Wartburg, UW Oshkosh Virtually Tied for D-III Women’s Lead; McMurry Men Still in Control
NEW ORLEANS – The third week of national team computer rankings of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) for the 2011 NCAA Division III outdoor track & field season were released on Wednesday. McMurry’s men and Wartburg’s women remain the top teams in the calculated rankings for the third-straight week. However, UW Oshkosh’s is only a little over two ranking points from take the top post from Wartburg.
National Computer Rankings:
PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Full by Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale
Regional Index:Top 10 Teams by Region
Dual Meet RPI: Website
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Men’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #3 – April 20 |
|||
| next ranking: April 27 | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | McMurry | 232.55 | 1 |
| 2 | North Central (Ill.) | 149.96 | 7 |
| 3 | UW La Crosse | 125.43 | 4 |
| 4 | Central (Iowa) | 122.81 | 2 |
| 5 | La Verne | 121.63 | 3 |
| 6 | Washington (Mo.) | 118.61 | 5 |
| 7 | Whitworth | 91.59 | 10 |
| 8 | Redlands | 91.07 | 13 |
| 9 | UW Oshkosh | 85.53 | 6 |
| 10 | Augustana (Ill.) | 85.12 | 8 |
| 11 | Monmouth (Ill.) | 79.02 | 9 |
| 12 | UW Whitewater | 78.93 | 11 |
| 13 | Moravian | 69.70 | 40 |
| 14 | UW Stout | 69.10 | 18 |
| 15 | Cal Lutheran | 68.20 | 19 |
| 16 | Baldwin-Wallace | 67.93 | 15 |
| 17 | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 66.59 | 14 |
| 18 | Haverford | 59.98 | 16 |
| 19 | Wabash | 53.96 | 26 |
| 20 | Bates | 53.93 | 38 |
| 21 | Willamette | 53.36 | 22 |
| 22 | Nebraska Wesleyan | 53.03 | 12 |
| 23 | UW Platteville | 48.25 | 23 |
| 24 | Dickinson | 46.97 | 45 |
| 25 | Rose-Hulman | 45.92 | 30 |
| dropped out: No. 17 Calvin, No. 20 Ohio Northern, No. 21 Rowan, No. 24 Ramapo, No. 25 Greenville | |||
| Men’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | WIAC | 456.83 | 5 |
| 2 | SCIAC | 413.90 | 4 |
| 3 | CCIW | 293.95 | 2 |
| 4 | ASC | 262.26 | 1 |
| 5 | UAA | 223.39 | 1 |
| 6 | OAC | 193.51 | 1 |
| 7 | Northwest Conference | 180.84 | 2 |
| 8 | IIAC | 165.82 | 1 |
| 9 | NESCAC | 128.30 | 1 |
| 10 | Centennial | 119.65 | 2 |
USTFCCCA |
|||
NCAA Division III |
|||
Women’s Outdoor Track & Field National Team Computer Rankings |
|||
2011 Week #3 – April 20 |
|||
| next ranking: April 27 | |||
| Rank | School | Points | Last Week |
| 1 | Wartburg | 222.65 | 1 |
| 2 | UW Oshkosh | 220.58 | 2 |
| 3 | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 128.48 | 3 |
| 4 | Methodist | 123.37 | 4 |
| 5 | Central (Iowa) | 90.63 | 7 |
| 6 | Whitworth | 86.13 | 5 |
| 7 | Texas Lutheran | 85.39 | 8 |
| 8 | MIT | 76.56 | 6 |
| 9 | Calvin | 71.95 | 9 |
| 10 | Rhodes | 71.55 | 12 |
| 11 | North Central (Ill.) | 70.33 | 23 |
| 12 | George Fox | 67.35 | 10 |
| 13 | Ithaca | 65.93 | 15 |
| 14 | Illinois College | 61.41 | 16 |
| 15 | Williams | 60.60 | 11 |
| 16 | Carthage | 54.01 | 31 |
| 17 | UW La Crosse | 53.55 | 13 |
| 18 | Linfield | 50.93 | 22 |
| 19 | Willamette | 50.46 | 25 |
| 20 | Monmouth (Ill.) | 50.40 | 27 |
| 21 | UW Platteville | 50.31 | 20 |
| 22 | UW Eau Claire | 50.17 | 14 |
| 23 | UW Whitewater | 48.65 | 21 |
| 24 | Greenville | 48.12 | 19 |
| 25 | SUNY Geneseo | 47.13 | 30 |
| dropped out: No. 17 Nebraska Wesleyan, No. 18 Cal Lutheran, No. 24 Middlebury | |||
| Women’s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | WIAC |
474.42
|
5
|
| 2 | IIAC |
408.34
|
2
|
| 3 | SCIAC |
260.08
|
1
|
| 4 | Northwest Conference |
257.28
|
4
|
| 5 | CCIW |
202.81
|
2
|
| 6 | SCAC |
191.13
|
1
|
| 7 | UAA |
163.03
|
|
| 8 | NESCAC |
153.94
|
1
|
| 9 | MIAC |
147.29
|
|
| 10 | Midwest Conference |
146.09
|
2
|
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.
