#143 California-B (5-6)

avg: 734.19  •  sd: 95.65  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
41 Southern California** Loss 2-13 973.6 Ignored Feb 1st Stanford Open Womens
178 Nevada-Reno Win 9-8 688.48 Feb 1st Stanford Open Womens
68 Santa Clara Loss 0-13 700.07 Feb 2nd Stanford Open Womens
76 Portland Loss 3-10 623.97 Feb 2nd Stanford Open Womens
141 Stanford-B Win 7-4 1241.51 Feb 2nd Stanford Open Womens
219 Cal Poly-Humboldt Win 8-3 829.91 Feb 15th Santa Clara University WLT Tournament
178 Nevada-Reno Win 12-3 1163.48 Feb 15th Santa Clara University WLT Tournament
68 Santa Clara Loss 6-10 803.91 Feb 15th Santa Clara University WLT Tournament
219 Cal Poly-Humboldt Win 8-4 794.72 Feb 16th Santa Clara University WLT Tournament
165 Cal Poly-SLO-B Loss 3-8 36.05 Feb 16th Santa Clara University WLT Tournament
178 Nevada-Reno Loss 6-7 438.48 Feb 16th Santa Clara University WLT 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)