#33 Portland (12-1)

avg: 1501.96  •  sd: 107.02  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
118 San Diego State Win 5-3 1131.63 Feb 4th Stanford Open
85 Southern California Win 6-4 1322.6 Feb 4th Stanford Open
158 Stanford-B** Win 9-0 991.49 Ignored Feb 4th Stanford Open
50 California-Santa Cruz Win 10-5 1880.25 Feb 4th Stanford Open
41 Santa Clara Win 8-7 1531.66 Feb 5th Stanford Open
41 Santa Clara Win 9-5 1935.72 Feb 5th Stanford Open
97 Claremont Win 7-6 1051.12 Feb 5th Stanford Open
54 Cal Poly-SLO Loss 8-10 989.52 Feb 5th Stanford Open
98 Seattle Win 13-6 1523.72 Feb 25th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
76 Oregon State Win 13-4 1639.43 Feb 25th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
191 Pacific Lutheran** Win 13-0 695.35 Ignored Feb 25th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
74 Lewis & Clark Win 15-1 1649.24 Feb 26th PLU Womens BBQ Tournament
76 Oregon State Win 10-3 1639.43 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)