#157 Loyola Marymount (3-8)

avg: 356.37  •  sd: 67.12  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
116 California-Santa Cruz-B Loss 10-12 507.32 Feb 8th Stanford Open Mens
152 UCLA-B Win 11-9 650.83 Feb 8th Stanford Open Mens
156 California-B Loss 10-12 118.38 Feb 9th Stanford Open Mens
171 Stanford University-B Win 11-8 464.51 Feb 9th Stanford Open Mens
152 UCLA-B Win 11-10 526.62 Feb 9th Stanford Open Mens
129 Arizona Loss 5-10 55.12 Feb 15th Vice Presidents Day Invite 2025
55 Grand Canyon** Loss 4-13 616.94 Ignored Feb 15th Vice Presidents Day Invite 2025
90 San Diego State Loss 9-12 613.93 Feb 15th Vice Presidents Day Invite 2025
129 Arizona Loss 7-9 349.68 Feb 16th Vice Presidents Day Invite 2025
117 Arizona State Loss 6-11 166.87 Feb 16th Vice Presidents Day Invite 2025
130 Cal Poly-Pomona Loss 6-11 78.29 Feb 16th Vice Presidents Day Invite 2025
**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)