Players

Session 13 Coaches Poll deadline in 2 hours and 29 minutes

MSWL UNITED MSWL U2 TMVL
Wednesday, April 29th, 2026 - 03:30:43 PM (gmt)

TMVL Season 17 // Landing

Logo

Donate ELO Ranking Honor Roll NET Ranking Stats Leaders Teams Of The Week Wall

If you'd like to join please click this link and add your name to the waitlist.

PAC 8 Conference

SEC Conference

BIG 8 Conference

Big East Conference

Jeremiah Davis 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
17	16	16	17	16	7

Season 8 Totals
KILLS	ATK PCT	ACES	DIGS	BLOCKS
111 195th	.286 215th	6 315th	52 232nd	19 324th

Career Honors

S112nd All-TMVL1st All-BIG-8

Match Statistics - OFFENSE (Season 8)

Match		Sets	Attack					Serve						Set
m	opponent/sets	sp	k	k/s	e	ta	pct	pts	sa	se	sa/s	ta	pct	a	a/s	ta	pct	pts	rating
3	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	3	13	.308	4	0	0	0.00	11	1.000	.	.	.	.	7.0	4.52
5	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	5	19	.053	1	1	4	0.33	9	.556	.	.	.	.	7.5	3.82
11	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	9	3.00	5	19	.211	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	10.0	6.57
13	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	5	16	.125	2	1	0	0.33	9	1.000	1	0.33	2	.500	8.5	5.62
15	Cincinnati L (1–3 sets)	4	13	3.25	6	24	.292	1	0	1	0.00	11	.909	.	.	.	.	14.5	7.18
17	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	10	2.50	3	20	.350	6	0	3	0.00	16	.813	.	.	.	.	11.5	6.34
18	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	16	4.00	5	31	.355	3	0	3	0.00	12	.750	.	.	.	.	17.0	7.30
21	Baton Rouge W (3–0 sets)	3	8	2.67	3	17	.294	9	1	3	0.33	16	.813	.	.	.	.	10.5	8.00
22	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	5	12	-.333	4	1	1	0.33	10	.900	.	.	.	.	2.0	3.92
31	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	9	3.00	3	17	.353	4	2	0	0.67	14	1.000	.	.	.	.	12.0	7.39
34	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	9	3.00	3	13	.462	6	0	2	0.00	11	.818	0	0.00	1	.000	9.5	7.59
39	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	16	5.33	1	23	.652	2	0	1	0.00	11	.909	.	.	.	.	16.5	7.38
Total		39	111	2.85	47	224	.286	42	6	19	0.15	136	.860	1	0.03	3	.333	126.5	6.30

Match Statistics - DEFENSE (Season 8)

Match		Sets	Block					Dig		Receive
m	opponent/sets	sp	s	a	t	be	blk/s	d	d/s	3	rt	rcv	e	pct	pts	rating
3	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	3	2.00	9	0	1.000	7.0	4.52
5	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	3	1.00	11	2.21	19	1	.947	7.5	3.82
11	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	8	2.50	12	0	1.000	10.0	6.57
13	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	3	1.00	9	2.69	13	0	1.000	8.5	5.62
15	Cincinnati L (1–3 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	6	1.50	16	2.40	25	1	.960	14.5	7.18
17	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	0	3	3	1	0.75	5	1.25	9	2.28	18	1	.944	11.5	6.34
18	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	1	0.25	15	2.33	27	1	.963	17.0	7.30
21	Baton Rouge W (3–0 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	9	3.00	4	2.43	7	0	1.000	10.5	8.00
22	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	8	2.38	13	0	1.000	2.0	3.92
31	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	4	1.33	13	2.47	19	0	1.000	12.0	7.39
34	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	8	2.67	5	2.43	7	0	1.000	9.5	7.59
39	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	7	2.07	15	1	.933	16.5	7.38
Total		39	0	19	19	3	0.49	52	1.33	108	2.35	184	5	.973	126.5	6.30