| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Tufts University | Jumbos 1 | 4–0 |
| 2 |  |
Roger Williams University | Hawks | 3–1 |
| 3 |  |
Boston College | Eagles | 2–2 |
| 4 |  |
Brown University | Bears | 1–3 |
| 5 | |
Tufts University | Jumbos 2 | 1–3 |
| 6 |  |
Boston University | Terriers | 1–3 |
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 18,887 team race matches sailed before 2022-10-23, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 9 of 12 matches (75%) with a log-loss of 0.480 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness +0.39 ± 0.62: a typical event, more orderly than 83% 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 | Tufts University Jumbos 1 | 8.43 | 11.43 | 4–0 | 2.7 | ≥+3.00 | 2.2 | 19% |
| 2 | Roger Williams University Hawks | 8.08 | 8.78 | 3–1 | 2.5 | +0.70 | 0.2 | 51% |
| 6 | Boston University Terriers | 6.17 | 6.50 | 1–3 | 0.8 | +0.33 | 0.1 | 60% |
| 5 | Tufts University Jumbos 2 | 6.72 | 6.25 | 1–3 | 1.3 | −0.48 | 0.1 | 84% |
| 3 | Boston College Eagles | 8.42 | 7.67 | 2–2 | 2.7 | −0.75 | 0.4 | 90% |
| 4 | Brown University Bears | 7.46 | 6.09 | 1–3 | 2.0 | −1.36 | 1.0 | 96% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patrick Mulcahy | Tufts University | 2.72 | 5.72 | 4–0 | 2.7 | ≥+3.00 | 2.2 | 19% |
| Connor Rosow | Tufts University | 2.38 | 5.38 | 4–0 | 2.7 | ≥+3.00 | 2.2 | 19% |
| George Higham | Roger Williams University | 2.56 | 3.26 | 3–1 | 2.5 | +0.70 | 0.2 | 51% |
| Elliott Mendenhall | Boston University | 2.29 | 2.62 | 1–3 | 0.8 | +0.33 | 0.1 | 60% |
| Niall Sheridan | Tufts University | 1.88 | 1.40 | 1–3 | 1.3 | −0.48 | 0.1 | 84% |
| Clark Morris | Tufts University | 1.87 | 1.39 | 1–3 | 1.3 | −0.48 | 0.1 | 84% |
| Charlotte Costikyan | Brown University | 2.45 | 1.09 | 1–3 | 2.0 | −1.36 | 1.0 | 96% |
| Emily Mueller | Brown University | 2.14 | 0.78 | 1–3 | 2.0 | −1.36 | 1.0 | 96% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Rd | # | Winner | Loser | P(winner) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Roger Williams University Hawks | Boston University Terriers | 87% | |
| 1 | 2 | Tufts University Jumbos 1 | Brown University Bears | 73% | |
| 1 | 3 | Boston College Eagles | Tufts University Jumbos 2 | 86% | |
| 1 | 4 | Brown University Bears | Boston University Terriers | 78% | |
| 1 | 5 | Roger Williams University Hawks | Tufts University Jumbos 2 | 80% | |
| 1 | 6 | Tufts University Jumbos 1 | Boston College Eagles | 50% | |
| 1 | 7 | Tufts University Jumbos 2 | Brown University Bears | 33% | upset |
| 1 | 8 | Tufts University Jumbos 1 | Boston University Terriers | 90% | |
| 1 | 9 | Roger Williams University Hawks | Boston College Eagles | 42% | upset |
| 1 | 10 | Tufts University Jumbos 1 | Roger Williams University Hawks | 58% | |
| 1 | 11 | Boston University Terriers | Tufts University Jumbos 2 | 35% | upset |
| 1 | 12 | Boston College Eagles | Brown University Bears | 72% |
| Team | Rec. | 1 | Hawks | Eagles | Bears | 2 | Terriers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tufts University Jumbos 1 | 5–3 | ✕ | W | W | W | ✕ | L |
| Roger Williams University Hawks | 3–1 | L | ✕ | W | – | L | W |
| Boston College Eagles | 2–2 | L | L | ✕ | W | L | – |
| Brown University Bears | 1–3 | L | – | L | ✕ | L | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos 2 | 5–3 | ✕ | W | W | W | ✕ | L |
| Boston University Terriers | 1–3 | W | L | – | L | W | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Hawks | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Terriers | 3-5-6 |
| 2 | |
Jumbos 1 | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Bears | 4-5-6 |
| 3 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Jumbos 2 | 3-4-6 |
| 4 | |
Bears | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Terriers | 4-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Hawks | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Jumbos 2 | 3-4-6 |
| 6 | |
Jumbos 1 | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Eagles | 3-4-6 |
| 7 | |
Jumbos 2 | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Bears | 2-5-6 |
| 8 | |
Jumbos 1 | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Terriers | 3-5-6 |
| 9 | |
Hawks | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Eagles | 3-5-6 |
| 10 | |
Jumbos 1 | 1-2-4 DSQ | def. | |
Hawks | 3-5-6 DSQ |
| 11 | |
Terriers | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Jumbos 2 | 1-5-6 |
| 12 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Bears | 3-4-6 |
| School | Team | Skippers | Crew | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tufts University | Jumbos 1 | Chloe Holder '23 Connor Rosow '24 Patrick Mulcahy '23 |
Nicolas Echarte '25 Magdelaina Putnam '25 Cecilia Adams '23 |
|
Roger Williams University | Hawks | George Higham '23 Oliver Stokke '26 William Bailey '24 |
Grace Woodcock '23 Claire Buckley '25 Ruby Hope '25 |
|
Boston College | Eagles | Caroline Sibilly '26 Graham Ness '23 Libby Redmond '24 |
Chip Kreuzkamp '24 Matt Budington '25 Lourdes Gallo '24 |
|
Brown University | Bears | Charlotte Costikyan '24 Emily Mueller '25 Katherine Mcnamara '26 |
Janelle Li '25 Kaitlyn Hamilton '26 Brianna Ross '26 |
|
Tufts University | Jumbos 2 | Clark Morris '26 Matthew Wallace '25 Niall Sheridan '23 |
Cindy Wang '25 Lucy Belknap '25 Sara Morrison '23 |
|
Boston University | Terriers | Elliott Mendenhall '25 Nathan Selian '25 Porter Bell '26 |
Carolyn Kravets '25 Gavin Monaghan '26 Jack Culton '26 |
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 ±0.05 means a rating gap counts about 4% 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.
