Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

WAC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 1
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st New Mexico St. 1,561.7759 1,529.9471 1,545.7795 46.78 60.45 0.082
2nd UTRGV 1,540.3933 1,504.6538 1,522.4187 44.86 60.97 0.059
3rd UMKC 1,532.2999 1,502.3984 1,517.2755 42.71 61.58 0.046
4th Utah Valley 1,532.8868 1,500.7188 1,516.7175 46.37 58.16 0.049
5th California Baptist 1,515.3502 1,478.6996 1,496.9127 42.83 59.65 0.017
6th CSU Bakersfield 1,477.3363 1,443.3383 1,460.2383 42.15 57.22 -0.020
7th Seattle U 1,477.4993 1,441.9580 1,459.6205 41.29 57.71 -0.010
8th Grand Canyon 1,462.5136 1,429.8582 1,446.0937 40.58 57.02 -0.022
9th Chicago St. 1,434.9956 1,397.9763 1,416.3650 40.18 53.77 -0.090

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 New Mexico St. 0.2404 38.61 14.58 36.34 45.17 6.45 6.54
2nd UMKC 0.2329 38.16 14.87 35.84 46.96 5.65 5.17
3rd UTRGV 0.2239 35.51 13.12 33.45 50.91 6.02 6.26
4th Utah Valley 0.2210 36.21 14.11 33.83 49.55 6.13 5.65
5th California Baptist 0.2148 34.95 13.47 32.41 52.09 4.83 6.07
6th CSU Bakersfield 0.1937 35.07 15.70 32.64 50.80 6.96 7.43
7th Seattle U 0.1933 35.19 15.86 33.08 50.31 6.15 6.52
8th Grand Canyon 0.1847 33.81 15.34 32.20 50.37 7.45 6.56
9th Chicago St. 0.1452 31.47 16.95 29.82 53.24 5.80 5.85

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st New Mexico St. 0.1586 33.18 17.32 30.41 51.74 6.69 6.09
2nd UTRGV 0.1648 32.42 15.94 30.29 54.00 5.28 4.86
3rd Utah Valley 0.1718 34.59 17.41 32.80 48.99 7.21 6.31
4th UMKC 0.1866 35.47 16.82 33.11 48.96 6.63 5.01
5th California Baptist 0.1978 34.51 14.73 32.23 51.14 5.06 5.04
6th Seattle U 0.2038 36.20 15.83 34.18 49.87 6.25 7.66
7th Grand Canyon 0.2071 35.66 14.94 33.13 50.42 5.15 5.87
8th CSU Bakersfield 0.2134 36.15 14.80 33.83 49.90 5.66 5.05
9th Chicago St. 0.2357 37.13 13.56 34.43 49.38 4.78 3.97

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,486.8246 1,488.4681 1,490.1529 1,491.2895 1,489.1838
Difference 1.6435 3.3283 4.4649 3.1456

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Seattle U 112 2,561 1,267 159 203 49.47 16.1 12.6 2,336 1,015 185 201 56.55 12.6 11.6
UTRGV 112 2,557 1,161 160 173 45.41 16.0 14.8 2,341 939 120 203 59.89 19.5 11.5
New Mexico St. 124 2,769 1,278 171 214 46.15 16.2 12.9 2,581 1,067 161 205 58.66 16.0 12.6
UMKC 123 2,778 1,195 144 203 43.02 19.3 13.7 2,643 1,041 146 206 60.61 18.1 12.8
California Baptist 125 2,725 1,192 166 203 43.74 16.4 13.4 2,636 1,091 140 174 58.61 18.8 15.1
Utah Valley 141 3,066 1,397 170 217 45.56 18.0 14.1 2,960 1,287 210 225 56.52 14.1 13.2
Grand Canyon 107 2,257 931 148 191 41.25 15.3 11.8 2,338 1,024 139 214 56.20 16.8 10.9
Chicago St. 120 2,526 1,045 152 134 41.37 16.6 18.9 2,734 1,276 111 206 53.33 24.6 13.3
CSU Bakersfield 122 2,405 1,005 173 206 41.79 13.9 11.7 2,819 1,450 155 225 48.56 18.2 12.5
Conference Average 121 2,627 1,163 160 194 44.20 16.4 13.8 2,599 1,132 152 207 56.55 17.6 12.6
  • 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 WAC

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

76.52

2018-10-18 Las Cruces, N.M.
New Mexico St.
Utah Valley
3
1
25
20
25
27
25
20
26
24
GAME

73.26

2018-11-03 Orem, Utah
Utah Valley
New Mexico St.
3
2
21
25
19
25
25
15
25
23
22
20
GAME

72.94

2018-10-13 Bakersfield, CA
CSU Bakersfield
California Baptist
2
3
25
23
22
25
20
25
25
22
11
15
GAME

72.40

2018-09-20 Riverside, Calif.
California Baptist
New Mexico St.
3
2
25
23
25
23
19
25
20
25
15
11
GAME

72.11

2018-11-08 Edinburg, TX
UTRGV
California Baptist
3
2
25
22
25
14
20
25
24
26
15
11
GAME

71.96

2018-09-22 Riverside, Calif.
California Baptist
UTRGV
1
3
25
20
25
27
18
25
25
27
GAME

71.77

2018-09-29 Bakersfield, CA
CSU Bakersfield
Utah Valley
3
2
25
23
25
23
24
26
21
25
16
14
GAME

71.40

2018-11-24 Bakersfield, CA
New Mexico St.
Utah Valley
3
1
19
25
28
26
25
20
25
17
GAME

71.39

2018-10-27 Las Cruces, N.M.
New Mexico St.
UTRGV
2
3
24
26
25
13
22
25
25
23
13
15
GAME

71.34

2018-11-15 Las Cruces, N.M.
New Mexico St.
UMKC
3
2
18
25
25
22
25
22
23
25
15
10

HuskerGeek WAC All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
A
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 27.4957
2 26.0369
3 24.8345
4 24.5658
5 22.7060
6 22.2843
7 22.1360
8 21.0152
9 20.4782
10 20.2077

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 16.0966
2 15.0645
3 14.9671
4 13.9658
5 13.3417
6 12.4068
7 12.2477
8 11.4884
9 10.3653
10 10.2881

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 21.7033
2 20.3503
3 17.5334
4 17.1531
5 17.0035
6 16.5001
7 15.0119
8 14.5704
9 12.4312
10 11.7655

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2226
2 0.2217
3 0.2070
4 0.2066
5 0.2040
6 0.1981
7 0.1790
8 0.1773
9 0.1746
10 0.1723

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1308
2 0.1278
3 0.1215
4 0.1207
5 0.1194
6 0.1189
7 0.1091
8 0.1042
9 0.0942
10 0.0934

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1809
2 0.1670
3 0.1603
4 0.1519
5 0.1516
6 0.1398
7 0.1371
8 0.1204
9 0.1110
10 0.1014


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