• There are four regional sites (East — Bridgeport, Conn.; Northeast — Manchester, N.H.; Midwest — Green Bay, Wis.; West — St. Louis)<\/p>\n
• A host institution which is invited to the tournament plays in the regional for which it is the host, and cannot be moved. There are three host institutions this year, Yale in Bridgeport, New Hampshire in Manchester and Michigan Tech in Green Bay. St. Louis’ host is the CCHA, not a specific team.<\/p>\n
• Seedings will not be switched, as opposed to years past. To avoid undesirable first-round matchups, including intra-conference games (see below), teams will be moved among regionals, not reseeded.<\/p>\n
Here are the NCAA’s guidelines on the matter, per a meeting of the championship committee:<\/p>\n
In setting up the tournament, the committee begins with a list of priorities to ensure a successful tournament on all fronts, including competitive equity, financial success and likelihood of playoff-type atmosphere at each regional site. For the model, the following is a basic set of priorities:<\/p>\n
• The top four teams as ranked by the committee are the four No. 1 seeds and will be placed in the bracket so that if all four teams advance to the Men’s Frozen Four, the No. 1 seed will play the No. 4 seed and the No. 2 seed will play the No. 3 seed in the semifinals.<\/p>\n
• Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home.<\/p>\n
• No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible in order of their ranking 1-4.<\/p>\n
• Conference matchups in first round are avoided, unless five or more teams from one conference are selected, then the integrity of the bracket will be preserved.<\/p>\n
• Once the five automatic qualifiers and 11 at-large teams are selected, the next step is to develop four groups from the committee’s ranking of 1-16. The top four teams are the No. 1 seeds. The next four are targeted as No. 2 seeds. The next four are No. 3 seeds and the last four are No. 4 seeds. These groupings will be referred to as “bands.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Given these facts, here is the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and the conference leaders (through all games of games of March 1, 2011):<\/p>\n
1 Yale \n2 North Dakota \n3 Boston College \n4 Michigan \n5 Denver \n6t Union \n6t Merrimack \n8 Nebraska-Omaha \n9t Notre Dame \n9t Miami \n11t Minnesota-Duluth \n11t New Hampshire \n13 Rensselaer \n14 Colorado College \n15t Boston University \n15t Maine \n15t Dartmouth \n— Rochester Institute of Technology<\/p>\n
Current conference leaders based on winning percentage:<\/p>\n
Atlantic Hockey:<\/strong> RIT \nCCHA:<\/strong> Michigan \nECAC Hockey:<\/strong> Union \nHockey East:<\/strong> New Hampshire \nWCHA:<\/strong> North Dakota<\/p>\nNotes<\/h4>\n • The Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played. i.e.<\/em>, the NCAA tournament starts tomorrow.<\/p>\n• Because there are an uneven amount of games played inside each conference, I will be using winning percentage, not points accumulated, to determine who the current leader in each conference is. This team is my assumed conference tournament champion.<\/p>\n
Step one<\/h4>\n From the committee’s report, choose the 16 teams in the tournament.<\/p>\n
We break ties in the PWR by looking at the individual comparisons among the tied teams, and add in any current league leaders that are not currently in the top 16. The only team that is not is RIT.<\/p>\n
From there, we can start looking at the ties and bubbles in a more detailed fashion.<\/p>\n
We break all of our ties based upon the RPI.<\/p>\n
Therefore the 16 teams in the tournament, in rank order, are:<\/p>\n
1 Yale \n2 North Dakota \n3 Boston College \n4 Michigan \n5 Denver \n6 Union \n7 Merrimack \n8 Nebraska-Omaha \n9 Notre Dame \n10 Miami \n11 Minnesota-Duluth \n12 New Hampshire \n13 Rensselaer \n14 Colorado College \n15 Boston University \n16 RIT<\/p>\n
Step two<\/h4>\n Now it’s time to assign the seeds.<\/p>\n
No. 1 seeds — Yale, North Dakota, Boston College, Michigan \nNo. 2 seeds — Denver, Union, Merrimack, Nebraska-Omaha \nNo. 3 seeds — Notre Dame, Miami, Minnesota-Duluth, New Hampshire \nNo. 4 seeds — Rensselaer, Colorado College, Boston University, RIT<\/p>\n
Step three<\/h4>\n Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals. Following the guidelines, there is one host team in this grouping, Yale, so Yale must be placed in its home regional, the East Regional in Bridgeport.<\/p>\n
We now place the other No. 1 seeds based on proximity to the regional sites.<\/p>\n
No. 1 Yale is placed in the East Regional in Bridgeport. \nNo. 2 North Dakota is placed in the Midwest Regional in Green Bay. \nNo. 3 Boston College is placed in the Northeast Regional in Manchester. \nNo. 4 Michigan is placed in the West Regional in St. Louis.<\/p>\n
Step four<\/h4>\n Now we place the other 12 teams so as to avoid intra-conference matchups if possible.<\/p>\n
Begin by filling in each bracket by banding groups. Remember that teams are not<\/strong><\/em> assigned to the regional closest to their campus sites by ranking order within the banding.<\/p>\nIf this is the case, as it was last year, then the committee should seed so that the quarterfinals are seeded such that the four regional championships are played by No. 1 vs. No. 8, No. 2 vs. No. 7, No. 3 vs. No. 6 and No. 4 vs. No. 5.<\/p>\n
So therefore:<\/p>\n
No. 2 seeds<\/em><\/p>\nNo. 8 Nebraska-Omaha is placed in No. 1 Yale’s regional, the East Regional. \nNo. 7 Merrimack is placed in No. 2 North Dakota’s regional, the Midwest Regional. \nNo. 6 Union is placed in No. 3 Boston College’s regional, the Northeast Regional. \nNo. 5 Denver is placed in No. 4 Michigan’s regional, the West Regional.<\/p>\n
No. 3 seeds<\/em><\/p>\nOur bracketing system has one regional containing seeds 1, 8, 9, and 16, another with 2, 7, 10, 15, another with 3, 6, 11, 14 and another with 4, 5, 12 and 13.<\/p>\n
We have to place New Hampshire, a regional host, first.<\/p>\n
Therefore:<\/p>\n
No. 12 New Hampshire is placed in No. 6 Union’s regional, the Northeast Regional. \nNo. 9 Notre Dame is placed in No. 8 Nebraska-Omaha’s regional, the East Regional. \nNo. 10 Miami is placed in No. 7 Merrimack’s regional, the Midwest Regional. \nNo. 11 Minnesota-Duluth is placed in No. 5 Denver’s regional, the West Regional.<\/p>\n
No. 4 seeds<\/em><\/p>\nOne more time, taking No. 16 vs. No. 1, No. 15 vs. No. 2, etc.<\/p>\n
No. 16 RIT is sent to No. 1 Yale’s regional, the East Regional. \nNo. 15 Boston University is sent to No. 2 North Dakota’s regional, the Midwest Regional. \nNo. 14 Colorado College is sent to No. 3 Boston College’s regional, the Northeast Regional. \nNo. 13 Rensselaer is sent to No. 4 Michigan’s regional, the West Regional.<\/p>\n
The brackets as we have set them up:<\/p>\n
West Regional (St. Louis): \n13 Rensselaer vs. 4 Michigan \n11 Minnesota-Duluth vs. 5 Denver<\/p>\n
Midwest Regional (Green Bay): \n15 Boston University vs. 2 North Dakota \n10 Miami vs. 7 Merrimack<\/p>\n
East Regional (Bridgeport): \n16 RIT vs. 1 Yale \n9 Notre Dame vs. 8 Nebraska-Omaha<\/p>\n
Northeast Regional (Manchester): \n14 Colorado College vs. 3 Boston College \n12 New Hampshire vs. 6 Union<\/p>\n
Our first concern is avoiding intra-conference matchups. We have one, Minnesota-Duluth vs. Denver.<\/p>\n
So we switch UMD with Miami to fix that matchup.<\/p>\n
West Regional (St. Louis): \n13 Rensselaer vs. 4 Michigan \n10 Miami vs. 5 Denver<\/p>\n
Midwest Regional (Green Bay): \n15 Boston University vs. 2 North Dakota \n11 Minnesota-Duluth vs. 7 Merrimack<\/p>\n
East Regional (Bridgeport): \n16 RIT vs. 1 Yale \n9 Notre Dame vs. 8 Nebraska-Omaha<\/p>\n
Northeast Regional (Manchester): \n14 Colorado College vs. 3 Boston College \n12 New Hampshire vs. 6 Union<\/p>\n
Anything else? We could swap Rensselaer and Colorado College to try to help the attendance.<\/p>\n
West Regional (St. Louis): \n14 Colorado College vs. 4 Michigan \n10 Miami vs. 5 Denver<\/p>\n
Midwest Regional (Green Bay): \n15 Boston University vs. 2 North Dakota \n11 Minnesota-Duluth vs. 7 Merrimack<\/p>\n
East Regional (Bridgeport): \n16 RIT vs. 1 Yale \n9 Notre Dame vs. 8 Nebraska-Omaha<\/p>\n
Northeast Regional (Manchester): \n13 Rensselaer vs. 3 Boston College \n12 New Hampshire vs. 6 Union<\/p>\n
What else can we do for bracket integrity or attendance? Is there anything more we can do?<\/p>\n
Nothing. It looks good from my standpoint.<\/p>\n
More thoughts and education and plain wit on the blog. We’ll see you here next week for the next Bracketology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Let’s have another try at those brackets this week, Jayson Moy writes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":140328,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Bracketology: Another go at it - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n