Standings are aimed to be released by the end of every Tuesday.
In the 2019 Season, we have 19 technical upsets in 87 ranked matches (78.16% success rate) across 14 events. Additionally, there have been four JV matches entered into the Records.
The Gonzalez System is a computer ranking model similar to Elo and is a rating exchange system based on research performed by World Rugby. It has been adapted by the NCDA to the demands of College Dodgeball, but can be tuned and customized endlessly to incorporate accurate data. It has been used to help determine seeds for the Nationals bracket since Nationals 2014, and was used exclusively for the Nationals 2017 and 2018 bracket.
Technical Upset Spotlight
A technical upset in the Gonzalez System is when a lower rated team defeats a higher rated team. The overall success rate of the system is currently 80.10% based on 325 technical upsets in 1633 ranked matches played since 2010-09-25.
Since our last standings update, we had five technical upsets across 18 ranked matches and three events.
MSU def CMU 4-3
41.995 def 51.843, exchanging 1.985
In a battle of in-state rivals, Michigan State was able to walk away with their first win of the season, and it was a huge one. With a whopping 1.985 point exchange (the max is 2), MSU’s technical upset ranks 1st all time, surpassing UMD’s technical upset over JMU back in Nov 2013. It also marks the first time MSU has defeated Central Michigan since 10-23-2016.
UMD def UVA 2-1
36.332 def 40.927, exchanging 1.459
In the only technical upset at Towson’s home tournament, Maryland was able to defeat Virginia in a nail-biting finish. UMD’s technical upset ranks as the 62nd overall upset all time.
JMU def CMU 4-1
47.999 def 49.858, exchanging 1.186
JMU also picked up a second technical upset victory over another Michigan foe in CMU. A strong first half performance helped lead the way for this team, and gave JMU 1.186 points, and the 175th ranked technical upset all time.
JMU def SVSU 4-2
46.817 def 48.636, exchanging 1.182
The Dukes of James Madison walked away with a few quality wins at the Grand Valley Gauntlet. A solid win over Saginaw Valley resulted in a 1.182 gain for JMU, and ranks as the 177th technical upset all time.
UWP def SIUE 4-2
38.497 (+1) def 40.489, exchanging 1.099
Wisconsin-Platteville was able to defeat Southern Illinois – Edwardsville at their home event, and secured a solid exchange in their first win of the season. It was also SIUE’s first match of the season. The technical upset ranks 246th all time.
Net Rating Changes
| Rating Changes | Pre | Post | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| JMU | 46.198 | 49.185 | 2.987 |
| UWP | 38.497 | 40.475 | 1.979 |
| MSU | 42.639 | 43.969 | 1.331 |
| UMD | 36.332 | 37.466 | 1.134 |
| Towson | 50.272 | 50.636 | 0.365 |
| GVSU | 55.396 | 55.634 | 0.238 |
| VCU | 44.718 | 44.944 | 0.225 |
| BGSU | 43.364 | 42.679 | -0.686 |
| SVSU | 48.323 | 47.454 | -0.868 |
| UVA | 40.927 | 39.203 | -1.724 |
| SIUE | 40.489 | 38.510 | -1.979 |
| CMU | 51.674 | 48.672 | -3.002 |
James Madison took the “loss of faith” criticism to heart and proved that their preseason projection as a championship contender was not a mistake. A 3-1 weekend in which they beat the #2, #4, and #11 ranked teams entering the weekend is certainly guaranteed to help their growth, and has also shot them up the ranks as seen later on.
With Michigan State’s first win of the season coming against a highly ranked Central Michigan squad in the top ranking technical upset of all time, they were able to earn a net gain of 1.331 from the tournament. There were certainly some high expectations for this team entering the season, and while those expectations haven’t quite been met yet, this is a step in the right direction. MSU has played one of the most difficult schedules rating wise. Their average opponent Gonzalez Rating this season has been 50.135, well above the league average of 40.914. Because of this, it may be in the team’s best interest to take some of that experience against top level competition and travel further south into the Ohio region to challenge a wider variety of teams.
Grand Valley is in an interesting place at the moment. Their team has more or less cruised to a 7-0 start to the season, and currently sit at 55.634 points on the season. That is the highest mark they have achieved by this point in a season since 2014 when they reached 55.825 points at the same time stamp. Because of their absurdly high separation from most teams, they tend to earn the minimum exchange in most victories. This year however it is starting to become more difficult for them to accumulate points because of the decrease of ratings of teams in their own region. While SVSU, CMU, and MSU have been playing a rather limited number of games and beating up on each other, the collective average points of the Michigan schools has dropped as compared to the most recent years in the NCDA. As a result, it will be interesting to see if this GVSU team (arguably one of the most experienced and talented teams in program history) can break their historical record high of 59.240.
UWP’s two victories over SIUE helped them gain some momentum for the season. Earning 1.979 points for the weekend moved UWP from 25th to 17th. While SIUE loses the same amount of points in the exchange, it was a good opportunity for their young team to learn and develop some skills for later games in the season. SIUE has now played enough matches over their history (7) to move on from the provisional rating status.
Over on the East Coast, Towson took care of business against their respective competition, getting three more wins to propel them to a perfect 12-0 on the season. Like GVSU, Towson is reaching a point where they are only gaining minimum exchanges against their local teams, save JMU. They are travelling out to Kent State next weekend in what will certainly be a fair test to see if this team’s #2 ranking is fact or fiction.
Ratings, sorted.
| Mov. | Rank | Rating | Team |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | 1 | 55.634 | GVSU |
| ↑ from 3 | 2 | 50.636 | Towson |
| ↑ from 7 | 3 | 49.185 | JMU |
| ↓ from 2 | 4 | 48.672 | CMU |
| — | 5 | 47.759 | Kent |
| ↓ from 4 | 6 | 47.454 | SVSU |
| ↓ from 6 | 7 | 46.466 | Miami |
| — | 8 | 44.944 | VCU |
| ↑ from 11 | 9 | 43.969 | MSU |
| — | 10 | 42.848 | Ohio |
| ↓ from 9 | 11 | 42.679 | BGSU |
| — | 12 | 42.483 | Akron |
| — | 13 | 42.132 | UK |
| — | 14 | 41.948 | OSU |
| ↑ from 16 | 15 | 40.679 | UNG |
| ↑ from 17 | 16 | 40.622 | UNT |
| ↑ from 25 | 17 | 40.475 | UWP |
| ↑ from 19 | 18 | 40.260* | ZAG |
| ↑ from 20 | 19 | 40.230* | OS |
| ↑ from 21 | 20 | 39.791 | PSU |
| ↑ from 22 | 21 | 39.767 | WKU |
| ↓ from 15 | 22 | 39.203 | UVA |
| — | 23 | 39.185* | UWW |
| — | 24 | 39.163* | NIU |
| ↓ from 18 | 25 | 38.510 | SIUE |
| — | 26 | 38.260 | CSU |
| — | 27 | 37.722* | Midland |
| ↑ from 33 | 28 | 37.466 | UMD |
| ↓ from 28 | 29 | 37.442 | DePaul |
| ↓ from 29 | 30 | 37.197 | UNL |
| ↓ from 30 | 31 | 36.918 | UCF |
| ↓ from 31 | 32 | 36.912 | SU |
| ↓ from 32 | 33 | 36.492 | MC |
| — | 34 | 35.699 | GSU |
| — | 35 | 35.667 | WVU |
| — | 36 | 34.326 | BSU |
| — | 37 | 33.203 | BW |
| — | 38 | 31.313 | NSU |
Movement as of 2018-10-30
* denotes a provisional rating (< 6 matches)
† (will be displayed starting at season halfpoint) denotes a team that has not played three games this season, the required minimum games needed to qualify for Nationals.
See the Resource Center for more documentation.
Records, Master Spreadsheet: 2005-Present
Records, Individual Docs: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
Systems: Gonzalez Current