Division III Indoor Track & Field National Rankings: Week 6
NEW ORLEANS – For the second-straight week, the top three positions are unchanged in the USTFCCCA National Team Computer Rankings in Division III indoor track & field. On the men’s side, North Central (Ill.), UW La Crosse, and Amherst lead the way with UW Oshkosh, Wartburg, and MIT taking the front spots on the women’s side. The men of Central College (Iowa) reached the top five for the first time all season and are at No. 5. North Central’s women are also in the top five for the first time this year, debuting at No. 5.
National Computer Rankings:
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index: Top 10 Teams by Region
Dual Meet RPI: Website
Division III Conference Championships Central
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Men’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #6 – March 2 |
|||
| next ranking: MONDAY, March 7 (Week 7) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | North Central (Ill.) | 179.12 | 1 |
| 2 | UW La Crosse | 140.11 | 2 |
| 3 | Amherst | 115.07 | 3 |
| 4 | UW Oshkosh | 91.98 | 4 |
| 5 | Central (Iowa) | 76.74 | 6 |
| 6 | UW Whitewater | 74.32 | 8 |
| 7 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 72.73 | 7 |
| 8 | UW Stevens Point | 62.37 | 5 |
| 9 | Washington (Mo.) | 62.05 | 12 |
| 10 | Buffalo State | 61.03 | 10 |
| 11 | SUNY Cortland | 56.98 | 9 |
| 12 | SUNY Geneseo | 56.54 | 11 |
| 13 | Wartburg | 49.32 | 17 |
| 14 | Monmouth (Ill.) | 47.37 | 13 |
| 15 | Haverford | 44.56 | 14 |
| 16 | McMurry | 35.53 | 45 |
| 17 | MIT | 35.06 | 18 |
| 18 | Allegheny | 35.02 | 21 |
| 19 | Wabash | 34.02 | 69 |
| 20 | Augustana (Ill.) | 32.99 | 28 |
| 21 | Baldwin-Wallace | 32.95 | 19 |
| 22 | Bates | 32.90 | 16 |
| 23 | Farmingdale State | 32.81 | 15 |
| 24 | NYU | 31.09 | 22 |
| 25 | Williams | 30.75 | 46 |
| Dropped out: No. 20 St. Thomas (Minn.), No. 23 Ohio Wesleyan, No. 24 UW Platteville, No. 25 UW Eau Claire | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | WIAC | 445.57 | 4 |
| 2 | SUNYAC | 236.01 | 3 |
| 3 | CCIW | 233.61 | 2 |
| 4 | NESCAC | 231.78 | 3 |
| 5 | IIAC | 134.50 | 2 |
| 6 | UAA | 126.27 | 2 |
| 7 | OAC | 103.57 | 1 |
| 8 | NCAC | 96.70 | 2 |
| 9 | MIAC | 77.23 | |
| 10 | Independent (D-III) | 72.73 | 1 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #6 – March 2 |
|||
| next ranking: MONDAY, March 7 (Week 7) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | UW Oshkosh | 182.17 | 1 |
| 2 | Wartburg | 137.31 | 2 |
| 3 | MIT | 122.28 | 3 |
| 4 | Williams | 99.79 | 4 |
| 5 | North Central (Ill.) | 66.49 | 6 |
| 6 | Illinois Wesleyan | 62.90 | 10 |
| 7 | Methodist | 58.82 | 5 |
| 8 | Ramapo | 56.31 | 14 |
| 9 | Middlebury | 56.15 | 8 |
| 10 | TCNJ | 53.60 | 7 |
| 11 | Ithaca | 53.38 | 9 |
| 12 | Wellesley | 53.22 | 11 |
| 13 | Carthage | 53.09 | 12 |
| 14 | UW Whitewater | 51.19 | 22 |
| 15 | Illinois College | 46.33 | 16 |
| 16 | UW La Crosse | 43.92 | 15 |
| 17 | Wheaton (Mass.) | 43.19 | 13 |
| 18 | Chicago | 42.64 | 17 |
| 19 | Coe | 41.56 | 23 |
| 20 | Gustavus Adolphus | 38.24 | 20 |
| 21 | Central (Iowa) | 37.90 | 24 |
| 22 | Keene State | 37.79 | 34 |
| 23 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 36.84 | 18 |
| 24 | UW Stevens Point | 35.58 | 19 |
| 25 | Moravian | 32.63 | 28 |
| Dropped out: No. 21 Monmouth (Ill.), No. 25 Amherst | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | WIAC |
371.20
|
4
|
| 2 | IIAC |
263.48
|
3
|
| 3 | NESCAC |
239.61
|
2
|
| 4 | NEWMAC |
227.89
|
3
|
| 5 | CCIW |
185.94
|
3
|
| 6 | NJAC |
170.19
|
2
|
| 7 | UAA |
121.57
|
1
|
| 8 | Midwest Conference |
102.63
|
1
|
| 9 | OAC |
76.95
|
|
| 10 | USA South |
69.35
|
1
|
About the Rankings
For more on the national team rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
/rankings/division-iii-rankings
Rankings are determined by a mathematical formula, which is based on current national descending order lists. This is what’s used to compile a team’s ranking. The purpose and methodology of the 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.
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.
