| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Connecticut College | Camels | 6–1 |
| 2 |  |
Boston College | Eagles | 6–1 |
| 3 |  |
Brown University | Bears | 5–2 |
| 4 |  |
Boston University | Terriers | 4–3 |
| 5 |  |
Harvard University | Crimson | 3–4 |
| 6 |  |
Tufts University | Jumbos | 3–4 |
| 7 |  |
Roger Williams University | Hawks | 1–6 |
| 8 |  |
University of Virginia | Wahoos | 0–7 |
Each side is the sum of its three boats (the skipper's fleet rating times 0.72 plus a team race offset learned from their past matches, plus the crew's offset and a small experience term) plus the school's team race strength and a home-water edge for the host. The win probability is a logistic function of the difference. The forecast was made before the event: the model was refitted on every match sailed before the first day, with fleet ratings as of the week before.
Fitted on the 9,186 team race matches sailed before 2017-11-04, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 24 of 28 matches (86%) with a log-loss of 0.371 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went well for the forecast. Orderliness +0.69 ± 0.42: an orderly event, more orderly than 98% of college team race events (temperature of the forecast log-odds that best fits the results, relative to the league average; nothing about the field, venue or wind predicts it, see the Weather tab). vs forecast is a team's wins minus the wins the model expected from the matches it sailed: positive means it beat its rating.
For each side, the performance strength is the value that would have made its record least surprising: the strength at which the model's expected wins over exactly these opponents equal the actual wins, with every opponent fixed at its pre-event strength. For a skipper, the same shift is applied only to their boat in the matches they sailed, with team-mates and opponents fixed; team-mates who sailed every match together therefore get the same number. Surprise is in bits: -log2 of the probability of the record at the pre-event strength minus the same at the performance strength. P(this good or better) treats matches as independent coin flips at the model's pre-event probabilities, so it ignores form within the day; read it as a rough guide.
Pre-event strength against the strength that would have made each record least surprising, everything else fixed. Δ is in the model's logit units, the same scale as the boat values above (a side is three boats plus the school term); green is a clear over-performance, red a clear under-performance. Skippers need three or more matches.
| Place | School | Strength | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Connecticut College | 10.05 | 11.22 | 6–1 | 4.7 | +1.18 | 1.0 | 25% |
| 2 | Boston College | 10.29 | 11.21 | 6–1 | 5.0 | +0.91 | 0.6 | 36% |
| 3 | Brown University | 9.72 | 10.31 | 5–2 | 4.2 | +0.58 | 0.3 | 41% |
| 4 | Boston University | 9.74 | 9.62 | 4–3 | 4.2 | −0.12 | 0.0 | 72% |
| 6 | Tufts University | 9.38 | 8.92 | 3–4 | 3.6 | −0.46 | 0.2 | 83% |
| 5 | Harvard University | 9.63 | 8.92 | 3–4 | 4.0 | −0.71 | 0.5 | 90% |
| 7 | Roger Williams University | 8.24 | 6.95 | 1–6 | 2.0 | −1.29 | 0.8 | 96% |
| 8 | University of Virginia | 6.34 | 3.34 | 0–7 | 0.3 | ≤−3.00 | 0.4 | >99% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walter Florio | Connecticut College | 3.05 | 4.23 | 6–1 | 4.7 | +1.18 | 1.0 | 25% |
| Isabella Loosbrock | Boston College | 3.26 | 4.17 | 6–1 | 5.0 | +0.91 | 0.6 | 36% |
| Wade Waddell | Boston College | 3.58 | 4.49 | 6–1 | 5.0 | +0.91 | 0.6 | 36% |
| Ravi Parent | Boston University | 3.41 | 3.29 | 4–3 | 4.2 | −0.12 | 0.0 | 72% |
| Eli Burnes | Harvard University | 3.19 | 2.95 | 3–2 | 3.2 | −0.24 | 0.0 | 78% |
| Nick Digiovanni | Harvard University | 3.21 | 2.79 | 3–3 | 3.5 | −0.42 | 0.1 | 82% |
| Christopher Keller | Tufts University | 2.71 | 2.24 | 3–4 | 3.6 | −0.46 | 0.2 | 83% |
| Ed Lebens | Roger Williams University | 2.48 | 1.19 | 1–6 | 2.0 | −1.29 | 0.8 | 96% |
| Colin Suvak | University of Virginia | 2.67 | -0.33 | 0–7 | 0.3 | ≤−3.00 | 0.4 | >99% |
| Ian Palmer | University of Virginia | 0.93 | -2.07 | 0–7 | 0.3 | ≤−3.00 | 0.4 | >99% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | Camels | Eagles | Bears | Terriers | Crimson | Jumbos | Hawks | Wahoos | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut College Camels | 6–1 | ✕ | W | W | L | W | W | W | W |
| Boston College Eagles | 6–1 | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W | W |
| Brown University Bears | 5–2 | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W |
| Boston University Terriers | 4–3 | W | L | L | ✕ | W | L | W | W |
| Harvard University Crimson | 3–4 | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 3–4 | L | L | L | W | L | ✕ | W | W |
| Roger Williams University Hawks | 1–6 | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W |
| University of Virginia Wahoos | 0–7 | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Camels | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Wahoos | 4-5-6 |
| 2 | |
Terriers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Crimson | 3-4-6 |
| 3 | |
Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-5-6 |
| 4 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Jumbos | 4-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Terriers | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Wahoos | 4-5-6 |
| 6 | |
Camels | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Bears | 2-4-6 |
| 7 | |
Crimson | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Jumbos | 4-5-6 |
| 8 | |
Eagles | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Hawks | 2-5-6 |
| 9 | |
Bears | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Terriers | 3-4-6 |
| 10 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Wahoos | 4-5-6 |
| 11 | |
Camels | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-4-6 |
| 12 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Crimson | 3-4-6 |
| 13 | |
Bears | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-4-5 |
| 14 | |
Terriers | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hawks | 4-5-6 |
| 15 | |
Crimson | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Wahoos | 3-4-6 |
| 16 | |
Camels | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Eagles | 4-5-6 |
| 17 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-4-5 |
| 18 | |
Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Crimson | 3-5-6 |
| 19 | |
Terriers | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Camels | 3-4-5 |
| 20 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Wahoos | 4-5-6 |
| 21 | |
Crimson | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-4-5 |
| 22 | |
Camels | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-5-6 |
| 23 | |
Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Wahoos | 3-5-6 |
| 24 | |
Eagles | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Terriers | 2-5-6 |
| 25 | |
Camels | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Crimson | 4-5-6 |
| 26 | |
Hawks | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Wahoos | 3-5-6 |
| 27 | |
Jumbos | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Terriers | 2-4-6 |
| 28 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Bears | 3-4-6 |
Orderliness is how tightly a fleet race’s finishing order follows the pre-regatta ratings, relative to a typical event (0): positive is the favourites’ day, negative the underdogs’. A value of ±0.09 means a rating gap counts about 8% less than on a typical day. This event is not a fleet race the rating model scores, so there is no actual value for it: this is what this venue’s fleet racing history says about the breeze on the day, read off the chart at the star. How this is estimated · compare venues.
Short write-ups of what the ratings and results show, with the numbers and how they were computed.
