Standings are aimed to be released by the end of every Tuesday.
In the 2019 Season, we have 31 technical upsets in 179 ranked matches (82.68% success rate) across 24 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 80.41% based on 337 technical upsets in 1725 ranked matches played since 2010-09-25.
There was one technical upset since our last standings update.
SVSU def MSU 4-1
48.883 def 49.175 (+1), exchanging 1.129
The Cardinals picked up their second win of the season over MSU, both times at MSU, and received 1.129 points for the technical upset. It is on the lower end of the technical upset spectrum, coming in at 225th all time and in the 33rd percentile.
Net Rating Changes
| Rating Changes | Pre | Post | Change |
| SVSU | 49.011 | 50.757 | 1.745 |
| GVSU | 56.835 | 57.309 | 0.474 |
| WMU | 40.000 | 39.615 | -0.385 |
| MSU | 48.281 | 47.853 | -0.428 |
| CMU | 48.119 | 46.713 | -1.406 |
First off, congratulations to Western Michigan on becoming the 54th member team of the National Collegiate Dodgeball Association! WMU is now the 5th active team in the state of Michigan. Best of luck the rest of the way!
In terms of rating changes, SVSU made the most out of their return to MDC after a controversial one-year hiatus. Most of this was in part to their upset win over MSU, but they also received points in wins over WMU and CMU. GVSU continued their win streak at MDC, winning their 5th consecutive championship and picking up some decent exchanges along the way.
WMU, MSU, and CMU find themselves on the opposite end of the exchanges this week. In WMU’s introduction tournament they unfortunately had to face off against arguably the toughest slate in NCDA history. Because of this, despite going 0-4 they lost minimal points. MSU went flat at 2-2 record wise, but giving up an upset against SVSU spoiled what would’ve been a positive weekend for the Spartans. CMU finds themselves at the end of the list after going 1-3, with the lone win coming against WMU.
Ratings, sorted.
| Mov. | Rank | Rating | Team |
| — | 1 | 57.309 | GVSU |
| — | 2 | 52.219 | Towson |
| ↑ from 4 | 3 | 50.757 | SVSU |
| ↓ from 3 | 4 | 50.145 | JMU |
| — | 5 | 47.853 | MSU |
| ↑ from 7 | 6 | 47.263 | Miami |
| ↓ from 6 | 7 | 46.713 | CMU |
| — | 8 | 45.633 | BGSU |
| — | 9 | 44.738 | VCU |
| — | 10 | 43.883 | Kent |
| — | 11 | 43.696 | Akron |
| — | 12 | 42.848 | Ohio |
| — | 13 | 40.924 | PSU |
| — | 14 | 40.679 | UNG |
| — | 15 | 40.622 | UNT |
| — | 16 | 40.534 | UK |
| — | 17 | 40.260*† | ZAG |
| — | 18 | 40.230*† | OS |
| ↑ from 20 | 19 | 39.767 | WKU |
| ↑ from 21 | 20 | 39.625 | OSU |
| ↓ from 19 | 21 | 39.615 | WMU |
| — | 22 | 39.203 | UVA |
| — | 23 | 39.185*† | UWW |
| — | 24 | 39.163*† | NIU |
| — | 25 | 38.832 | UWP |
| — | 26 | 38.510 | SIUE |
| — | 27 | 37.722*† | Midland |
| — | 28 | 37.547 | CSU |
| — | 29 | 37.466 | UMD |
| — | 30 | 37.442† | DePaul |
| — | 31 | 37.197 | UNL |
| — | 32 | 36.918† | UCF |
| — | 33 | 36.912† | SU |
| — | 34 | 35.653 | WVU |
| — | 35 | 34.666 | MC |
| — | 36 | 34.656 | GSU |
| — | 37 | 33.203 | BW |
| — | 38 | 32.413 | BSU |
| — | 39 | 31.313 | NSU |
Movement as of 2019-02-12
* denotes a provisional rating (< 6 matches)
† denotes a team that has not played three games this season, the required minimum games needed to qualify for Nationals.
Strength of Schedule Spotlight
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.
Admittedly, I must apologize to the loyal readers. There was a mistake in my formula from last week’s ratings so you may notice a slight change in some positions even though they did not play since the last update.
| Rank | Team | Avg. Opp. Rating |
| 1 | WMU | 50.629 |
| 2 | MSU | 47.949 |
| 3 | CMU | 47.224 |
| 4 | SVSU | 46.930 |
| 5 | JMU | 45.648 |
| 6 | GVSU | 45.446 |
| 7 | UMD | 45.141 |
| 8 | Miami | 44.244 |
| 9 | Towson | 44.190 |
| 10 | BGSU | 43.848 |
| 11 | UVA | 43.569 |
| 12 | Kent | 43.502 |
| 13 | PSU | 43.126 |
| 14 | UWP | 43.026 |
| 15 | VCU | 42.840 |
| 16 | Ohio | 42.648 |
| 17 | OSU | 42.622 |
| 18 | UK | 42.516 |
| 19 | WVU | 41.915 |
| 20 | UNL | 41.850 |
| 21 | BSU | 41.576 |
| 22 | CSU | 41.219 |
| 23 | Akron | 40.578 |
| 24 | MC | 39.650 |
| 25 | GSU | 39.193 |
| 26 | BW | 39.054 |
| 27 | SIUE | 39.046 |
| 28 | NSU | 38.045 |
| 29 | UNG | 36.402 |
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
Prediction Calculation: Gonzalez Predictor