#192 Pacific Lutheran (1-10)

avg: 224.56  •  sd: 117.9  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
39 Santa Clara** Loss 3-13 939.36 Ignored Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
158 Stanford-B Loss 4-8 -43.26 Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
84 California-Irvine** Loss 4-12 513.87 Ignored Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
162 UCLA-B Loss 6-9 82.07 Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
197 California-B Win 8-7 226.55 Feb 19th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
101 Occidental** Loss 2-10 375.82 Ignored Feb 19th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
92 Seattle** Loss 4-10 454.32 Feb 25th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
81 Oregon State** Loss 4-13 573.04 Ignored Feb 25th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
34 Portland** Loss 0-13 1032.44 Ignored Feb 25th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
78 Lewis & Clark** Loss 4-12 578.49 Ignored Feb 26th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
163 Washington-B Loss 6-7 367.23 Feb 26th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
**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)