| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Brown University | Bears | 10–4 |
| 2 |  |
Harvard University | Crimson | 10–4 |
| 3 |  |
Yale University | Bulldogs | 9–5 |
| 4 |  |
Boston College | Eagles | 9–5 |
| 5 |  |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Engineers | 8–6 |
| 6 |  |
Tufts University | Jumbos | 7–7 |
| 7 |  |
University of South Florida | Bulls | 2–7 |
| 8 |  |
Northeastern University | Huskies | 2–7 |
| 9 |  |
University of Rhode Island | Rams | 2–7 |
| 10 |  |
Roger Williams University | Hawks | 1–8 |
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 20,149 team race matches sailed before 2023-03-25, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 44 of 62 matches (71%) with a log-loss of 0.512 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness −0.17 ± 0.25: a typical event, more orderly than 26% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Tufts University | 7.35 | 8.47 | 7–7 | 4.5 | +1.13 | 2.1 | 8% |
| 9 | University of Rhode Island | 5.61 | 6.25 | 2–7 | 1.3 | +0.64 | 0.3 | 39% |
| 1 | Brown University | 9.11 | 9.60 | 11–4 | 9.8 | +0.49 | 0.4 | 33% |
| 5 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 8.65 | 8.72 | 8–6 | 7.8 | +0.07 | 0.0 | 58% |
| 2 | Harvard University | 9.33 | 9.22 | 10–5 | 10.3 | −0.11 | 0.0 | 69% |
| 4 | Boston College | 9.15 | 8.86 | 9–6 | 9.8 | −0.29 | 0.2 | 79% |
| 7 | University of South Florida | 6.47 | 6.16 | 2–7 | 2.4 | −0.31 | 0.1 | 78% |
| 8 | Northeastern University | 6.41 | 6.08 | 2–7 | 2.4 | −0.33 | 0.1 | 79% |
| 3 | Yale University | 9.82 | 9.05 | 10–5 | 11.9 | −0.77 | 1.1 | 94% |
| 10 | Roger Williams University | 6.08 | 5.12 | 1–8 | 1.9 | −0.96 | 0.6 | 92% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annika Fedde | Tufts University | 2.20 | 3.33 | 7–7 | 4.5 | +1.13 | 2.1 | 8% |
| Lily Moore | University of Rhode Island | 0.86 | 1.50 | 2–7 | 1.3 | +0.64 | 0.3 | 39% |
| Okyanus Arıkan | University of Rhode Island | 2.51 | 3.15 | 2–7 | 1.3 | +0.64 | 0.3 | 39% |
| Sarah Burn | Harvard University | 3.00 | 2.89 | 10–5 | 10.3 | −0.11 | 0.0 | 69% |
| Cordelia Burn | Harvard University | 3.11 | 3.00 | 10–5 | 10.3 | −0.11 | 0.0 | 69% |
| Lucy Brock | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 2.79 | 2.46 | 2–7 | 2.4 | −0.33 | 0.1 | 79% |
| Emma Cowles | Yale University | 3.22 | 2.46 | 10–5 | 11.9 | −0.77 | 1.1 | 94% |
| Claire Siegel-Wilson | Roger Williams University | 2.40 | 1.43 | 1–8 | 1.9 | −0.96 | 0.6 | 92% |
| Katherine Mcgagh | Roger Williams University | 1.46 | 0.50 | 1–8 | 1.9 | −0.96 | 0.6 | 92% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | Bears | Crimson | Bulldogs | Eagles | Engineers | Jumbos | Bulls | Huskies | Rams | Hawks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown University Bears | 6–3 | ✕ | L | L | W | W | W | W | W | L | W |
| Harvard University Crimson | 8–1 | W | ✕ | W | W | L | W | W | W | W | W |
| Yale University Bulldogs | 7–2 | W | L | ✕ | L | W | W | W | W | W | W |
| Boston College Eagles | 6–3 | L | L | W | ✕ | L | W | W | W | W | W |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers | 6–3 | L | W | L | W | ✕ | L | W | W | W | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 5–4 | L | L | L | L | W | ✕ | W | W | W | W |
| University of South Florida Bulls | 2–7 | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | L |
| Northeastern University Huskies | 2–7 | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W |
| University of Rhode Island Rams | 2–7 | W | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W |
| Roger Williams University Hawks | 1–8 | L | L | L | L | L | L | W | L | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Bears | Crimson | Bulldogs | Eagles | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown University Bears | 1–0 | ✕ | W | – | – |
| Harvard University Crimson | 0–1 | L | ✕ | – | – |
| Yale University Bulldogs | 1–0 | – | – | ✕ | W |
| Boston College Eagles | 0–1 | – | – | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Bears | Crimson | Bulldogs | Eagles | Engineers | Jumbos | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown University Bears | 4–1 | ✕ | W | W | L | W | W |
| Harvard University Crimson | 2–3 | L | ✕ | L | L | W | W |
| Yale University Bulldogs | 2–3 | L | W | ✕ | W | L | L |
| Boston College Eagles | 3–2 | W | W | L | ✕ | L | W |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers | 2–3 | L | L | W | W | ✕ | L |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 2–3 | L | L | W | L | W | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Huskies | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-5 |
| 2 | |
Engineers | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Hawks | 2-4-5 |
| 3 | |
Crimson | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Bulls | 3-4-6 |
| 4 | |
Bears | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 1-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Bulldogs | 3-5-6 |
| 6 | |
Engineers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-4-6 |
| 7 | |
Crimson | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Rams | 2-4-6 |
| 8 | |
Bears | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-4-6 |
| 9 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Bulls | 3-4-6 |
| 10 | |
Eagles | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Jumbos | 2-4-6 |
| 11 | |
Engineers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Crimson | 3-4-6 |
| 12 | |
Bears | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-4-6 |
| 13 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Rams | 4-5-6 |
| 14 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-5-6 |
| 15 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Bulls | 3-5-6 |
| 16 | |
Crimson | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Bears | 2-4-5 |
| 17 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Engineers | 3-4-6 |
| 18 | |
Jumbos | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Huskies | 1-5-6 |
| 19 | |
Bulls | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Rams | 2-3-6 |
| 20 | |
Eagles | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-4-6 |
| 21 | |
Bulldogs | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Bears | 1-5-6 |
| 22 | |
Crimson | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 2-5-6 |
| 23 | |
Engineers | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Bulls | 3-5-6 |
| 24 | |
Huskies | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-4-5 |
| 25 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Rams | 3-5-6 |
| 26 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-5-6 |
| 27 | |
Bears | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Bulls | 4-5-6 |
| 28 | |
Crimson | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hawks | 4-5-6 |
| 29 | |
Engineers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-6 |
| 30 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Huskies | 4-5-6 |
| 31 | |
Jumbos | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Bulls | 2-4-5 |
| 32 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hawks | 3-5-6 |
| 33 | |
Rams | 2-3-4 DSQ | def. | |
Bears | 1-5-6 DSQ |
| 34 | |
Crimson | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-5-6 |
| 35 | |
Engineers | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Eagles | 1-5-6 |
| 36 | |
Hawks | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Bulls | 3-5-6 |
| 37 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-5 |
| 38 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-4-6 |
| 39 | |
Bears | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Engineers | 2-4-5 |
| 40 | |
Crimson | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Eagles | 3-4-6 |
| 41 | |
Rams | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Hawks | 2-4-5 |
| 42 | |
Bulls | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 1-4-6 |
| 43 | |
Jumbos | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Engineers | 1-5-6 |
| 44 | |
Crimson | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Bulldogs | 4-5-6 |
| 45 | |
Bears | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Eagles | 2-4-5 |
| 61 | |
Bulldogs | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Eagles | 1-4-6 |
| 62 | |
Bears | 1-5-6 DSQ | def. | |
Crimson | 2-3-4 DSQ,DSQ |
| 46 | |
Bears | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Engineers | 4-5-6 |
| 47 | |
Bulldogs | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Eagles | 2-5-6 |
| 48 | |
Crimson | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Jumbos | 1-4-6 |
| 49 | |
Bears | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Bulldogs | 3-4-6 |
| 50 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Engineers | 4-5-6 |
| 51 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Crimson | 4-5-6 |
| 52 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Bulldogs | 3-4-5 |
| 53 | |
Eagles | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Bears | 1-4-6 |
| 54 | |
Crimson | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Engineers | 2-5-6 |
| 55 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-5-6 |
| 56 | |
Engineers | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Bulldogs | 1-4-6 |
| 57 | |
Bears | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Crimson | 3-4-6 |
| 58 | |
Engineers | 2-5-6 | def. | |
Eagles | 1-3-4 DSQ |
| 59 | |
Bears | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Jumbos | 1-4-6 |
| 60 | |
Bulldogs | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Crimson | 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 ±0.01 means a rating gap counts about 1% 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.
