The Wood Trophy

HostHarvard
Date03/07/2026
TypeCross Regional
BoatFJ
ScoringTeam

#	School	Team	Rec.
1	Harvard University	Crimson	20–1
2	Brown University	Bears	17–4
3	Yale University	Bulldogs	13–8
4	Boston College	Eagles	8–13
5	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	7–13
6	Tufts University	Jumbos	7–13
7	Northeastern University	Huskies	0–20

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 28,606 team race matches sailed before 2026-03-07, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 66 of 72 matches (92%) with a log-loss of 0.269 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went well for the forecast. Orderliness +0.41 ± 0.20: an orderly event, more orderly than 86% 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	Harvard University Crimson	1	13.02 school +0.24, home +0.36	Robby Meek / Jacob Posner 4.00 17–1 Mitchell Callahan / Rosella Irfan 4.22 17–1 Justin Callahan / Christina Chen 4.59 16–1 Harrison Strom / Christina Chen 3.46 4–0 Harrison Strom / Rosella Irfan 3.55 3–0 Harrison Strom / Jacob Posner 3.41 3–0	90%	20–1 (95%)	+1.0
2	Brown University Bears	2	11.87 school +0.26	Guthrie Braun / Vera Allen 4.28 Blake Behrens / Caroline Keeffe-Jones 3.98 11–4 Cam Spriggs / Dominic Ciccimaro 3.36 10–4 James Brock / Phoebe Fogarty 3.67 7–0 Noah Stapleton / Marin Soderberg 3.54 6–0	74%	17–4 (81%)	+1.5
3	Yale University Bulldogs	3	11.01 school +0.32	Morgan Pinckney / Annabel Woodworth 3.83 Dorothy Mendelblatt / Julia Miller 3.50 Carly Kieding / Ashley Highland 3.48 3–4 Alex Adams / Ashley Highland 3.16 4–3 Carly Kieding / Carmen Berg 3.36 6–1	56%	13–8 (62%)	+1.1
4	Boston College Eagles	4	10.47 school +0.34	Alex Lech / Madeline Torrey 3.52 Cody Roe / Emily Marlas 3.42 4–11 Ryan Mcgauley / Paige Roby 3.39 7–6 Tor Svendsen / Paige Roby 2.97 1–7 Ian Hopkins Guerra / Emily Marlas 3.16 4–2	46%	8–13 (38%)	−1.6
5	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	5	9.87 school +0.18	Robert Ulmer / Ellie Pinto 3.56 William Kulas / Elliott Chalcraft 3.21 Andy Yu / Ryan Hoffman 2.97 3–13 Ryan Hoffman / Andy Yu 4–0	42%	7–13 (35%)	−1.4
6	Tufts University Jumbos	6	9.23 school +0.36	Courtland Doyle / Dory Russell 2.83 Devon Owen / Patricia Winssinger 2.87 Oliver Keeves / Cody Lamoreux 3.11	30%	7–13 (35%)	+1.0
7	Northeastern University Huskies	7	7.75 school +0.29	Carter Anderson / Ryan Tedeschi 2.29 Charles Wilkinson / Isabella Cho 2.22 Gavin Hudson / Lydia Frost 2.89	9%	0–20 (0%)	−1.7

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	Harvard University	13.02	13.82	20–1	19.0	+0.80	0.5	37%
2	Brown University	11.87	12.58	17–4	15.5	+0.71	0.8	26%
3	Yale University	11.01	11.40	13–8	11.9	+0.39	0.3	36%
6	Tufts University	9.23	9.58	7–13	6.0	+0.35	0.3	37%
5	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	9.87	9.41	7–13	8.4	−0.45	0.4	86%
4	Boston College	10.47	9.95	8–13	9.6	−0.52	0.6	88%
7	Northeastern University	7.75	4.75	0–20	1.7	≤−3.00	2.5	>99%

By skipper

Skipper	School	Value	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
Harrison Strom	Harvard University	3.46	6.46	10–0	9.1	≥+3.00	1.4	37%
James Brock	Brown University	3.67	6.67	7–0	6.4	≥+3.00	0.8	55%
Noah Stapleton	Brown University	3.54	6.54	6–0	5.7	≥+3.00	0.5	70%
Ryan Hoffman	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2.53	5.53	4–0	3.4	≥+3.00	0.9	53%
Robby Meek	Harvard University	4.00	4.75	17–1	16.0	+0.76	0.5	40%
Guthrie Braun	Brown University	4.28	4.98	17–4	15.5	+0.71	0.8	26%
Mitchell Callahan	Harvard University	4.22	4.93	17–1	16.1	+0.70	0.4	42%
Blake Behrens	Brown University	3.98	4.59	11–4	9.8	+0.61	0.5	32%
Cam Spriggs	Brown University	3.36	3.89	10–4	9.0	+0.53	0.4	37%
Carly Kieding	Yale University	3.48	4.00	9–5	8.0	+0.53	0.4	37%
Morgan Pinckney	Yale University	3.83	4.22	13–8	11.9	+0.39	0.3	36%
Dorothy Mendelblatt	Yale University	3.50	3.89	13–8	11.9	+0.39	0.3	36%
Courtland Doyle	Tufts University	2.83	3.18	7–13	6.0	+0.35	0.3	37%
Devon Owen	Tufts University	2.87	3.22	7–13	6.0	+0.35	0.3	37%
Oliver Keeves	Tufts University	3.11	3.46	7–13	6.0	+0.35	0.3	37%
Justin Callahan	Harvard University	4.59	4.93	16–1	15.6	+0.35	0.1	60%
Alex Adams	Yale University	3.16	3.28	4–3	3.9	+0.12	0.0	64%
Cody Roe	Boston College	3.42	3.21	4–11	4.5	−0.20	0.1	73%
Ryan Mcgauley	Boston College	3.39	2.97	7–6	7.8	−0.42	0.3	84%
Robert Ulmer	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.56	3.11	7–13	8.4	−0.45	0.4	86%
William Kulas	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.21	2.75	7–13	8.4	−0.45	0.4	86%
Alex Lech	Boston College	3.52	3.00	8–13	9.6	−0.52	0.6	88%
Tor Svendsen	Boston College	2.97	2.24	1–7	1.8	−0.73	0.4	88%
Andy Yu	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2.97	2.12	3–13	5.0	−0.85	1.2	94%
Ian Hopkins Guerra	Boston College	3.16	1.99	4–2	5.1	−1.17	1.0	96%
Carter Anderson	Northeastern University	2.29	-0.71	0–20	1.7	≤−3.00	2.5	>99%
Charles Wilkinson	Northeastern University	2.22	-0.78	0–20	1.7	≤−3.00	2.5	>99%
Gavin Hudson	Northeastern University	2.89	-0.11	0–20	1.7	≤−3.00	2.5	>99%

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	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	94%
1	2	Brown University	Northeastern University	98%
1	3	Tufts University	Boston College	22%	upset
1	4	Harvard University	Yale University	91%
1	5	Brown University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	87%
1	6	Boston College	Northeastern University	94%
1	7	Yale University	Tufts University	88%
1	8	Harvard University	Brown University	82%
1	9	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	68%
1	10	Tufts University	Northeastern University	81%
1	11	Brown University	Yale University	74%
1	12	Harvard University	Boston College	83%
1	13	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	32%	upset
1	14	Yale University	Northeastern University	96%
1	15	Brown University	Boston College	87%
1	16	Harvard University	Tufts University	97%
1	17	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	85%
1	18	Yale University	Boston College	68%
1	19	Brown University	Tufts University	90%
1	20	Harvard University	Northeastern University	100%
1	21	Yale University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	75%
2	22	Boston College	Tufts University	77%
2	23	Harvard University	Northeastern University	100%
2	24	Brown University	Yale University	74%
2	25	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	67%
2	26	Harvard University	Boston College	83%
2	27	Brown University	Northeastern University	98%
2	28	Yale University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	75%
2	29	Harvard University	Tufts University	97%
2	30	Brown University	Boston College	87%
2	31	Yale University	Northeastern University	96%
2	32	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	94%
2	33	Brown University	Tufts University	90%
2	34	Boston College	Yale University	32%	upset
2	35	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	85%
2	36	Brown University	Harvard University	18%	upset
2	37	Yale University	Tufts University	87%
2	38	Boston College	Northeastern University	94%
2	39	Brown University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	87%
2	40	Harvard University	Yale University	91%
2	41	Tufts University	Northeastern University	82%
2	42	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	68%
3	43	Yale University	Boston College	68%
3	44	Brown University	Tufts University	90%
3	45	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	94%
3	46	Yale University	Northeastern University	96%
3	47	Brown University	Boston College	87%
3	48	Harvard University	Tufts University	97%
3	49	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	85%
3	50	Yale University	Brown University	26%	upset
3	51	Harvard University	Boston College	83%
3	52	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	67%
3	53	Brown University	Northeastern University	98%
3	54	Harvard University	Yale University	90%
3	55	Boston College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	68%
3	56	Tufts University	Northeastern University	82%
3	57	Harvard University	Brown University	82%
3	58	Yale University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	75%
3	59	Tufts University	Boston College	23%	upset
3	60	Harvard University	Northeastern University	100%
3	61	Brown University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	87%
3	62	Yale University	Tufts University	87%
3	63	Boston College	Northeastern University	94%
4	64	Brown University	Yale University	74%
4	65	Harvard University	Boston College	83%
4	66	Brown University	Boston College	87%
4	67	Harvard University	Yale University	90%
4	68	Yale University	Boston College	68%
4	69	Harvard University	Brown University	82%
5	70	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	67%
5	71	Tufts University	Northeastern University	82%
5	72	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	85%

Round 1

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Bears	Bulldogs	Eagles	Engineers	Jumbos	Huskies
Harvard University Crimson	6–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W
Brown University Bears	5–1	L	✕	W	W	W	W	W
Yale University Bulldogs	4–2	L	L	✕	W	W	W	W
Boston College Eagles	2–4	L	L	L	✕	W	L	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	1–5	L	L	L	L	✕	L	W
Tufts University Jumbos	3–3	L	L	L	W	W	✕	W
Northeastern University Huskies	0–6	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 2

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Bears	Bulldogs	Eagles	Engineers	Jumbos	Huskies
Harvard University Crimson	5–1	✕	L	W	W	W	W	W
Brown University Bears	6–0	W	✕	W	W	W	W	W
Yale University Bulldogs	3–3	L	L	✕	L	W	W	W
Boston College Eagles	4–2	L	L	W	✕	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	2–4	L	L	L	L	✕	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	1–5	L	L	L	L	L	✕	W
Northeastern University Huskies	0–6	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 3

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Bears	Bulldogs	Eagles	Engineers	Jumbos	Huskies
Harvard University Crimson	6–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W	W
Brown University Bears	4–2	L	✕	L	W	W	W	W
Yale University Bulldogs	5–1	L	W	✕	W	W	W	W
Boston College Eagles	2–4	L	L	L	✕	W	L	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	2–4	L	L	L	L	✕	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	2–4	L	L	L	W	L	✕	W
Northeastern University Huskies	0–6	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 4

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Bears	Bulldogs	Eagles
Harvard University Crimson	3–0	✕	W	W	W
Brown University Bears	2–1	L	✕	W	W
Yale University Bulldogs	1–2	L	L	✕	W
Boston College Eagles	0–3	L	L	L	✕

Round 5

Team	Rec.	Engineers	Jumbos	Huskies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	2–0	✕	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	1–1	L	✕	W
Northeastern University Huskies	0–2	L	L	✕

Filter by team:

#					Pos.
1	Crimson	1-3-5	def.	Engineers	2-4-6
2	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
3	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Eagles	3-4-6
4	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Bulldogs	3-4-6
5	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
6	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
7	Bulldogs	1-2-6	def.	Jumbos	3-4-5
8	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Bears	3-4-6
9	Eagles	1-3-4	def.	Engineers	2-5-6
10	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
11	Bears	1-2-4	def.	Bulldogs	3-5-6
12	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Eagles	4-5-6
13	Jumbos	2-3-5	def.	Engineers	1-4-6
14	Bulldogs	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6
15	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Eagles	4-5-6
16	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Jumbos	4-5-6
17	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
18	Bulldogs	1-2-3	def.	Eagles	4-5-6
19	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Jumbos	4-5-6
20	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
21	Bulldogs	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
22	Eagles	1-3-6	def.	Jumbos	2-4-5
23	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
24	Bears	1-2-4	def.	Bulldogs	3-5-6
25	Engineers	1-3-5	def.	Jumbos	2-4-6
26	Crimson	1-2-4	def.	Eagles	3-5-6
27	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
28	Bulldogs	2-3-4	def.	Engineers	1-5-6
29	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6
30	Bears	1-2-5	def.	Eagles	3-4-6
31	Bulldogs	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
32	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
33	Bears	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6
34	Eagles	1-2-6	def.	Bulldogs	3-4-5
35	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
36	Bears	1-2-6	def.	Crimson	3-4-5
37	Bulldogs	1-2-4	def.	Jumbos	3-5-6
38	Eagles	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
39	Bears	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
40	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Bulldogs	3-4-6
41	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
42	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
43	Bulldogs	1-2-5	def.	Eagles	3-4-6
44	Bears	1-2-6	def.	Jumbos	3-4-5
45	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Engineers	4-5-6
46	Bulldogs	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
47	Bears	1-2-5	def.	Eagles	3-4-6
48	Crimson	1-2-4	def.	Jumbos	3-5-6
49	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6
50	Bulldogs	1-3-6	def.	Bears	2-4-5
51	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Eagles	4-5-6
52	Engineers	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6
53	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
54	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Bulldogs	3-4-6
55	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Engineers	3-5-6
56	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
57	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Bears	4-5-6
58	Bulldogs	2-3-4	def.	Engineers	1-5-6
59	Jumbos	2-3-4	def.	Eagles	1-5-6
60	Crimson	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6
61	Bears	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
62	Bulldogs	1-2-5	def.	Jumbos	3-4-6
63	Eagles	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6
64	Bears	1-2-6	def.	Bulldogs	3-4-5
65	Crimson	1-4-5	def.	Eagles	2-3-6
66	Bears	1-2-3	def.	Eagles	4-5-6
67	Crimson	1-2-3	def.	Bulldogs	4-5-6
68	Bulldogs	1-2-5	def.	Eagles	3-4-6
69	Crimson	1-2-5	def.	Bears	3-4-6
70	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Jumbos	3-4-5
71	Jumbos	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
72	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6

School	Team	Skippers	Crew
Harvard University	Crimson	Harrison Strom '28 Justin Callahan '26 Mitchell Callahan '26 Robby Meek '27	Rosella Irfan '27 Christina Chen '27 Jacob Posner '29
Brown University	Bears	Blake Behrens '27 Cam Spriggs '27 Guthrie Braun '26 James Brock '28 Noah Stapleton '29	Caroline Keeffe-Jones '26 Dominic Ciccimaro '29 Vera Allen '27 Phoebe Fogarty '29 Marin Soderberg '28
Yale University	Bulldogs	Alex Adams '26 Carly Kieding '29 Dorothy Mendelblatt '28 Morgan Pinckney '27	Ashley Highland '27 Carmen Berg '26 Julia Miller '26 Annabel Woodworth '28
Boston College	Eagles	Alex Lech '28 Cody Roe '29 Ian Hopkins Guerra '26 Ryan Mcgauley '27 Tor Svendsen '27	Madeline Torrey '28 Emily Marlas '26 Paige Roby '26
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	Andy Yu '27 Robert Ulmer '27 Ryan Hoffman '28 William Kulas '28	Ryan Hoffman '28 Ellie Pinto '27 Andy Yu '27 Elliott Chalcraft '27
Tufts University	Jumbos	Courtland Doyle '27 Devon Owen '27 Oliver Keeves '28	Dory Russell '28 Patricia Winssinger '28 Cody Lamoreux '27
Northeastern University	Huskies	Carter Anderson '27 Charles Wilkinson '28 Gavin Hudson '28	Ryan Tedeschi '28 Isabella Cho '27 Lydia Frost '29

Conditions — 03/07/2026 (8am–6pm)

☁️Overcast

Humidity 90% · Pressure 1019.9 hPa

Temperature

38°F

↑ 42°F ↓ 34°F

Feels like 32°F

Wind

● from ▲ toward

7.4 kn

avg · max 10.7 kn

Gusts to 20.4 kn

From SSW (196°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover100% Sunshine4.0 hrs Humidity90% Pressure1019.9 hPa

What this breeze does at Harvard — from fleet racing

Breeze: S about 10 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)

In fleet races at Harvard in this breeze: a favourites’ day (+0.06)

Favourites’ conditions: in fleet racing here the results follow the ratings more closely than usual, and the top seeds hold their places.

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 ±0.06 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.

Orderliness beyond the fleet at Harvard by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (59 labelled fleet-race days at Harvard).

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