NPI Rankings (9/15/25)

Big thanks to the Latvians for the NCAA Power Index (NPI) data. I had updated the rankings yesterday but have just updated with the latest numbers through Sunday. We had one match yesterday but it really didn’t impact much. I think the top teams saw their NPI move up a slightly due to the ripple.

We are getting to the point where the NPI means something. Teams should be worried about an at-large if they sit below 50. There are 161 teams right now above 50. In my Weekly Wrap-Up yesterday, I looked at the conferences nationally to see if they could support an at-large team (or two or three). Remember that most conferences will start that play this week so there are few chances for a number of teams to increase their NPI outside of conference. With conference, the end record of the combined teams will be 0.500 so the teams need to have good NPIs built up.

Let’s do some comparisons to this time last year and then look at the numbers a little more deeply. Last year the at-large cut-off was 56.19. This season we sit at 55.92 so we are slightly behind. Juniata was our leader last year with an NPI of 67.46. ETBU is the leader now with an NPI of 63.05. That number is also lower than MIT who sat second last season. In 2024 we had 10 teams with an NPI of 60 or higher. This season we are at eight. Smith was the at-large cut-off team last season and were ranked 43^rd in NPI. This year our cut-off team is Chris Newport who ranks 42^nd. That’s pretty consistent.

The Latvians have a great interface and now downloads for me to use for the NPI data. (I am truly blessed.) The data presented is more than what I can put on the website in that large 2025 NPI Rankings table so I cut it down. I figure this is a good space to present some of the other data that cuts out.

One statistic that I present is oNPI or Opponent NPI. Last season I presented SOS for each team but since that’s really not used in selection, I thought it better to show NPI related statistics. This is simply the average NPI of all of your opponents. Here is a table with the Top 10 teams who have played the toughest schedule per oNPI:

I would disregard Pacific as they have only played one match so their oNPI equals the NPI of that one opponent, which is Cal Lutheran. As for the others, I guess it’s not surprising that these teams all have 3 or more losses. For one, their losses prop up their opponent’s NPI but of these teams only PLU is below 52 NPI so they are all pretty good, too. Are these cases where the team has overscheduled? Basically, scheduling too many tough teams that they couldn’t beat? A thought or article for another day.

We actually have a new statistic that the Latvians gave me just today. It’s used opponent NPI or uoNPI. This is the average NPI of your opponents that factor into your own NPI. So, if a team is 12-0 like Dubuque, they have a oNPI of 49.29. But, since they can eliminate their two worst losses (must keep a minimum of 10 matches), their uoNPI is higher at 51.29. I believe this new statistic gives us more insight into how their overall NPI was built. It basically eliminates all of the “bad” wins from the opponent NPI number. Right now, most teams have an identical oNPI and uoNPI because they haven’t played more than 10 matches. I’ll probably get into this more next week. One cool example already is Oshkosh. They will play one of the toughest schedule in DIII volleyball but their oNPI is only 52.81 (still good but not Top 10 great). Their uoNPI (because they’ve played 11 matches) is now 54.07, which would put them in the Top 10 and is more indictive of their overall NPI.

I mentioned that I took off SOS, so let me give you the Top 10 that we have calculated. This calculation is the old selection criteria SOS:

I still always think of SOS and how important it was to selection prior to NPI. We definitely see some teams appearing in both this table and the oNPI table but it’s not one for one. (Oh, I did remove Pacific from this table just because they’ve only played that one match.)

The data I get also includes Wins Used and Losses Used but it’s really too early to present that data.

Quality Win Bonus (QWB) are the matches where the winner gets a bonus because they beat a team that has an NPI higher than 55.5. Here is a table of the teams who have a QWB bonus so far this season:

What I take from this is how scary are Ithaca, Scranton, Wittenberg and Stockton? These teams don’t have the highest NPIs but they sure as heck can beat someone that does. These are like the absolute WORST teams to play. Red flags! Blare that submarine dive noise! It’s just that the risk/reward with these teams is not in their opponent’s favor at all.

Now on to some of the normal stuff I do in this article. Here are the NPI tidbits:

• The highest team with a loss is UW-Oshkosh sitting 4^th.

• There are multiple 3-loss teams in the Top 50.

• The highest four loss team is Scranton at 66^th. (Ithaca is the highest 3-loss team.)

• The lowest ranked team with a win is Pitt-Greensburg.

• The highest winless team is Pacific at 273^rd.

• The lowest 7-win team is Hilbert at 7-6. They sit 238^th.

• The lowest oNPI teams are Anna Maria, Valley Forge and Beloit. Valley Forge is 4-1 so that’s some very specific scheduling by them.

• Cal Lutheran is the top team that jumped in from outside the Top 100. They sit at 41^st.

• Wellesley was the highest team from last week that fell out of the Top 100. They sit at 135^th.

Last week we had 363 teams in the rankings and this week we have 411. Teams are only added once they play a DIII opponent. I know we’ll see Ozarks in for the first time next week.

I hope you enjoyed this deeper dive into the rankings. There is still a lot of movement but things will start to become more static.

If you want to help cover some of the costs of the site, then please consider a visit to the D3VbWest Store where you can buy some merch or even make a straight-up donation.