| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Roger Williams University | Hawks 1 | 6–0 |
| 2 | |
Roger Williams University | Hawks 2 | 4–2 |
| 3 |  |
Boston University | Terriers | 3–3 |
| 4 |  |
Brown University | Bears | 3–3 |
| 5 |  |
Tufts University | Jumbos | 3–3 |
| 6 |  |
Northeastern University | Huskies | 2–4 |
| 7 |  |
University of Vermont | Catamounts | 0–6 |
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 19,057 team race matches sailed before 2023-03-04, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 14 of 19 matches (74%) with a log-loss of 0.554 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness −0.29 ± 0.41: a typical event, more orderly than 20% 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 | Roger Williams University Hawks 1 | 9.25 | 12.25 | 5–0 | 4.4 | ≥+3.00 | 0.9 | 53% |
| 2 | Roger Williams University Hawks 2 | 7.14 | 8.21 | 3–2 | 2.2 | +1.08 | 0.6 | 35% |
| 3 | Boston University Terriers | 7.16 | 7.86 | 5–3 | 4.0 | +0.70 | 0.5 | 35% |
| 6 | Northeastern University Huskies | 5.44 | 6.10 | 1–4 | 0.6 | +0.67 | 0.2 | 48% |
| 5 | Tufts University Jumbos | 6.77 | 6.74 | 2–5 | 2.0 | −0.03 | 0.0 | 68% |
| 4 | Brown University Bears | 8.55 | 6.65 | 3–4 | 5.4 | −1.90 | 3.5 | >99% |
| 7 | University of Vermont Catamounts | 5.00 | 2.00 | 0–1 | 0.3 | ≤−3.00 | 0.5 | >99% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlos De Castro | Roger Williams University | 3.03 | 6.03 | 3–0 | 2.5 | ≥+3.00 | 0.7 | 59% |
| George Higham | Roger Williams University | 2.63 | 5.63 | 5–0 | 4.4 | ≥+3.00 | 0.9 | 53% |
| Drew Mastovsky | Roger Williams University | 1.63 | 2.41 | 1–2 | 0.6 | +0.78 | 0.2 | 51% |
| Aidan Boni | Northeastern University | 1.16 | 1.83 | 1–4 | 0.6 | +0.67 | 0.2 | 48% |
| Adrian Winkelman | Northeastern University | 1.85 | 2.52 | 1–4 | 0.6 | +0.67 | 0.2 | 48% |
| Adrien Bellanger | Tufts University | 2.29 | 2.26 | 2–5 | 2.0 | −0.03 | 0.0 | 68% |
| Shea Smith | Tufts University | 2.15 | 2.12 | 2–5 | 2.0 | −0.03 | 0.0 | 68% |
| Clark Morris | Tufts University | 2.03 | 2.00 | 2–5 | 2.0 | −0.03 | 0.0 | 68% |
| Elliott Mendenhall | Boston University | 2.31 | 1.83 | 3–2 | 3.5 | −0.48 | 0.2 | 85% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | 1 | 2 | Terriers | Bears | Jumbos | Huskies | Catamounts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roger Williams University Hawks 1 | 10–2 | ✕ | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W |
| Roger Williams University Hawks 2 | 10–2 | ✕ | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W |
| Boston University Terriers | 3–3 | L | L | ✕ | W | W | L | W |
| Brown University Bears | 3–3 | L | L | L | ✕ | L | W | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 3–3 | L | L | L | W | ✕ | W | W |
| Northeastern University Huskies | 2–4 | L | L | W | L | L | ✕ | W |
| University of Vermont Catamounts | 0–6 | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Terriers | Bears | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston University Terriers | 1–0 | ✕ | W |
| Brown University Bears | 0–1 | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Terriers | Jumbos | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston University Terriers | 1–0 | ✕ | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 0–1 | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Bears | Jumbos | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown University Bears | 1–0 | ✕ | W |
| Tufts University Jumbos | 0–1 | L | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Hawks 2 | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-5-6 |
| 2 | |
Hawks 1 | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Terriers | 3-4-6 |
| 3 | |
Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-5-6 |
| 4 | |
Hawks 2 | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Catamounts | 4-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Hawks 1 | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-5-6 |
| 6 | |
Terriers | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Bears | 1-5-6 |
| 7 | |
Huskies | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-6 |
| 8 | |
Hawks 1 | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hawks 2 | 3-5-6 |
| 9 | |
Jumbos | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Bears | 2-5-6 |
| 10 | |
Huskies | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Terriers | 2-3-6 |
| 11 | |
Hawks 1 | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Catamounts | 4-5-6 |
| 12 | |
Bears | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hawks 2 | 3-5-6 |
| 13 | |
Jumbos | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 2-4-6 |
| 14 | |
Terriers | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-5 |
| 15 | |
Hawks 1 | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Bears | 4-5-6 |
| 16 | |
Hawks 2 | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-5-6 |
| 17 | |
Terriers | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-4-5 |
| 18 | |
Bears | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-6 |
| 19 | |
Hawks 1 | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Huskies | 3-4-6 |
| 20 | |
Hawks 2 | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Terriers | 3-4-5 |
| 21 | |
Jumbos | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-6 |
| 22 | |
Terriers | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Bears | 2-3-6 |
| 23 | |
Terriers | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Jumbos | 3-4-5 |
| 24 | |
Bears | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Jumbos | 2-3-6 |
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 3% 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.
