Skip to main content

Ranking the 64 NCAA Women's Teams on the Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) Metric

With the NCAA Division I women's volleyball tournament scheduled to begin play on Thursday, I am unveiling my second annual ranking of the tournament teams on the Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) metric. Though the CACOD is extremely simple to calculate (see below), it held its own with the more established volleyball ranking systems (e.g., Pablo, RPI, Rich Kern) in predicting match outcomes of last year's women's NCAA tournament.

In fact, only three quantities go into the CACOD formula: a team's hitting percentage for the entire season, the hitting percentage the team allowed its opposition to achive (cumulatively) on the season, and a conference-difficulty factor that I determine. I wrote last year about hitting percentage being "a great singular statistic for incorporating many aspects of the game." As I elaborated:

If you hit well (not just keep the ball in play, but get kills), your (individual or team) hitting percentage goes up. An attack kept in play by the other team hurts, as does a hitting error (spiking the ball out of bounds or getting stuff-blocked for an opponent's point). In order to hit well, a team must pass and set well. If you block or dig your opponent's spike attempts, that drives down the opponent's hitting percentage.

Another reason, I suspect, that the CACOD appears to work well is the sheer volume of data that goes into determining hitting percentages. A typical team might take (and have its opponents cumulatively take) from 3,500 to 4,500 swings in a regular season. The formula for the CACOD is simply:

A more in-depth explanation of my ranking scheme is available from a year ago's posting, when I introduced the system. My conference-difficulty factors are as follows:

Big 10, Pac 12
Big 12
SEC, Big East*, Atlantic 10, Mid America, Missouri Valley,
West Coast, Big West, Mountain West, Western Athletic
(WAC), Conference USA 
All Others

*The American Athletic Conference, a spin-off from the Big East, will have a factor of 1.00.

The idea behind the conference-difficulty weighting factor is that, if a team did well on the two primary measures (hitting at a high percentage and keeping the opponents' hitting percentage low) in a tough conference, it should receive some "extra credit." Conversely, if a team did well in a relatively weak conference, its statistics should be discounted somewhat.

This year's factor weights (above) are very similar to last season's, except for two changes. I lowered the Big 12 slightly, from 1.25 to 1.20, as this year's version of the conference seemed a little down from last year (with Texas A&M having departed and a not-ready-for-prime-time West Virginia squad moving in). Also, I raised the ACC from 1.00 to 1.10, in light of some recent NCAA-tourney success (Florida State making the Final Four a year ago and the Elite Eight in 2009; and Duke making the Elite Eight in 2010).

Here are the resulting rankings (see "adjusted ratio" in the right-most column). In any match, whichever team has the higher CACOD ranking would be expected to win, under my system. You may click on the graphics to enlarge them (note that the rankings appear in three parts).

Whereas my ranking of Penn State, Texas, and Stanford in the top three closely matches the actual tournament seedings, the CACOD offers some surprises. Whereas BYU is seeded 12th, for example, I have the Cougars as the fourth-best team in the field. Whereas Florida is seeded 14th, I have the Gators seventh.

Was the CACOD just lucky last year or will it be a successful predictor two years in a row? We'll have a pretty good idea after the next three weekends of tournament play!


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 20

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

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 avoid