#34 Wisconsin (4-7)

avg: 1766.57  •  sd: 59.58  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
114 North Carolina-Wilmington** Win 13-1 1586.66 Ignored Feb 15th Queen City Tune Up 2025
7 Vermont** Loss 2-13 1766.61 Ignored Feb 15th Queen City Tune Up 2025
32 William & Mary Loss 9-13 1371.82 Feb 15th Queen City Tune Up 2025
65 North Carolina State Win 8-4 2007.41 Feb 16th Queen City Tune Up 2025
18 Northeastern Loss 4-9 1522.77 Feb 16th Queen City Tune Up 2025
74 Brown Win 8-6 1638.97 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
13 Cal Poly-SLO Loss 9-12 1925.43 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
9 California-Santa Cruz Loss 6-13 1745.27 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
6 Stanford** Loss 5-13 1773.21 Ignored Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
37 California Win 8-7 1877.36 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
17 California-Davis Loss 7-8 2030.33 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
**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)