2025 Marchiando Trophy-Red Regatta

HostMIT
Date03/29/2025
TypeCross Regional
Boat420/FJ
ScoringTeam

#	School	Team	Rec.
1	Boston College	Eagles	18–3
2	Roger Williams University	Hawks	15–6
3	Stanford University	Cardinal	12–9
4	Tulane University	Green Wave	11–10
5	Bowdoin College	Polar Bears	10–11
6	Tufts University	Jumbos	10–11
7	University of Rhode Island	Rams	7–14
8	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	1–20

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 26,645 team race matches sailed before 2025-03-29, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 62 of 84 matches (74%) with a log-loss of 0.536 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness −0.19 ± 0.21: a typical event, more orderly than 25% 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.

Place	School	Pred.	Strength	Boats (skipper / crew, boat value)	Pred. win %	Record	vs forecast
1	Boston College Eagles	3	11.44 school +0.35	Peter Busch / Sara Schumann 3.79 Jack Redmond / Lanie Ferrarone 3.64 16–2 Michael Kirkman / Matt Budington 3.65 10–2 Michael Kirkman / Caroline Sibilly 3.59 8–1 Jack Redmond / Nick Budington 3.76 2–1	69%	18–3 (86%)	+3.5
2	Roger Williams University Hawks	1	12.15 school +0.42	Carlos De Castro / Carly Kiss 4.32 Kyle Pfrang / Claire Buckley 3.96 14–4 Mathieu Dale / Addyson Fisher 3.58 12–6 Oliver Stokke / Ruby Hope 3.26 4–2	83%	15–6 (71%)	−2.5
3	Stanford University Cardinal	2	11.62 school +0.39	Reade Decker / Piper Blackband 3.73 Dylan Sih / Shay Wood 3.43 11–7 Thomas Sitzmann / Abby Baird 4.05 8–4 Thomas Sitzmann / Alexandra Jones 3.99 4–5 Lucas Woodworth / Abby Baird 3.60 1–2	74%	12–9 (57%)	−3.6
4	Tulane University Green Wave	4	10.45 school −0.05	Hamilton Barclay / Cj Ricci 3.60 8–10 Christian Ebbin / Sabrina Anderson 3.62 5–7 Kelly Holthus / Parker Kumler 3.33 8–4 Kelly Holthus / Taylor Bartell 3.42 3–6 Christian Ebbin / Elizabeth Struve 3.44 6–3 Zander King / Alex Makoid 3.22 3–0	51%	11–10 (52%)	+0.3
5	Bowdoin College Polar Bears	7	9.82	Thibault Antonietti / Holliss Hirsch 3.27 8–4 Sam Bonauto / Holliss Hirsch 3.32 2–7 Thibault Antonietti / Isabelle Tsuchitori 3.33 2–7 Thomas Hall / Elizabeth Wire 3.59 2–7 Sam Bonauto / Timmy Gee 3.33 4–2 Michelangelo Vecchio / Aidan Michelow 2.85 4–2 Sam Bonauto / Aidan Michelow 3.35 4–2 Michelangelo Vecchio / Isabelle Tsuchitori 2.90 4–2	36%	10–11 (48%)	+2.4
6	Tufts University Jumbos	5	10.04 school +0.30	Wyatt Bischoff / Cindy Wang 2.97 Ben Mueller / Kate Castleberry 3.43 9–6 Kurt Stuebe / Reddin Kehrli 3.33 9–6 Ben Mueller / Reddin Kehrli 3.55 1–5 Kurt Stuebe / Kate Castleberry 3.19 1–5	40%	10–11 (48%)	+1.6
7	University of Rhode Island Rams	6	9.82 school −0.08	Kerem Erkmen / Abbie Chipps 4.09 Tyler Nash / Ursula Budd 3.07 Owen Grainger / Eric Pohl 2.85 2–7 Christopher Chwalk / Parker Brown 2.62 4–5 Christopher Chwalk / Vanessa Reid 2.63 1–2	37%	7–14 (33%)	−0.9
8	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	8	7.98 school +0.21, home +0.36	Max Katz-Christy / Christine Keedy Brown 2.58 Robert Ulmer / Sophia Woodbury 3.11 Lucas Escandon / Katherine Jankowski 1.67	9%	1–20 (5%)	−0.9

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.

Place	School	Strength	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
1	Boston College	11.44	12.66	18–3	14.5	+1.21	2.9	5%
5	Bowdoin College	9.82	10.45	10–11	7.6	+0.62	1.1	16%
6	Tufts University	10.04	10.44	10–11	8.4	+0.40	0.5	29%
4	Tulane University	10.45	10.51	11–10	10.7	+0.07	0.0	55%
7	University of Rhode Island	9.82	9.57	7–14	7.9	−0.25	0.2	76%
8	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	7.98	7.29	1–20	1.9	−0.69	0.4	86%
2	Roger Williams University	12.15	11.39	15–6	17.5	−0.76	1.4	96%
3	Stanford University	11.62	10.59	12–9	15.6	−1.03	2.8	99%

By skipper

Skipper	School	Value	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
Michelangelo Vecchio	Bowdoin College	2.85	4.30	8–4	4.8	+1.44	3.3	3%
Thibault Antonietti	Bowdoin College	3.27	3.89	10–11	7.6	+0.62	1.1	16%
Ben Mueller	Tufts University	3.43	3.83	10–11	8.4	+0.40	0.5	29%
Kerem Erkmen	University of Rhode Island	4.09	3.84	7–14	7.9	−0.25	0.2	76%
Max Katz-Christy	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2.58	1.89	1–20	1.9	−0.69	0.4	86%
Carlos De Castro	Roger Williams University	4.32	3.57	15–6	17.5	−0.76	1.4	96%

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	#	Winner	Loser	P(winner)
1	1	Roger Williams University	University of Rhode Island	91%
1	2	Stanford University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	98%
1	3	Bowdoin College	Tufts University	56%
1	7	Boston College	Tulane University	70%
1	8	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	85%
1	9	Roger Williams University	Bowdoin College	88%
1	13	Stanford University	Tulane University	78%
1	14	Boston College	Tufts University	81%
1	15	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	82%
1	19	Tulane University	University of Rhode Island	66%
1	20	Tufts University	Roger Williams University	17%	upset
1	21	Boston College	Stanford University	49%	upset
1	25	Tulane University	Bowdoin College	72%
1	26	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	89%
1	27	Stanford University	University of Rhode Island	86%
1	31	Boston College	Roger Williams University	29%	upset
1	32	Tulane University	Tufts University	62%
1	33	Bowdoin College	Stanford University	12%	upset
1	37	Roger Williams University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	98%
1	38	Boston College	University of Rhode Island	82%
1	39	Tufts University	Stanford University	16%	upset
1	43	Roger Williams University	Tulane University	84%
1	44	Bowdoin College	University of Rhode Island	40%	upset
1	45	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	97%
1	49	Stanford University	Roger Williams University	34%	upset
1	50	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	58%
1	51	Tulane University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	90%
1	55	Boston College	Bowdoin College	76%
2	4	Roger Williams University	University of Rhode Island	91%
2	5	Stanford University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	98%
2	6	Tufts University	Bowdoin College	44%	upset
2	10	Boston College	Tulane University	70%
2	11	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	85%
2	12	Roger Williams University	Bowdoin College	88%
2	16	Stanford University	Tulane University	78%
2	17	Boston College	Tufts University	81%
2	18	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	82%
2	22	Tulane University	University of Rhode Island	66%
2	23	Tufts University	Roger Williams University	17%	upset
2	24	Boston College	Stanford University	49%	upset
2	28	Tulane University	Bowdoin College	72%
2	29	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	11%	upset
2	30	University of Rhode Island	Stanford University	14%	upset
2	34	Boston College	Roger Williams University	29%	upset
2	35	Tufts University	Tulane University	38%	upset
2	36	Stanford University	Bowdoin College	88%
2	40	Roger Williams University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	98%
2	41	University of Rhode Island	Boston College	18%	upset
2	42	Tufts University	Stanford University	16%	upset
2	46	Roger Williams University	Tulane University	84%
2	47	Bowdoin College	University of Rhode Island	40%	upset
2	48	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	97%
2	52	Roger Williams University	Stanford University	66%
2	53	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	58%
2	54	Tulane University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	90%
2	56	Boston College	Bowdoin College	76%
3	57	Roger Williams University	University of Rhode Island	91%
3	58	Stanford University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	97%
3	59	Bowdoin College	Tufts University	56%
3	60	Boston College	Tulane University	70%
3	61	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	85%
3	62	Roger Williams University	Bowdoin College	88%
3	63	Tulane University	Stanford University	23%	upset
3	64	Boston College	Tufts University	80%
3	65	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	81%
3	66	Tulane University	University of Rhode Island	67%
3	67	Roger Williams University	Tufts University	83%
3	68	Stanford University	Boston College	52%
3	69	Bowdoin College	Tulane University	28%	upset
3	70	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	88%
3	71	Stanford University	University of Rhode Island	86%
3	72	Roger Williams University	Boston College	71%
3	73	Tulane University	Tufts University	62%
3	74	Bowdoin College	Stanford University	12%	upset
3	75	Roger Williams University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	98%
3	76	Boston College	University of Rhode Island	82%
3	77	Stanford University	Tufts University	84%
3	78	Roger Williams University	Tulane University	84%
3	79	University of Rhode Island	Bowdoin College	60%
3	80	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	97%
3	81	Stanford University	Roger Williams University	34%	upset
3	82	University of Rhode Island	Tufts University	42%	upset
3	83	Tulane University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	90%
3	84	Boston College	Bowdoin College	76%

Round 1

Team	Rec.	Eagles	Hawks	Cardinal	Wave	Bears	Jumbos	Rams	Engineers
Boston College Eagles	7–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W	W
Roger Williams University Hawks	4–3	L	✕	L	W	W	L	W	W
Stanford University Cardinal	4–3	L	W	✕	W	L	L	W	W
Tulane University Green Wave	4–3	L	L	L	✕	W	W	W	W
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	4–3	L	L	W	L	✕	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	4–3	L	W	W	L	L	✕	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	1–6	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	0–7	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 2

Team	Rec.	Eagles	Hawks	Cardinal	Wave	Bears	Jumbos	Rams	Engineers
Boston College Eagles	6–1	✕	W	W	W	W	W	L	W
Roger Williams University Hawks	5–2	L	✕	W	W	W	L	W	W
Stanford University Cardinal	3–4	L	L	✕	W	W	L	L	W
Tulane University Green Wave	3–4	L	L	L	✕	W	L	W	W
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	2–5	L	L	L	L	✕	L	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	5–2	L	W	W	W	W	✕	W	L
University of Rhode Island Rams	3–4	W	L	W	L	L	L	✕	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	1–6	L	L	L	L	L	W	L	✕

Round 3

Team	Rec.	Eagles	Hawks	Cardinal	Wave	Bears	Jumbos	Rams	Engineers
Boston College Eagles	5–2	✕	L	L	W	W	W	W	W
Roger Williams University Hawks	6–1	W	✕	L	W	W	W	W	W
Stanford University Cardinal	5–2	W	W	✕	L	L	W	W	W
Tulane University Green Wave	4–3	L	L	W	✕	L	W	W	W
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	4–3	L	L	W	W	✕	W	L	W
Tufts University Jumbos	1–6	L	L	L	L	L	✕	L	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	3–4	L	L	L	L	W	W	✕	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	0–7	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Filter by team:

#					Pos.
1	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Rams	3-4-6
2	Cardinal	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
3	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Jumbos	3-5-6
7	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Green Wave	3-5-6
8	Rams	2-3-4	def.	Engineers	1-5-6
9	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Polar Bears	3-4-6
13	Cardinal	1-3-5	def.	Green Wave	2-4-6
14	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Jumbos	3-5-6
15	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
19	Green Wave	1-4-5	def.	Rams	2-3-6
20	Jumbos	2-3-5	def.	Hawks	1-4-6
21	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Cardinal	3-5-6
25	Green Wave	1-2-5	def.	Polar Bears	3-4-6
26	Jumbos	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
27	Cardinal	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
31	Eagles	1-3-6	def.	Hawks	2-4-5
32	Green Wave	1-2-3	def.	Jumbos	4-5-6
33	Polar Bears	1-3-6	def.	Cardinal	2-4-5
37	Hawks	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
38	Eagles	1-3-5	def.	Rams	2-4-6
39	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Cardinal	3-4-5
43	Hawks	1-2-4	def.	Green Wave	3-5-6
44	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
45	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
49	Cardinal	2-3-4	def.	Hawks	1-5-6
50	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Rams	3-4-6
51	Green Wave	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
55	Eagles	1-4-5	def.	Polar Bears	2-3-6
4	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
5	Cardinal	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
6	Jumbos	1-2-4	def.	Polar Bears	3-5-6
10	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Green Wave	3-4-5
11	Rams	2-3-4	def.	Engineers	1-5-6
12	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Polar Bears	3-4-6
16	Cardinal	1-3-5	def.	Green Wave	2-4-6
17	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Jumbos	4-5-6
18	Polar Bears	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
22	Green Wave	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
23	Jumbos	2-3-4	def.	Hawks	1-5-6
24	Eagles	1-4-5	def.	Cardinal	2-3-6
28	Green Wave	1-2-6	def.	Polar Bears	3-4-5
29	Engineers	1-3-5	def.	Jumbos	2-4-6
30	Rams	2-3-5	def.	Cardinal	1-4-6
34	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Hawks	3-4-5
35	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Green Wave	3-4-5
36	Cardinal	1-3-5	def.	Polar Bears	2-4-6
40	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
41	Rams	1-3-6	def.	Eagles	2-4-5
42	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Cardinal	3-4-5
46	Hawks	2-3-4	def.	Green Wave	1-5-6
47	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
48	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
52	Hawks	1-2-6	def.	Cardinal	3-4-5
53	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
54	Green Wave	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
56	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Polar Bears	3-5-6
57	Hawks	1-3-5	def.	Rams	2-4-6
58	Cardinal	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
59	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Jumbos	3-5-6
60	Eagles	1-3-5	def.	Green Wave	2-4-6
61	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
62	Hawks	1-2-4	def.	Polar Bears	3-5-6
63	Green Wave	1-4-5	def.	Cardinal	2-3-6
64	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Jumbos	3-5-6
65	Polar Bears	1-4-5	def.	Engineers	2-3-6
66	Green Wave	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
67	Hawks	1-2-3	def.	Jumbos	4-5-6
68	Cardinal	1-2-6	def.	Eagles	3-4-5
69	Polar Bears	1-2-5	def.	Green Wave	3-4-6
70	Jumbos	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
71	Cardinal	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
72	Hawks	1-2-6	def.	Eagles	3-4-5
73	Green Wave	2-3-4	def.	Jumbos	1-5-6
74	Polar Bears	1-4-5	def.	Cardinal	2-3-6
75	Hawks	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
76	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
77	Cardinal	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6
78	Hawks	1-2-5	def.	Green Wave	3-4-6
79	Rams	1-2-3	def.	Polar Bears	4-5-6
80	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
81	Cardinal	2-3-4	def.	Hawks	1-5-6
82	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Jumbos	3-4-5
83	Green Wave	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
84	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Polar Bears	4-5-6

School	Team	Skippers	Crew
Boston College	Eagles	Jack Redmond '26 Michael Kirkman '25 Peter Busch '26	Lanie Ferrarone '28 Nick Budington '25 Matt Budington '25 Caroline Sibilly '26 Sara Schumann '25
Roger Williams University	Hawks	Carlos De Castro '26 Kyle Pfrang '26 Mathieu Dale '25 Oliver Stokke '26	Carly Kiss '25 Claire Buckley '25 Addyson Fisher '27 Ruby Hope '25
Stanford University	Cardinal	Dylan Sih '28 Lucas Woodworth '27 Reade Decker '27 Thomas Sitzmann '27	Shay Wood '27 Abby Baird '28 Piper Blackband '28 Alexandra Jones '28
Tulane University	Green Wave	Christian Ebbin '28 Hamilton Barclay '27 Kelly Holthus '27 Zander King '25	Elizabeth Struve '28 Sabrina Anderson '28 Cj Ricci '25 Parker Kumler '27 Taylor Bartell '28 Alex Makoid '25
Bowdoin College	Polar Bears	Michelangelo Vecchio '27 Sam Bonauto '25 Thibault Antonietti '24 Thomas Hall '25	Isabelle Tsuchitori '26 Aidan Michelow '25 Holliss Hirsch '25 Timmy Gee '25 Elizabeth Wire '28
Tufts University	Jumbos	Ben Mueller '26 Kurt Stuebe '27 Wyatt Bischoff '27	Kate Castleberry '28 Reddin Kehrli '27 Cindy Wang '25
University of Rhode Island	Rams	Christopher Chwalk '28 Kerem Erkmen '25 Owen Grainger '28 Tyler Nash '26	Parker Brown '26 Vanessa Reid '26 Abbie Chipps '25 Eric Pohl '28 Ursula Budd '27
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	Lucas Escandon '26 Max Katz-Christy '25 Robert Ulmer '27	Katherine Jankowski '27 Christine Keedy Brown '28 Sophia Woodbury '28

Conditions — 03/29/2025 (8am–6pm)

☁️Overcast

Humidity 80% · Pressure 1018.7 hPa

Temperature

38°F

↑ 40°F ↓ 36°F

Feels like 30°F

Wind

● from ▲ toward

9.2 kn

avg · max 10.3 kn

Gusts to 24.7 kn

From NE (55°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover100% Sunshine1.3 hrs Humidity80% Pressure1018.7 hPa Rain0.04 in

What this breeze does at MIT — from fleet racing

Breeze: NE about 11 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)

In fleet races at MIT in this breeze: an underdogs’ day (−0.04)

Underdogs’ conditions: in fleet racing here the fleet bunches up and lower-rated boats beat the seeds more often than 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 ±0.04 means a rating gap counts about 4% 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.

Orderliness beyond the fleet at MIT by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (112 labelled fleet-race days at MIT).

From the notes

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

How team race forecasts workThree boats’ ratings, a school term and a home edge; 78.8% of held-out matches called.
Play 1, Play 2, Play 4: how team races are wonHow often each play happens, how that shifts with breeze and level, and whether a star wins differently.
Which team races go to form?Orderliness is a real property of a team race regatta and nothing known in advance predicts it.

All notes →

Navigate

Menu