#46 Texas-Dallas (5-7)

avg: 1822.28  •  sd: 83.86  •  top 16/20: 0%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
18 Brigham Young Loss 8-11 1927.71 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
3 Tufts** Loss 2-13 2240.06 Ignored Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
25 UCLA Loss 8-12 1692.29 Mar 1st Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
58 Brown Win 9-5 2196.55 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
31 Pittsburgh Loss 6-8 1714.02 Mar 2nd Stanford Invite 2025 Womens
147 Boston University** Win 11-3 1579.99 Ignored Mar 22nd Womens Centex 2025
189 LSU** Win 13-2 1255.82 Ignored Mar 22nd Womens Centex 2025
93 Rice Win 12-3 1945.62 Mar 22nd Womens Centex 2025
26 Texas Loss 2-13 1528.98 Mar 22nd Womens Centex 2025
26 Texas Loss 6-14 1528.98 Mar 23rd Womens Centex 2025
52 Washington University Win 15-11 2119.46 Mar 23rd Womens Centex 2025
11 Utah** Loss 6-15 1878.8 Ignored Mar 23rd Womens Centex 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)