DI Outdoor Track & Field Team Rankings Update — Week 1, April 3
NEW ORLEANS – Florida’s men and Oregon’s women remain the top teams in the nation for NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field according to the USTFCCCA’s National Team Computer Rankings. LSU’s men moved from No. 3 to their new perch at No. 2 while Florida State dropped to No. 3. Arkansas’ men moved a spot up to No. 4 and Texas jumped into the top five for the first time this year. On the women’s side, LSU remained at No. 2 while Clemson notched up to No. 3, switching with Southern California who is now No. 4. Three-time defending champions Texas A&M moved up two spots to No. 5 this week.
National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Regional Index: Top 15 | By Team | By Event
Previous Rankings
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #1 — April 3 |
|||||
| next ranking: April 10 | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Florida | 260.06 | SEC | Mike Holloway (10th) | 1 |
| 2 | LSU | 247.59 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 3 |
| 3 | Florida State | 239.06 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 2 |
| 4 | Arkansas | 231.22 | SEC | Chris Bucknam (4th) | 5 |
| 5 | Texas | 226.61 | Big 12 | Bubba Thornton (17th) | 7 |
| 6 | Texas A&M | 224.49 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 6 |
| 7 | Texas Tech | 197.97 | Big 12 | Wes Kittley (13th) | 4 |
| 8 | Southern California | 186.81 | Pac-12 | Ron Allice (18th) | 13 |
| 9 | Mississippi State | 167.14 | SEC | Steve Dudley (2nd) | 14 |
| 10 | Arizona State | 159.15 | Pac-12 | Greg Kraft (16th) | 20 |
| 11 | Indiana | 157.89 | Big Ten | Ron Helmer (5th) | 8 |
| 12 | Arizona | 156.70 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 11 |
| 13 | Baylor | 142.83 | Big 12 | Todd Harbour (7th) | 12 |
| 14 | Mississippi | 142.07 | SEC | Joe Walker (28th) | 21 |
| 15 | Nebraska | 138.13 | Big Ten | Gary Pepin (29th) | 15 |
| 16 | Oregon | 134.76 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 16 |
| 17 | Virginia Tech | 133.33 | ACC | Dave Cianelli (11th) | 10 |
| 18 | Georgia | 132.69 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 9 |
| 19 | Stanford | 122.19 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 17 |
| 20 | Iowa | 117.29 | Big Ten | Larry Wieczorek (16th) | 18 |
| 21 | Auburn | 105.92 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 24 |
| 22 | Princeton | 94.47 | Ivy | Fred Samara (35th) | 22 |
| 23 | Oklahoma | 93.32 | Big 12 | Martin Smith (7th) | 23 |
| 24 | Wisconsin | 90.00 | Big Ten | Ed Nuttycombe (28th) | 19 |
| 25 | Kansas | 88.15 | Big 12 | Stanley Redwine (12th) | 26 |
| Dropped out: No. 25 Ohio State | |||||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 1362.48 | 7 |
| 2 | Big 12 | 1139.76 | 6 |
| 3 | Pac-12 | 991.64 | 5 |
| 4 | Big Ten | 810.89 | 4 |
| 5 | ACC | 627.60 | 2 |
| 6 | Mountain West | 160.98 | |
| 7 | Big East | 138.73 | |
| 8 | Ivy | 138.69 | 1 |
| 9 | Southland | 128.47 | |
| 10 | Sun Belt | 112.12 | |
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #1 — April 3 |
|||||
| next ranking: April 10 | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Oregon | 350.95 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 1 |
| 2 | LSU | 302.70 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 2 |
| 3 | Clemson | 278.87 | ACC | Lawrence Johnson (4th) | 4 |
| 4 | Southern California | 253.08 | Pac-12 | Ron Allice (18th) | 3 |
| 5 | Texas A&M | 209.69 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 7 |
| 6 | Arkansas | 209.01 | SEC | Lance Harter (22nd) | 5 |
| 7 | Oklahoma | 182.41 | Big 12 | Martin Smith (7th) | 6 |
| 8 | Texas | 178.30 | Big 12 | Bev Kearney (20th) | 8 |
| 9 | Kansas | 167.81 | Big 12 | Stanley Redwine (12th) | 10 |
| 10 | Texas Tech | 162.70 | Big 12 | Wes Kittley (13th) | 9 |
| 11 | Florida | 155.06 | SEC | Mike Holloway (5th) | 11 |
| 12 | Georgia | 145.93 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 16 |
| 13 | UCF | 143.50 | Conference USA | Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) | 12 |
| 14 | Arizona | 136.31 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 18 |
| 15 | Kansas State | 125.48 | Big 12 | Cliff Rovelto (20th) | 19 |
| 16 | Tennessee | 124.63 | SEC | J.J. Clark (11th) | 14 |
| 17 | Baylor | 119.04 | Big 12 | Todd Harbour (7th) | 13 |
| 18 | Auburn | 115.91 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 15 |
| 19 | Arizona State | 115.65 | Pac-12 | Greg Kraft (16th) | 17 |
| 20 | Stanford | 100.62 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 21 |
| 21 | Southern Illinois | 93.17 | Missouri Valley | Connie Price-Smith (11th) | 30 |
| 22 | Florida State | 90.36 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 25 |
| 23 | Nebraska | 86.76 | Big Ten | Gary Pepin (32nd) | 20 |
| 24 | BYU | 84.52 | West Coast | Patrick Shane (2nd) | 31 |
| 25 | UTEP | 80.14 | Conference USA | Mika Laaksonen (3rd) | 23 |
| Dropped out: No. 22 Southern Miss, No. 24 West Virginia | |||||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | Big 12 | 1277.13 | 7 |
| 2 | Pac-12 | 1208.21 | 5 |
| 3 | SEC | 1200.22 | 6 |
| 4 | ACC | 604.62 | 2 |
| 5 | Big Ten | 450.13 | 1 |
| 6 | Conference USA | 436.30 | 2 |
| 7 | Big East | 390.41 | |
| 8 | Mountain West | 230.82 | |
| 9 | Missouri Valley | 180.01 | 1 |
| 10 | West Coast | 101.60 | 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.
