It’s time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology, college hockey style. It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament will wind up come selection time.
It’s a look into what are the possible thought processes behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams.
Those of you that are veterans of the college hockey scene know that it is all about the PairWise Rankings. This is USCHO’s numerical approach that simulates the way the NCAA Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Committee chooses the teams that make the NCAA tournament.
The criteria are tweaked every so often — every so often being every year lately — in order to give what the committee believes will be the best tournament.
There were some major changes this year to the selection criteria. In short:
• PairWise comparisons are now done against all teams. There is no cutoff for the amount of teams, so the most PWR comparison wins that a team can have is 58 since there are 59 teams.
• There is now a home and away wins weighting applied to the Ratings Percentage Index. In calculation of the index, wins on the road and losses at home have a weighting factor of 1.2. Wins at home and losses on the road have a weighting factor of 0.8. All neutral-site games have a weighting factor of 1.0. A tie is one-half of a win and one-half of a loss, so home/road ties are treated accordingly for the teams involved.
• There is a quality wins bonus for wins against teams in the top 20 of the RPI. A win against the No. 1 team in the RPI is worth 0.05 points, and is scaled down by 0.0025 points for each place until you reach No. 20, where a bonus of 0.0025 points will be given.
The changes are a little complicated, so it is best to check out our FAQ.
Since USCHO has begun the PairWise Rankings, we have correctly identified all of the teams that have been selected to the NCAA tournament.
For the past three years, I am the only prognosticator to have correctly predicted the exact brackets for the NCAA tournament, meaning that I have predicted how the committee thought when putting together the brackets.
This is the next installment of our Bracketology, and we’ll be bringing you a new one every week until we make our final picks before the field is announced on March 23.
If you want to skip the inner workings and get to the results of the analysis, then click here.
Here are the facts:
• Sixteen teams are selected to participate in the national tournament.
• There are four regional sites (East — Bridgeport, Conn.; Northeast — Worcester, Mass.; Midwest — Cincinnati; West — St. Paul, Minn.)
• A host institution that is invited to the tournament plays in the regional for which it is the host and cannot be moved. There are four host institutions this year: Yale in Bridgeport, Holy Cross in Worcester, Miami in Cincinnati and Minnesota in St. Paul.
• Seedings will not be switched. To avoid undesirable first-round matchups, including intra-conference games (see below), teams will be moved among regionals, not reseeded.
Here are the NCAA’s guidelines on the matter, from the 2014 pre-championship manual:
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 the likelihood of a playoff-type atmosphere at each regional site. For this model, the following is a basic set of priorities:
1. Once the six automatic qualifiers and 10 at-large teams are selected, the next step is to develop four groups from the committee’s rankings of 1-16. The top four teams are 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. The next four are targeted as No. 2 seeds. The next four are No. 3 seeds and the last four are No. 4 seeds.
2. Step two is to place the home teams. Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home.
3. Step three is to fill in the bracket so that first-round conference matchups are avoided, unless it corrupts the integrity of the bracket. If five or more teams from one conference are selected to the championship, then the integrity of the bracket will be protected (i.e., maintaining the pairing process according to seed will take priority over avoidance of first-round conference matchups). To complete each regional, the committee assigns one team from each of the remaining seeded groups so there is a No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 seed at each regional site.
Given these facts, here is the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and the conference leaders through all games of Feb. 4:
1 Minnesota
2 Boston College
3 Quinnipiac
4t Union
4t Ferris State
6 Cornell
7 Massachusetts-Lowell
8t Michigan
8t Northeastern
10 St. Cloud State
11t Providence
11t Minnesota-Duluth
13 Wisconsin
14 New Hampshire
15 North Dakota
16 Notre Dame
— Mercyhurst
Current conference leaders based on winning percentage:
Atlantic Hockey: Mercyhurst
Big Ten: Minnesota
ECAC Hockey: Union
Hockey East: Boston College
NCHC: St. Cloud State
WCHA: Ferris State
Notes
• Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played — i.e., the NCAA tournament starts tomorrow.
• Because there are an uneven amount of games played inside each conference, I will be using winning percentage, not points accumulated, to determine the current leader in each conference. This team is my assumed conference tournament champion.
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 in any current league leaders that are not currently in the top 16. The only team that is not is Mercyhurst.
From there, we can start looking at the ties and bubbles in a more detailed fashion.
The ties and bubbles consist of Union and Ferris State at 4, Michigan and Northeastern at 8, and Minnesota-Duluth and Providence at 11.
We break all of our ties based upon the RPI.
Therefore, the 16 teams in the tournament, in rank order, are:
1 Minnesota
2 Boston College
3 Quinnipiac
4 Union
5 Ferris State
6 Cornell
7 Massachusetts-Lowell
8 Michigan
9 Northeastern
10 St. Cloud State
11 Providence
12 Minnesota-Duluth
13 Wisconsin
14 New Hampshire
15 North Dakota
16 Mercyhurst
Step two
Now it’s time to assign the seeds.
No. 1 seeds: Minnesota, Boston College, Quinnipiac, Union
No. 2 seeds: Ferris State, Cornell, Massachusetts-Lowell, Michigan
No. 3 seeds: Northeastern, St. Cloud State, Providence, Minnesota-Duluth
No. 4 seeds: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Mercyhurst
Step three
Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals.
Minnesota, as a host school, is placed first.
No. 1 Minnesota is placed in the West Regional in St. Paul.
No. 2 Boston College is placed in the Northeast Regional in Worcester.
No. 3 Quinnipiac is placed in the East Regional in Bridgeport.
No. 4 Union is placed in the Midwest Regional in Cincinnati.
Step four
Now we place the other 12 teams so as to avoid intraconference 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 (unless you are a host school, in which case you must be assigned to your home regional).
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 would be played by No. 1 vs. No. 8, No. 2 vs. No. 7, No. 3 vs. No. 6 and No. 4 vs. No. 5.
So therefore:
No. 2 seeds
No. 8 Michigan is placed in No. 1 Minnesota’s regional, the West Regional.
No. 7 Massachusetts-Lowell is placed in No. 2 Boston College’s regional, the Northeast Regional.
No. 6 Cornell is placed in No. 3 Quinnipiac’s regional, the East Regional.
No. 5 Ferris State is placed in No. 4 Union’s regional, the Midwest Regional.
No. 3 seeds
Our bracketing system has one regional containing seeds 1, 8, 9, and 16; another with 2, 7, 10 and 15; another with 3, 6, 11 and 14; and another with 4, 5, 12 and 13.
No. 9 Northeastern is placed in No. 8 Michigan’s regional, the West Regional.
No. 10 St. Cloud State is placed in No. 7 Massachusetts-Lowell’s regional, the Northeast Regional.
No. 11 Providence is placed in No. 6 Cornell’s regional, the East Regional.
No. 12 Minnesota-Duluth is placed in No. 5 Ferris State’s regional, the Midwest Regional.
No. 4 seeds
One more time, taking No. 16 vs. No. 1, No. 15 vs. No. 2, etc.
No. 16 Mercyhurst is sent to No. 1 Minnesota’s regional, the West Regional.
No. 15 North Dakota is sent to No. 2 Boston College’s regional, the Northeast Regional.
No. 14 New Hampshire is sent to No. 3 Quinnipiac’s regional, the East Regional.
No. 13 Wisconsin is sent to No. 4 Union’s regional, the Midwest Regional.
The brackets as we have set them up:
West Regional (St. Paul):
16 Mercyhurst vs. 1 Minnesota
9 Northeastern vs. 8 Michigan
Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
13 Wisconsin vs. 4 Union
12 Minnesota-Duluth vs. 5 Ferris State
Northeast Regional (Worcester):
15 North Dakota vs. 2 Boston College
10 St. Cloud State vs. 7 Massachusetts-Lowell
East Regional (Bridgeport):
14 New Hampshire vs. 3 Quinnipiac
11 Providence vs. 6 Cornell
Our first concern is avoiding intraconference matchups. We have none.
What? None at all? That’s correct, none at all.
So that’s it, right? We have our bracket.
Well, let’s see where we can fine-tune some things.
For example, how about we look at attendance? (Yes, I know this always happens, but follow along.)
Where can we improve? We can’t add another eastern team in Worcester unless we swap North Dakota and Mercyhurst. But that means we’re not protecting our overall No. 1 seed in Minnesota, so we don’t do that.
Our East Regional is perfect. I don’t think we need to change that.
Can we improve the West or Midwest Regionals? We can swap Michigan and Ferris State, but does that really help?
We can also swap Minnesota-Duluth and Northeastern, to boost the attendance at St. Paul, but does that really make a difference?
So in conclusion, I don’t think we touch this bracket at all.
So that is it.
See you here next week for the next Bracketology.
Here’s a summary of everything that we have covered.
This week’s brackets
West Regional (St. Paul):
16 Mercyhurst vs. 1 Minnesota
9 Northeastern vs. 8 Michigan
Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
13 Wisconsin vs. 4 Union
12 Minnesota-Duluth vs. 5 Ferris State
Northeast Regional (Worcester):
15 North Dakota vs. 2 Boston College
10 St. Cloud State vs. 7 Massachusetts-Lowell
East Regional (Bridgeport):
14 New Hampshire vs. 3 Quinnipiac
11 Providence vs. 6 Cornell
Conference breakdowns
Hockey East — 5
ECAC Hockey — 3
Big Ten — 3
NCHC — 3
Atlantic Hockey — 1
WCHA — 1
On the move
In: New Hampshire, North Dakota
Out: Clarkson, Notre Dame
Attendance woes?
Some uneasiness in Cincinnati.
Last week’s brackets
West Regional (St. Paul):
16 Mercyhurst vs. 1 Minnesota
9 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 6 St. Cloud State
Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
13 Wisconsin vs. 4 Union
12 Notre Dame vs. 5 Ferris State
Northeast Regional (Worcester):
15 Colgate vs. 2 Boston College
10 Michigan vs. 8 Northeastern
East Regional (Bridgeport):
14 Minnesota-Duluth vs. 3 Quinnipiac
11 Cornell vs. 7 Providence
Interesting …
Still some time to go, but things are heating up.
