Arctic Circle Team Race

HostTufts
Date03/12/2016
TypeNOT ALLOWED In-Conference
BoatFJ
ScoringTeam

#	School	Team	Rec.
1	Tufts University	Jumbos	16–3
2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	15–4
2	Roger Williams University	Hawks	15–4
4	University of Rhode Island	Rams	10–9
5	University of Vermont	Catamounts	8–11
6	Boston University	Terriers	3–16
7	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	Buccaneers	4–12
8	Salve Regina University	Seahawks	2–14

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 6,381 team race matches sailed before 2016-03-12, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 60 of 73 matches (82%) with a log-loss of 0.336 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went well for the forecast. Orderliness +0.09 ± 0.21: a typical event, more orderly than 52% 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.

Place	School	Pred.	Strength	Boats (skipper / crew, boat value)	Pred. win %	Record	vs forecast
1	Tufts University Jumbos	1	10.21 school +0.17, home +0.23	John Rolander / Emily Shanley-Roberts 3.26 15–1 James Moody / Caroline Ambros 3.10 15–1 Scott Barbano / Amanda Sommi 3.41 9–3 Scott Barbano / Ian Morgan 3.36 7–0 James Moody / Leah Fletcher 3.19 1–2 John Rolander / Ian Morgan 3.20 1–2	86%	16–3 (84%)	−0.4
2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	2	9.83 school −0.23	Cutter O'Connell / Christopher Ford 3.30 Alexander Stewart / Greta Farrell 3.55 Trevor Long / Jeremy Kalas 6–3 Ty Ingram / Jordan Ladd 3.48 7–1 Rosalind Lesh / Jamila Smith-Dell 3.00 2–0	79%	15–4 (79%)	−0.1
2	Roger Williams University Hawks	3	9.75 school +0.06	Michael Gemperline / Megan Roach 2.95 10–4 Dirk Johnson / Michael Mcbrien 3.11 13–0 Connor Corgard / Rebecca Anderson 3.73 8–4 James Kennedy / Rebecca Anderson 2.87 7–0 James Kennedy / Michael Mcbrien 2.98 2–4 Connor Corgard / Megan Roach 3.76 5–0	78%	15–4 (79%)	+0.2
4	University of Rhode Island Rams	5	7.13 school +0.11	Patrick Isherwood / Jack Hurley Dakota Northrup / Lauren Oliveira Matthew Gibbs / Ellis Havelock 5–6 Matthew Gibbs / Lauren Richards 5–3	39%	10–9 (53%)	+2.6
5	University of Vermont Catamounts	4	7.46 school −0.08	William Crary / Alan Mckinnon Iii 2.68 Benjamin Craig / Samuel Magill-Dohan 2.06 Jan Kite-Powell / Sydney Connor 2.46	44%	8–11 (42%)	−0.4
6	Boston University Terriers	7	6.10 school −0.10	Joseph Benoit / Hannah Davis 1.85 Samuel Campbell / Emily Croteau 1.47 Reed Lorimer / Stefanie Anderson 2.44	22%	3–16 (16%)	−1.1
7	Massachusetts Maritime Academy Buccaneers	6	5.98 school +0.29	Jeffrey Adam / Jacqualynn Devore Frank Reeg / Sergio Gratta George Luber / Braden Foster 1.08 1–9 George Luber / Mckenna Jarvis 1.11 3–3	31%	4–12 (25%)	−1.0
8	Salve Regina University Seahawks	8	4.79 school −0.21	Sean Beaulieu / Jennifer Ryan 2.13 Caden Buckley / Stephanie Clancy Bayard Lalor / Crete Clifford	11%	2–14 (12%)	+0.2

Surprisal: who beat their rating

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)
4	University of Rhode Island	7.13	8.24	10–9	7.4	+1.10	2.1	8%
8	Salve Regina University	4.79	4.94	2–14	1.8	+0.15	0.0	56%
2	Roger Williams University	9.75	9.85	15–4	14.8	+0.09	0.0	59%
2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	9.83	9.78	15–4	15.1	−0.05	0.0	67%
5	University of Vermont	7.46	7.28	8–11	8.4	−0.18	0.1	74%
1	Tufts University	10.21	10.00	16–3	16.4	−0.21	0.1	76%
7	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	5.98	5.49	4–12	5.0	−0.49	0.3	85%
6	Boston University	6.10	5.51	3–16	4.1	−0.59	0.5	88%

By skipper

Skipper	School	Value	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
Patrick Isherwood	University of Rhode Island	2.08	3.18	10–9	7.4	+1.10	2.1	8%
Matthew Gibbs	University of Rhode Island	1.88	2.98	10–9	7.4	+1.10	2.1	8%
Ty Ingram	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.48	3.87	7–1	6.7	+0.39	0.1	61%
Sean Beaulieu	Salve Regina University	2.13	2.29	2–14	1.8	+0.15	0.0	56%
Bayard Lalor	Salve Regina University	1.15	1.30	2–14	1.8	+0.15	0.0	56%
Connor Corgard	Roger Williams University	3.73	3.81	13–4	12.8	+0.08	0.0	60%
Michael Gemperline	Roger Williams University	2.95	2.99	10–4	9.9	+0.04	0.0	62%
Alexander Stewart	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.55	3.50	15–4	15.1	−0.05	0.0	67%
James Kennedy	Roger Williams University	2.87	2.71	9–4	9.2	−0.16	0.0	72%
William Crary	University of Vermont	2.68	2.50	8–11	8.4	−0.18	0.1	74%
Benjamin Craig	University of Vermont	2.06	1.88	8–11	8.4	−0.18	0.1	74%
Scott Barbano	Tufts University	3.41	3.19	16–3	16.4	−0.21	0.1	76%
John Rolander	Tufts University	3.26	3.05	16–3	16.4	−0.21	0.1	76%
James Moody	Tufts University	3.10	2.88	16–3	16.4	−0.21	0.1	76%
Trevor Long	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2.73	2.37	6–3	6.4	−0.35	0.1	82%
Jeffrey Adam	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	1.68	1.18	4–12	5.0	−0.49	0.3	85%
George Luber	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	1.08	0.59	4–12	5.0	−0.49	0.3	85%
Joseph Benoit	Boston University	1.85	1.26	3–16	4.1	−0.59	0.5	88%
Samuel Campbell	Boston University	1.47	0.88	3–16	4.1	−0.59	0.5	88%

Match by match

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	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Roger Williams University	59%
1	2	Boston University	University of Vermont	19%	upset
1	3	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	80%
1	4	Tufts University	Salve Regina University	100%
1	5	University of Rhode Island	Boston University	75%
1	6	University of Vermont	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	83%
1	7	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Salve Regina University	100%
1	8	Roger Williams University	University of Vermont	93%
1	9	Tufts University	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	99%
1	10	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	99%
1	11	Roger Williams University	Salve Regina University	99%
1	12	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	96%
1	13	Roger Williams University	Boston University	98%
1	14	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	98%
1	15	University of Vermont	University of Rhode Island	60%
1	16	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	Boston University	48%	upset
1	17	University of Rhode Island	Salve Regina University	92%
1	18	Tufts University	University of Vermont	94%
1	19	Salve Regina University	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	24%	upset
1	20	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Vermont	88%
1	21	Tufts University	Roger Williams University	61%
1	22	University of Vermont	Salve Regina University	94%
1	23	Tufts University	Boston University	98%
1	24	Roger Williams University	University of Rhode Island	94%
1	25	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	68%
1	26	Roger Williams University	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	98%
1	27	Boston University	Salve Regina University	78%
1	28	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	92%
1	57	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	Salve Regina University	76%
2	29	Roger Williams University	Salve Regina University	98%
2	30	University of Vermont	Boston University	80%
2	31	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	74%
2	32	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	34%	upset
2	33	University of Rhode Island	Boston University	74%
2	34	University of Vermont	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	80%
2	35	Roger Williams University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	41%	upset
2	36	University of Vermont	Salve Regina University	93%
2	37	Tufts University	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	98%
2	38	Roger Williams University	Boston University	98%
2	39	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Salve Regina University	99%
2	40	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	95%
2	41	Salve Regina University	Boston University	23%	upset
2	42	Roger Williams University	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	98%
2	43	University of Rhode Island	University of Vermont	42%	upset
2	44	Boston University	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	50%	upset
2	45	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	8%	upset
2	46	Tufts University	University of Vermont	94%
2	47	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	97%
2	48	Roger Williams University	University of Vermont	91%
2	49	Tufts University	Salve Regina University	99%
2	50	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Vermont	89%
2	51	Tufts University	Boston University	98%
2	52	University of Rhode Island	Salve Regina University	90%
2	53	Tufts University	Roger Williams University	61%
2	54	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	Salve Regina University	76%
2	55	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	98%
2	56	Roger Williams University	University of Rhode Island	93%
2	58	Massachusetts Maritime Academy	Salve Regina University	76%
2	59	Roger Williams University	University of Rhode Island	93%
2	60	University of Vermont	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	11%	upset
2	61	Tufts University	Boston University	98%
2	62	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Roger Williams University	59%
2	63	University of Rhode Island	Boston University	73%
2	64	Tufts University	University of Vermont	93%
2	65	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	98%
2	66	Roger Williams University	University of Vermont	91%
2	67	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	95%
2	68	University of Vermont	Boston University	79%
2	69	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	92%
2	70	Roger Williams University	Tufts University	39%	upset
2	71	University of Rhode Island	University of Vermont	43%	upset
2	72	Roger Williams University	Boston University	97%
2	73	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	37%	upset

Round 1

Team	Rec.	Jumbos	Engineers	Hawks	Rams	Catamounts	Terriers	Buccaneers	Seahawks
Tufts University Jumbos	7–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	6–1	L	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W
Roger Williams University Hawks	5–2	L	L	✕	W	W	W	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	3–4	L	L	L	✕	L	W	W	W
University of Vermont Catamounts	3–4	L	L	L	W	✕	L	W	W
Boston University Terriers	2–5	L	L	L	L	W	✕	L	W
Massachusetts Maritime Academy Buccaneers	2–6	L	L	L	L	L	W	✕	W
Salve Regina University Seahawks	1–7	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 2

Team	Rec.	Jumbos	Engineers	Hawks	Rams	Catamounts	Terriers	Buccaneers	Seahawks
Tufts University Jumbos	9–3	✕	L	L	W	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	9–3	W	✕	W	W	L	W	W	W
Roger Williams University Hawks	10–2	W	L	✕	W	W	W	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	7–5	L	L	L	✕	W	W	W	W
University of Vermont Catamounts	5–7	L	W	L	L	✕	W	W	W
Boston University Terriers	1–11	L	L	L	L	L	✕	W	L
Massachusetts Maritime Academy Buccaneers	2–6	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕	W
Salve Regina University Seahawks	1–7	L	L	L	L	L	W	L	✕

Filter by team:

#					Pos.
1	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Hawks	4-5-6
2	Terriers	1-2-3	def.	Catamounts	4-5-6
3	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Buccaneers	3-4-5
4	Jumbos	1-3-4	def.	Seahawks	2-5-6
5	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Terriers	3-4-5
6	Catamounts	1-2-4	def.	Buccaneers	3-5-6
7	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Seahawks	4-5-6
8	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Catamounts	3-4-6
9	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Buccaneers	4-5-6
10	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
11	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Seahawks	4-5-6
12	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Rams	3-4-6
13	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
14	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Buccaneers	3-4-5
15	Catamounts	1-3-6	def.	Rams	2-4-5
16	Buccaneers	1-2-5	def.	Terriers	3-4-6
17	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Seahawks	3-4-6
18	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Catamounts	4-5-6
19	Seahawks	1-3-6	def.	Buccaneers	2-4-5
20	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Catamounts	3-4-5
21	Jumbos	1-3-5	def.	Hawks	2-4-6
22	Catamounts	1-2-4	def.	Seahawks	3-5-6
23	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
24	Hawks	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
25	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
26	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Buccaneers	4-5-6
27	Terriers	1-2-3	def.	Seahawks	4-5-6
28	Engineers	1-3-4	def.	Rams	2-5-6
57	Buccaneers	1-2-5	def.	Seahawks	3-4-6
29	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Seahawks	3-4-6 DNF
30	Catamounts	1-2-6	def.	Terriers	3-4-5
31	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Buccaneers	3-4-5
32	Engineers	1-3-5	def.	Jumbos	2-4-6
33	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Terriers	3-4-6
34	Catamounts	1-2-5	def.	Buccaneers	3-4-6
35	Hawks	2-3-4	def.	Engineers	1-5-6
36	Catamounts	2-3-4	def.	Seahawks	1-5-6
37	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Buccaneers	3-4-6
38	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
39	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Seahawks	3-4-6
40	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
41	Seahawks	1-3-6	def.	Terriers	2-4-5
42	Hawks	1-3-5	def.	Buccaneers	2-4-6
43	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Catamounts	3-4-6
44	Terriers	1-2-5	def.	Buccaneers	3-4-6
45	Rams	2-3-4	def.	Engineers	1-5-6
46	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Catamounts	4-5-6
47	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Buccaneers	4-5-6
48	Hawks	1-2-6	def.	Catamounts	3-4-5
49	Jumbos	1-2-4	def.	Seahawks	3-5-6
50	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Catamounts	3-5-6
51	Jumbos	1-2-4	def.	Terriers	3-5-6
52	Rams	1-3-4	def.	Seahawks	2-5-6
53	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Hawks	3-4-5
54	Buccaneers	1-4-5	def.	Seahawks	2-3-6
55	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
56	Hawks	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
58	Buccaneers	1-3-4	def.	Seahawks	2-5-6
59	Hawks	2-3-4	def.	Rams	1-5-6
60	Catamounts	1-4-5	def.	Engineers	2-3-6
61	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Terriers	3-4-5
62	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Hawks	3-4-6
63	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Terriers	3-4-6
64	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Catamounts	4-5-6
65	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
66	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Catamounts	3-4-6
67	Jumbos	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
68	Catamounts	1-3-4	def.	Terriers	2-5-6
69	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
70	Hawks	1-3-4	def.	Jumbos	2-5-6
71	Rams	2-3-5	def.	Catamounts	1-4-6
72	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
73	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6

School	Team	Skippers	Crew
Tufts University	Jumbos	James Moody '16 John Rolander '17 Scott Barbano '17	Leah Fletcher '17 Caroline Ambros '17 Ian Morgan '19 Emily Shanley-Roberts '18 Amanda Sommi '16
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	Alexander Stewart '17 Cutter O'Connell '18 Rosalind Lesh '16 Trevor Long '19 Ty Ingram '18	Greta Farrell '18 Christopher Ford '16 Jamila Smith-Dell '16 Jeremy Kalas '16 Jordan Ladd '17
Roger Williams University	Hawks	Connor Corgard '16 Dirk Johnson '18 James Kennedy '17 Michael Gemperline '17	Rebecca Anderson '18 Megan Roach '18 Michael Mcbrien '18
University of Rhode Island	Rams	Dakota Northrup '19 Matthew Gibbs '17 Patrick Isherwood '17	Lauren Oliveira '19 Ellis Havelock '18 Lauren Richards '19 Jack Hurley '18
University of Vermont	Catamounts	Benjamin Craig '17 Jan Kite-Powell '19 William Crary '17	Samuel Magill-Dohan '18 Sydney Connor '18 Alan Mckinnon Iii '18
Boston University	Terriers	Joseph Benoit '16 Reed Lorimer '18 Samuel Campbell '17	Hannah Davis '19 Stefanie Anderson '18 Emily Croteau '19
Massachusetts Maritime Academy	Buccaneers	Frank Reeg '19 George Luber '17 Jeffrey Adam '18	Sergio Gratta '18 Braden Foster '19 Mckenna Jarvis '19 Jacqualynn Devore '19
Salve Regina University	Seahawks	Bayard Lalor '19 Caden Buckley '19 Sean Beaulieu '18	Crete Clifford '17 Stephanie Clancy '17 Jennifer Ryan '19

Conditions — 03/12/2016 (8am–6pm)

☁️Overcast

Humidity 48% · Pressure 1021.7 hPa

Temperature

49°F

↑ 57°F ↓ 36°F

Feels like 42°F

Wind

● from ▲ toward

7.6 kn

avg · max 11.3 kn

Gusts to 22.4 kn

From SW (220°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover73% Sunshine10.9 hrs Humidity48% Pressure1021.7 hPa

What this breeze does at Tufts — from fleet racing

Breeze: SW about 10 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)

In fleet races at Tufts in this breeze: an underdogs’ day (−0.07)

Underdogs’ conditions: in fleet racing here the fleet bunches up and lower-rated boats beat the seeds more often than usual.

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 ±0.07 means a rating gap counts about 6% 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.

Orderliness beyond the fleet at Tufts by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (60 labelled fleet-race days at Tufts).

From the notes

Short write-ups of what the ratings and results show, with the numbers and how they were computed.

How team race forecasts workThree boats’ ratings, a school term and a home edge; 78.8% of held-out matches called.
Play 1, Play 2, Play 4: how team races are wonHow often each play happens, how that shifts with breeze and level, and whether a star wins differently.
Which team races go to form?Orderliness is a real property of a team race regatta and nothing known in advance predicts it.

All notes →

Navigate

Menu