Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

C-USA - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 1
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Rice 1,611.0620 1,616.9542 1,614.0054 56.82 59.68 0.197
2nd Western Ky. 1,595.5545 1,601.0062 1,598.2780 53.62 61.05 0.195
3rd UTEP 1,496.2366 1,501.4086 1,498.8204 51.22 53.09 0.093
4th North Texas 1,479.6604 1,484.5853 1,482.1208 49.32 51.26 0.042
5th UAB 1,455.6807 1,461.4582 1,458.5666 49.24 51.18 0.037
6th Middle Tenn. 1,439.5487 1,447.1505 1,443.3446 49.32 51.93 0.021
7th Charlotte 1,438.2237 1,446.1085 1,442.1607 47.13 53.16 0.030
8th Fla. Atlantic 1,418.2815 1,426.3051 1,422.2877 48.52 50.60 0.000
9th FIU 1,414.3805 1,422.4565 1,418.4128 48.80 51.22 -0.018
10th UTSA 1,388.7399 1,397.7914 1,393.2583 48.11 49.31 -0.033
11th Louisiana Tech 1,368.1052 1,373.8565 1,370.9779 47.60 47.13 -0.070

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 Western Ky. 0.3448 45.91 11.43 42.67 40.14 5.23 8.54
2nd Rice 0.3211 42.86 10.75 39.41 43.66 4.01 6.42
3rd Charlotte 0.2654 39.92 13.38 37.42 47.51 4.55 6.31
4th Middle Tenn. 0.2504 39.75 14.71 36.41 45.77 5.46 8.48
5th UTEP 0.2444 40.51 16.07 37.86 43.85 5.57 9.28
6th North Texas 0.2307 40.14 17.07 37.67 42.14 6.43 6.30
7th UAB 0.2286 37.32 14.46 34.68 47.89 5.78 7.57
8th Fla. Atlantic 0.2158 37.21 15.63 35.72 47.37 5.97 7.47
9th UTSA 0.1986 35.42 15.56 32.77 50.22 6.09 6.17
10th FIU 0.1933 35.87 16.53 32.86 47.71 7.85 6.18
11th Louisiana Tech 0.1547 31.24 15.77 28.62 53.93 5.53 6.69

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Rice 0.1237 28.71 16.34 26.51 57.75 5.77 4.58
2nd Western Ky. 0.1500 33.19 18.19 30.34 50.90 8.63 6.04
3rd UTEP 0.1513 33.35 18.22 30.60 51.02 8.23 6.21
4th North Texas 0.1886 36.04 17.18 33.23 48.23 7.76 6.90
5th UAB 0.1916 33.40 14.24 30.26 52.01 5.84 6.07
6th FIU 0.2113 35.77 14.64 32.55 50.43 5.27 5.88
7th Fla. Atlantic 0.2155 36.86 15.30 35.33 49.03 6.13 6.64
8th Louisiana Tech 0.2252 37.34 14.82 33.99 47.10 5.72 6.31
9th Middle Tenn. 0.2293 39.17 16.25 35.49 47.65 6.03 7.58
10th UTSA 0.2321 37.31 14.10 34.77 49.70 5.19 8.24
11th Charlotte 0.2351 38.95 15.43 35.82 46.12 6.93 7.56

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,467.4757 1,461.9166 1,452.2448 1,449.6961 1,457.8333
Difference -5.5591 -15.2310 -17.7797 -12.8566

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Rice 118 2,693 1,442 155 210 53.55 17.4 12.8 2,275 982 120 213 56.84 19.0 10.7
Western Ky. 111 2,552 1,316 211 259 51.57 12.1 9.9 2,089 861 137 243 58.78 15.2 8.6
Middle Tenn. 107 2,352 1,177 203 277 50.04 11.6 8.5 2,320 1,120 179 234 51.72 13.0 9.9
UTEP 121 2,651 1,329 240 362 50.13 11.0 7.3 2,527 1,233 163 232 51.21 15.5 10.9
Fla. Atlantic 95 2,108 1,053 170 235 49.95 12.4 9.0 2,069 1,017 142 157 50.85 14.6 13.2
UAB 105 2,246 1,087 171 215 48.40 13.1 10.4 2,243 1,117 145 176 50.20 15.5 12.7
Charlotte 102 2,208 1,021 134 184 46.24 16.5 12.0 2,250 1,086 181 224 51.73 12.4 10.0
North Texas 116 2,528 1,225 154 172 48.46 16.4 14.7 2,515 1,273 187 251 49.38 13.4 10.0
UTSA 100 2,099 1,008 123 209 48.02 17.1 10.0 2,258 1,161 187 242 48.58 12.1 9.3
Louisiana Tech 105 2,226 1,100 160 219 49.42 13.9 10.2 2,406 1,271 153 231 47.17 15.7 10.4
FIU 108 2,249 1,056 140 215 46.95 16.1 10.5 2,472 1,256 160 235 49.19 15.5 10.5
Conference Average 108 2,356 1,165 169 232 49.34 14.3 10.5 2,311 1,125 159 222 51.42 14.7 10.6
  • 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 C-USA

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

78.60

2022-11-10
Western Ky.
Rice
3
2
25
19
26
28
26
24
17
25
16
14
GAME

77.97

2022-11-20
Western Ky.
Rice
2
3
25
22
22
25
25
22
26
28
11
15
GAME

73.88

2022-10-16
Rice
Charlotte
3
2
25
23
23
25
25
19
22
25
15
11
GAME

72.80

2022-10-08
UTEP
Rice
2
3
25
23
25
20
15
25
20
25
14
16
GAME

72.45

2022-10-09
Fla. Atlantic
UAB
3
2
30
32
22
25
25
19
25
22
15
12
GAME

71.25

2022-09-30
North Texas
Rice
2
3
24
26
25
21
17
25
25
22
7
15
GAME

70.11

2022-10-28
Western Ky.
UAB
3
0
25
23
25
22
25
19
GAME

69.67

2022-10-14
UAB
Rice
1
3
17
25
25
20
16
25
13
25
GAME

69.19

2022-10-16
FIU
Middle Tenn.
3
2
25
22
20
25
25
19
25
27
15
11
GAME

69.17

2022-11-18 Bowling Green, KY
Rice
FIU
3
0
26
24
25
22
25
17

HuskerGeek C-USA All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
A
D
S
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
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 25.5213
2 24.8451
3 24.5257
4 21.8017
5 21.0101
6 20.6747
7 19.3749
8 19.0339
9 18.1460
10 18.1141

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 17.6240
2 16.7995
3 16.6295
4 16.5611
5 15.4922
6 12.7921
7 12.0249
8 11.7749
9 11.4761
10 11.3034

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 17.4478
2 16.9330
3 16.7036
4 15.3724
5 14.2299
6 14.1934
7 13.6861
8 13.6027
9 11.2272
10 10.6259

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2502
2 0.2238
3 0.2078
4 0.1969
5 0.1964
6 0.1937
7 0.1893
8 0.1851
9 0.1836
10 0.1814

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1624
2 0.1588
3 0.1498
4 0.1424
5 0.1396
6 0.1270
7 0.1208
8 0.1202
9 0.1110
10 0.1103

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1616
2 0.1464
3 0.1440
4 0.1435
5 0.1419
6 0.1295
7 0.1279
8 0.1182
9 0.1176
10 0.1042


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