#8 California-Santa Cruz (8-5)

avg: 1694.26  •  sd: 48.29  •  top 16/20: 100%

Click on a column to sort  • 
# Opponent Result Game Rating Status Date Event
19 California-Davis Win 10-9 1588.79 Jan 25th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
11 Washington Loss 11-13 1431.65 Jan 25th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
4 Oregon Loss 11-13 1661.68 Jan 25th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
15 Stanford Loss 7-8 1471.71 Jan 26th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
27 UCLA Win 9-8 1444.44 Jan 26th Santa Barbara Invite 2025
10 California-San Diego Win 11-9 1930.84 Feb 15th Presidents Day Invite 2025
26 Western Washington Win 12-7 1855.61 Feb 15th Presidents Day Invite 2025
19 California-Davis Win 11-9 1713 Feb 16th Presidents Day Invite 2025
22 California-Santa Barbara Win 8-3 2018.77 Feb 16th Presidents Day Invite 2025
49 Southern California Win 13-6 1624.85 Feb 16th Presidents Day Invite 2025
1 British Columbia Loss 8-13 1730.99 Feb 17th Presidents Day Invite 2025
12 Utah Win 11-10 1777.13 Feb 17th Presidents Day Invite 2025
5 Colorado Loss 12-13 1676.8 Feb 17th Presidents Day Invite 2025
**Blowout Eligible

FAQ

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
  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
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)