#43 Wisconsin (4-9)

avg: 1374.38  •  sd: 82.67  •  top 16/20: 0.1%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
30 California Loss 9-13 1113.34 Jan 28th Santa Barbara Invitational 2023
24 California-Davis Loss 8-12 1152.09 Jan 28th Santa Barbara Invitational 2023
18 California-San Diego Loss 8-9 1572.49 Jan 28th Santa Barbara Invitational 2023
54 Cal Poly-SLO Win 9-6 1670.75 Jan 29th Santa Barbara Invitational 2023
68 Northwestern Loss 6-7 990.06 Jan 29th Santa Barbara Invitational 2023
29 UCLA Loss 10-11 1411.89 Jan 29th Santa Barbara Invitational 2023
39 Brown Win 12-10 1656.44 Mar 18th Womens Centex1
14 Virginia Loss 8-13 1312.48 Mar 18th Womens Centex1
49 Texas Win 12-5 1929.63 Mar 18th Womens Centex1
39 Brown Loss 10-11 1293.32 Mar 19th Womens Centex1
30 California Loss 8-13 1035.75 Mar 19th Womens Centex1
34 Michigan Win 13-11 1726.56 Mar 19th Womens Centex1
34 Michigan Loss 3-13 897.72 Mar 19th Womens Centex1
**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)