I’ll continue my goal of producing standings post every Tuesday of the Season! Working with records and our statistics is a nice, enjoyable hobby for me. I’m happy to continue this. Please keep in mind that there is a Exec Board vote scheduled on the NCDA Ranking Algorithm; so the Gonzalez system as it appears before you today may or may not be the single system we use for Nationals 2018 at VCU. We’ll release information on the vote as soon as it comes up.
This weekend saw 9 matches in a pool play tournament format, with CMU nabbing the title in the Opening Event of the 2018 Season. This event marked the 200th ranked event in the complete records, with accurate records starting 2010-09-25 in the 2011 Season. In the current Gonzalez System, there are now 239 technical upsets in 1259 ranked matches.
Every system is going to produce strange Standings in the initial parts of the season. Please take these first few months with a grain of salt. The accuracy of the Gonzalez System relies especially on the most recent games played by a team. It needs a couple events to really get going. For those first few weeks, the list is essentially going to look like it did at the end of the Season, post Nationals 2017.
There were three technical upsets in the nine matches played. A technical upset is whenever an initially higher rated team loses in any given match up. Here are those technical upsets in chronological order:
CMU def GV 4-2
The Opening Match of the 2018 Season is the 64th greatest upset of the 239 technical upsets recorded, but only falls in the 73d percentile. It has a mild statistic significance. I’ll leave the Content Team to recap this match with more style and flavor, since it certainly isn’t often that GVSU loses and it is news whenever they do.
But statistically speaking, it is kind of a “correcting exchange” that falls within an average range of an upset. It could mean that CMU is better this season than GV was last season, or that CMU is the same and GVSU isn’t as strong as their rating indicates, or any number of combinations. Only time passed and future games played by either of these teams will shake out where these teams will fall going into Nationals.
SVSU def MSU 5-1
The second match of the Season was an upset, falling at a minor 151 of 239 technical upsets, in the 36th percentile. Another one of those correcting exchanges. Upsets in the Gonzalez system happen about 1 in 5 matches (18.98%), so any upset is going to have more impact to a team’s rating than a predicted result might.
While this match has low “upset significance” it is still reflecting what many predicted for this season. MSU wasn’t going to be as strong as they were last season, and SVSU could gain strength in this season. These teams finished 3rd and 4th in ratings, respectively.
BGSU def MSU 4-2
After MSU’s loss to SV, BGSU posted a rating 7.813 below MSU. That gave this match an upset exchange of 1.781 out of a max of 2, which is a fair chunk of points for any team to gain.
This match was the 6th greatest upset overall, in the 97th percentile. A statistically significant upset.
Upsets can fall to matches decided in regulation or those decided in Overtime. If a match is decided in OT, the exchange is halved and the victor gains less points than if they were to seal victory in regulation. There are only two regular match upsets above this match:
UMD def JMU on 2013-11-16 at UMD Invite [-9.504 gap]
MSU def GVSU on 2015-09-20 at Impact at IM West. [-8.463 gap]
The other three matches are OT matches.
SVSU def GVSU OT at BotV on 2016-10-29 [-9.253 gap]
WKU def SVSU OT at BEAST II on 2013-02-16 [-9.253 gap]
BGSU def UK OT at Kentucky Invite on 2012-01-28 [-8.793 gap]
Saginaw’s win against GV was big when it happened in the early events of last season, but it was still an OT victory. BGSU def MSU [-7.813 gap] is one of the biggest point grabs in recent memory, and it happened in regulation.
If your team went up, celebrate if you must. If your team went down, don’t worry too much. Either way, play more dodgeball. We have plenty of months to prepare for Nationals. Not playing is going to cost you.
Ratings
| Team | Pre | Post | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMU | 50.702 | 52.857 | 2.156 |
| BGSU | 40.656 | 42.109 | 1.453 |
| SVSU | 48.098 | 48.823 | 0.725 |
| Akron | 35.591 | 35.561 | -0.030 |
| GVSU | 54.701 | 53.321 | -1.380 |
| MSU | 48.622 | 45.698 | -2.924 |
I saw some people ask why Akron headed to this event, apparently “out classed” or whatever people say. But they lost minimal ratings and got a chance to play top caliber teams! That’s is an amazing low risk, high reward scenario. Due respect. Playing dodgeball is what this League is all about. Play whoever you want. Have fun.
As of 2017-09-19 (Gonzalez System)
| Mov | Rank | Rating | Team |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | 1 | 53.321 | GVSU |
| — | 2 | 52.857 | CMU |
| ↑ from 4 | 3 | 48.823 | SVSU |
| ↑ from 5 | 4 | 45.910 | Towson |
| ↑ from 6 | 5 | 45.892 | Kent |
| ↓ from 3 | 6 | 45.698 | MSU |
| — | 7 | 45.410 | JMU |
| — | 8 | 45.368 | UK |
| — | 9 | 42.524 | OSU |
| — | 10 | 42.139 | UWP |
| ↑ from 16 | 11 | 42.109 | BGSU |
| ↓ from 11 | 12 | 41.615 | PSU |
| ↓ from 12 | 13 | 41.582 | UMD |
| ↓ from 13 | 14 | 41.336 | VCU |
| ↓ from 14 | 15 | 41.124 | DePaul |
| ↓ from 15 | 16 | 40.967 | WKU |
| — | 17 | 40.502 | UNT |
| — | 18 | 38.586 | UWW |
| — | 19 | 38.557 | NIU |
| — | 20 | 38.458 | CSU |
| — | 21 | 37.998 | UNL |
| — | 22 | 37.952 | UVA |
| — | 23 | 37.885 | MC |
| — | 24 | 37.722 | Pitt |
| — | 25 | 37.489 | GSU |
| — | 26 | 37.161 | Ohio |
| — | 27 | 37.119 | UNG |
| — | 28 | 36.381 | BW |
| — | 29 | 36.337 | SU |
| — | 30 | 36.169 | NSU |
| — | 31 | 35.561 | Akron |
| — | 32 | 33.498 | Miami |
Look at that 4 thru 8! Close competition. Lets get these teams playing against each other.
