| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Georgetown University | Hoyas | 7–0 |
| 2 |  |
Boston College | Eagles | 6–1 |
| 3 |  |
Old Dominion University | Monarchs | 5–2 |
| 4 |  |
Tulane University | Green Wave | 4–3 |
| 5 |  |
University of Pennsylvania | Quakers | 3–4 |
| 6 |  |
Fordham University | Rams | 2–5 |
| 7 |  |
Connecticut College | Camels | 1–6 |
| 8 |  |
University of Vermont | Catamounts | 0–7 |
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 22,415 team race matches sailed before 2024-03-09, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 25 of 28 matches (89%) with a log-loss of 0.257 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went well for the forecast. Orderliness +0.47 ± 0.36: an orderly event, more orderly than 92% 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 | Georgetown University | 10.77 | 13.77 | 7–0 | 5.9 | ≥+3.00 | 1.7 | 29% |
| 3 | Old Dominion University | 8.85 | 10.24 | 5–2 | 3.4 | +1.39 | 1.6 | 14% |
| 2 | Boston College | 10.26 | 11.06 | 6–1 | 5.3 | +0.81 | 0.4 | 44% |
| 4 | Tulane University | 9.53 | 9.23 | 4–3 | 4.3 | −0.29 | 0.1 | 79% |
| 7 | Connecticut College | 6.53 | 5.85 | 1–6 | 1.3 | −0.68 | 0.1 | 93% |
| 6 | Fordham University | 8.59 | 7.29 | 2–5 | 3.1 | −1.30 | 1.0 | 97% |
| 5 | University of Pennsylvania | 9.64 | 8.27 | 3–4 | 4.5 | −1.38 | 1.4 | 97% |
| 8 | University of Vermont | 4.88 | 1.88 | 0–7 | 0.2 | ≤−3.00 | 0.3 | >99% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diogo Silva | Old Dominion University | 2.72 | 4.11 | 5–2 | 3.4 | +1.39 | 1.6 | 14% |
| Noyl Odom | Old Dominion University | 2.82 | 4.21 | 5–2 | 3.4 | +1.39 | 1.6 | 14% |
| Peter Joslin | Boston College | 3.11 | 3.92 | 6–1 | 5.3 | +0.81 | 0.4 | 44% |
| Wade Anthony | Connecticut College | 2.31 | 1.64 | 1–5 | 1.2 | −0.67 | 0.1 | 93% |
| Ryan Mckinney | Connecticut College | 2.20 | 1.52 | 1–6 | 1.3 | −0.68 | 0.1 | 93% |
| Charles Bresnahan | Connecticut College | 1.83 | 1.15 | 1–6 | 1.3 | −0.68 | 0.1 | 93% |
| Beckett Kumler | Fordham University | 2.41 | 1.06 | 1–4 | 1.9 | −1.35 | 0.8 | 96% |
| Benjamin Honig | University of Pennsylvania | 2.58 | 1.20 | 3–4 | 4.5 | −1.38 | 1.4 | 97% |
| Elizabeth Amelotte | University of Vermont | 1.61 | -1.39 | 0–6 | 0.2 | ≤−3.00 | 0.2 | >99% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | Hoyas | Eagles | Monarchs | Wave | Quakers | Rams | Camels | Catamounts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Georgetown University Hoyas | 7–0 | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W | W | W |
| Boston College Eagles | 6–1 | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W | W |
| Old Dominion University Monarchs | 5–2 | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W |
| Tulane University Green Wave | 4–3 | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W | W |
| University of Pennsylvania Quakers | 3–4 | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W |
| Fordham University Rams | 2–5 | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W |
| Connecticut College Camels | 1–6 | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W |
| University of Vermont Catamounts | 0–7 | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Hoyas | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Monarchs | 3-4-6 |
| 2 | |
Quakers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-6 |
| 3 | |
Green Wave | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Camels | 2-5-6 |
| 4 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Hoyas | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Rams | 3-5-6 |
| 6 | |
Monarchs | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Camels | 3-5-6 |
| 7 | |
Quakers | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-5-6 |
| 8 | |
Eagles | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Green Wave | 3-4-5 |
| 9 | |
Rams | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Camels | 3-5-6 |
| 10 | |
Hoyas | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Catamounts | 4-5-6 |
| 11 | |
Monarchs | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Green Wave | 3-4-6 |
| 12 | |
Eagles | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Quakers | 2-4-5 |
| 13 | |
Camels | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Catamounts | 4-5-6 |
| 14 | |
Green Wave | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Rams | 3-4-6 |
| 15 | |
Hoyas | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Quakers | 3-5-6 |
| 16 | |
Eagles | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Monarchs | 1-4-6 |
| 17 | |
Green Wave | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-5 |
| 18 | |
Quakers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Camels | 3-4-6 |
| 19 | |
Monarchs | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Rams | 3-5-6 |
| 20 | |
Hoyas | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Eagles | 3-4-5 |
| 21 | |
Green Wave | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Quakers | 3-4-6 |
| 22 | |
Monarchs | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Catamounts | 4-5-6 |
| 23 | |
Hoyas | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Camels | 4-5-6 |
| 24 | |
Eagles | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Rams | 2-5-6 |
| 25 | |
Monarchs | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Quakers | 2-4-5 |
| 26 | |
Hoyas | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Green Wave | 2-5-6 |
| 27 | |
Rams | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Catamounts | 3-4-5 |
| 28 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Camels | 4-5-6 |
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 ±0.03 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.
Short write-ups of what the ratings and results show, with the numbers and how they were computed.
