#84 California-Irvine (9-3)

avg: 971.73  •  sd: 66.19  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
41 Santa Clara Loss 7-10 1017 Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
162 UCLA-B Win 12-7 880.48 Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
109 Occidental Loss 4-6 450.6 Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
191 Pacific Lutheran** Win 12-4 695.35 Ignored Feb 18th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
158 Stanford-B Win 13-2 991.49 Feb 19th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
158 Stanford-B Win 10-5 965.39 Feb 19th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
97 Claremont Loss 6-7 801.12 Feb 19th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
156 Arizona State Win 10-7 836.14 Feb 19th Santa Clara Rage Tournament
97 Claremont Win 7-5 1254.26 Mar 5th Claremont Classic
110 California-San Diego-B Win 7-5 1139.56 Mar 5th Claremont Classic
109 Occidental Win 7-4 1312.37 Mar 5th Claremont Classic
162 UCLA-B Win 9-4 959.97 Mar 5th Claremont Classic
**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)