#2 British Columbia (9-2)

avg: 2548.3  •  sd: 97.33  •  top 16/20: 100%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
25 California-Davis** Win 13-5 2319.95 Ignored Mar 11th Stanford Invite Womens
29 UCLA** Win 13-1 2264.62 Ignored Mar 11th Stanford Invite Womens
4 Tufts Win 11-8 2792.05 Mar 11th Stanford Invite Womens
8 Stanford Win 9-6 2651.89 Mar 12th Stanford Invite Womens
9 Washington Loss 10-13 1855.38 Mar 12th Stanford Invite Womens
11 Oregon Win 13-3 2696.82 Mar 12th Stanford Invite Womens
6 Brigham Young Win 13-10 2609.87 Mar 25th Northwest Challenge1
48 Texas** Win 13-3 2059.95 Ignored Mar 25th Northwest Challenge1
8 Stanford Win 13-6 2833.33 Mar 26th Northwest Challenge1
3 Colorado Loss 11-13 2239.02 Mar 26th Northwest Challenge1
11 Oregon Win 13-4 2696.82 Mar 26th Northwest Challenge1
**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)