| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
University of Wisconsin | Badgers | 9–1 |
| 2 |  |
University of Michigan | Wolverines | 7–3 |
| 3 |  |
University of Notre Dame | Fighting Irish | 7–3 |
| 4 |  |
Purdue University | Boilermakers | 4–6 |
| 5 |  |
University of Saint Thomas | Tommies | 3–4 |
| 6 |  |
Northwestern University | Wildcats | 3–4 |
| 7 |  |
Michigan Technological University | Husky One | 1–6 |
| 8 |  |
Indiana University | Hoosiers | 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 23,838 team race matches sailed before 2024-04-05, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 27 of 34 matches (79%) with a log-loss of 0.499 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness +0.59 ± 0.42: an orderly event, more orderly than 96% 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 | University of Wisconsin | 5.58 | 7.56 | 9–1 | 6.0 | +1.98 | 3.6 | 4% |
| 3 | University of Notre Dame | 5.15 | 6.16 | 7–3 | 4.9 | +1.01 | 1.5 | 14% |
| 5 | University of Saint Thomas | 4.65 | 4.68 | 3–4 | 3.0 | +0.03 | 0.0 | 64% |
| 6 | Northwestern University | 4.79 | 4.72 | 3–4 | 3.1 | −0.07 | 0.0 | 68% |
| 4 | Purdue University | 5.21 | 4.74 | 4–6 | 5.0 | −0.47 | 0.3 | 85% |
| 2 | University of Michigan | 6.40 | 5.87 | 7–3 | 7.9 | −0.52 | 0.4 | 87% |
| 7 | Michigan Technological University | 4.42 | 3.09 | 1–6 | 2.5 | −1.33 | 1.3 | 97% |
| 8 | Indiana University | 3.83 | 0.83 | 0–7 | 1.6 | ≤−3.00 | 2.5 | >99% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joseph Thuente | University of Notre Dame | 1.78 | 2.79 | 7–3 | 4.9 | +1.01 | 1.5 | 14% |
| Joseph Gallagher | University of Notre Dame | 1.70 | 2.71 | 7–3 | 4.9 | +1.01 | 1.5 | 14% |
| Nicholas Chesemore | Northwestern University | 1.50 | 1.44 | 3–4 | 3.1 | −0.07 | 0.0 | 68% |
| Sam Childers | Purdue University | 1.30 | 0.84 | 4–6 | 5.0 | −0.47 | 0.3 | 85% |
| Andrew Michels | Michigan Technological University | 1.46 | 0.14 | 1–6 | 2.5 | −1.33 | 1.3 | 97% |
| Nithya Balachander | Indiana University | 1.56 | -1.44 | 0–7 | 1.6 | ≤−3.00 | 2.5 | >99% |
| Daniel De La Vega Iii | Indiana University | 0.88 | -2.12 | 0–7 | 1.6 | ≤−3.00 | 2.5 | >99% |
Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).
| Team | Rec. | Badgers | Wolverines | Irish | Boilermakers | Tommies | Wildcats | One | Hoosiers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Wisconsin Badgers | 7–0 | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W | W | W |
| University of Michigan Wolverines | 4–3 | L | ✕ | L | L | W | W | W | W |
| University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish | 6–1 | L | W | ✕ | W | W | W | W | W |
| Purdue University Boilermakers | 4–3 | L | W | L | ✕ | W | L | W | W |
| University of Saint Thomas Tommies | 3–4 | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W | W | W |
| Northwestern University Wildcats | 3–4 | L | L | L | W | L | ✕ | W | W |
| Michigan Technological University Husky One | 1–6 | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ | W |
| Indiana University Hoosiers | 0–7 | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | ✕ |
| Team | Rec. | Badgers | Wolverines | Irish | Boilermakers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Wisconsin Badgers | 2–1 | ✕ | L | W | W |
| University of Michigan Wolverines | 3–0 | W | ✕ | W | W |
| University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish | 1–2 | L | L | ✕ | W |
| Purdue University Boilermakers | 0–3 | L | L | L | ✕ |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Fighting Irish | 2-3-5 | def. | |
Wildcats | 1-4-6 |
| 2 | |
Boilermakers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Wolverines | 3-4-6 |
| 3 | |
Tommies | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Husky One | 4-5-6 |
| 4 | |
Badgers | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 4-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Wolverines | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Wildcats | 3-4-6 |
| 6 | |
Fighting Irish | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Husky One | 3-5-6 |
| 7 | |
Badgers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Boilermakers | 3-4-6 |
| 8 | |
Tommies | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 4-5-6 |
| 9 | |
Wolverines | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Husky One | 3-5-6 |
| 10 | |
Badgers | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Wildcats | 3-5-6 |
| 11 | |
Fighting Irish | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Tommies | 3-4-5 |
| 12 | |
Boilermakers | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 4-5-6 |
| 13 | |
Badgers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Husky One | 3-4-6 |
| 14 | |
Wolverines | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Tommies | 1-5-6 |
| 15 | |
Wildcats | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Boilermakers | 3-4-5 |
| 16 | |
Fighting Irish | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 3-5-6 |
| 17 | |
Badgers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Tommies | 3-4-6 |
| 18 | |
Boilermakers | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Husky One | 3-4-6 |
| 19 | |
Fighting Irish | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Wolverines | 2-3-6 |
| 20 | |
Wildcats | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 3-5-6 |
| 21 | |
Boilermakers | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Tommies | 2-5-6 |
| 22 | |
Badgers | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Fighting Irish | 3-4-5 |
| 23 | |
Wildcats | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Husky One | 3-4-6 |
| 24 | |
Wolverines | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 4-5-6 |
| 25 | |
Fighting Irish | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Boilermakers | 2-4-5 |
| 26 | |
Tommies | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Wildcats | 2-5-6 |
| 27 | |
Badgers | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Wolverines | 1-5-6 |
| 28 | |
Husky One | 1-4-5 | def. | |
Hoosiers | 2-3-6 |
| 29 | |
Wolverines | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Fighting Irish | 3-5-6 |
| 30 | |
Badgers | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Boilermakers | 2-4-6 |
| 31 | |
Fighting Irish | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Boilermakers | 2-4-6 |
| 32 | |
Wolverines | 1-2-5 | def. | |
Badgers | 3-4-6 |
| 33 | |
Wolverines | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Boilermakers | 3-5-6 |
| 34 | |
Badgers | 1-3-5 | def. | |
Fighting Irish | 2-4-6 |
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 ±0.07 means a rating gap counts about 6% 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.
