It’s time once again for what we like to call Bracketology — college hockey style. It’s a weekly look at how the NCAA tournament might look if the season ended today.
More than that, it’s a look into the thought process behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams.
This is the fourth installment of Bracketology, and we’ll be bringing you a new one every week, until we make our final picks just before the field is announced.
Here are the facts:
• Sixteen teams are selected to participate in the national tournament.
• There are four regional sites (East – Worcester, Massachusetts, Northeast – Amherst, Massachusetts, Midwest – Grand Rapids, Mich., West – Minneapolis, Minn.)
• A host institution which is invited to the tournament plays in the regional for which it is the host, and cannot be moved.
• Seedings will not be switched, as opposed to years past. To avoid undesirable first-round matchups, including intraconference games (see below), teams will be moved among regionals, not reseeded.
Here are the NCAA’s guidelines on the matter, per a meeting of the Championship Committee:
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:
• 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.
• Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home.
• No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible in order of their ranking 1-4.
• 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.
• Once the six automatic qualifiers and 10 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.”
Additionally, the NCAA recently clarified its selection criteria to include a bonus factor for “good” nonconference wins.
Given these facts, here are the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and all conference leaders, based on winning percentage (Holy Cross, Michigan, Alabama-Huntsville, Cornell, Boston College and Denver) (through all games of Monday, February 7, 2005):
1 Colorado College
2t Minnesota
2t Denver
4t Cornell
4t Boston College
6 Michigan
7t Massachusetts-Lowell
7t Harvard
9t Boston University
9t New Hampshire
11 Ohio State
12 North Dakota
13t Colgate
13t Dartmouth
13t Wisconsin
16t Northern Michigan
16t Maine
27 Alabama-Huntsville
— Holy Cross
Step One
From the committee’s report, choose the 16 teams in the tournament.
We break ties in the PWR by looking at the individual comparisons among the tied teams, and add all of the conference leaders, based on winning percentage.
From there, we can start looking at the bubble in a more detailed fashion.
There are a few bubbles, at No. 4, No. 7, No. 9 and at No. 13 and 14 — the last two slots in the tournament.
Breaking ties in the PWR using head-to-head comparisons among the tied teams, the 16 teams in the tournament, in rank order, are:
1 Colorado College
2 Minnesota
3 Denver
4 Cornell
5 Boston College
6 Michigan
7 Massachusetts-Lowell
8 Harvard
9 Boston University
10 New Hampshire
11 Ohio State
12 North Dakota
13 Colgate
14 Dartmouth
15 Alabama-Huntsville
16 Holy Cross
All ties were broken because of individual comparison wins.
Dartmouth is back in, displacing Wisconsin by virtue of the Big Green winning that individual comparison. Remember that as of right now, we are saying that the conference leader, by percentage points, is the recipient of the league’s automatic bid. Denver leads the WCHA at the moment, not Wisconsin.
The other big difference here is that Cornell is now a No. 1 seed, moving Boston College out of that first band.
Step Two
Now it’s time to assign the seeds.
No. 1 Seeds — Colorado College, Minnesota, Denver, Cornell
No. 2 Seeds — Boston College, Michigan, Massachusetts-Lowell, Harvard
No. 3 Seeds — Boston University, New Hampshire, Ohio State, North Dakota
No. 4 Seeds — Colgate, Dartmouth, Alabama-Huntsville, Holy Cross
Step Three
Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals. Because of the fact that Minnesota is hosting a regional, the Gophers are placed first. We then place the other No. 1 seeds based on proximity to the regional sites.
No. 2 Minnesota is placed in the West Regional in Minneapolis.
No. 1 Colorado College is placed in the Midwest Regional in Grand Rapids.
No. 3 Denver is placed in the East Regional in Worcester.
No. 4 Cornell is placed in the Northeast Regional in Amherst.
Step Four
Now we place the other 12 teams so as to avoid intra-conference matchups if possible.
Begin by filling in each bracket by banding groups. Remember that teams are not assigned to the regional closest to their campus sites by ranking order within the banding (except for host schools, which must be assigned to their home regionals).
If 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 v. No. 8, No. 2 v. No. 7, No. 3 v. No. 6 and No. 4 v. No. 5.
So therefore:
No. 2 Seeds
No. 5 Boston College is placed in No. 4 Cornell’s Regional, the Northeast.
No. 6 Michigan is placed in No. 3 Denver’s Regional, the East
No. 7 UML is placed in No. 2 Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
No. 8 Harvard is placed in No. 1 Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.
No. 3 Seeds
Our 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.
Therefore:
No. 9 Boston University is placed in No. 6 Michigan’s Regional, the East, as the host.
No. 10 New Hampshire is placed in No. 8 Harvard’s Regional, the Midwest.
No. 11 Ohio State is placed in No. 7 UML’s Regional, the West.
No. 12 North Dakota is placed in No. 5 Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
No. 4 Seeds
One more time, taking No. 16 v. No. 1, No. 15 v. No. 2, etc.
No. 16 Holy Cross is sent to Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.
No. 15 Alabama-Hunstville is sent to Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
No. 14 Dartmouth is sent to Denver’s Regional, the East.
No. 13 Colgate is sent to Cornell’s Regional, the Northeast.
The brackets as we have set them up:
West Regional:
UAH vs. Minnesota
Ohio State vs. UML
Midwest Regional:
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
UNH vs. Harvard
East Regional:
Dartmouth vs. Denver
Boston University vs. Michigan
Northeast Regional:
Colgate vs. Cornell
North Dakota vs. Boston College
Our first concern is avoiding intra-conference matchups. We have one, the Colgate-Cornell matchup in Amherst, to deal with. We can’t switch Colgate with Dartmouth, since that means another ECACHL-ECACHL matchup, so we jockey around. We move Colgate to face the next highest seed, which in this case is Denver. We then move Dartmouth to face the next highest seed in Minnesota, and we move UAH to take on Cornell. That takes care of the brackets.
West Regional:
14 Dartmouth vs. 2 Minnesota
11 Ohio State vs. 7 UML
Midwest Regional:
16 Holy Cross vs. 1 Colorado College
10 UNH vs. 8 Harvard
East Regional:
13 Colgate vs. 3 Denver
9 Boston University vs. 6 Michigan
Northeast Regional:
15 UAH vs. 4 Cornell
12 North Dakota vs. 5 Boston College
Bracketing the Frozen Four, if all four number-one seeds advance, then the top overall seed plays the No. 4 overall, and No. 2 plays No. 3. Therefore, the winners of the Midwest and Northeast Regionals face each other in one semifinal (Colorado College and Cornell’s brackets), while the winners of the East and West Regionals (Denver and Minnesota’s brackets) play the other semifinal.
We could stop here, but let’s take a look at “bracket integrity” — the issue of having the perfect seeds play one another, as in 1-16 and 8-9 in one bracket, 2-15 and 7-10 in one bracket, etc. Can we get better bracket integrity that what we have now?
We can, and here’s how.
Let’s start at the top. After placing No. 2 Minnesota in the West Regional, we then place No. 1 Colorado College in the East Regional. Why do we do this? Because No. 9 Boston University is guaranteed the East Regional and what do we want to happen? We want the seeds of 1, 8, 9 and 16 in one regional. So let’s do that here.
No. 1 Seeds
No. 2 Minnesota is placed in the West Regional in Minneapolis.
No. 1 Colorado College is placed in the East Regional in Worcester.
No. 3 Denver is placed in the Midwest Regional in Grand Rapids.
No. 4 Cornell is placed in the Northeast Regional in Amherst.
No. 2 Seeds
No. 5 Boston College is placed in No. 4 Cornell’s Regional, the Northeast.
No. 6 Michigan is placed in No. 3 Denver’s Regional, the Midwest
No. 7 UML is placed in No. 2 Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
No. 8 Harvard is placed in No. 1 Colorado College’s Regional, the East.
No. 3 Seeds
No. 9 Boston University is placed in No. 8 Harvard’s Regional, the East, as the host.
No. 10 New Hampshire is placed in No. 7 UML’s Regional, the West.
No. 11 Ohio State is placed in No. 6 Michigan’s Regional, the Midwest.
No. 12 North Dakota is placed in No. 5 Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
No. 4 Seeds
No. 16 Holy Cross is sent to Colorado College’s Regional, the East.
No. 15 Alabama-Hunstville is sent to Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
No. 14 Dartmouth is sent to Denver’s Regional, the Midwest.
No. 13 Colgate is sent to Cornell’s Regional, the Northeast.
Our brackets are then:
West Regional:
15 UAH vs. 2 Minnesota
10 New Hampshire vs. 7 UML
Midwest Regional:
14 Dartmouth vs. 3 Denver
11 Ohio State vs. 6 Michigan
East Regional:
16 Holy Cross vs. 1 Colorado College
9 Boston University vs. 8 Harvard
Northeast Regional:
13 Colgate vs. 4 Cornell
12 North Dakota vs. 5 Boston College
Taking care of intraconference matchups, we have the same situation as before with Colgate-Cornell, so we make the same moves.
In the third band we have two intraconference matchups, so we switch UNH with Ohio State to solve that problem.
Our tournament is now:
West Regional:
14 Dartmouth vs. 2 Minnesota
11 Ohio State vs. 7 UML
Midwest Regional:
13 Colgate vs. 3 Denver
10 New Hampshire vs. 6 Michigan
East Regional:
16 Holy Cross vs. 1 Colorado College
9 Boston University vs. 8 Harvard
Northeast Regional:
15 UAH vs. 4 Cornell
12 North Dakota vs. 5 Boston College
I like this setup for several reasons.
• Bracket integrity is sound.
• Michigan is now playing in its home state, so attendance is going to be good at every regional.
• Cornell gets a bit of payback from two years ago, when the Big Red was forced out of a first-round game against Mercyhurst and into one versus higher-seeded Minnesota State.
So this is my non-bonus bracket.
But…
Bonus Time
We know there is a bonus component to the criteria, the NCAA’s tweak to the system which rewards “good” nonconference wins.
Without official word on the size of the bonuses, we take these numbers: .003 for a good road win, .002 for a good neutral win and .001 for a good home win.
Now remember, non-conference wins against conference opponents do not count toward the bonus. For instance, when Alaska-Anchorage defeated Minnesota in the Nye Frontier Classic, that doesn’t count.
Our seedings are now:
1 Colorado College
2 Minnesota
3 Denver
4 Boston College
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7 Massachusetts-Lowell
8 Harvard
9 Wisconsin
10 New Hampshire
11 Boston University
12 North Dakota
13 Ohio State
14 Maine
15 Alabama-Huntsville
16 Holy Cross
Wow, wow, wow. Look at what the bonus does to the field! Wisconsin goes from out of the tournament to the No. 9 overall seed. Maine jumps into the tournament and two ECACHL teams, Colgate and Dartmouth drop out. And Cornell falls from No. 4 to No. 6, and BU from No. 9 to No. 11.
So, our brackets, using bracket-filling as above, have changes.
West Regional:
UAH vs. Minnesota
New Hampshire vs. UML
Midwest Regional:
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
Wisconsin vs. Harvard
East Regional:
Maine vs. Denver
Boston University vs. Cornell
Northeast Regional:
Ohio State vs. Boston College
North Dakota vs. Michigan
There is one intraconference matchup that can be taken care of by switching UNH and Wisconsin.
So our brackets are:
West Regional:
UAH vs. Minnesota
Wisconsin vs. UML
Midwest Regional:
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
New Hampshire vs. Harvard
East Regional:
Maine vs. Denver
Boston University vs. Cornell
Northeast Regional:
Ohio State vs. Boston College
North Dakota vs. Michigan
You have to love the East Regional here — a rematch of last year’s championship game and the traditional BU-Cornell rivalry. And in Amherst you have OSU-BC, a rematch from two years ago and North Dakota-Michigan, a nice mini-rivalry which over the years. Nice.
What if we took these numbers: .005 for a good road win, .003 for a good neutral win and .001 for a good home win?
Does anything change? North Dakota moves up three spots while UML drops three, and other slight movement as well. Making all the necessary switches gives us these brackets:
West Regional:
UAH vs. Minnesota
UML vs. Wisconsin
Midwest Regional:
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
North Dakota vs. Harvard
East Regional:
Maine vs. Denver
Boston University vs. Cornell
Northeast Regional:
Ohio State vs. Boston College
New Hampshire vs. Michigan
That’s it for this week, but let’s take a look at Bracketology a little more closely right now.
What happened to make Wisconsin jump with the bonus added? Let’s take a look at Wisconsin’s schedule.
There really isn’t anything strange about it. Take a look at the Badgers’ non-conference schedule. They beat Michigan, lost to Michigan State, beat last-place Notre Dame twice, tied last-place Yale, lost to Ferris State, and downed Mercyhurst twice. There’s just one bonus win there, the one at home to Michigan. But that doesn’t change much. So what happened with Wisconsin?
As it turns out, it’s not what happened with Wisconsin, it’s happened to Wisconsin.
Let’s look elsewhere in the WCHA, specifically at St. Cloud. That’s an odd place to look, I know, but examine the Huskies’ RPI rating. They sit at .4991, not a Team Under Consideration (TUC).
So why are we even discussing St. Cloud? Because SCSU defeated Ohio State on October 10.
So what, you’re asking? It’s huge! That win in Durham, N.H., gives St. Cloud a projected .002 bonus in the RPI. And that makes St. Cloud’s RPI .5011. St. Cloud is now a TUC.
And, boy, does that turn the field upside down. Do you want to know why Wisconsin jumped up to a No. 9 seed? Do you want to know why Colgate and Dartmouth dropped out of the tournament? Do you want to know why Maine made the tournament? The answers all lie with St. Cloud State.
The inclusion of St. Cloud State turned some several comparisons, thanks to teams’ records against TUCs.
For example, the inclusion of St. Cloud gives Wisconsin an 8-6-0 record against TUCs. That helped the Badgers turn the comparison against Colgate, which has a 7-6-1 record against TUCs. Wisconsin’s two wins against St. Cloud moved Wisconsin from 6-6-0 to 8-6-0, just enough to turn that comparison. As a result, Colgate dropped out of the tournament, since otherwise Colgate would be ahead of Maine.
In fact, those two wins were enough to turn a few comparisons for Wisconsin, including Wisconsin-UNH and Wisconsin-Dartmouth — another reason why Dartmouth dropped out.
It’s not anything that Maine did to get into the tournament. With Colgate and Dartmouth losing those comparisons to Wisconsin, it brought them back to Maine. And Maine had already won comparisons with Colgate and Dartmouth.
So what’s the moral of the story? The teams sitting on the border of .500 in the RPI can make a difference and need to be watched. Do you think Wisconsin head coach Mike Eaves loves St. Cloud right now? You bet he does. Without the Huskies, Wisconsin is out of the tournament today.
We’ll go a little more in-depth next week and see if we can start to predict what might happen under certain results.
