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