Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

Southern - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 1
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Ga. Southern 1,475.0890 1,458.2102 1,466.6253 44.95 61.62 0.057
2nd Col. of Charleston 1,455.7998 1,453.8748 1,454.8370 44.14 60.77 0.050
3rd Samford 1,452.8544 1,456.7457 1,454.7987 43.48 63.30 0.053
4th Furman 1,447.4105 1,426.0682 1,436.6997 42.82 62.44 0.047
5th UNCG 1,338.2419 1,347.6566 1,342.9410 39.22 56.97 -0.037
6th Davidson 1,341.7907 1,339.6652 1,340.7276 41.55 53.62 -0.047
7th Elon 1,327.7009 1,347.4155 1,337.5219 38.26 56.29 -0.068
8th Wofford 1,316.5858 1,311.0781 1,313.8291 39.62 54.98 -0.041
9th Chattanooga 1,306.1398 1,315.6151 1,310.8689 38.72 53.22 -0.080
10th Appalachian St. 1,296.0643 1,299.0105 1,297.5365 37.87 53.83 -0.076
11th Western Caro. 1,275.4950 1,272.8100 1,274.1518 37.33 52.09 -0.092
12th The Citadel 1,221.2284 1,211.5071 1,216.3581 35.49 47.99 -0.150

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 Furman 0.2611 39.71 13.60 37.87 45.75 5.19 5.25
2nd Samford 0.2430 39.75 15.45 37.29 44.81 5.28 4.61
3rd Ga. Southern 0.2385 38.21 14.36 35.11 47.84 5.07 5.40
4th Col. of Charleston 0.2356 38.82 15.26 36.16 46.15 6.11 3.76
5th Wofford 0.1881 33.40 14.59 31.05 54.09 5.35 5.57
6th UNCG 0.1855 34.11 15.56 31.67 52.18 4.87 3.33
7th Elon 0.1678 33.20 16.41 30.94 52.16 5.87 4.66
8th Davidson 0.1656 31.42 14.86 29.92 53.23 5.65 5.32
9th Chattanooga 0.1458 29.84 15.26 27.62 55.12 5.82 4.05
10th Western Caro. 0.1442 29.80 15.39 28.05 56.35 5.78 2.75
11th Appalachian St. 0.1433 30.27 15.94 28.45 54.48 6.63 4.39
12th The Citadel 0.1211 28.11 16.00 26.18 57.24 5.96 3.05

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Ga. Southern 0.1810 32.48 14.38 29.98 53.91 5.47 4.61
2nd Col. of Charleston 0.1860 34.08 15.48 31.02 52.08 5.48 4.92
3rd Samford 0.1902 34.80 15.78 32.33 51.31 5.78 4.12
4th Davidson 0.2123 35.45 14.22 32.85 50.91 4.78 6.57
5th Furman 0.2140 35.67 14.27 32.98 50.90 4.84 4.53
6th Appalachian St. 0.2196 37.48 15.52 34.53 49.01 5.67 6.29
7th UNCG 0.2222 36.04 13.82 33.34 50.76 5.05 6.17
8th Chattanooga 0.2258 36.06 13.48 32.84 51.15 4.12 6.04
9th Wofford 0.2287 37.57 14.70 34.59 48.83 5.52 7.65
10th Western Caro. 0.2360 37.32 13.72 34.60 49.05 4.83 6.12
11th Elon 0.2362 38.64 15.02 35.70 45.95 5.69 5.06
12th The Citadel 0.2714 40.91 13.78 38.09 43.92 4.84 7.67

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,353.9080 1,356.3912 1,354.3654 1,347.0980 1,352.9407
Difference 2.4833 0.4575 -6.8099 -1.2897

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Samford 116 2,666 1,231 141 234 46.17 18.9 11.4 2,291 841 87 189 63.29 26.3 12.1
Ga. Southern 124 2,735 1,273 168 218 46.55 16.3 12.5 2,401 918 101 204 61.77 23.8 11.8
Furman 125 2,835 1,245 153 222 43.92 18.5 12.8 2,570 965 101 184 62.45 25.4 14.0
Col. of Charleston 132 2,975 1,329 119 133 44.67 25.0 22.4 2,797 1,120 135 188 59.96 20.7 14.9
UNCG 119 2,158 909 103 155 42.12 21.0 13.9 2,135 888 132 201 58.41 16.2 10.6
Wofford 111 2,397 1,033 150 243 43.10 16.0 9.9 2,395 1,035 171 193 56.79 14.0 12.4
Elon 118 2,486 1,034 138 244 41.59 18.0 10.2 2,504 1,047 120 234 58.19 20.9 10.7
Davidson 104 2,185 955 125 139 43.71 17.5 15.7 2,221 1,000 130 156 54.98 17.1 14.2
Chattanooga 119 2,526 1,071 121 144 42.40 20.9 17.5 2,629 1,182 140 209 55.04 18.8 12.6
Appalachian St. 107 2,122 838 100 157 39.49 21.2 13.5 2,334 1,070 137 161 54.16 17.0 14.5
Western Caro. 110 2,244 896 74 152 39.93 30.3 14.8 2,515 1,179 144 182 53.12 17.5 13.8
The Citadel 122 2,296 925 97 136 40.29 23.7 16.9 2,689 1,337 203 204 50.28 13.2 13.2
Conference Average 117 2,469 1,062 124 181 42.83 20.6 14.3 2,457 1,049 133 192 57.37 19.2 12.9
  • 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 Southern

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

71.48

2012-11-18 Davidson, NC
Furman
Ga. Southern
3
2
15
25
13
25
25
22
29
27
15
8
GAME

71.10

2012-10-07 Charleston, S.C.
Col. of Charleston
Furman
1
3
22
25
19
25
26
24
20
25
GAME

70.16

2012-10-19 Greensboro, N.C.
UNCG
Furman
2
3
23
25
25
21
20
25
25
23
14
16
GAME

69.26

2012-11-03 Greenville, S.C.
Furman
Col. of Charleston
2
3
20
25
25
16
22
25
25
21
12
15
GAME

68.79

2012-10-26 Greenville, S.C.
Furman
Wofford
2
3
25
21
26
28
15
25
25
22
16
18
GAME

68.16

2012-09-29 Birmingham, Ala.
Samford
Furman
3
2
22
25
25
17
25
20
23
25
17
15
GAME

68.12

2012-11-19 Davidson, N.C.
Col. of Charleston
Furman
3
2
25
12
12
25
25
21
22
25
15
13
GAME

68.11

2012-10-20 Birmingham, AL
Samford
Ga. Southern
2
3
25
16
25
20
21
25
23
25
8
15
GAME

67.66

2012-11-02 Chattanooga, Tenn.
Chattanooga
UNCG
3
2
23
25
22
25
25
22
25
19
15
12
GAME

67.53

2012-11-10 Davidson, NC
Davidson
Furman
0
3
25
27
24
26
21
25

HuskerGeek Southern 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 26.9330
2 26.4691
3 26.3173
4 26.1638
5 24.2086
6 24.1740
7 24.0506
8 22.8873
9 22.5505
10 21.8962

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 18.2720
2 16.4823
3 16.4603
4 16.1781
5 15.6541
6 14.1958
7 13.9590
8 13.7310
9 13.5637
10 13.3126

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 23.9454
2 21.2498
3 19.0350
4 18.5588
5 17.9850
6 17.2997
7 16.9072
8 16.2989
9 15.7221
10 14.8114

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2667
2 0.2373
3 0.2282
4 0.2093
5 0.2089
6 0.2086
7 0.2073
8 0.2031
9 0.2025
10 0.1961

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1462
2 0.1457
3 0.1406
4 0.1395
5 0.1329
6 0.1305
7 0.1238
8 0.1213
9 0.1204
10 0.1173

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.2012
2 0.1835
3 0.1730
4 0.1647
5 0.1617
6 0.1547
7 0.1495
8 0.1458
9 0.1429
10 0.1299


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