| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Roger Williams University | Hawks | 6–1 |
| 2 |  |
Brown University | Bears | 6–1 |
| 3 |  |
Boston College | Eagles | 5–2 |
| 4 |  |
University of Vermont | Catamounts | 4–3 |
| 5 |  |
Tufts University | Jumbos | 4–3 |
| 6 |  |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Engineers | 1–6 |
| 7 |  |
University of Rhode Island | Rams | 1–6 |
| 8 |  |
Northeastern University | Huskies | 1–6 |
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 12,301 team race matches sailed before 2019-03-09, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 20 of 23 matches (87%) with a log-loss of 0.397 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went well for the forecast. Orderliness +0.34 ± 0.38: a typical event, more orderly than 79% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Boston College | 8.85 | 11.85 | 2–0 | 1.6 | ≥+3.00 | 0.5 | 68% |
| 2 | Brown University | 7.64 | 9.23 | 5–1 | 3.5 | +1.59 | 1.6 | 17% |
| 1 | Roger Williams University | 8.36 | 9.11 | 5–1 | 4.4 | +0.75 | 0.3 | 50% |
| 4 | University of Vermont | 7.38 | 7.88 | 4–3 | 3.4 | +0.50 | 0.2 | 44% |
| 6 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 5.73 | 5.93 | 1–5 | 0.8 | +0.21 | 0.0 | 61% |
| 5 | Tufts University | 8.77 | 7.91 | 4–2 | 4.9 | −0.86 | 0.6 | 93% |
| 7 | University of Rhode Island | 6.54 | 5.40 | 1–6 | 1.9 | −1.14 | 0.7 | 95% |
| 8 | Northeastern University | 6.80 | 5.28 | 1–5 | 2.4 | −1.52 | 1.4 | 98% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jed Bell | Brown University | 1.97 | 3.56 | 5–1 | 3.5 | +1.59 | 1.6 | 17% |
| Vincent Yannelli | University of Vermont | 2.40 | 2.89 | 4–3 | 3.4 | +0.50 | 0.2 | 44% |
| Thomas Harden | University of Vermont | 2.71 | 3.21 | 4–3 | 3.4 | +0.50 | 0.2 | 44% |
| Alex Abate | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 1.87 | 2.07 | 1–5 | 0.8 | +0.21 | 0.0 | 61% |
| Michael O'Flaherty | University of Rhode Island | 2.38 | 1.98 | 1–2 | 1.2 | −0.39 | 0.0 | 88% |
| Alex Fasolo | Tufts University | 2.47 | 1.61 | 4–2 | 4.9 | −0.86 | 0.6 | 93% |
| Ansgar Jordan | Tufts University | 2.52 | 1.66 | 4–2 | 4.9 | −0.86 | 0.6 | 93% |
| Aidan Naughton | University of Rhode Island | 2.50 | 1.36 | 1–6 | 1.9 | −1.14 | 0.7 | 95% |
| Carolyn Corbet | Northeastern University | 2.49 | 0.97 | 1–5 | 2.4 | −1.52 | 1.4 | 98% |
| Garrett Connelly | University of Rhode Island | 1.62 | -1.38 | 0–4 | 0.7 | ≤−3.00 | 1.2 | >99% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | Hawks | Bears | Eagles | Catamounts | Jumbos | Engineers | Rams | Huskies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roger Williams University Hawks | 6–1 | ✕ | W | W | W | L | W | W | W |
| Brown University Bears | 6–1 | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W | W |
| Boston College Eagles | 5–2 | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W |
| University of Vermont Catamounts | 4–3 | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 4–3 | W | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers | 1–6 | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | L | W |
| University of Rhode Island Rams | 1–6 | L | L | L | L | L | W | ✕ | L |
| Northeastern University Huskies | 1–6 | L | L | L | L | L | L | W | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Hawks | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Huskies | 4-5-6 |
| 2 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Engineers | 4-5-6 |
| 3 | |
Bears | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Rams | 4-5-6 |
| 4 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-6 |
| 5 | |
Engineers | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Huskies | 4-5-6 |
| 6 | |
Hawks | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Bears | 2-4-6 |
| 7 | |
Catamounts | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-4-5 |
| 8 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Rams | 3-5-6 |
| 9 | |
Bears | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Engineers | 2-3-6 |
| 10 | |
Catamounts | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 2-3-6 |
| 11 | |
Hawks | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-6 |
| 12 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-4-6 |
| 13 | |
Bears | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Catamounts | 2-4-5 |
| 14 | |
Rams | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Engineers | 3-4-5 |
| 15 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-4-6 |
| 16 | |
Hawks | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Eagles | 4-5-6 |
| 17 | |
Catamounts | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Rams | 2-4-6 |
| 18 | |
Bears | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Jumbos | 2-3-6 |
| 19 | |
Hawks | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Engineers | 3-5-6 |
| 20 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Huskies | 4-5-6 |
| 21 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-6 |
| 22 | |
Hawks | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Catamounts | 2-4-5 |
| 23 | |
Bears | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Huskies | 2-5-6 |
| 24 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Engineers | 3-5-6 |
| 25 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hawks | 4-5-6 |
| 26 | |
Huskies | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-6 |
| 27 | |
Catamounts | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Engineers | 3-4-6 |
| 28 | |
Bears | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Eagles | 1-5-6 |
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 ±0.07 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.
Short write-ups of what the ratings and results show, with the numbers and how they were computed.
