | 129.85 | ACC | Lawrence Johnson (4th) | 3 |
| 5 | Texas A&M | 107.59 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 5 |
| 6 | Kansas | 96.96 | Big 12 | Stanley Redwine (12th) | 6 |
| 7 | Florida | 88.05 | SEC | Mike Holloway (5th) | 7 |
| 8 | California | 74.34 | Pac-12 | Tony Sandoval (20th) | 8 |
| 9 | Texas | 59.84 | Big 12 | Bev Kearney (20th) | 18 |
| 10 | Washington | 58.64 | Pac-12 | Greg Metcalf (10th) | 10 |
| 11 | Southern Illinois | 56.13 | Missouri Valley | Connie Price-Smith (11th) | 12 |
| 12 | Arizona | 54.06 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 13 |
| 13 | BYU | 53.64 | West Coast | Patrick Shane (2nd) | 9 |
| 14 | Iowa State | 52.25 | Big 12 | Corey Ihmels (5th) | 15 |
| 15 | UCF | 51.36 | Conference USA | Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) | 14 |
| 16 | Stanford | 49.26 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 11 |
| 17 | TCU | 47.02 | Mountain West | Darryl Anderson (8th) | 19 |
| 18 | Tennessee | 46.02 | SEC | J.J. Clark (11th) | 16 |
| 19 | Ohio State | 42.25 | Big Ten | Karen Dennis (6th) | 17 |
| 20 | Auburn | 40.16 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 25 |
| 21 | Georgetown | 38.79 | Big East | Patrick Henner (5th) | 21 |
| 22 | Georgia | 38.16 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 22 |
| 23 | Baylor | 37.16 | Big 12 | Todd Harbour (7th) | 34 |
| 24 | Wisconsin | 36.15 | Big Ten | Jim Stintzi (8th) | 24 |
| 25 | Connecticut | 35.60 | Big East | Bill Morgan (9th) | 35 |
| Dropped out: No. 20 Florida State, No. 23 Texas Tech | |||||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 582.28 | 6 |
| 2 | Big 12 | 455.41 | 5 |
| 3 | Pac-12 | 425.65 | 5 |
| 4 | ACC | 241.71 | 1 |
| 5 | Big Ten | 186.61 | 2 |
| 6 | Big East | 155.53 | 2 |
| 7 | Missouri Valley | 133.69 | 1 |
| 8 | Mountain West | 109.97 | 1 |
| 9 | Conference USA | 103.28 | 1 |
| 10 | West Coast | 55.59 | 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.
