USTFCCCA News & Notes
Status Quo for Top Three in Division III; UW Oshkosh Men Back to Top Five
NEW ORLEANS – The top three spots remain unchanged in the USTFCCCA National Team Computer Rankings in Division III for week five of 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. Men’s No. 4 UW Oshkosh returns to the top five one week after falling to No. 10. Buffalo State’s men moved up a spot this week and are making their first appearance this year in the top 10.
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 #5 – February 23 |
|||
| next ranking: March 2 (Week 6) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | North Central (Ill.) | 184.47 | 1 |
| 2 | UW La Crosse | 119.32 | 2 |
| 3 | Amherst | 97.08 | 3 |
| 4 | UW Oshkosh | 82.11 | 10 |
| 5 | UW Stevens Point | 81.28 | 4 |
| 6 | Central (Iowa) | 78.29 | 6 |
| 7 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 73.50 | 8 |
| 8 | UW Whitewater | 71.51 | 7 |
| 9 | SUNY Cortland | 69.96 | 5 |
| 10 | Buffalo State | 66.69 | 11 |
| 11 | SUNY Geneseo | 58.29 | 9 |
| 12 | Washington (Mo.) | 53.61 | 20 |
| 13 | Monmouth (Ill.) | 47.53 | 28 |
| 14 | Haverford | 46.24 | 12 |
| 15 | Farmingdale State | 40.41 | 13 |
| 16 | Bates | 40.01 | 16 |
| 17 | Wartburg | 39.26 | 18 |
| 18 | MIT | 39.21 | 14 |
| 19 | Baldwin-Wallace | 38.90 | 15 |
| 20 | St. Thomas (Minn.) | 36.98 | 17 |
| 21 | Allegheny | 36.43 | 19 |
| 22 | NYU | 35.51 | 21 |
| 23 | Ohio Wesleyan | 31.74 | 67 |
| 24 | UW Platteville | 31.07 | 23 |
| 25 | UW Eau Claire | 30.65 | 22 |
| Dropped out: No. 24 Springfield (Mass.), No. 25 UW Eau Claire | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | WIAC | 439.85 | 6 |
| 2 | SUNYAC | 263.82 | 3 |
| 3 | CCIW | 223.54 | 1 |
| 4 | NESCAC | 192.92 | 2 |
| 5 | IIAC | 128.23 | 2 |
| 6 | UAA | 122.16 | 2 |
| 7 | OAC | 116.27 | 1 |
| 8 | MIAC | 95.79 | 1 |
| 9 | NCAC | 74.7710 | 2 |
| 10 | NJAC | 74.7702 | |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #5 – February 23 |
|||
| next ranking: March 2 (Week 6) | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | UW Oshkosh | 191.92 | 1 |
| 2 | Wartburg | 143.15 | 2 |
| 3 | MIT | 95.91 | 3 |
| 4 | Williams | 92.34 | 4 |
| 5 | Methodist | 68.18 | 12 |
| 6 | North Central (Ill.) | 67.80 | 9 |
| 7 | TCNJ | 64.91 | 5 |
| 8 | Middlebury | 64.16 | 10 |
| 9 | Ithaca | 61.10 | 6 |
| 10 | Illinois Wesleyan | 59.09 | 18 |
| 11 | Wellesley | 54.13 | 8 |
| 12 | Carthage | 54.07 | 22 |
| 13 | Wheaton (Mass.) | 47.68 | 14 |
| 14 | Ramapo | 47.41 | 7 |
| 15 | UW La Crosse | 46.82 | 11 |
| 16 | Illinois College | 46.76 | 13 |
| 17 | Chicago | 43.88 | 17 |
| 18 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 42.71 | 21 |
| 19 | UW Stevens Point | 40.76 | 37 |
| 20 | Gustavus Adolphus | 39.08 | 19 |
| 21 | Monmouth (Ill.) | 38.42 | 16 |
| 22 | UW Whitewater | 35.42 | 23 |
| 23 | Coe | 34.27 | 32 |
| 24 | Central (Iowa) | 30.32 | 27 |
| 25 | Amherst | 29.87 | 15 |
| Dropped out: No. 20 Tufts, No. 24 Moravian, No. 25 Keene State | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference |
Points
|
Top 25 Teams
|
| 1 | WIAC |
377.45
|
4
|
| 2 | IIAC |
255.60
|
3
|
| 3 | NESCAC |
230.43
|
3
|
| 4 | NEWMAC |
212.94
|
3
|
| 5 | CCIW |
183.89
|
3
|
| 6 | NJAC |
157.21
|
2
|
| 7 | UAA |
115.88
|
1
|
| 8 | Midwest Conference |
113.89
|
2
|
| 9 | OAC |
110.70
|
|
| 10 | USA South |
80.93
|
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.