The Ike Geiger Team Race Regatta

HostMIT
Date03/19/2016
TypeNOT ALLOWED In-Conference
BoatFJ
ScoringTeam

#	School	Team	Rec.
1	Boston College	Eagles	19–2
2	Tufts University	Jumbos	15–6
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	14–7
4	University of Vermont	Catamounts	11–10
5	Harvard University	Crimson	10–11
6	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Bears	8–13
7	Northeastern University	Huskies	5–16
8	University of Rhode Island	Rams	2–19

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 6,510 team race matches sailed before 2016-03-19, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 63 of 84 matches (75%) with a log-loss of 0.539 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness −0.07 ± 0.22: a typical event, more orderly than 35% 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	Boston College Eagles	2	9.24 school +0.23	Henry Dumke / Megan Bamford 3.15 Wade Waddell / Emma Perry 2.71 Peter Lynn / Kaitlin Driscoll 2.83	69%	19–2 (90%)	+4.5
2	Tufts University Jumbos	3	9.14 school +0.17	Alexander Tong / Lara Dienemann Jack Bitney / Natalie Danziger Cameron Holley / Aaron Klein	69%	15–6 (71%)	+0.6
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	1	9.70 school −0.24, home +0.23	Ty Ingram / Elizabeth Zhang 3.20 Joseph Paggi / Lisa Sukharev-Chuyan 3.23 Trevor Long / Megan Mcknelly 2.92	80%	14–7 (67%)	−2.8
4	University of Vermont Catamounts	5	8.29 school −0.09	William Crary / Sydney Connor 3.02 Jan Kite-Powell / Lindsay Doyle 2.41 Amina Brown / Mike Kanare 2.90 9–3 Amina Brown / Haley Mcmahon 2.71 2–7	47%	11–10 (52%)	+1.0
5	Harvard University Crimson	4	8.56 school −0.16	Dylan Farrell / Christine Gosioco 2.31 Juan Perdomo / Catherine Tang Jackson Wagner / Alejandra Resendiz 2.66 8–4 Nicholas Karnovsky / Alejandra Resendiz 2–7	54%	10–11 (48%)	−1.4
6	U. S. Coast Guard Academy Bears	7	7.58 school −0.33	Kayla Ellis / Erin Morgan 2.68 Austin Lettengarver / Rebecca Edmonds August Sturm / Madelynn Widmeier 2.45	33%	8–13 (38%)	+1.1
7	Northeastern University Huskies	8	6.41	Peter Christensen / Linnea Goldstein 1.83 Robert Rose / Anne Wieland Chris Colbeth / Alexandra Nygren	12%	5–16 (24%)	+2.5
8	University of Rhode Island Rams	6	7.75 school +0.24	Matthew Gibbs / Ian Nannig 1.96 Patrick Isherwood / Jack Hurley 2.46 Dakota Northrup / Ellis Havelock 2.83	36%	2–19 (10%)	−5.5

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)
1	Boston College	9.24	10.85	19–2	14.5	+1.62	4.5	2%
7	Northeastern University	6.41	7.33	5–16	2.5	+0.91	1.8	9%
6	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	7.58	7.87	8–13	6.9	+0.29	0.2	37%
4	University of Vermont	8.29	8.54	11–10	10.0	+0.25	0.2	39%
2	Tufts University	9.14	9.29	15–6	14.4	+0.15	0.1	49%
5	Harvard University	8.56	8.21	10–11	11.4	−0.36	0.4	84%
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	9.70	8.93	14–7	16.8	−0.77	1.6	96%
8	University of Rhode Island	7.75	5.70	2–19	7.5	−2.05	7.0	>99%

By skipper

Skipper	School	Value	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
Henry Dumke	Boston College	3.15	4.77	19–2	14.5	+1.62	4.5	2%
Wade Waddell	Boston College	2.71	4.33	19–2	14.5	+1.62	4.5	2%
Peter Christensen	Northeastern University	1.83	2.75	5–16	2.5	+0.91	1.8	9%
Robert Rose	Northeastern University	1.86	2.77	5–16	2.5	+0.91	1.8	9%
Kayla Ellis	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	2.68	2.96	8–13	6.9	+0.29	0.2	37%
Austin Lettengarver	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	2.21	2.50	8–13	6.9	+0.29	0.2	37%
August Sturm	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	2.45	2.74	8–13	6.9	+0.29	0.2	37%
William Crary	University of Vermont	3.02	3.27	11–10	10.0	+0.25	0.2	39%
Amina Brown	University of Vermont	2.90	3.15	11–10	10.0	+0.25	0.2	39%
Alexander Tong	Tufts University	2.76	2.92	15–6	14.4	+0.15	0.1	49%
Juan Perdomo	Harvard University	3.58	3.22	10–11	11.4	−0.36	0.4	84%
Ty Ingram	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.20	2.43	14–7	16.8	−0.77	1.6	96%
Joseph Paggi	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.23	2.45	14–7	16.8	−0.77	1.6	96%
Trevor Long	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2.92	2.14	14–7	16.8	−0.77	1.6	96%
Matthew Gibbs	University of Rhode Island	1.96	-0.09	2–19	7.5	−2.05	7.0	>99%
Patrick Isherwood	University of Rhode Island	2.46	0.41	2–19	7.5	−2.05	7.0	>99%

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	Northeastern University	97%
1	2	Tufts University	Harvard University	76%
1	3	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	University of Rhode Island	38%	upset
1	4	Boston College	University of Vermont	71%
1	5	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	19%	upset
1	6	Northeastern University	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	22%	upset
1	7	University of Vermont	Tufts University	30%	upset
1	8	Boston College	University of Rhode Island	81%
1	9	Harvard University	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	69%
1	10	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Vermont	80%
1	11	Northeastern University	University of Rhode Island	18%	upset
1	12	Tufts University	Boston College	49%	upset
1	13	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	University of Vermont	29%	upset
1	14	Harvard University	University of Rhode Island	71%
1	15	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	63%
1	16	Boston College	Northeastern University	95%
1	17	University of Vermont	University of Rhode Island	65%
1	18	Tufts University	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	84%
1	19	Harvard University	Northeastern University	92%
1	20	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	39%	upset
1	21	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	80%
1	22	University of Vermont	Northeastern University	88%
1	23	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	90%
1	24	Harvard University	Boston College	38%	upset
1	25	Northeastern University	Tufts University	6%	upset
1	26	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	87%
1	27	Harvard University	University of Vermont	59%
1	28	Boston College	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	84%
2	29	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	96%
2	30	Tufts University	Harvard University	70%
2	31	University of Rhode Island	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	55%
2	32	Boston College	University of Vermont	73%
2	33	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Harvard University	80%
2	34	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Northeastern University	76%
2	35	Tufts University	University of Vermont	71%
2	36	Boston College	University of Rhode Island	81%
2	37	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Harvard University	32%	upset
2	38	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Vermont	81%
2	39	University of Rhode Island	Northeastern University	79%
2	40	Boston College	Tufts University	53%
2	41	University of Vermont	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	67%
2	42	Harvard University	University of Rhode Island	73%
2	43	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	36%	upset
2	44	Boston College	Northeastern University	94%
2	45	University of Vermont	University of Rhode Island	64%
2	46	Tufts University	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	82%
2	47	Harvard University	Northeastern University	91%
2	48	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	38%	upset
2	49	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	80%
2	50	University of Vermont	Northeastern University	86%
2	51	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	11%	upset
2	52	Boston College	Harvard University	61%
2	53	Tufts University	Northeastern University	93%
2	54	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	88%
2	55	Harvard University	University of Vermont	62%
2	56	Boston College	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	83%
3	57	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	96%
3	58	Tufts University	Harvard University	67%
3	59	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	University of Rhode Island	48%	upset
3	60	Boston College	University of Vermont	74%
3	61	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Harvard University	79%
3	62	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Northeastern University	76%
3	63	Tufts University	University of Vermont	71%
3	64	Boston College	University of Rhode Island	82%
3	65	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Harvard University	32%	upset
3	66	University of Vermont	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	18%	upset
3	67	Northeastern University	University of Rhode Island	23%	upset
3	68	Boston College	Tufts University	53%
3	69	University of Vermont	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	65%
3	70	Harvard University	University of Rhode Island	74%
3	71	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	65%
3	72	Boston College	Northeastern University	94%
3	73	University of Vermont	University of Rhode Island	63%
3	74	Tufts University	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	81%
3	75	Northeastern University	Harvard University	9%	upset
3	76	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	39%	upset
3	77	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	80%
3	78	University of Vermont	Northeastern University	85%
3	79	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	88%
3	80	Boston College	Harvard University	61%
3	81	Tufts University	Northeastern University	93%
3	82	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	88%
3	83	University of Vermont	Harvard University	37%	upset
3	84	Boston College	U. S. Coast Guard Academy	83%

Round 1

Team	Rec.	Eagles	Jumbos	Engineers	Catamounts	Crimson	Bears	Huskies	Rams
Boston College Eagles	5–2	✕	L	W	W	L	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	4–3	W	✕	L	L	W	W	L	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	5–2	L	W	✕	W	L	W	W	W
University of Vermont Catamounts	3–4	L	W	L	✕	L	L	W	W
Harvard University Crimson	6–1	W	L	W	W	✕	W	W	W
U. S. Coast Guard Academy Bears	2–5	L	L	L	W	L	✕	L	W
Northeastern University Huskies	3–4	L	W	L	L	L	W	✕	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	0–7	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 2

Team	Rec.	Eagles	Jumbos	Engineers	Catamounts	Crimson	Bears	Huskies	Rams
Boston College Eagles	7–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	6–1	L	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	4–3	L	L	✕	W	W	L	W	W
University of Vermont Catamounts	3–4	L	L	L	✕	L	W	W	W
Harvard University Crimson	3–4	L	L	L	W	✕	L	W	W
U. S. Coast Guard Academy Bears	3–4	L	L	W	L	W	✕	W	L
Northeastern University Huskies	0–7	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕	L
University of Rhode Island Rams	2–5	L	L	L	L	L	W	W	✕

Round 3

Team	Rec.	Eagles	Jumbos	Engineers	Catamounts	Crimson	Bears	Huskies	Rams
Boston College Eagles	7–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	5–2	L	✕	L	W	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	5–2	L	W	✕	L	W	W	W	W
University of Vermont Catamounts	5–2	L	L	W	✕	W	W	W	W
Harvard University Crimson	1–6	L	L	L	L	✕	L	L	W
U. S. Coast Guard Academy Bears	3–4	L	L	L	L	W	✕	W	W
Northeastern University Huskies	2–5	L	L	L	L	W	L	✕	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	0–7	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Filter by team:

#					Pos.
1	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
2	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Crimson	3-4-6
3	Bears	1-3-4	def.	Rams	2-5-6
4	Eagles	2-3-4	def.	Catamounts	1-5-6
5	Crimson	2-3-5	def.	Engineers	1-4-6
6	Huskies	1-2-3	def.	Bears	4-5-6
7	Catamounts	1-2-6	def.	Jumbos	3-4-5
8	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
9	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Bears	4-5-6
10	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Catamounts	3-5-6
11	Huskies	2-3-5	def.	Rams	1-4-6
12	Jumbos	2-3-4	def.	Eagles	1-5-6
13	Bears	1-2-6	def.	Catamounts	3-4-5
14	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
15	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Jumbos	1-5-6
16	Eagles	1-3-4	def.	Huskies	2-5-6
17	Catamounts	1-2-5	def.	Rams	3-4-6
18	Jumbos	1-3-6	def.	Bears	2-4-5
19	Crimson	1-3-4	def.	Huskies	2-5-6
20	Eagles	1-3-6	def.	Engineers	2-4-5
21	Jumbos	2-3-5	def.	Rams	1-4-6
22	Catamounts	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
23	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Bears	3-4-6
24	Crimson	1-4-5	def.	Eagles	2-3-6
25	Huskies	1-2-6	def.	Jumbos	3-4-5
26	Engineers	1-3-4	def.	Rams	2-5-6
27	Crimson	1-4-5	def.	Catamounts	2-3-6
28	Eagles	2-3-4	def.	Bears	1-5-6
29	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
30	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Crimson	3-4-5
31	Rams	2-3-5	def.	Bears	1-4-6
32	Eagles	2-3-4	def.	Catamounts	1-5-6
33	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Crimson	1-5-6
34	Bears	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
35	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Catamounts	4-5-6
36	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
37	Bears	2-3-4	def.	Crimson	1-5-6
38	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Catamounts	3-4-6
39	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
40	Eagles	1-3-4	def.	Jumbos	2-5-6
41	Catamounts	1-2-4	def.	Bears	3-5-6
42	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Rams	3-4-6
43	Jumbos	1-3-6	def.	Engineers	2-4-5
44	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
45	Catamounts	1-3-5	def.	Rams	2-4-6
46	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Bears	3-4-6
47	Crimson	1-3-6	def.	Huskies	2-4-5
48	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
49	Jumbos	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
50	Catamounts	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
51	Bears	2-4-5	def.	Engineers	1-3-6 DSQ
52	Eagles	1-3-4	def.	Crimson	2-5-6
53	Jumbos	2-3-4	def.	Huskies	1-5-6
54	Engineers	2-3-6	def.	Rams	1-4-5 DSQ
55	Crimson	1-2-6	def.	Catamounts	3-4-5
56	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Bears	3-4-5
57	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Huskies	1-5-6
58	Jumbos	2-4-6	def.	Crimson	1-3-5 DSQ
59	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
60	Eagles	2-3-4	def.	Catamounts	1-5-6
61	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Crimson	3-5-6
62	Bears	1-3-4	def.	Huskies	2-5-6
63	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Catamounts	3-4-6
64	Eagles	2-3-4	def.	Rams	1-5-6
65	Bears	2-3-4	def.	Crimson	1-5-6 DSQ
66	Catamounts	1-3-6	def.	Engineers	2-4-5
67	Huskies	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
68	Eagles	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6
69	Catamounts	1-2-5	def.	Bears	3-4-6
70	Crimson	1-3-4	def.	Rams	2-5-6
71	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Jumbos	1-5-6
72	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
73	Catamounts	3-4-5	def.	Rams	1-2-6 DSQ
74	Jumbos	1-2-3	def.	Bears	4-5-6
75	Huskies	2-4-6	def.	Crimson	1-3-5 DSQ
76	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
77	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Rams	3-4-6
78	Catamounts	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
79	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Bears	1-5-6
80	Eagles	1-2-5	def.	Crimson	3-4-6
81	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
82	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
83	Catamounts	2-3-4	def.	Crimson	1-5-6
84	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Bears	4-5-6

School	Team	Skippers	Crew
Boston College	Eagles	Henry Dumke '17 Peter Lynn '19 Wade Waddell '19	Megan Bamford '18 Kaitlin Driscoll '16 Emma Perry '19
Tufts University	Jumbos	Alexander Tong '17 Cameron Holley '19 Jack Bitney '19	Lara Dienemann '18 Aaron Klein '18 Natalie Danziger '17
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	Joseph Paggi '16 Trevor Long '19 Ty Ingram '18	Lisa Sukharev-Chuyan '16 Megan Mcknelly '17 Elizabeth Zhang '16
University of Vermont	Catamounts	Amina Brown '17 Jan Kite-Powell '19 William Crary '17	Haley Mcmahon '18 Mike Kanare '16 Lindsay Doyle '18 Sydney Connor '18
Harvard University	Crimson	Dylan Farrell '18 Jackson Wagner '19 Juan Perdomo '17 Nicholas Karnovsky '19	Christine Gosioco '19 Alejandra Resendiz '19 Catherine Tang '19
U. S. Coast Guard Academy	Bears	August Sturm '19 Austin Lettengarver '19 Kayla Ellis '16	Madelynn Widmeier '19 Rebecca Edmonds '19 Erin Morgan '18
Northeastern University	Huskies	Chris Colbeth '20 Peter Christensen '18 Robert Rose '20	Alexandra Nygren '20 Linnea Goldstein '16 Anne Wieland '19
University of Rhode Island	Rams	Dakota Northrup '19 Matthew Gibbs '17 Patrick Isherwood '17	Ellis Havelock '18 Ian Nannig '19 Jack Hurley '18

Conditions — 03/19/2016 (8am–6pm)

☀️Clear sky

Humidity 36% · Pressure 1018.2 hPa

Temperature

39°F

↑ 44°F ↓ 30°F

Feels like 31°F

Wind

● from ▲ toward

6.8 kn

avg · max 8.0 kn

Gusts to 16.1 kn

From NW (305°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover11% Sunshine11.0 hrs Humidity36% Pressure1018.2 hPa

What this breeze does at MIT — from fleet racing

Breeze: NW about 9 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)

In fleet races at MIT in this breeze: an underdogs’ day (−0.05)

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 ±0.05 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.

Orderliness beyond the fleet at MIT by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (112 labelled fleet-race days at MIT).

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