Standings are aimed to be released by the end of every Tuesday.
In the 2019 Season, we have 25 technical upsets in 120 ranked matches (79.17% success rate) across 17 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 80.13% based on 331 technical upsets in 1666 ranked matches played since 2010-09-25.
Since our last standings update, we had six technical upsets across 33 ranked matches and three events.
Miami def CMU 4-3
45.307 def 48.395, exchanging 1.309
Miami picked up the largest upset exchange since our last standings update with a win over Central Michigan. With a 1.309 point exchange, Miami’s technical upset is tied for 113th all time.
MSU def Miami 3-1
43.969 (+1) def 46.466, exchanging 1.150
Michigan State has started to gain some momentum in the 2018-19 season since their upset against CMU. Their home win over Miami ranks 202nd all time for technical upsets, which falls within the 39th percentile.
BGSU def Ohio 3-1
44.074 def 44.422 (+1), exchanging 1.135
Bowling Green has finally found themselves on the winning end of technical upset spotlight, defeating the Bobcats in arguably the premier matchup of the Bobcat Bash III. BGSU gained 1.135 points in the exchange, ranking 216th all time.
MSU def Kent 5-2
45.119 (+1) def 47.130, exchanging 1.101
The second of MSU’s two upsets came against Kent State who, coming into the match, was the highest rated team in Ohio. A decisive victory for the Spartans earned them 1.101 points, and ties for 245th all time.
WVU def MC 7-0
35.667 def 36.492, exchanging 1.083
West Virginia picked up their first upset victory in program history thanks to a win against Marietta. The Mountaineers grabbed 1.083 points in the exchange which ties for 261st all time.
WVU def CSU 4-3 (OT)
36.452 def 38.809, exchanging 0.618
Not only did WVU pick up their first upset last weekend, they also picked up their first overtime victory in program history as well. Overtime exchanges are cut in half, resulting in a 0.618 exchange for the match, ranking 30th all time among overtime upsets.
Net Rating Changes
It should come as no surprise that the Spartans had the biggest day in terms of point changes. A perfect 3-0 at home including two upset victories will do that. In the Mid-November Check-in, it was stated that MSU needed to prove they belonged in the top 4 conversation, and two convincing wins over previous #5 and #7 teams in Kent and Miami, respectively, certainly is a step in the right direction.
BGSU is also making up lost ground in the Gonzalez rankings. A solid 2.540 net gain means a lot in the log jam that’s happening from ranks between 8-12 (see below). After a 1-8 start to the season, BGSU went 5-1 over the past two weekends to bolster their ranking significantly.
Credit should also be given to Akron who went 3-0 at Kent’s Summit Street Slugfest. Even without a single one of their victories being a technical upset, they played fairly evenly rated competition to gain their 1.749 points. This also brought them to a program record 44.232 points, and 7-2 overall on the season.
Speaking of Kent, from the chart above it is clear to see they had to the most notable drop over the past two weekends. The Golden Flashes went 3-4 between both events, however their losses against more high caliber teams significantly outweighed their wins. I will commend them though for strengthening their schedule a bit and getting some tougher games under the belt before the end of the semester.
|↑ from 6||4||48.766||SVSU|
|↓ from 4||5||47.086||CMU|
|↑ from 9||6||46.648||MSU|
|↓ from 5||8||45.222||Kent|
|↑ from 11||9||45.219||BGSU|
|↓ from 8||10||44.944||VCU|
|↑ from 12||11||44.232||Akron|
|↓ from 10||12||43.565||Ohio|
|↑ from 14||13||41.071||OSU|
|↑ from 15||14||40.679||UNG|
|↑ from 16||15||40.622||UNT|
|↑ from 18||16||40.260||ZAG|
|↑ from 19||17||40.230||OS|
|↓ from 13||18||40.140||UK|
|↑ from 20||19||39.791||PSU|
|↑ from 21||20||39.767||WKU|
|↑ from 22||21||39.203||UVA|
|↑ from 23||22||39.185||UWW|
|↑ from 24||23||39.163||NIU|
|↑ from 25||24||38.510||SIUE|
|↓ from 17||25||38.396||UWP|
|↑ from 35||33||36.792||WVU|
|↓ from 33||34||34.666||MC|
|↓ from 34||35||34.656||GSU|
Strength of Schedule Spotlight
On a personal note, I had some time to do some tinkering on the ol’ Gonzalez Sheet, and decided to take up a personal project while making some adjustments. As the header suggests, this project was making a formal “Strength of Schedule” tab. Strength of Schedule is typically used as a measure to determine what level of competition each team is facing relative to their peers. The way to read it is fairly simple, the higher the average opponent rating, the tougher your schedule.
|Rank||Team||Avg. Opp. Rating|
At the midpoint in the season, MSU can claim to have played the toughest schedule based on their opponents average rating. This should come as no surprise given the average ratings of their in-state foes, and the aforementioned upsets over two of the best teams in Ohio. For perspective, the average opponent rating thus far is 42.340, making MSU’s average opponent rating of 48.604 all the more remarkable.
Keep in mind that the “average opponent rating” is the average over each team’s entire season, and the ratings that go into it are the pre-match ratings. For example, Akron could play Ohio twice in one season where in the first match Ohio’s pre-match rating was 42.000 and the second being 40.000. As a result, if those were Akron’s only two games of the season, their average opponent rating would be 41.000. This has the potential to skew results if a team’s rating changes drastically from the beginning of the season to the end, though there are less than a handful of exceptions of that occurring.
Movement as of 2018-11-09
* 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
Spec Document: Gonzalez System Spec Doc