DI Outdoor Track & Field Team Rankings Update — Week 2, April 10
NEW ORLEANS – According to the latest USTFCCCA National Team Computer Rankings for Division I Outdoor Track & Field, Florida’s men and Oregon’s women remain the top teams in the country. On the men’s side, Florida State notched back to No. 2, a position they held in the preseason rankings. Three-time defending champs Texas A&M moved into the top five for the first time in the outdoor season at No. 4. On the women’s side, the top six teams stay the same with No. 1 Oregon, No. 2 LSU, and No. 3 Clemson holding serve at the top. Florida jumped four spots up to No. 7, reaching the top ten for the first time so far this season.
National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Regional Index: Top 15 | By Team | By Event
Previous Rankings
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #2 — April 10 |
|||||
| next ranking: April 17 | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Florida | 268.56 | SEC | Mike Holloway (10th) | 1 |
| 2 | Florida State | 246.64 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 3 |
| 3 | LSU | 230.58 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 2 |
| 4 | Texas A&M | 223.97 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 6 |
| 5 | Arkansas | 216.70 | SEC | Chris Bucknam (4th) | 4 |
| 6 | Texas | 216.56 | Big 12 | Bubba Thornton (17th) | 5 |
| 7 | Arizona State | 186.60 | Pac-12 | Greg Kraft (16th) | 10 |
| 8 | Texas Tech | 185.98 | Big 12 | Wes Kittley (13th) | 7 |
| 9 | Indiana | 181.96 | Big Ten | Ron Helmer (5th) | 11 |
| 10 | Mississippi State | 180.55 | SEC | Steve Dudley (2nd) | 9 |
| 11 | Southern California | 178.02 | Pac-12 | Ron Allice (18th) | 8 |
| 12 | Mississippi | 153.70 | SEC | Joe Walker (28th) | 14 |
| 13 | Oregon | 148.11 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 16 |
| 14 | Arizona | 146.26 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 12 |
| 15 | Nebraska | 143.75 | Big Ten | Gary Pepin (29th) | 15 |
| 16 | Stanford | 135.52 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 19 |
| 17 | Iowa | 132.58 | Big Ten | Larry Wieczorek (16th) | 20 |
| 18 | Georgia | 127.79 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 18 |
| 19 | Baylor | 125.41 | Big 12 | Todd Harbour (7th) | 13 |
| 20 | Virginia Tech | 120.16 | ACC | Dave Cianelli (11th) | 17 |
| 21 | Oklahoma | 113.92 | Big 12 | Martin Smith (7th) | 23 |
| 22 | Auburn | 99.56 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 21 |
| 23 | Princeton | 87.20 | Ivy | Fred Samara (35th) | 22 |
| 24 | Wisconsin | 83.68 | Big Ten | Ed Nuttycombe (28th) | 24 |
| 25 | Kansas | 83.37 | Big 12 | Stanley Redwine (12th) | 25 |
| Dropped out: none | |||||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 1349.09 | 7 |
| 2 | Big 12 | 1130.35 | 6 |
| 3 | Pac-12 | 1008.03 | 5 |
| 4 | Big Ten | 830.60 | 4 |
| 5 | ACC | 612.66 | 2 |
| 6 | Mountain West | 158.60 | |
| 7 | Ivy | 141.87 | 1 |
| 8 | Big East | 137.04 | |
| 9 | Sun Belt | 130.79 | |
| 10 | Big West | 119.81 | |
USTFCCCA NCAA Division I |
|||||
Women’s Indoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings (Top 25) |
|||||
2012 Week #2 — April 10 |
|||||
| next ranking: April 17 | |||||
| Rank | School | Points | Conference | Head Coach (Yr) | Last Week |
| 1 | Oregon | 355.52 | Pac-12 | Vin Lananna (7th) | 1 |
| 2 | LSU | 315.57 | SEC | Dennis Shaver (8th) | 2 |
| 3 | Clemson | 241.50 | ACC | Lawrence Johnson (4th) | 3 |
| 4 | Southern California | 229.47 | Pac-12 | Ron Allice (18th) | 4 |
| 5 | Texas A&M | 211.75 | Big 12 | Pat Henry (8th) | 5 |
| 6 | Arkansas | 198.87 | SEC | Lance Harter (22nd) | 6 |
| 7 | Florida | 195.36 | SEC | Mike Holloway (5th) | 11 |
| 8 | Oklahoma | 175.26 | Big 12 | Martin Smith (7th) | 7 |
| 9 | Texas | 172.65 | Big 12 | Bev Kearney (20th) | 8 |
| 10 | Kansas | 169.42 | Big 12 | Stanley Redwine (12th) | 9 |
| 11 | Texas Tech | 162.28 | Big 12 | Wes Kittley (13th) | 10 |
| 12 | UCF | 159.54 | Conference USA | Caryl Smith Gilbert (5th) | 13 |
| 13 | Arizona | 149.29 | Pac-12 | Fred Harvey (10th) | 14 |
| 14 | Georgia | 137.45 | SEC | Wayne Norton (13th) | 12 |
| 15 | Arizona State | 122.48 | Pac-12 | Greg Kraft (16th) | 19 |
| 16 | Tennessee | 121.10 | SEC | J.J. Clark (11th) | 16 |
| 17 | Kansas State | 120.30 | Big 12 | Cliff Rovelto (20th) | 15 |
| 18 | Baylor | 110.45 | Big 12 | Todd Harbour (7th) | 17 |
| 19 | Auburn | 109.38 | SEC | Ralph Spry (15th) | 18 |
| 20 | Nebraska | 102.46 | Big Ten | Gary Pepin (32nd) | 23 |
| 21 | Southern Illinois | 97.13 | Missouri Valley | Connie Price-Smith (11th) | 21 |
| 22 | Stanford | 94.64 | Pac-12 | Edrick Floreal (7th) | 20 |
| 23 | BYU | 89.03 | West Coast | Patrick Shane (2nd) | 24 |
| 24 | Florida State | 81.94 | ACC | Bob Braman (9th) | 22 |
| 25 | Iowa State | 76.98 | Big 12 | Corey Ihmels (5th) | 27 |
| Dropped out: No. 25 UTEP | |||||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | Big 12 | 1257.13 | 8 |
| 2 | SEC | 1210.20 | 6 |
| 3 | Pac-12 | 1189.64 | 5 |
| 4 | ACC | 530.37 | 2 |
| 5 | Conference USA | 459.58 | 1 |
| 6 | Big Ten | 449.22 | 1 |
| 7 | Big East | 397.43 | |
| 8 | Mountain West | 230.26 | |
| 9 | Missouri Valley | 200.39 | 1 |
| 10 | West Coast | 104.58 | 1 |
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.
