Skip to main content

Comparing Forecasting Models for 2011 Women's NCAA Tourney

Happy New Year! I wanted to close out discussion of the 2011 NCAA women's volleyball tournament by examining the effectiveness of my newly developed Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive/Defensive (CACOD) ranking system at predicting the outcome of tournament matches.

Details of the formula and the full set of CACOD rankings are available here. In short, however, for each team in the NCAA field, the CACOD took the "ratio of its own overall [regular] season hitting percentage (offense) divided by the overall hitting percentage it has allowed the opposition (defense)." This ratio was then multiplied by an adjustment factor based on a team's conference (the stronger the conference, the more the adjustment factor raised the team's ranking).

For each of the 63 matches in the tournament, I simply looked at whether the team with the higher CACOD rating won or lost. The CACOD's record is shown below, along with those from other leading rating systems (shown in a screen capture from a VolleyTalk discussion thread). You may click on the graphics below to enlarge them.

The CACOD successfully predicted the winner of 45 tournament matches, which means it generally did as well as the more established ranking systems did. (The reason some of the above records include only 62 matches is that the captured image was from before the final match.* I suspect that, in cases where other systems' records don't add up to 62, it's because some matches featured teams that were tied in the rankings.) What's unique about the CACOD is that teams' win-loss records during the regular season play no role in formulating the rankings, just offensive and defensive hitting-percentage statistics.

During the Sweet Sixteen round and beyond, the CACOD seemed to outperform the other systems, as the CACOD didn't do so well regarding the 48 matches of the first two rounds (32 in the first round, 16 in the second). The results of the two initial rounds are shown in the next graphic.

Indeed, the CACOD trailed the top performing system (Pablo) by five matches after the first two rounds. However, the CACOD went 10-5 the rest of the way to catch up. The results of the last 15 matches are listed below, with teams' CACOD rankings at the close of the regular season shown in parentheses. Successful predictions appear in black, unsuccessful ones in red.

Sweet Sixteen

Texas (7) d. Kentucky (39)
UCLA (11) d. Penn State (12)
Florida St. (28) d. Purdue (2)
Iowa St. (9) d. Minnesota (31)
Illinois (14) d. Ohio State (25)
Florida (10) d. Michigan (33)
USC (5) d. Hawai'i (6)
Pepperdine (29) d. Kansas St. (40)

Elite Eight

UCLA (11) d. Texas (7)
Florida St. (28) d. Iowa St. (9)
Illinois (14) d. Florida (10)
USC (5) d. Pepperdine (29)

Final Four

UCLA (11) d. Florida St. (28)
Illinois (14) d. USC (5)


UCLA (11) d. Illinois (14)

For next year, I may tweak the formula a little to, for example, place greater weight on hitting-percentage statistics from later in the season than earlier. Seeing how the CACOD did in the end, however, any revisions will likely be more minor than I had expected would be the case after the first two rounds!

*I overlooked this point in my original posting, but have now added it.


Popular posts from this blog

My Simple Prediction Equation for the NCAA Women's Tourney

Two years ago, I created a very simple prediction equation for the NCAA women's tournament. Each team gets its own value on the predictive measure. To calculate it, you take a team's overall hitting percentage at the end of the regular season and divide it by the hitting percentage the team allowed its opponents (in the aggregate). The result is then multiplied by an adjustment factor for conference strength, as shown here. For any match in the NCAA tourney, the team with the higher value on my measure would be expected to win.

In both 2012 and 2011, my formula did about as well as other, more complicated ranking formulas. I'm not going to do a full-scale analysis for this year's bracket, but I wanted to mention the formula and provide some sample calculations, in case anyone wanted to compute a score this week for his or her favorite team. The necessary information should be available from the volleyball page of a given school's athletics website. Here are 2013 va…

My Vote for Off the Block's Men's Collegiate Server of the Year

I was invited once again this year to vote for the Off the Block men's collegiate volleyball awards. The number of awards has increased and I've been very busy this semester, so I may not have time to conduct statistical analyses for all of the categories. However, I have conducted an analysis to determine my votes for National Server of the Year.

The NCAA men's volleyball statistics site (see links column to the right) provides an aces-per-set statistic. Aces are only one part of judging serving ability, in my view. Someone might be able to amass a large ace total by attempting extremely hard jump serves at every opportunity, but such aggressive serving likely would also lead to a high rate of service errors. Another aspect to consider would be serves that, while not aces, still took the opposing team out of its offensive system. Only aces and service errors are listed in publicly available box scores, however.

What I did, therefore, was find out the top 10 players in ser…

Statistical Notes Heading into Women's Final Four (2013)

With this year's NCAA women's Final Four getting underway Thursday night in Seattle, today's posting offers some statistical observations. The two semifinal match-ups feature defending champion Texas vs. upstart Wisconsin, and Penn State vs. hometown favorite Washington.

Wisconsin, a one-time power that had missed the NCAA tourney from 2008 through 2012, is now back in an ascendant mode under new coach Kelly Sheffield. Seeded 12th nationally, the Badgers benefited in their part of the bracket from the fact that SEC teams Missouri (No. 4 seed) and Florida (No. 5 seed) were Paper Tigers and Gators, respectively. Having said that, Wisconsin may be the kind of team that can give Texas a tough match (like Michigan in last year's semifinal).

A year ago, I developed a statistic that attempts to measure teams' "grind-it-out" tendencies. To me a grind-it-out team is one that lacks spikers with pulverizing power, but digs opponents' attacks well and avoids hitt…