#10 California-San Diego (23-16)

avg: 2115.57  •  sd: 39.61  •  top 16/20: 100%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
19 Brigham Young Win 12-9 2280.33 Jan 25th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
2 Carleton College Loss 8-12 2127.66 Jan 25th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
8 Stanford Win 11-10 2259.37 Jan 25th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
1 British Columbia Loss 9-12 2230.58 Jan 26th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
12 Cal Poly-SLO Win 9-8 2208.14 Jan 26th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
23 California-Davis Win 9-6 2294.21 Feb 15th Presidents Day Invite 2025
27 Texas Win 11-7 2232.13 Feb 15th Presidents Day Invite 2025
14 California-Santa Cruz Loss 9-11 1792.34 Feb 15th Presidents Day Invite 2025
8 Stanford Win 12-11 2259.37 Feb 16th Presidents Day Invite 2025
54 Colorado State Win 12-8 1893.32 Feb 16th Presidents Day Invite 2025
4 Colorado Loss 10-11 2203.58 Feb 16th Presidents Day Invite 2025
7 Oregon Loss 9-13 1778.22 Feb 17th Presidents Day Invite 2025
16 Victoria Win 13-8 2486.86 Feb 17th Presidents Day Invite 2025
15 Utah Loss 10-11 1886.59 Feb 17th Presidents Day Invite 2025
40 California Win 11-6 2128.68 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
31 Pittsburgh Win 13-6 2294.22 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
6 Washington Win 12-9 2608.13 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
12 Cal Poly-SLO Loss 9-11 1833.93 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
14 California-Santa Cruz Win 10-9 2166.54 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
6 Washington Loss 9-11 2013.55 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
1 British Columbia Loss 8-13 2079.78 Mar 22nd Northwest Challenge 2025
5 Vermont Loss 12-13 2164.71 Mar 22nd Northwest Challenge 2025
41 Southern California Win 12-5 2172.33 Mar 22nd Northwest Challenge 2025
9 North Carolina Loss 7-9 1843.57 Mar 23rd Northwest Challenge 2025
16 Victoria Loss 7-10 1601.04 Mar 23rd Northwest Challenge 2025
8 Stanford Win 9-7 2413.71 Mar 23rd Northwest Challenge 2025
82 California-Irvine** Win 14-5 1790.17 Ignored Apr 12th SoCal D I Womens Conferences 2025
105 San Diego State** Win 15-3 1635.81 Ignored Apr 12th SoCal D I Womens Conferences 2025
30 UCLA Win 12-6 2293.73 Apr 12th SoCal D I Womens Conferences 2025
12 Cal Poly-SLO Loss 11-12 1958.14 Apr 13th SoCal D I Womens Conferences 2025
30 UCLA Win 14-9 2188.28 Apr 13th SoCal D I Womens Conferences 2025
41 Southern California Win 14-11 1885.67 Apr 13th SoCal D I Womens Conferences 2025
12 Cal Poly-SLO Loss 12-13 1958.14 Apr 26th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 2025
77 Grand Canyon** Win 15-1 1816.4 Ignored Apr 26th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 2025
13 California-Santa Barbara Loss 13-15 1853.55 Apr 26th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 2025
30 UCLA Win 15-10 2168.02 Apr 26th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 2025
14 California-Santa Cruz Win 14-12 2262.5 Apr 27th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 2025
8 Stanford Loss 10-12 1896.25 Apr 27th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 2025
14 California-Santa Cruz Win 15-7 2641.54 Apr 27th Southwest D I College Womens Regionals 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)