| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yale University | Bulldogs | 8–3 | |
| 2 | Tufts University | Jumbos | 8–3 | |
| 3 | Roger Williams University | Hawks | 8–3 | |
| 4 | Boston University | Terriers | 5–6 | |
| 5 | Brown University | Bears | 8–4 | |
| 6 | University of Vermont | Catamounts | 7–5 | |
| 7 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Engineers | 3–9 | |
| 7 | University of Rhode Island | Rams | 3–9 | |
| 9 | Northeastern University | Huskies | 2–10 |
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 13,407 team race matches sailed before 2019-04-06, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 38 of 55 matches (69%) with a log-loss of 0.628 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went poorly for the forecast. Orderliness −0.39 ± 0.28: an upset-heavy event, more orderly than 14% 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 | Yale University | 8.24 | 9.56 | 8–3 | 5.2 | +1.32 | 2.6 | 6% |
| 3 | Roger Williams University | 8.38 | 9.50 | 8–3 | 5.7 | +1.12 | 1.8 | 11% |
| 7 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 5.92 | 6.83 | 3–9 | 1.5 | +0.91 | 1.1 | 18% |
| 6 | University of Vermont | 7.30 | 8.02 | 7–7 | 5.0 | +0.73 | 1.1 | 17% |
| 5 | Brown University | 8.35 | 8.46 | 9–5 | 8.7 | +0.11 | 0.0 | 56% |
| 2 | Tufts University | 9.81 | 9.16 | 8–3 | 9.1 | −0.65 | 0.5 | 90% |
| 4 | Boston University | 9.16 | 8.37 | 7–6 | 9.1 | −0.79 | 1.2 | 95% |
| 7 | University of Rhode Island | 7.63 | 6.38 | 3–9 | 5.6 | −1.26 | 2.3 | 98% |
| 9 | Northeastern University | 7.49 | 5.96 | 2–10 | 5.0 | −1.53 | 3.1 | 99% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Tobin | Yale University | 2.27 | 4.12 | 4–1 | 2.6 | +1.85 | 1.8 | 15% |
| Dylan Dimarchi | Yale University | 2.97 | 4.29 | 8–3 | 5.2 | +1.32 | 2.6 | 6% |
| Joshua Stone | University of Vermont | 1.65 | 2.68 | 7–5 | 4.5 | +1.03 | 1.9 | 9% |
| Alex Abate | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 2.24 | 3.03 | 2–6 | 1.1 | +0.79 | 0.6 | 30% |
| Thomas Harden | University of Vermont | 2.84 | 3.56 | 7–7 | 5.0 | +0.73 | 1.1 | 17% |
| Jed Bell | Brown University | 2.37 | 2.48 | 9–5 | 8.7 | +0.11 | 0.0 | 56% |
| Ansgar Jordan | Tufts University | 3.08 | 2.43 | 8–3 | 9.1 | −0.65 | 0.5 | 90% |
| Alex Fasolo | Tufts University | 2.75 | 2.11 | 8–3 | 9.1 | −0.65 | 0.5 | 90% |
| Michael O'Flaherty | University of Rhode Island | 2.41 | 1.15 | 3–9 | 5.6 | −1.26 | 2.3 | 98% |
| Zachary Bresnick | Northeastern University | 2.25 | 0.73 | 2–10 | 5.0 | −1.53 | 3.1 | 99% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | Bulldogs | Jumbos | Hawks | Terriers | Bears | Catamounts | Engineers | Rams | Huskies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yale University Bulldogs | 6–2 | ✕ | L | L | W | W | W | W | W | W | |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 7–1 | W | ✕ | W | W | W | L | W | W | W | |
| Roger Williams University Hawks | 6–2 | W | L | ✕ | W | L | W | W | W | W | |
| Boston University Terriers | 4–4 | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | L | W | W | |
| Brown University Bears | 4–4 | L | L | W | L | ✕ | L | W | W | W | |
| University of Vermont Catamounts | 4–4 | L | W | L | L | W | ✕ | L | W | W | |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers | 2–6 | L | L | L | W | L | W | ✕ | L | L | |
| University of Rhode Island Rams | 2–6 | L | L | L | L | L | L | W | ✕ | W | |
| Northeastern University Huskies | 1–7 | L | L | L | L | L | L | W | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Terriers | Bears | Catamounts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston University Terriers | 2–0 | ✕ | W | W | |
| Brown University Bears | 1–1 | L | ✕ | W | |
| University of Vermont Catamounts | 0–2 | L | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Bulldogs | Jumbos | Hawks | Terriers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yale University Bulldogs | 2–1 | ✕ | W | W | L | |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 1–2 | L | ✕ | L | W | |
| Roger Williams University Hawks | 2–1 | L | W | ✕ | W | |
| Boston University Terriers | 1–2 | W | L | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Bears | Catamounts | Engineers | Rams | Huskies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown University Bears | 4–0 | ✕ | W | W | W | W | |
| University of Vermont Catamounts | 3–1 | L | ✕ | W | W | W | |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers | 1–3 | L | L | ✕ | W | L | |
| University of Rhode Island Rams | 1–3 | L | L | L | ✕ | W | |
| Northeastern University Huskies | 1–3 | L | L | W | L | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Terriers | 1-2-3 | def. | Bears | 4-5-6 | ||
| 2 | Huskies | 1-2-4 | def. | Engineers | 3-5-6 | ||
| 3 | Jumbos | 1-2-6 | def. | Hawks | 3-4-5 | ||
| 4 | Catamounts | 1-2-5 | def. | Rams | 3-4-6 | ||
| 5 | Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | Bears | 3-4-6 | ||
| 6 | Terriers | 1-3-5 | def. | Huskies | 2-4-6 DSQ | ||
| 7 | Hawks | 1-2-5 | def. | Engineers | 3-4-6 | ||
| 8 | Catamounts | 3-4-6 | def. | Jumbos | 1-2-5 DSQ | ||
| 9 | Bulldogs | 1-2-3 | def. | Terriers | 4-5-6 | ||
| 10 | Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | Engineers | 3-5-6 | ||
| 11 | Hawks | 1-2-5 | def. | Huskies | 3-4-6 | ||
| 12 | Jumbos | 1-2-6 | def. | Rams | 3-4-5 | ||
| 13 | Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | Catamounts | 3-4-6 | ||
| 14 | Bears | 1-3-5 | def. | Huskies | 2-4-6 | ||
| 15 | Hawks | 1-2-6 | def. | Terriers | 3-4-5 | ||
| 16 | Jumbos | 1-2-3 | def. | Engineers | 4-5-6 | ||
| 17 | Rams | 1-3-6 | def. | Huskies | 2-4-5 | ||
| 18 | Terriers | 1-2-4 | def. | Catamounts | 3-5-6 | ||
| 19 | Bears | 1-2-3 | def. | Hawks | 4-5-6 | ||
| 20 | Jumbos | 1-2-5 | def. | Huskies | 3-4-6 | ||
| 21 | Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | Engineers | 3-4-6 | ||
| 22 | Hawks | 1-4-5 | def. | Rams | 2-3-6 | ||
| 23 | Jumbos | 2-3-4 | def. | Bulldogs | 1-5-6 | ||
| 24 | Engineers | 2-3-5 | def. | Terriers | 1-4-6 | ||
| 25 | Catamounts | 1-2-4 | def. | Bears | 3-5-6 | ||
| 26 | Bulldogs | 1-3-4 | def. | Huskies | 2-5-6 | ||
| 27 | Rams | 1-2-5 | def. | Engineers | 3-4-6 | ||
| 28 | Jumbos | 1-2-5 | def. | Bears | 3-4-6 | ||
| 29 | Hawks | 1-2-4 | def. | Catamounts | 3-5-6 | ||
| 30 | Terriers | 1-3-5 | def. | Rams | 2-4-6 | ||
| 31 | Catamounts | 1-2-4 | def. | Huskies | 3-5-6 | ||
| 32 | Hawks | 1-3-5 | def. | Bulldogs | 2-4-6 | ||
| 33 | Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | Rams | 3-5-6 | ||
| 34 | Jumbos | 1-2-5 | def. | Terriers | 3-4-6 | ||
| 35 | Engineers | 1-2-5 | def. | Catamounts | 3-4-6 | ||
| 36 | Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | Rams | 3-4-6 | ||
| 37 | Terriers | 1-2-6 | def. | Bears | 3-4-5 | ||
| 38 | Bears | 1-4-5 | def. | Catamounts | 2-3-6 | ||
| 39 | Terriers | 2-3-4 | def. | Catamounts | 1-5-6 | ||
| 40 | Hawks | 1-3-6 | def. | Jumbos | 2-4-5 | ||
| 41 | Terriers | 1-2-5 | def. | Bulldogs | 3-4-6 | ||
| 42 | Bulldogs | 1-2-4 | def. | Hawks | 3-5-6 | ||
| 43 | Jumbos | 2-3-4 | def. | Terriers | 1-5-6 | ||
| 44 | Bulldogs | 1-2-6 | def. | Jumbos | 3-4-5 | ||
| 45 | Hawks | 1-2-6 | def. | Terriers | 3-4-5 | ||
| 46 | Bears | 1-3-4 | def. | Rams | 2-5-6 | ||
| 47 | Catamounts | 1-2-3 | def. | Engineers | 4-5-6 | ||
| 48 | Bears | 1-2-6 | def. | Huskies | 3-4-5 | ||
| 49 | Catamounts | 1-2-5 | def. | Rams | 3-4-6 | ||
| 50 | Huskies | 1-2-5 | def. | Engineers | 3-4-6 | ||
| 51 | Bears | 2-3-4 | def. | Catamounts | 1-5-6 | ||
| 52 | Engineers | 1-2-5 | def. | Rams | 3-4-6 | ||
| 53 | Catamounts | 1-2-4 | def. | Huskies | 3-5-6 | ||
| 54 | Bears | 2-3-5 | def. | Engineers | 1-4-6 | ||
| 55 | Rams | 1-2-5 | def. | Huskies | 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 ±0.04 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.