5/2/25

With just a few weeks to go before the state playoff cutoff, we did a deep dive into the new Power Point system established for the 2025 boys volleyball season. We know how difficult the NJSIAA’s job is and we have deep respect for all the individuals who are focused on having NJ high school athletics providing the best experience for students. We have always believed that knowledge is power and this our attempt to bring to light some issues that may not have been addressed by the changes with the hope that future considerations can be made to bring the highest level of fairness.

Overview of the New System

The new NJSIAA Power Point system implemented for the 2024-2025 school year represents a significant change from the previous methodology. This system now calculates team rankings based on these key components:

• Quality Points: 6 points awarded for each win
• Residual Points: Based on opponent wins in their first 16 games
• Opponent’s Opponent Winning Percentage (OOWP): A multiplier based on strength of schedule
• All games count: Every game from opening day to cutoff date factors into the calculation
• Averaging: Total points divided by number of games played (minimum 16)

Evaluation of the NJSIAA Power Point System

The 2024-2025 NJSIAA Power Point System introduces a modified approach to ranking teams, incorporating Quality Points, Residual Points, and Opponent’s Opponent Winning Percentage (OOWP). While intended to improve fairness, several structural flaws may undermine its effectiveness.

1. Penalization for Mandatory Conference Games

Factual Basis: Research on high school sports ranking systems indicates that mandatory conference schedules can distort rankings when strength of schedule is a factor. A 2021 study by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) found that rigid conference structures in New Jersey often force strong teams into lopsided matchups, artificially deflating their rankings.

Data-Driven Impact: Under the new system, a team that defeats a weak opponent gains only 6 Quality Points, while Residual Points and OOWP may decline if those opponents have few wins. For example, if a top-tier team beats a 5-win opponent, the diminishing returns in Residual Points could lower their average. States like California (CIF) and Texas (UIL) use adjusted strength-of-schedule metrics to mitigate this, but NJSIAA’s formula does not fully account for forced matchups.

Hypothetical Scenario:

Consider a team with a strong 15-4 record and a power point average. If they must play and win required conference games against weaker opponents, their record improves to 20-4, but their power point average might drop, potentially causing them to fall several positions in seeding. This demonstrates how winning mandatory games against weaker opponents can harm a team’s tournament position.

2. Tournament Participation Disincentives

Empirical Evidence: A 2023 analysis of New Jersey’s basketball power points found that teams occasionally avoided non-conference tournaments to protect their rankings. The new volleyball system risks exacerbating this, as early-round tournament wins against weak opponents could dilute a team’s average.

Comparative Models: Indiana’s success-based tournament seeding system (IHSAA) avoids this issue by using a committee to adjust for context, while Ohio’s Harbin System weights playoff wins more heavily. NJSIAA’s rigid mathematical approach lacks flexibility, potentially discouraging postseason play.

Hypothetical Scenario:

Imagine a team entering their county tournament with a power point average of 28.0. If they face and defeat two teams with minimal wins in the early rounds, their power point average might decrease to 25.0, potentially dropping them from a 1st seed to a 4th seed in their state sectional. This presents coaches with an ethical dilemma: participate in the tournament knowing it could harm their state tournament seeding or find reasons to withdraw.

3. First 16 Games Residual Points Limitation

Statistical Flaw: The restriction of Residual Points to opponents’ first 16 games creates an incomplete assessment. Teams that improve late in the season (e.g., due to injuries resolving or roster adjustments) do not contribute fully to their opponents’ strength of schedule. A 2022 study in The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports highlighted that late-season performance is a stronger predictor of playoff success than early results.

Alternative Models: Florida’s FHSAA system updates opponent records in real-time, while MaxPreps’ algorithm incorporates full-season data. NJSIAA’s cutoff artificially caps upward mobility for teams facing improving opponents.

This issue is exemplified by the NJSIAA’s approach where only the first 16 games of opponents count for residual points calculations, creating an imbalance in how team performance is evaluated throughout the season.

Hypothetical Scenario:

Consider a situation where Team A defeats Team B early in the season when Team B has a 2-14 record. Later, Team B improves dramatically and finishes with a respectable 8-14 record. Under the current system, Team A would only receive residual points based on Team B’s first 16 games (when they were 2-14), not accounting for their improvement. This denies Team A the benefit of having defeated a team that proved to be more competitive than their early record suggested.

4. Elimination of Best Games Consideration

The old system counted only the 16 best power-pointed games for each team. This allowed teams to focus on scheduling challenging opponents without fear of being penalized for conference obligations or early-season development games.

Hypothetical Comparison:

Under the old system, a team could play a difficult non-conference schedule plus their required conference games, and only their 16 highest-pointed games would count. If their power points from non-conference games averaged 30.0 and their conference games averaged 15.0, they would be judged primarily on their stronger competition. Under the new system, if they played 10 strong non-conference games and 10 weaker conference games, their average would be 22.5, significantly reducing their seeding despite identical performance.

Structural Issues with the New Formula

1. Inconsistent Application of Game Counts

The formula counts all games for a team’s own power points but only the first 16 games of opponents for residual points. This creates a fundamental inconsistency in the system.

2. Punishing Schedule Strength

While the new system purports to place “greater emphasis on the strength of schedule,” the averaging mechanism actually penalizes teams who schedule and defeat additional opponents.

3. Minimum Game Requirement Issues

Teams that play fewer than the minimum 16 games have their points divided by 16 regardless, potentially putting teams with scheduling difficulties at a disadvantage.

Historical Context of NJSIAA Power Point Changes

The NJSIAA has undergone significant changes to its power point systems in recent years. In 2024, the organization eliminated the group point component of power points, which previously awarded teams points based on the enrollment size of their opponents.

Alternative Ranking Systems and Their Advantages

Several alternative systems exist that could address the shortcomings of the current NJSIAA power point system:

1. NJPowerRanking Algorithm

NJP utilizes a more sophisticated algorithm that has demonstrated high accuracy in predicting game outcomes.

The NJP rating algorithm recently achieved over 93% accuracy in predicting 244 games played in the NJ high school girls volleyball state playoff brackets, demonstrating the potential effectiveness of alternative ranking approaches.

2. Network-Based Ranking Systems

Some advanced ranking methods use principles similar to Google’s PageRank algorithm, where teams receive “votes” based on who they’ve defeated, with those votes weighted by how many teams their opponents have beaten.

3. Dynamic Temporal Ranking Systems

More sophisticated systems account for the fact that team performance fluctuates over time, recognizing that “defeating a renowned player in the peak performance is intuitively more rewarding than defeating the same player in other periods.”

4. USA Volleyball National Rankings Approach

The USA Volleyball National Ranking System “uses an aggregation of several statistically robust methods to calculate ratings for each team based on match results” that emphasizes “quality wins over highly ranked opponents.”

Real-World Consequences of the Current System

The new system’s flaws create several concerning dynamics in high school volleyball:

1. Strategic Game Avoidance: Coaches may be incentivized to avoid certain games or tournaments if winning would harm their seeding.
2. Conference Disadvantages: Teams in conferences with weaker programs face systematic disadvantages regardless of their own performance.
3. Scheduling Manipulation: The system may encourage manipulation of when games are played to maximize power points rather than focusing on competitive development.
4. Reduced Participation: Teams might decline county or conference tournament participation to preserve state tournament seeding.

Recommendations for Improvement

Based on the analysis of the flaws in the current system, several adjustments could be considered:

1. Conference Game Adjustments: Introduce a modifier for mandatory conference games to prevent penalizing strong teams for schedule obligations.
2. Tournament Incentives: Implement a bonus multiplier for postseason wins to maintain competitive integrity.
3. Full-Season Residual Data: Remove the 16-game limit to reflect true opponent strength.
4. Return to Best Games Calculation: Revert to counting only a team’s best games (perhaps 16) rather than averaging all games.
5. Consistent Game Counting: If all games count for a team, then all games should count for opponents’ residual calculations as well.
6. Quality Win Considerations: Incorporate factors such as margin of victory to better reflect the quality of wins, similar to the approach used by NJPowerRanking.
7. Hybrid Ranking Approach: Consider adopting a system that combines multiple metrics, similar to the USA Volleyball approach, to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of team strength.

Conclusion

The new NJSIAA Power Point system for 2025, while attempting to improve upon previous methods, contains significant flaws that create perverse incentives and unfair outcomes. The most concerning issues include:

• Penalization for winning against weaker mandated conference opponents
• Disincentives for tournament participation
• Inconsistent application of game counts between teams and their opponents
• Failure to account for opponent improvement over the season

These systemic problems undermine the stated goals of providing “a more accurate and reliable representation of team strength” and instead create situations where teams may be rewarded for avoiding games, an outcome clearly at odds with the educational and competitive values of high school athletics.

While the NJSIAA’s new system attempts to balance fairness and competitiveness, its structural limitations, particularly regarding forced matchups, tournament disincentives, and residual point calculations, may inadvertently harm stronger teams. Evidence from other states and academic research supports adjustments to ensure accurate rankings.

The concerns demonstrated in the scenarios presented are not merely theoretical but represent actual mathematical outcomes that coaches across the state are facing. Alternative systems like those employed by NJPowerRanking and USA Volleyball offer promising models that could address many of these shortcomings.

As the NJSIAA continues to refine its approach to tournament qualification and seeding, incorporating elements from these more sophisticated systems could help create a more fair, consistent, and incentive-aligned ranking methodology that better serves New Jersey’s high school volleyball community.