We are well developed into the season, with 22 ranked matches coming out of this weekend and bringing us to a staggering 1359 ranked matches with 109 ranked matches in the 2018 Season so far. There are few organizations out there that can claim these kinds of records, and if any of you have leads on any please forward them over. Record keeping really sets us apart. Dodgeball play is worth keeping track of, and accuracy is important.
Technical Upset Spotlight
We had some close games this weekend across our three events, and we registered three technical upsets in our 22 ranked matches. The Gonzalez system marks 263 technical upsets in 1359 ranked matches (80.65% success rate). One team claimed all three of our technical upsets: Miami on their home court.
Miami def Ohio 3-1
35.762+1 def 42.092, exchanging 1.533
The largest upset of the weekend, and the second biggest upset of the season thus far (BGSU def MSU posted an upset exchange of 1.781). Miami gained 1.533 in this upset exchange on an Ohio team that has been steadily climbing their Gonzalez rating since the beginning of the Season, despite a now 7-5 record. The upset ranks #30 of 263, in the 88th percentile. Statistically significant and a key indicator Miami’s rating is moving back into a more reasonable position given their performance this semester.
Miami def CSU 3-1
33.025+1 def 37.909, exchanging 1.388
Miami claims the second largest upset of the weekend, and this one still had some heft. This upset was Miami’s first win in regulation this season, and they were able to improve their rating quite a bit for winning in regulation. Miami’s win against DePaul three weeks earlier was a larger technical upset, but the end Rating Exchange was halved because the match was decided in Overtime. This upset ranks #76 of 263, in the 71st percentile.
Miami def OSU 4-1
34.413+1 def 38.906, exchanging 1.349
The third largest uspet this weekend was also claimed by Miami through defeating a historically strong team, Ohio State. OSU’s rating (38.404) has dipped since the start of the season (42.524) and they now have dropped 4.120 since the their pre-season rating. Over their history, OSU has generally averaged 43.286. Miami was able to secure a fairly significant win on their terms, on their home court, and they were rewarded with an upset ranking #87 of 263, in the 66th percentile.
Net Rating Changes
| Rating Changes | Pre | Post | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miami | 33.025 | 37.295 | 4.271 |
| CMU | 54.835 | 55.899 | 1.064 |
| BGSU | 47.024 | 47.853 | 0.829 |
| GVSU | 52.666 | 53.235 | 0.569 |
| Ohio | 40.687 | 40.559 | -0.128 |
| JMU | 48.618 | 48.483 | -0.134 |
| DePaul | 37.852 | 37.599 | -0.253 |
| SVSU | 46.747 | 46.404 | -0.344 |
| MSU | 44.523 | 43.868 | -0.655 |
| UWP | 44.216 | 43.140 | -1.075 |
| OSU | 39.819 | 38.404 | -1.415 |
| Akron | 37.796 | 36.315 | -1.481 |
| CSU | 37.909 | 35.181 | -2.728 |
Miami’s three technical upsets net them one of the best rating boosts we’ve seen in this season’s Tuesday Standings articles. Since they returned to the League last season, Miami hasn’t done all that well until this point, winning just two matches and losing 17 last season. I will commend them for playing so many games, and I think this amount of experience is a key element to their continued growth. Ohio was in a similar situation in their first season, and their program has improved 11 points since they closed out the 2016 Season with a 29.239 after posting an 0-29 record. The point remains, if a team loses a lot of games, they will take a huge hit to their rating. A team has to win games to improve their Rating. Though, losing games puts you in a better position to really shock when you do upset.
Going into the RedHawk Invite, Miami was just 1 and 3 this season, but their one win was an Overtime upset (OTs marking a less influential win as opposed to a straight win in regulation). Up until this weekend, Miami hadn’t been able to win enough to cover their losses, which means Miami has given a lot in Rating Exchanges over those 23 ranked matches. Looking back in retrospective, Miami’s rating (33.025) might have seemed undervalued but the system is one of past performance.
Three quality upset wins, and wins in regulation, have given Miami a good boost. Miami is in a better position (geographically and rating wise) to make a push past the middle section of the standings and become an above average team. They are only 3-4 even wins away from the Mean League Rating (40.905) which means they would have jumped 22 rating positions if they manage to secure these wins before the end of December. Just one point gained on their rating will allow them to jump the nearest six team ratings above them.
Use this information Miami! If you win, your rating will increase (i guess that’s a no duh)
Ratings, sorted.
| Mov. | Rank | Rating | Team |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | 1 | 55.899 | CMU |
| — | 2 | 53.235 | GVSU |
| — | 3 | 48.483 | JMU |
| ↑ from 5 | 4 | 47.853 | BGSU |
| ↓ from 4 | 5 | 47.682 | Kent |
| ↑ from 7 | 6 | 46.698 | Towson |
| ↓ from 6 | 7 | 46.404 | SVSU |
| — | 8 | 46.269 | UK |
| — | 9 | 43.868 | MSU |
| — | 10 | 43.140 | UWP |
| — | 11 | 41.525 | PSU |
| ↑ from 13 | 12 | 40.649 | VCU |
| ↓ from 12 | 13 | 40.559 | Ohio |
| — | 14 | 40.502 | UNT |
| — | 15 | 40.139 | WKU |
| — | 16 | 40.020* | ZAG |
| — | 17 | 39.980* | OS |
| ↑ from 19 | 18 | 39.165 | UNG |
| ↑ from 20 | 19 | 38.586* | UWW |
| ↑ from 21 | 20 | 38.570* | Midland |
| ↑ from 22 | 21 | 38.557* | NIU |
| ↓ from 18 | 22 | 38.404 | OSU |
| — | 23 | 38.269* | SIUE |
| — | 24 | 38.132 | UNL |
| ↑ from 26 | 25 | 37.885* | MC |
| ↑ from 28 | 26 | 37.803 | UMD |
| ↑ from 30 | 27 | 37.722* | Pitt |
| ↓ from 27 | 28 | 37.599 | DePaul |
| ↑ from 31 | 29 | 37.463 | UVA |
| ↑ from 36 | 30 | 37.295 | Miami |
| ↑ from 32 | 31 | 36.660 | SU |
| ↓ from 29 | 32 | 36.315 | Akron |
| — | 33 | 36.169 | NSU |
| — | 34 | 35.442 | GSU |
| ↓ from 25 | 35 | 35.181 | CSU |
| ↓ from 35 | 36 | 34.449 | BW |
Movement as of 2017-10-31
* denotes a provisional rating (< 6 matches)
CLE. In posting a 0-3 record, giving up 1.388 to Miami, 0.492 to Ohio, and 0.847 to OSU, Cleveland State lost a lot on their rating this weekend. Coupled with an incredibly clustered section of the Standings, they markedly fell places. I’d like to take this moment to remind everyone that CSU is not that far behind if one considers team ratings rather than team rankings. CSU needs only two quality, even strength wins to jump back up and that’s not out of the question if they attend Ohio’s event before the winter break.
The Top 4. In the two events in the State of Michigan, we saw no technical upsets and that generally means that the rich get richer. Though, it’s incredibly worth nothing that while the top two teams are from Michigan, the other two are James Madison and Bowling Green, respectively. BGSU was able to sneak past Kent to claim the 4th strongest Rating currently, but that gap is just 0.171 between the two. Why don’t these two schedule a match?
CMU def BGSU OT. It is worth noting our only overtime match this weekend, against 55.839 vs 47.024. This was the sixth match of the weekend for CMU, who hosted their own event on Saturday. It was BGSU 2-0 CMU around Halftime, but CMU came back to push the contest into OT. Had BGSU closed out the match in regulation, it would have ranked the 4th greatest upset across our history, and pushed BGSU well into the 3rd rating (about 49.600 coming into this Tuesday). But, as it stood, overtime halved the exchange and the match made a tiny exchange of 0.059 in CMU’s favor.
Sorry, this edition was a little Miami heavy. I would love to get to other team performance, but this week had some time constraints on my end and last week’s release was a Feature Article.
As always, if you have any questions, forward them on; I am always happy to answer them.
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.
