Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

UAA - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Emory 1,499.4571 1,471.9882 1,485.6592 58.78 71.67 0.284
2nd Washington-St. Louis 1,471.2765 1,452.1416 1,461.6777 59.84 66.33 0.257
3rd Chicago 1,462.2372 1,434.4974 1,448.3009 56.71 68.39 0.248
4th Carnegie Mellon 1,472.6191 1,422.9404 1,447.5666 58.89 66.96 0.262
5th CWRU 1,395.6361 1,374.8115 1,385.1846 54.38 63.64 0.147
6th Rochester (NY) 1,308.1474 1,288.0593 1,298.0645 52.52 57.48 0.099
7th Brandeis 1,276.0055 1,263.3513 1,269.6626 50.43 56.07 0.062
8th NYU 1,252.5282 1,233.4942 1,242.9748 46.82 55.72 0.029

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 Emory 0.3232 44.31 11.98 41.13 43.12 3.33 10.65
2nd Chicago 0.3182 41.55 9.73 38.70 48.55 3.32 9.16
3rd Washington-St. Louis 0.3155 44.00 12.45 40.15 42.56 3.39 10.35
4th Carnegie Mellon 0.3149 40.08 8.60 37.45 50.10 1.92 9.89
5th CWRU 0.2702 39.04 12.02 36.29 46.98 4.00 9.16
6th Rochester (NY) 0.2160 35.96 14.36 33.34 52.03 3.40 9.66
7th Brandeis 0.1714 32.09 14.95 30.10 57.32 3.80 10.47
8th NYU 0.1682 33.99 17.17 31.75 52.02 3.84 8.14

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Emory 0.0388 22.26 18.39 20.89 64.14 6.07 3.66
2nd Carnegie Mellon 0.0525 22.74 17.49 20.89 63.33 5.53 5.60
3rd Washington-St. Louis 0.0587 24.98 19.11 23.25 60.90 6.48 7.40
4th Chicago 0.0699 23.77 16.79 22.27 62.45 4.44 6.28
5th Brandeis 0.1096 27.30 16.33 25.89 61.02 4.35 8.06
6th Rochester (NY) 0.1165 29.87 18.21 27.33 58.64 5.58 8.22
7th CWRU 0.1229 30.12 17.83 28.82 55.46 4.72 6.40
8th NYU 0.1395 31.08 17.13 28.88 54.71 5.78 6.89

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,379.8864 1,385.0762 1,394.7792 1,416.3756 1,394.0293
Difference 5.1898 14.8928 36.4893 18.8573

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Emory 131 3,058 1,513 244 266 49.48 12.5 11.5 2,554 974 126 227 61.86 20.3 11.3
Carnegie Mellon 128 2,972 1,499 228 205 50.44 13.0 14.5 2,575 1,076 176 198 58.21 14.6 13.0
Chicago 112 2,089 999 170 179 47.82 12.3 11.7 1,867 766 177 188 58.97 10.5 9.9
Washington-St. Louis 130 2,522 1,246 225 197 49.41 11.2 12.8 2,319 1,013 237 243 56.32 9.8 9.5
CWRU 112 2,400 1,154 178 145 48.08 13.5 16.6 2,240 986 174 202 55.98 12.9 11.1
Brandeis 110 2,182 1,097 256 212 50.28 8.5 10.3 2,073 982 200 191 52.63 10.4 10.9
Rochester (NY) 114 1,889 940 223 205 49.76 8.5 9.2 1,811 858 238 214 52.62 7.6 8.5
NYU 120 2,265 970 169 200 42.83 13.4 11.3 2,551 1,277 225 218 49.94 11.3 11.7
Conference Average 120 2,422 1,177 212 201 48.51 11.6 12.2 2,249 992 194 210 55.82 12.2 10.7
  • 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 UAA

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

73.98

2017-11-03 Atlanta, GA
Carnegie Mellon
Emory
2
3
18
25
29
27
23
25
25
23
12
15
GAME

72.08

2017-11-03 Atlanta, Ga.
Brandeis
Carnegie Mellon
2
3
25
21
28
30
17
25
26
24
8
15
GAME

71.93

2017-10-15 Chicago, Ill.
Carnegie Mellon
Emory
3
2
21
25
25
23
25
19
21
25
15
13
GAME

70.20

2017-10-14 Chicago, Ill.
Chicago
Carnegie Mellon
1
3
22
25
27
25
18
25
22
25
GAME

68.45

2017-09-30 Cleveland, Ohio
CWRU
Carnegie Mellon
3
1
26
24
25
19
11
25
25
16
GAME

66.87

2017-10-15 Chicago, Ill.
Chicago
Washington-St. Louis
1
3
25
23
20
25
20
25
13
25
GAME

66.80

2017-10-01 Cleveland, Ohio
Chicago
Emory
3
1
18
25
25
17
25
10
25
21
GAME

66.69

2017-11-04 Atlanta, GA
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
3
1
25
22
26
24
15
25
25
16
GAME

65.94

2017-10-01 Cleveland, Ohio
Carnegie Mellon
Washington-St. Louis
3
1
25
23
19
25
25
19
25
16
GAME

65.33

2017-09-30 Cleveland, Ohio
CWRU
Washington-St. Louis
1
3
24
26
25
22
20
25
20
25

HuskerGeek UAA 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 32.6417
2 24.6697
3 24.2436
4 20.1153
5 19.2339
6 19.1147
7 18.6818
8 17.6683
9 17.5763
10 17.0486

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 18.5621
2 14.9073
3 13.3454
4 12.7035
5 11.5549
6 11.1979
7 11.0973
8 11.0317
9 10.4253
10 9.4398

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 22.5023
2 18.5817
3 15.1216
4 14.6270
5 14.0795
6 12.1492
7 10.4608
8 9.9411
9 9.7624
10 9.0070

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2591
2 0.2148
3 0.2006
4 0.1920
5 0.1894
6 0.1796
7 0.1721
8 0.1609
9 0.1600
10 0.1574

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1473
2 0.1247
3 0.1212
4 0.1210
5 0.1141
6 0.1025
7 0.1022
8 0.1018
9 0.0965
10 0.0952

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1758
2 0.1508
3 0.1487
4 0.1413
5 0.1400
6 0.1350
7 0.1287
8 0.1117
9 0.1006
10 0.0901


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