New Week, Again New Number Ones: Florida, Texas Now Lead DI Rankings

By Tom Lewis, USTFCCCA

May 1, 2012   

NEW ORLEANS – For the second-straight week there are new number one men’s and women’s teams in the USTFCCCA NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings. Florida’s men reclaimed the No. 1 spot from Texas A&M, but by a very slim margin. Similarly, Texas’ women are now No. 1 by less than one ranking point ahead of last week’s top team — Clemson.

National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Regional Index: Top 15 | By Team | By Event
Previous Rankings

Three men’s teams have more than 200 ranking points — No. 1 Florida, No. 2 Texas A&M, and No. 3 Arizona State. The Sun Devils are at the No. 3 spot for the second-straight week. Southern California reached a season-high with a No. 4 ranking, up two spots from a week ago. Florida State stayed at No. 5 for the second time in a row. No. 8 Mississippi moved up three spots to reach a season best.

On the women’s side, Texas took over No. 1 for the first time in the five years of ranking history. They and No. 2 Clemson are separated by less than a ranking point (286.74-286.22). In fact the top five teams are distanced by only 41 points as No. 3 Florida, No. 4 LSU, and No. 5 Kansas round out the top five.

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

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

2012 Week #5 — May 1

next ranking: May 8
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Florida 268.63 SEC Mike Holloway (10th) 2
2 Texas A&M 266.74 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 1
3 Arizona State 208.03 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 3
4 Southern California 193.98 Pac-12 Ron Allice (18th) 6
5 Florida State 190.14 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 5
6 LSU 187.57 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 4
7 Indiana 184.98 Big Ten Ron Helmer (5th) 7
8 Mississippi 174.64 SEC Joe Walker (28th) 11
9 Mississippi State 173.87 SEC Steve Dudley (2nd) 8
10 Texas Tech 168.32 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 9
11 Arkansas 166.69 SEC Chris Bucknam (4th) 14
12 Texas 163.33 Big 12 Bubba Thornton (17th) 10
13 Auburn 160.94 SEC Ralph Spry (15th) 15
14 Arizona 158.06 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 13
15 Nebraska 149.22 Big Ten Gary Pepin (29th) 16
16 Virginia Tech 140.17 ACC Dave Cianelli (11th) 17
17 Wisconsin 132.78 Big Ten Ed Nuttycombe (28th) 21
18 Georgia 131.24 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 19
19 Stanford 129.76 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 18
20 Oklahoma 119.49 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 12
21 Iowa 118.28 Big Ten Larry Wieczorek (16th) 20
22 Oregon 107.31 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 22
23 Kansas 88.00 Big 12 Stanley Redwine (12th) 25
24 Princeton 83.17 Ivy Fred Samara (35th) 24
25 Minnesota 82.96 Big Ten Steve Plasencia (4th) 31
Dropped out: No. 23 Virginia

 

Men’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 SEC 1355.71 7
2 Big 12 1030.60 5
3 Pac-12 967.61 5
4 Big Ten 910.35 5
5 ACC 662.41 2
6 Mountain West 169.25
7 Southland 159.46
8 Ivy 142.02 1
9 Big East 140.24
10 Sun Belt 130.52

 

USTFCCCA NCAA Division I

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

2012 Week #5 — May 1

next ranking: May 8
Rank School Points Conference Head Coach (Yr) Last Week
1 Texas 286.74 Big 12 Bev Kearney (20th) 3
2 Clemson 286.22 ACC Lawrence Johnson (4th) 1
3 Florida 262.19 SEC Mike Holloway (5th) 4
4 LSU 258.90 SEC Dennis Shaver (8th) 2
5 Kansas 245.59 Big 12 Stanley Redwine (12th) 7
6 Texas A&M 194.34 Big 12 Pat Henry (8th) 6
7 Oregon 180.87 Pac-12 Vin Lananna (7th) 5
8 Arizona 172.41 Pac-12 Fred Harvey (10th) 8
9 Texas Tech 162.83 Big 12 Wes Kittley (13th) 11
10 Arkansas 154.91 SEC Lance Harter (22nd) 9
11 Arizona State 154.76 Pac-12 Greg Kraft (16th) 10
12 Stanford 143.50 Pac-12 Edrick Floreal (7th) 20
13 Southern California 123.67 Pac-12 Ron Allice (18th) 24
14 Illinois State 122.73 Missouri Valley Elvis Forde (9th) 12
15 Oklahoma 117.86 Big 12 Martin Smith (7th) 15
16 Florida State 116.14 ACC Bob Braman (9th) 13
17 UCF 112.48 Conference USA Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) 18
18 Tennessee 111.64 SEC J.J. Clark (11th) 14
19 Louisville 106.81 Big East Ron Mann (8th) 16
20 Iowa State 103.31 Big 12 Corey Ihmels (5th) 25
21 Georgia 102.42 SEC Wayne Norton (13th) 17
22 Baylor 100.12 Big 12 Todd Harbour (7th) 19
23 Southern Illinois 96.97 Missouri Valley Connie Price-Smith (11th) 21
24 Ohio State 92.18 Big Ten Karen Dennis (6th) 22
25 Kansas State 89.80 Big 12 Cliff Rovelto (20th) 23
Dropped out: none

 

Women’s Conference Index Top 10
Rank Conference Points Top 25 Teams
1 Big 12 1404.50 8
2 SEC 1061.65 5
3 Pac-12 1038.67 5
4 ACC 654.40 2
5 Big Ten 443.38 1
6 Big East 434.85 1
7 Conference USA 294.25 1
8 Missouri Valley 287.21 2
9 Mountain West 236.00
10 Big Sky 97.31

 

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.