Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

ASUN - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 1
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Lipscomb 1,461.2625 1,481.1497 1,471.1725 44.67 61.86 0.058
2nd Belmont 1,426.1934 1,420.5715 1,423.3797 43.84 59.88 0.011
3rd Kennesaw St. 1,341.6037 1,338.5023 1,340.0521 38.92 55.79 -0.050
4th FGCU 1,340.6136 1,331.6209 1,336.1097 39.05 55.14 -0.074
5th ETSU 1,321.9163 1,317.5347 1,319.7237 39.48 53.67 -0.052
6th Jacksonville 1,324.2453 1,295.6376 1,309.8634 37.40 54.88 -0.075
7th Mercer 1,297.5186 1,297.1513 1,297.3349 37.66 54.34 -0.086
8th North Florida 1,296.9703 1,286.2559 1,291.6020 38.26 52.89 -0.093
9th USC Upstate 1,246.9249 1,235.2953 1,241.0964 34.49 50.17 -0.134
10th Stetson 1,203.4617 1,210.3243 1,206.8881 34.35 47.94 -0.171

ViPR Adjusted Offenses and Defenses are adjusted to expected values against an average team in the same division.

ViPR Division Adjusted Offenses

Rnk. Team Hit% Kill% HE% AST% O_DIG% O_BLK% ACE%
1st Lipscomb 0.2464 40.16 15.52 37.07 43.03 6.40 6.30
2nd Belmont 0.2033 35.29 14.96 33.02 51.68 5.37 8.37
3rd Kennesaw St. 0.1926 36.29 17.02 33.54 48.00 6.21 5.89
4th FGCU 0.1811 35.23 17.12 32.87 50.62 5.58 6.84
5th ETSU 0.1710 33.34 16.24 30.79 51.44 5.69 4.47
6th Jacksonville 0.1708 33.97 16.89 31.66 51.21 5.38 5.49
7th USC Upstate 0.1483 29.85 15.02 26.80 56.81 5.59 4.17
8th North Florida 0.1296 31.69 18.73 29.68 52.66 6.26 4.60
9th Mercer 0.1287 29.23 16.35 26.82 55.56 5.82 2.79
10th Stetson 0.1005 28.07 18.02 25.79 58.02 7.55 6.37

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Lipscomb 0.1889 33.29 14.40 30.89 53.42 5.07 3.93
2nd Belmont 0.1925 33.57 14.32 31.33 54.38 4.49 4.02
3rd Mercer 0.2148 36.41 14.93 33.39 49.12 4.78 4.72
4th North Florida 0.2226 36.17 13.91 32.88 50.60 4.82 5.21
5th ETSU 0.2227 36.82 14.55 34.45 49.44 5.99 5.24
6th Kennesaw St. 0.2424 39.04 14.80 35.94 47.94 4.29 6.62
7th Jacksonville 0.2458 39.29 14.72 35.68 46.43 5.22 6.16
8th FGCU 0.2554 39.53 13.99 36.68 47.80 4.44 6.68
9th Stetson 0.2713 40.35 13.23 36.98 46.13 4.66 7.78
10th USC Upstate 0.2822 41.10 12.88 37.60 46.42 3.06 8.47

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,323.7223 1,319.8952 1,315.7810 1,315.7579 1,318.7891
Difference -3.8270 -7.9413 -7.9643 -6.5775

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Belmont 111 2,537 1,170 220 275 46.12 11.5 9.2 2,274 894 90 221 60.69 25.3 10.3
Lipscomb 112 2,501 1,129 156 267 45.14 16.0 9.4 2,264 873 103 206 61.44 22.0 11.0
Jacksonville 127 2,547 1,081 174 267 42.44 14.6 9.5 2,532 1,065 161 255 57.94 15.7 9.9
Mercer 114 2,453 1,048 92 174 42.72 26.7 14.1 2,430 1,041 119 219 57.16 20.4 11.1
Kennesaw St. 109 2,354 981 146 198 41.67 16.1 11.9 2,402 1,036 161 215 56.87 14.9 11.2
FGCU 125 2,588 1,089 192 265 42.08 13.5 9.8 2,652 1,156 185 295 56.41 14.3 9.0
North Florida 118 2,493 1,042 129 265 41.80 19.3 9.4 2,621 1,176 136 277 55.13 19.3 9.5
ETSU 122 2,602 1,116 138 255 42.89 18.9 10.2 2,736 1,273 150 236 53.47 18.2 11.6
Stetson 92 1,803 757 143 228 41.99 12.6 7.9 1,972 940 153 187 52.33 12.9 10.5
USC Upstate 105 2,093 812 104 155 38.80 20.1 13.5 2,403 1,141 210 222 52.52 11.4 10.8
Conference Average 114 2,397 1,023 149 235 42.56 16.9 10.5 2,429 1,060 147 233 56.40 17.4 10.5
  • Sets - Team Sets Played
  • S - Serves
  • SP - Service Points
  • SA - Service Aces
  • SE - Service Errors
  • SP% - Service Point Percentage
  • S/SA - Serves Per Service Ace
  • S/SE - Serves Per Service Error
  • OS - Opponent Serves
  • SPA - Service Points Allowed
  • SAA - Service Aces Allowed
  • SEA - Service Errors Against
  • SO% - Team Sideout Percentage
  • OS/SAA - Serves Per Ace Allowed
  • OS/SEA - Serves Per Error Against

The Best Games in the ASUN

Game Link EPIC Game Date Location Teams Sets Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5
GAME

71.80

2011-10-21 Nashville, Tenn.
Belmont
FGCU
2
3
23
25
22
25
25
21
30
28
16
18
GAME

67.83

2011-10-06 Nashville, TN
Lipscomb
Belmont
3
2
20
25
25
23
20
25
25
13
15
13
GAME

67.39

2011-10-15 Fort Myers, Fla.
FGCU
ETSU
3
1
31
29
26
24
31
33
25
21
GAME

66.93

2011-10-25 Nashville, Tenn.
Belmont
Lipscomb
3
1
25
15
27
29
25
16
26
24
GAME

66.38

2011-10-22 Nashville, TN
Lipscomb
FGCU
3
1
25
19
22
25
25
23
25
15
GAME

65.86

2011-10-21 Jacksonville, Fla.
North Florida
Jacksonville
3
2
23
25
23
25
25
16
25
22
21
19
GAME

65.86

2011-11-18 Nashvile, TN
Belmont
ETSU
3
2
27
25
18
25
23
25
25
13
15
8
GAME

65.47

2011-11-11 Johnson City, Tenn.
ETSU
Lipscomb
3
2
20
25
26
24
25
23
9
25
15
10
GAME

64.11

2011-09-30 Jacksonville, Fla.
Jacksonville
Mercer
3
2
26
28
25
22
21
25
25
19
17
15
GAME

63.90

2011-09-23 Fort Myers, Fla.
FGCU
Jacksonville
3
2
23
25
25
23
20
25
25
21
15
12

HuskerGeek ASUN All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
D
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
S
S

Player of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

Attacker of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

Setter of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

Defensive Player of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

WPA

Rk. Name Team WPA
1 26.9855
2 25.8229
3 24.2092
4 24.1857
5 22.6851
6 21.5070
7 20.3926
8 17.8413
9 17.5643
10 17.5127

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 15.3864
2 14.4383
3 14.3897
4 14.0460
5 13.9319
6 13.8721
7 12.4236
8 12.4089
9 12.1161
10 10.4832

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 16.5104
2 16.4851
3 15.7901
4 15.0059
5 14.5772
6 14.4774
7 13.3768
8 12.0728
9 11.8898
10 11.7768

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2350
2 0.2326
3 0.2268
4 0.2025
5 0.1999
6 0.1991
7 0.1871
8 0.1799
9 0.1622
10 0.1607

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1353
2 0.1332
3 0.1325
4 0.1293
5 0.1265
6 0.1150
7 0.1146
8 0.1118
9 0.1082
10 0.1021

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1529
2 0.1415
3 0.1389
4 0.1351
5 0.1350
6 0.1328
7 0.1167
8 0.1124
9 0.1108
10 0.1091


Explanations

Conference Strength – The Conference Strength table has two parts.  The first row is a list of averages of the scores for a selection of teams in the conference ranging from all of them under the heading “Average” to an average of teams in the conference if we remove the top and bottom three teams.  This is designed to check if a conference is propped up by its elite teams of held down by its weakest teams.  The Composite score on the far right is an average of those scores.  It is a weighted score where the middle teams have a higher value than the edge teams.  The second row containing difference is simply a measure of how different removing the edge teams makes the conference from its initial average.  If the numbers are positive, then removing the edge teams increases the conferences rating.  If a value grows from the value before it, then the team removed at the bottom of the ratings was rated farther outside of the mean than the team removed at the top of the ratings.  It was weighing the average down so to speak.  The Composite difference at the far right is simply an average of the differences.

The Best Conference Games – A short list of the best games played between two members of the conference which is calculated using the EPIC score of each game.  EPIC score is essentially very simple amounting to adding the teams combined ViPR Rating and the total Win Probability Added scored by each team.

All-Conference Teams – All-conference teams are calculated using Win Probability Added per Set Played and the quality of the team that the player plays on. Team quality is included because better teams tend to have better players and more of them.  This often means that players on better teams have fewer opportunities than standouts on lesser teams.

Awards Lists – Each awards list uses the same formula that is used to calculate All-Conference Teams, and decides based on the focus of the list.  Player of the Year has no limitation on how the player score is added up. While Attacker of the Year must have a higher attack score than any other metric.  Similarly Setter and Defensive Player must acquire most of their score through those metrics.

HuskerGeek
HuskerGeek