DI Rankings: Texas A&M, LSU Are Ranked No. 1 Heading to Des Moines

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

May 29, 2012   

NEW ORLEANS – The NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field Championships will continue next weekend, June 6-9 in Des Moines, Iowa, with 24 left standing in each event, entered as a result of performances from preliminary rounds held this past weekend. The latest USTFCCCA National Team Rankings are based on these entries and show the top teams in the country, Texas A&M’s men and LSU’s women, are still No. 1 after the championships’ opening weekend. LSU’s men moved to No. 2 in the rankings from No. 4 while Arizona’s men jumped three spots to No. 6. Kansas’ women remain No. 2 while indoor national champions Oregon climbed two spots to No. 3.

[All rankings corrected from intial release. Rankings corrected 5/29 3:30pm CT]

National Championship Central
NCAA Final Round Entries: MEN | WOMEN
Final Round Championship Entries: Leaders by Team | Leaders by Conference

National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

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

2012 Week #9 — May 29 (Pre-NCAA Finals) [corrected 5/29, 3:30pm CT]

next ranking: FINAL, NCAA Championship results
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Texas A&M 284.76 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 1
2 LSU 222.51 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 4
3 Arizona 220.20 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 6
4 Texas 219.50 Big 12 Bubba Thornton (17th) 5
5 Florida State 209.96 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 7
6 Florida 204.69 SEC Mike Holloway (10th) 2
7 Indiana 194.06 Big Ten Ron Helmer (5th) 3
8 Virginia Tech 178.65 ACC Dave Cianelli (11th) 16
9 Southern California 165.52 Pac-12 Ron Allice (18th) 13
10 Auburn 163.34 SEC Ralph Spry (15th) 12
11 Texas Tech 161.66 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 9
12 Arkansas 156.37 SEC Chris Bucknam (4th) 8
13 Nebraska 152.27 Big Ten Gary Pepin (29th) 10
14 Mississippi 146.39 SEC Joe Walker (28th) 11
15 Oregon 133.19 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 21
16 Stanford 126.54 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 18
17 Arizona State 121.61 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 14
18 Penn State 115.81 Big Ten Beth Alford-Sullivan (6th) 19
19 Ohio State 104.82 Big Ten Ed Beathea (1st) 25
20 Kansas 104.30 Big 12 Stanley Redwine (12th) 20
21 Georgia 101.45 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 27
22 Minnesota 100.78 Big Ten Steve Plasencia (4th) 26
23 Wisconsin 99.17 Big Ten Ed Nuttycombe (28th) 15
24 UCLA 95.73 Pac-12 Mike Maynard (3rd) 28
25 Oklahoma 93.62 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 22
Dropped out: No. 17 Mississippi State, No. 23 Iowa, No. 24 Baylor

 

Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 1220.75 6
2 Big 12 1118.74 5
3 Big Ten 990.05 6
4 Pac-12 954.19 6
5 ACC 617.52 2
6 Ivy 186.03
7 Big East 163.12
8 Missouri Valley 155.00
9 Mountain West 117.96
10 Summit League 110.99

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

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

2012 Week #9 — May 29 (Pre-NCAA Finals) [corrected 5/29, 3:30pm CT]

next ranking: FINAL, NCAA Championship results
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 LSU 349.89 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 1
2 Kansas 276.72 Big 12 Stanley Redwine (12th) 2
3 Oregon 239.80 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 5
4 Texas A&M 232.32 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 6
5 Clemson 225.74 ACC Lawrence Johnson (4th) 3
6 Texas 205.21 Big 12 Bev Kearney (20th) 4
7 Stanford 181.28 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 10
8 Florida 175.25 SEC Mike Holloway (5th) 7
9 Oklahoma 142.20 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 16
10 Arizona 141.65 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 8
11 Tennessee 137.86 SEC J.J. Clark (11th) 9
12 Arkansas 135.96 SEC Lance Harter (22nd) 13
13 UCF 135.89 Conference USA Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) 14
14 Southern California 131.28 Pac-12 Ron Allice (18th) 23
15 Southern Illinois 117.53 Missouri Valley Connie Price-Smith (11th) 18
16 Arizona State 114.91 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 12
17 Florida State 113.61 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 24
18 Georgia 99.83 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 20
19 Ohio State 97.45 Big Ten Karen Dennis (6th) 22
20 Louisville 97.28 Big East Ron Mann (8th) 15
21 Illinois State 90.79 Missouri Valley Elvis Forde (9th) 17
22 Texas Tech 85.59 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 11
23 Southern Miss 81.46 Conference USA Kevin Stephen (5th) 26
24 San Diego State 80.11 Mountain West Shelia Burrell (3rd) 37
25 TCU 79.81 Mountain West Darryl Anderson (8th) 30
Dropped out: No. 19 Illinois, No. 21 Baylor, No. 25 Iowa State

 

Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 Big 12 1242.04 5
2 Pac-12 1085.71 5
3 SEC 1057.89 5
4 ACC 581.16 2
5 Big East 499.91 1
6 Big Ten 465.34 1
7 Conference USA 328.52 2
8 Missouri Valley 318.19 2
9 Mountain West 236.25 2
10 Ivy 107.09

 

 

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.