Heading to Des Moines: Texas A&M’s Men, Oregon’s Women Are Number Ones

NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) released week nine national computer rankings for NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field on Tuesday. The "final 24" for the NCAA Division I Championships has been set in each event as a result of preliminary rounds contested over the Memorial Day weekend, and new computer rankings are calculated based on the those who advanced through the rounds and that will compete next week in Des Moines, Iowa, June 8-11.

Oregon’s women, the two-time NCAA indoor team champions, took the top spot in the outdoor rankings for the first time this year as they advanced a tied-overall best 16 entries to Des Moines for the final rounds of the championships. No. 2 Texas A&M trails slightly in the latest rankings, but advanced 15 from the preliminary rounds, including a meet-best nine entries from sprint and hurdle events. LSU was moved to No. 3, their lowest position since the preseason, but also are not too far behind the Ducks and Aggies in ranking points as the Lady Tigers will also have 15 entries at Drake, eight of which are in sprint and hurdle events.

The top seven positions on the men’s side remained unchanged as No. 1 Texas A&M and No. 2 Florida seem to be the clear frontrunners heading into the final rounds. The Aggies have 19 entries that will compete in Des Moines, including a meet-best eight in sprint and hurdle events and six in the jumps. Florida will challenge with 17 entries, five in sprint/hurdles and jumps, apiece. No. 8 Virginia Tech may float up the leaderboard with a third-best 14 entries in Des Moines, including a meet-best seven in jumping events — three of which are in the pole vault. No. 3 Florida State has 13 entries into the meet, tied with No. 4 LSU, but are banking on the doubling potential of Ngoni Makusha (100m-long jump), Maurice Mitchell (100m-200m), Ciaran O’Lionaird (5000m-10k), and Michael Putman (shot put-discus).

The Stanford men qualified four in the 10,000 meters and LSU’s women qualified four for the 100 meters to co-lead the category of most entries per event. April Sinkler of No. 6 Clemson will be the only individual to compete in three events, having qualified in the women’s high jump, long jump, and triple jump.

Live television coverage of the meet can be found on cable’s CBS Sports Network on Friday, June 10, and to a national audience on Saturday, June 11, on CBS.

PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Previous Rankings | Rankings Guidelines & Rationale

NCAA Championships: Championship Central | Entry Leaders by Team | Entry Leaders by Conference

Championships Record Book: MEN | WOMEN
Program of the Year Standings: MEN | WOMEN

About the Rankings
For more on the rankings and links to guideline and rationale information visit …
http://www.ustfccca.org/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.