NEW ORLEANS ? On Friday, the NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships will begin in Nampa, Idaho. And, the same as every year, plenty of storylines ? team and individual battles ? expect to consume the two-day championships. The last USTFCCCA National Team Computer Rankings prior to the NCAA meet has both two-time defending champions ? Florida?s men and Oregon?s women ? as the No. 1 teams.
ESPN3 will stream the meet live on March 9 from 7:30-11:45 p.m. ET and March 10 from 8-11:15 p.m. ET. A tape delay of the championship will air Sunday, March 18 at 7:30 p.m. ET on ESPNU. NCAA.com and broncosports.com will stream what ESPN3 is not covering on Friday (Noon-7:30 p.m. ET) and Saturday (12:30-8 pm ET).
NCAA Accepted Entries: Full Lists | Most by Team | Most by Conference
National Ranking PDFs: Top 25 | Full by Team | Event-by-Event | Week-by-Week
Regional Index PDFs (FINAL):Top 15 by Region | Full by Team | Event-by-Event
Collegiate-Leading Marks | Best Marks by Football Players
Previous Rankings
National Top 5 Teams ? NCAA Indoor History
MEN
#1 Florida ? Two-time defending champs (2 total).
#2 Arkansas ? Last title: 2006 (19 total ? NCAA record). Last year finish: tied-22nd.
#3 Texas A&M ? Last title: none (three-time defending outdoor champs). Last year finish: 2nd (best finish indoors).
#4 LSU ? Last title: 2004 (2 total). Last year finish: 4th.
#5 Arizona ? Last title: none (best finish: 10th, 2005 and 2006). Last year finish: tied-13th.
WOMEN
#1 Oregon ? Two-time defending champs (2 total).
#2 Arkansas ? Last title: none (best finish: 3rd, 2000). Last year finish: 4th.
#3 LSU ? Last title: 2004 (11 total ? NCAA record). ?Last year finish: 3rd.
#4 Clemson ? Last title: none (best finish: 3rd, 2001). Last year finish: 11th.
#5 Texas A&M ? Last title: none (three-time defending outdoor champs). Best finish: 2nd, 2009. Last year: 5th.
Defending National Champions Entered
(seed) in parentheses
MEN
60: Jeff Demps, Florida* (1)
Mile: Miles Batty, BYU (1)
3000: Elliott Heath, Stanford (8)
5000: Leonard Korir, Iona (3)
60H: Andrew Riley, Illinois (2)
4?400: Texas A&M* (6)
DMR: BYU (1)
WOMEN
200: Kimberlyn Duncan, LSU (2)
Mile: Jordan Hasay, Oregon (8)
3000: Jordan Hasay, Oregon (6)
60H: Brianna Rollins, Clemson (2)
4?400: Texas A&M (2)
HJ: Brigetta Barrett, Arizona (1)
PV: Tina Sutej, Arkansas (1)
LJ: Tori Bowie, Southern Miss (6)
SP: Julie Labonte, Arizona (2)
WT: Felisha Johnson, Indiana State (2)
PENT: Brianne Theisen*, Oregon (1)
* Two-time defending champions
?
?
| Men?s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 665.08 | 7 |
| 2 | Big Ten | 376.15 | 7 |
| 3 | Big 12 | 336.85 | 3 |
| 4 | Pac-12 | 330.56 | 4 |
| 5 | ACC | 246.62 | 3 |
| 6 | Big East | 139.34 | |
| 7 | West Coast | 81.11 | 1 |
| 8 | Mountain West | 59.99 | |
| 9 | Summit League | 51.09 | |
| 10 | MEAC | 38.67 | |
?
?
| Women?s Conference Index Top 10 | |||
| Rank | Conference | Points | Top 25 Teams |
| 1 | SEC | 582.28 | 6 |
| 2 | Big 12 | 455.41 | 5 |
| 3 | Pac-12 | 425.65 | 5 |
| 4 | ACC | 241.71 | 1 |
| 5 | Big Ten | 186.61 | 2 |
| 6 | Big East | 155.53 | 2 |
| 7 | Missouri Valley | 133.69 | 1 |
| 8 | Mountain West | 109.97 | 1 |
| 9 | Conference USA | 103.28 | 1 |
| 10 | West Coast | 55.59 | 1 |
?
?
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.
Source: http://www.ustfccca.org/2012/03/featured/florida-oregon-ranked-no-1-and-going-for-three-peats
sandusky barbados raiders chargers latin grammys latin grammys ogopogo walmart black friday
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.