#46 Rutgers (6-4)

avg: 1461.46  •  sd: 89.89  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
127 Connecticut Win 13-3 1646.34 Mar 4th Fish Bowl
51 James Madison Win 9-7 1716.54 Mar 4th Fish Bowl
83 Delaware Loss 9-11 1023.75 Mar 4th Fish Bowl
42 Penn State Loss 9-11 1276.5 Mar 5th Fish Bowl
194 Syracuse** Win 15-5 1358.52 Ignored Mar 25th Carousel City Classic
23 Ottawa Loss 5-13 1107.65 Mar 25th Carousel City Classic
74 Binghamton Win 12-11 1443.61 Mar 25th Carousel City Classic
34 McGill Loss 11-15 1241.53 Mar 26th Carousel City Classic
48 Cornell Win 13-10 1781.89 Mar 26th Carousel City Classic
61 Harvard Win 15-9 1903.94 Mar 26th Carousel City Classic
**Blowout Eligible


The uncertainty of the mean is equal to the standard deviation of the set of game ratings, divided by the square root of the number of games. We treated a team’s ranking as a normally distributed random variable, with the USAU ranking as the mean and the uncertainty of the ranking as the standard deviation
  1. Calculate uncertainy for USAU ranking averge
  2. Model ranking as a normal distribution around USAU averge with standard deviation equal to uncertainty
  3. Simulate seasons by drawing a rank for each team from their distribution. Note the teams in the top 16 (club) or top 20 (college)
  4. Sum the fractions for each region for how often each of it's teams appeared in the top 16 (club) or top 20 (college)
  5. Subtract one from each fraction for "autobids"
  6. Award remainings bids to the regions with the highest remaining fraction, subtracting one from the fraction each time a bid is awarded
There is an article on Ulitworld written by Scott Dunham and I that gives a little more context (though it probably was the thing that linked you here)