Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

OVC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 1
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Southeast Mo. St. 1,471.8341 1,477.9199 1,474.8739 48.68 57.48 0.041
2nd Morehead St. 1,443.5152 1,447.2478 1,445.3803 52.77 48.71 0.009
3rd Austin Peay 1,429.3937 1,436.1151 1,432.7505 50.66 50.88 -0.008
4th Murray St. 1,427.9013 1,433.1132 1,430.5048 48.09 51.57 -0.014
5th UT Martin 1,413.6594 1,413.5355 1,413.5974 47.85 50.74 -0.056
6th Tennessee Tech 1,379.2383 1,383.6690 1,381.4519 45.35 51.34 -0.020
7th Tennessee St. 1,338.7760 1,347.3139 1,343.0381 47.66 45.74 -0.069
8th Eastern Ill. 1,339.5223 1,344.5229 1,342.0203 47.51 46.09 -0.094
9th SIUE 1,309.9980 1,315.8443 1,312.9179 43.67 47.16 -0.109
10th Belmont 1,288.4719 1,288.9224 1,288.6971 44.86 44.60 -0.120

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 Austin Peay 0.2205 36.65 14.60 33.25 49.45 5.26 6.32
2nd Southeast Mo. St. 0.2159 35.86 14.27 32.82 49.66 5.95 6.56
3rd Murray St. 0.2104 37.38 16.34 34.63 45.68 7.14 5.47
4th Tennessee Tech 0.1966 36.85 17.19 33.64 46.11 6.99 6.38
5th Morehead St. 0.1923 35.55 16.32 32.38 47.96 6.66 6.60
6th UT Martin 0.1699 33.44 16.44 29.75 51.37 6.01 5.66
7th SIUE 0.1503 32.41 17.38 29.83 52.25 6.61 6.50
8th Tennessee St. 0.1490 32.17 17.27 29.30 50.23 5.69 4.70
9th Eastern Ill. 0.1487 33.41 18.54 31.31 49.34 6.65 7.45
10th Belmont 0.1459 31.72 17.13 29.41 53.86 6.82 5.53

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Southeast Mo. St. 0.1753 32.68 15.14 30.22 53.73 4.97 4.60
2nd Morehead St. 0.1832 32.30 13.98 29.65 53.10 5.24 5.80
3rd Tennessee Tech 0.2161 36.98 15.37 33.71 46.07 6.69 6.37
4th Tennessee St. 0.2185 35.74 13.89 32.71 47.82 5.04 6.94
5th Murray St. 0.2247 35.42 12.95 33.21 52.67 3.89 6.24
6th UT Martin 0.2264 36.67 14.03 33.97 49.16 5.87 5.46
7th Austin Peay 0.2285 36.67 13.82 33.45 50.34 5.19 5.62
8th Eastern Ill. 0.2430 38.98 14.69 36.86 47.07 5.00 7.00
9th SIUE 0.2590 40.53 14.63 37.76 44.58 5.77 6.59
10th Belmont 0.2662 40.53 13.91 36.46 45.81 5.36 6.90

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,386.5232 1,387.7077 1,390.5605 1,392.1481 1,389.2349
Difference 1.1844 4.0373 5.6249 3.6155

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Southeast Mo. St. 127 1,971 972 179 228 49.32 11.0 8.6 1,788 757 112 205 57.66 16.0 8.7
Austin Peay 125 2,053 1,098 182 171 53.48 11.3 12.0 1,858 885 142 190 52.37 13.1 9.8
Murray St. 113 2,250 1,134 137 229 50.40 16.4 9.8 2,144 1,026 146 196 52.15 14.7 10.9
Morehead St. 120 1,955 1,044 158 195 53.40 12.4 10.0 1,859 953 139 175 48.74 13.4 10.6
UT Martin 121 2,124 1,056 151 167 49.72 14.1 12.7 2,024 994 136 244 50.89 14.9 8.3
Tennessee St. 103 1,993 1,023 121 141 51.33 16.5 14.1 2,026 1,069 153 193 47.24 13.2 10.5
Tennessee Tech 114 2,257 1,062 152 269 47.05 14.8 8.4 2,313 1,133 157 161 51.02 14.7 14.4
Eastern Ill. 109 2,144 1,080 168 150 50.37 12.8 14.3 2,206 1,170 163 188 46.96 13.5 11.7
SIUE 110 1,989 905 136 172 45.50 14.6 11.6 2,279 1,196 160 194 47.52 14.2 11.7
Belmont 104 1,930 917 119 201 47.51 16.2 9.6 2,258 1,234 166 176 45.35 13.6 12.8
Conference Average 115 2,067 1,029 150 192 49.81 14.0 11.1 2,076 1,042 147 192 49.99 14.1 11.0
  • 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 OVC

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

73.45

2021-10-01
Morehead St.
Murray St.
3
0
38
36
25
18
25
21
GAME

69.90

2021-10-08
Tennessee Tech
Austin Peay
3
2
25
27
25
21
25
17
23
25
15
13
GAME

69.75

2021-09-29 Cape Girardeau, Mo.
Southeast Mo. St.
UT Martin
2
3
23
25
20
25
25
22
25
23
13
15
GAME

69.18

2021-11-07
Austin Peay
UT Martin
3
0
26
24
27
25
25
23
GAME

68.52

2021-10-30
UT Martin
Tennessee Tech
2
3
25
21
25
20
20
25
22
25
13
15
GAME

68.23

2021-10-13
Austin Peay
Murray St.
3
2
22
25
25
19
25
20
23
25
15
8
GAME

67.95

2021-11-05
Murray St.
Southeast Mo. St.
1
3
25
27
13
25
25
22
17
25
GAME

66.78

2021-11-10
Murray St.
Austin Peay
3
1
22
25
25
22
25
23
25
23
GAME

66.76

2021-10-06
Tennessee Tech
Morehead St.
1
3
17
25
26
28
25
22
20
25
GAME

66.64

2021-10-22
Tennessee Tech
Southeast Mo. St.
1
3
23
25
24
26
25
20
16
25

HuskerGeek OVC 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
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 23.5743
2 22.7223
3 22.6488
4 19.9522
5 19.6989
6 18.4312
7 16.6980
8 16.5182
9 16.0006
10 14.9419

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 15.8668
2 15.8291
3 14.7869
4 11.3371
5 10.5575
6 9.0842
7 8.7402
8 8.7160
9 8.6277
10 8.6035

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 17.7618
2 16.3108
3 13.6684
4 13.3562
5 13.2593
6 11.6168
7 9.2365
8 9.1343
9 8.5159
10 8.3617

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2357
2 0.2272
3 0.2265
4 0.2264
5 0.2119
6 0.2043
7 0.1995
8 0.1855
9 0.1758
10 0.1757

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1587
2 0.1583
3 0.1479
4 0.1307
5 0.1303
6 0.1214
7 0.1032
8 0.0989
9 0.0958
10 0.0928

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1792
2 0.1776
3 0.1542
4 0.1535
5 0.1327
6 0.1249
7 0.1248
8 0.1067
9 0.1012
10 0.0961


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