Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

G-MAC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 2
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Cedarville 1,489.6979 1,487.0887 1,488.3927 47.12 60.74 0.074
2nd Ky. Wesleyan 1,431.0420 1,429.9504 1,430.4961 42.83 55.79 0.010
3rd Ohio Valley 1,407.4577 1,408.6423 1,408.0499 43.65 53.76 -0.016
4th Ursuline 1,383.9507 1,378.7515 1,381.3487 41.21 53.86 -0.029
5th Alderson Broaddus 1,368.2694 1,367.0509 1,367.6600 41.09 51.62 -0.061
6th Trevecca Nazarene 1,372.7770 1,361.3920 1,367.0726 40.58 53.66 -0.079
7th Davis & Elkins 1,306.3770 1,305.8600 1,306.1185 39.48 46.91 -0.113
8th Salem Int'l 1,214.9783 1,218.5936 1,216.7846 33.65 43.92 -0.230
9th Central St. (OH) 986.3269 979.0323 982.6729 24.72 28.65 -0.481

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 Cedarville 0.2446 39.11 14.64 35.72 47.87 5.89 7.24
2nd Ursuline 0.1908 31.21 12.14 29.40 60.27 4.23 6.04
3rd Ohio Valley 0.1880 32.89 14.09 30.81 52.74 5.89 7.96
4th Ky. Wesleyan 0.1770 33.89 16.18 30.35 50.03 4.89 8.03
5th Alderson Broaddus 0.1534 31.46 16.12 29.37 54.36 5.65 8.62
6th Trevecca Nazarene 0.1427 30.72 16.44 29.00 53.04 5.79 5.12
7th Davis & Elkins 0.0942 30.85 21.43 28.80 51.34 7.27 6.71
8th Salem Int'l 0.0604 25.70 19.66 23.45 56.62 6.84 7.28
9th Central St. (OH) -0.1031 18.87 29.19 15.94 65.33 7.06 6.94

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Ky. Wesleyan 0.1668 32.19 15.51 29.02 52.06 4.70 5.79
2nd Cedarville 0.1708 33.15 16.07 30.91 50.56 5.64 4.40
3rd Ohio Valley 0.2038 34.63 14.25 31.62 52.15 3.35 6.95
4th Davis & Elkins 0.2072 37.89 17.16 35.38 47.57 5.39 8.23
5th Alderson Broaddus 0.2148 35.48 14.00 32.53 49.49 3.77 7.29
6th Ursuline 0.2202 37.63 15.61 34.76 45.75 3.90 6.58
7th Trevecca Nazarene 0.2212 37.09 14.97 34.98 48.80 3.37 5.14
8th Salem Int'l 0.2909 43.77 14.68 40.14 39.33 3.55 9.15
9th Central St. (OH) 0.3775 51.68 13.93 43.04 32.98 2.08 17.40

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,327.6218 1,353.9329 1,366.0499 1,372.0271 1,354.9079
Difference 26.3111 38.4282 44.4053 36.3815

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Cedarville 117 2,402 1,143 203 204 47.59 11.8 11.8 2,179 916 127 164 57.96 17.2 13.3
Ursuline 96 1,724 832 164 121 48.26 10.5 14.2 1,576 675 147 134 57.17 10.7 11.8
Ohio Valley 81 1,546 760 155 146 49.16 10.0 10.6 1,395 612 111 130 56.13 12.6 10.7
Ky. Wesleyan 88 1,861 838 204 199 45.03 9.1 9.4 1,855 831 119 155 55.20 15.6 12.0
Trevecca Nazarene 101 2,068 925 133 157 44.73 15.5 13.2 2,089 948 128 204 54.62 16.3 10.2
Alderson Broaddus 124 2,166 964 234 213 44.51 9.3 10.2 2,269 1,089 216 191 52.01 10.5 11.9
Davis & Elkins 90 1,747 792 140 190 45.34 12.5 9.2 1,936 979 177 142 49.43 10.9 13.6
Salem Int'l 87 1,265 503 128 159 39.76 9.9 8.0 1,613 865 193 153 46.37 8.4 10.5
Central St. (OH) 33 335 98 26 45 29.25 12.9 7.4 732 510 184 59 30.33 4.0 12.4
Conference Average 91 1,679 762 154 159 43.74 11.3 10.4 1,738 825 156 148 51.02 11.8 11.8
  • 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 G-MAC

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

69.42

2014-10-31 Shaker Heights, Ohio
Ursuline
Cedarville
2
3
25
22
20
25
23
25
25
19
10
15
GAME

69.31

2014-11-01 Vienna, W.Va.
Ohio Valley
Ky. Wesleyan
3
1
25
21
27
25
17
25
27
25
GAME

68.86

2014-10-25 Cedarville, OH
Cedarville
Ky. Wesleyan
3
2
21
25
22
25
25
23
25
20
15
9
GAME

68.62

2014-10-24 Cedarville, OH
Cedarville
Trevecca Nazarene
3
0
25
22
35
33
25
14
GAME

68.21

2014-09-27 Vienna, W.Va.
Ohio Valley
Ursuline
1
3
25
11
20
25
24
26
23
25
GAME

66.21

2014-11-15 Cedarville, OH
Cedarville
Ohio Valley
3
1
20
25
25
20
25
15
25
18
GAME

66.15

2014-10-10 Pepper Pike, Ohio
Ursuline
Ohio Valley
2
3
25
21
13
25
25
20
23
25
8
15
GAME

65.54

2014-10-04 Nashville, Tenn.
Trevecca Nazarene
Cedarville
3
2
25
21
21
25
11
25
26
24
15
12
GAME

65.46

2014-10-11 Owensboro, Ky.
Ky. Wesleyan
Alderson Broaddus
2
3
28
26
13
25
22
25
26
24
11
15
GAME

65.02

2014-11-13 Cedarville, OH
Alderson Broaddus
Ursuline
1
3
25
27
22
25
26
24
14
25

HuskerGeek G-MAC All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
S
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
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 17.5782
2 16.0867
3 14.8934
4 14.3057
5 14.2581
6 13.8858
7 13.7875
8 13.5069
9 12.5671
10 12.5340

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 12.0084
2 10.5060
3 9.4906
4 8.3037
5 7.8392
6 7.8138
7 7.7876
8 6.7664
9 6.7363
10 6.5354

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 13.4387
2 13.0758
3 12.3044
4 8.7194
5 8.2179
6 8.0282
7 7.5996
8 7.5218
9 6.8194
10 6.7624

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2254
2 0.2042
3 0.1986
4 0.1834
5 0.1768
6 0.1579
7 0.1494
8 0.1485
9 0.1444
10 0.1432

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1540
2 0.1221
3 0.1145
4 0.1043
5 0.1002
6 0.1001
7 0.0920
8 0.0826
9 0.0751
10 0.0742

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1575
2 0.1292
3 0.1282
4 0.1268
5 0.1070
6 0.0974
7 0.0973
8 0.0897
9 0.0832
10 0.0814


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