#123 Miami (Ohio) (9-3)

avg: 1272.39  •  sd: 103.15  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
355 Case Western Reserve-B** Win 13-2 551.98 Ignored Mar 4th Huckin in the Hills IX
327 Kent State** Win 13-4 881.43 Ignored Mar 4th Huckin in the Hills IX
192 Wright State Win 13-10 1304.71 Mar 4th Huckin in the Hills IX
128 SUNY-Buffalo Win 11-8 1625.02 Mar 4th Huckin in the Hills IX
192 Wright State Win 15-6 1576.57 Mar 5th Huckin in the Hills IX
139 Dayton Loss 10-11 1073.09 Mar 5th Huckin in the Hills IX
212 Grand Valley Loss 2-3 765.9 Apr 1st Illinois Invite1
246 Northern Iowa Win 9-2 1348.85 Apr 1st Illinois Invite1
117 Colorado Mines Loss 5-7 976.76 Apr 1st Illinois Invite1
236 Eastern Michigan Win 12-11 892.06 Apr 2nd Illinois Invite1
212 Grand Valley Win 13-7 1448.43 Apr 2nd Illinois Invite1
192 Wright State Win 10-5 1550.47 Apr 2nd Illinois Invite1
**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)