Navigate

Wood Trophy

# SchoolTeam Rec.
1 Tufts University Tufts University Jumbos 9–2
1 University of Vermont University of Vermont Catamounts 9–2
3 Fordham University Fordham University Rams 7–4
4 University of Rhode Island University of Rhode Island Rams 5–6
5 Harvard University Harvard University Crimson 4–4
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 3–5
7 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Quakers 3–5
8 Northeastern University Northeastern University Huskies 2–6
9 Princeton University Princeton University Tigers 0–8

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 12,301 team race matches sailed before 2019-03-09, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 30 of 42 matches (71%) with a log-loss of 0.491 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness −0.25 ± 0.33: a typical event, more orderly than 21% 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.

PlaceSchool Pred. Strength Boats (skipper / crew, boat value) Pred. win % Recordvs forecast
1Tufts University
Jumbos		110.09
school +0.12		Jackson Mccoy / Emma Clutterbuck 3.48
Cameron Holley / Ian Morgan 3.25
Christopher Keller / Juliana Testa 3.24		89%9–2 (82%)−0.8
1University of Vermont
Catamounts		38.29Jan Kite-Powell / Emma Janson 3.07
Colin Richards / Amanda Engeman 2.79
Cameron Nash / Gabrielle Myers 2.40		53%9–2 (82%)+3.2
3Fordham University
Rams		48.20
school +0.17		Eduardo Mintzias / Edward Harrison 2.94
Porter Kavle / Brigid Murphy 3.00
Thomas Capozzi / Sarah Jackman 1.91 5–1
Clayton Snyder / Sarah Jackman 2–3		52%7–4 (64%)+1.2
4University of Rhode Island
Rams		29.02
school −0.36		Brendan Read / Lauren Richards 3.08
Luke Ingalls / Caitlin Abel 2.94
Dakota Northrup / Kathryn Nota 3.33		70%5–6 (45%)−2.7
5Harvard University
Crimson		57.47
home +0.39		Jackson Wagner / Katherine Barkin 2.63
Francis Doyle / Kendra Heredia 2.22
Eric Hansen / Maria Tarazona Guzman 2.01		45%4–4 (50%)+0.4
6Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Engineers		67.17
school −0.07		James Peraire-Bueno / Elizabeth Obermaier 2.36
Dana Haig / Alex Abate
Lulu Russell / Isabelle Yen		40%3–5 (38%)−0.2
7University of Pennsylvania
Quakers		87.01Tanner Probst / Adam Hano 1.97
Lenox Butcher / Jenna Weiner 2.45
Ava Esquier / Kelly Hanlon 2.66 1–3
Amanda Majernik / Lauren Nguyen 2.41 2–2		37%3–5 (38%)+0.0
8Northeastern University
Huskies		77.13
school +0.07		Jackson Hamilton / Coleen Ross 2.84
Santiago Hirschmann / Jon Ewing
Ted Bjerregaard / Julianne Mozzer		39%2–6 (25%)−1.1
9Princeton University
Tigers		92.16Connor Mraz / Isabella Impalli
William Mandelbaum / Devin Sun
Connor Larson / Quinn Donohue		0%0–8 (0%)−0.0

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.

PlaceSchoolStrength Perf.RecordExp.
wins		ΔSurprise
(bits)		P(this good
or better)
1University of Vermont8.2910.139–25.8+1.833.92%
3Fordham University8.208.877–45.8+0.670.630%
5Harvard University7.477.764–43.6+0.280.153%
7University of Pennsylvania7.017.023–53.0+0.010.065%
6Massachusetts Institute of Technology7.177.033–53.2−0.130.071%
1Tufts University10.099.489–29.8−0.610.489%
8Northeastern University7.136.052–63.1−1.080.894%
4University of Rhode Island9.027.645–67.7−1.382.899%
9Princeton University2.16-0.840–80.0≤−3.000.0>99%

By skipper

SkipperSchoolValue Perf.RecordExp.
wins		ΔSurprise
(bits)		P(this good
or better)
Eduardo MintziasFordham University2.943.617–45.8+0.670.630%
Francis DoyleHarvard University2.222.504–43.6+0.280.153%
Eric HansenHarvard University2.012.304–43.6+0.280.153%
Amanda MajernikUniversity of Pennsylvania2.412.612–21.9+0.190.069%
Ava EsquierUniversity of Pennsylvania2.662.541–31.1−0.130.073%
James Peraire-BuenoMassachusetts Institute of Technology2.362.233–53.2−0.130.071%
Christopher KellerTufts University3.242.629–29.8−0.610.489%
Clayton SnyderFordham University2.121.032–33.3−1.091.095%
Connor MrazPrinceton University1.61-1.390–80.0≤−3.000.0>99%
William MandelbaumPrinceton University-0.44-3.440–80.0≤−3.000.0>99%
Connor LarsonPrinceton University0.42-2.580–80.0≤−3.000.0>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#WinnerLoser P(winner)
11Northeastern UniversityPrinceton University100%
12Tufts UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology95%
13University of PennsylvaniaHarvard University44%upset
14Fordham UniversityUniversity of Rhode Island27%upset
15University of VermontNortheastern University77%
16Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyPrinceton University99%
17Tufts UniversityHarvard University94%
18Fordham UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania72%
19University of Rhode IslandUniversity of Vermont68%
110Northeastern UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology48%upset
111Harvard UniversityPrinceton University100%
112Fordham UniversityTufts University11%upset
113University of Rhode IslandUniversity of Pennsylvania87%
114University of VermontMassachusetts Institute of Technology75%
115Harvard UniversityNortheastern University58%
116Fordham UniversityPrinceton University100%
117Tufts UniversityUniversity of Rhode Island75%
118University of VermontUniversity of Pennsylvania76%
119Harvard UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology58%
120Fordham UniversityNortheastern University75%
121University of Rhode IslandPrinceton University100%
122Tufts UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania96%
123University of VermontHarvard University68%
124Fordham UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology76%
125University of Rhode IslandNortheastern University86%
126University of PennsylvaniaPrinceton University99%
127Tufts UniversityUniversity of Vermont86%
128Harvard UniversityFordham University31%upset
129Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Rhode Island14%upset
130University of PennsylvaniaNortheastern University43%upset
131Tufts UniversityPrinceton University100%
132University of VermontFordham University47%upset
133University of Rhode IslandHarvard University81%
134Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Pennsylvania56%
135Tufts UniversityNortheastern University94%
136University of VermontPrinceton University100%
137University of VermontFordham University46%upset
138Tufts UniversityUniversity of Rhode Island74%
139University of VermontUniversity of Rhode Island33%upset
140Tufts UniversityFordham University88%
141Fordham UniversityUniversity of Rhode Island28%upset
142University of VermontTufts University15%upset

Round 1

TeamRec.JumbosCatamountsRamsRamsCrimsonEngineersQuakersHuskiesTigers
Tufts University Jumbos9–2✕LWWWWWWW
University of Vermont Catamounts9–2W✕WWWWWWW
Fordham University Rams7–4LL✕WLWWWW
University of Rhode Island Rams5–6LLL✕WLWWW
Harvard University Crimson4–4LLWL✕WLWW
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers3–5LLLWL✕WLW
University of Pennsylvania Quakers3–5LLLLWL✕WW
Northeastern University Huskies2–6LLLLLWL✕W
Princeton University Tigers0–8LLLLLLLL✕
# Winner Loser Pos.
1 Northeastern University Huskies 1-2-3 def. Princeton University Tigers 4-5-6
2 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-3 def. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 4-5-6
3 University of Pennsylvania Quakers 1-3-5 def. Harvard University Crimson 2-4-6
4 Fordham University Rams 1-3-6 def. University of Rhode Island Rams 2-4-5
5 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-6 def. Northeastern University Huskies 3-4-5
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 1-2-3 def. Princeton University Tigers 4-5-6
7 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-3 def. Harvard University Crimson 4-5-6
8 Fordham University Rams 1-2-3 def. University of Pennsylvania Quakers 4-5-6
9 University of Rhode Island Rams 1-2-3 def. University of Vermont Catamounts 4-5-6
10 Northeastern University Huskies 1-3-6 def. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 2-4-5
11 Harvard University Crimson 1-2-3 def. Princeton University Tigers 4-5-6
12 Fordham University Rams 1-2-3 def. Tufts University Jumbos 4-5-6
13 University of Rhode Island Rams 1-2-3 def. University of Pennsylvania Quakers 4-5-6
14 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-6 def. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 3-4-5
15 Harvard University Crimson 1-2-4 def. Northeastern University Huskies 3-5-6
16 Fordham University Rams 1-2-5 def. Princeton University Tigers 3-4-6
17 Tufts University Jumbos 1-3-4 def. University of Rhode Island Rams 2-5-6
18 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-6 def. University of Pennsylvania Quakers 3-4-5
19 Harvard University Crimson 1-2-6 def. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 3-4-5
20 Fordham University Rams 1-2-5 def. Northeastern University Huskies 3-4-6
21 University of Rhode Island Rams 1-2-3 def. Princeton University Tigers 4-5-6
22 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-3 def. University of Pennsylvania Quakers 4-5-6
23 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-3-5 def. Harvard University Crimson 2-4-6
24 Fordham University Rams 1-2-4 def. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 3-5-6
25 University of Rhode Island Rams 1-2-3 def. Northeastern University Huskies 4-5-6
26 University of Pennsylvania Quakers 1-2-6 def. Princeton University Tigers 3-4-5
27 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-5 def. University of Vermont Catamounts 3-4-6
28 Harvard University Crimson 1-2-4 def. Fordham University Rams 3-5-6
29 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 2-3-4 def. University of Rhode Island Rams 1-5-6
30 University of Pennsylvania Quakers 1-3-6 def. Northeastern University Huskies 2-4-5
31 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-5 def. Princeton University Tigers 3-4-6
32 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-4-5 def. Fordham University Rams 2-3-6
33 University of Rhode Island Rams 1-2-5 def. Harvard University Crimson 3-4-6
34 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers 1-2-3 def. University of Pennsylvania Quakers 4-5-6
35 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-5 def. Northeastern University Huskies 3-4-6
36 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-3 def. Princeton University Tigers 4-5-6
37 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-4 def. Fordham University Rams 3-5-6
38 Tufts University Jumbos 2-3-4 def. University of Rhode Island Rams 1-5-6
39 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-5 def. University of Rhode Island Rams 3-4-6
40 Tufts University Jumbos 1-2-6 def. Fordham University Rams 3-4-5
41 Fordham University Rams 1-2-3 def. University of Rhode Island Rams 4-5-6
42 University of Vermont Catamounts 1-2-5 def. Tufts University Jumbos 3-4-6

Conditions — 03/09/2019 (8am–6pm)

☀️Clear sky
Humidity 57%  ·  Pressure 1026.0 hPa

Temperature

33°F
↑ 39°F   ↓ 18°F
Feels like 27°F

Wind

● from   ▲ toward
3.6 kn
avg  ·  max 5.6 kn
Gusts to 9.5 kn
From NNW (337°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover0% Sunshine10.8 hrs Humidity57% Pressure1026.0 hPa

What this breeze does at Harvard — from fleet racing

Breeze: NW about 7 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)
In fleet races at Harvard in this breeze: a typical day (+0.02)
Nothing in this breeze favours either side in fleet racing here: results follow the ratings about as 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 ±0.02 means a rating gap counts about 2% more 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 Harvard by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (59 labelled fleet-race days at Harvard).

From the notes

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

All notes →