#113 Cal Poly-SLO-B (9-3)

avg: 1101.66  •  sd: 94.34  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
295 California-San Diego-C** Win 12-3 616.17 Ignored Jan 21st Presidents Day Qualifier
105 California-Davis Win 13-11 1368.07 Jan 21st Presidents Day Qualifier
282 San Diego State-B** Win 13-3 732.44 Ignored Jan 21st Presidents Day Qualifier
223 California-Santa Barbara-B Win 9-5 1066.43 Jan 22nd Presidents Day Qualifier
123 California-Irvine Loss 9-10 931.48 Jan 22nd Presidents Day Qualifier
105 California-Davis Win 11-9 1388.44 Jan 22nd Presidents Day Qualifier
302 Santa Clara-B** Win 13-3 477.13 Ignored Feb 4th Stanford Open
144 Occidental Loss 7-10 582.47 Feb 4th Stanford Open
105 California-Davis Loss 5-8 685.63 Feb 4th Stanford Open
165 Claremont Win 8-5 1333.02 Feb 5th Stanford Open
185 Nevada-Reno Win 11-7 1220.02 Feb 5th Stanford Open
122 Washington-B Win 10-8 1321.9 Feb 5th Stanford Open
**Blowout Eligible

FAQ

What is the uncertainty of the mean?
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
What's the algorithm again?
  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
Is there a longer explanation of all this?
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)