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.<\/p>\n
More than that, it’s a look into the thought process behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams.<\/p>\n
This is the seventh 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.<\/p>\n
Here are the facts:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Sixteen teams are selected to participate in the national tournament. <\/p>\n
\u2022 There are four regional sites (East – Worcester, Massachusetts, Northeast – Amherst, Massachusetts, Midwest – Grand Rapids, Mich., West – Minneapolis, Minn.)<\/p>\n
\u2022 A host institution which is invited to the tournament plays in the regional for which it is the host, and cannot be moved. <\/p>\n
\u2022 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. <\/p>\n
Here are the NCAA’s guidelines on the matter, per a meeting of the Championship Committee: <\/p>\n
\nIn 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
\u2022 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
\u2022 Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home. <\/p>\n
\u2022 No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible in order of their ranking 1-4. <\/p>\n
\u2022 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
\u2022 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.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Additionally, the NCAA recently clarified its selection criteria to include a bonus factor for “good” nonconference wins, which are wins against non-league opponents in the top 15 of the Ratings Percentage Index.<\/p>\n
Given these facts, here is the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and all conference leaders, based on winning percentage (Quinnipiac, Michigan, Bemidji State, Cornell, New Hampshire and Denver\/Colorado College) (through all games of Monday, February 28, 2005):<\/p>\n
1t Colorado College
\n1t Denver
\n3 Boston College
\n4t Minnesota
\n4t Cornell
\n6 Michigan
\n7 Wisconsin
\n8 Harvard
\n9t Dartmouth
\n9t Boston University
\n9t New Hampshire
\n12 North Dakota
\n13t Massachusetts-Lowell
\n13t Ohio State
\n15 Maine
\n16 Northern Michigan
\n30 Bemidji State
\n— Quinnipiac<\/p>\nStep One<\/b> <\/p>\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 all of the conference leaders, based on winning percentage.<\/p>\n
From there, we can start looking at the bubble in a more detailed fashion.<\/p>\n
Breaking ties in the PWR using head-to-head comparisons among the tied teams, the 16 teams in the tournament, in rank order, are:<\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Denver
\n3 Boston College
\n4 Minnesota
\n5 Cornell
\n6 Michigan
\n7 Wisconsin
\n8 Harvard
\n9 Dartmouth
\n10 Boston University
\n11 New Hampshire
\n12 North Dakota
\n13 Massachusetts-Lowell
\n14 Ohio State
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Quinnipiac <\/p>\nAll ties were broken because of individual comparison wins. <\/p>\n
Step Two<\/b><\/p>\n
Now it’s time to assign the seeds.<\/p>\n
No. 1 Seeds — Colorado College, Denver, Boston College, Minnesota
\nNo. 2 Seeds — Cornell, Michigan, Wisconsin, Harvard
\nNo. 3 Seeds — Dartmouth, Boston University, New Hampshire, North Dakota
\nNo. 4 Seeds — Massachusetts-Lowell, Ohio State, Bemidji State, Quinnipiac<\/p>\nStep Three<\/b> <\/p>\n
Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals. <\/p>\n
We place host schools first and then place the other No. 1 seeds based on proximity to the regional sites. <\/p>\n
No. 4 Minnesota is placed in the West Regional in Minneapolis as the host.
\nNo. 1 Colorado College is placed in the Midwest Regional in Grand Rapids.
\nNo. 2 Denver is placed in the East Regional in Worcester.
\nNo. 3 Boston College is then placed in the Northeast Regional in Amherst.<\/p>\nStep Four<\/b> <\/p>\n
Now we place the other 12 teams so as to avoid intraconference matchups if possible. <\/p>\n
Begin by filling in each bracket by banding groups. Remember that teams are not<\/i> 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). <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
So therefore:<\/p>\n
No. 2 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
No. 5 Cornell is placed in No. 4 Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
\nNo. 6 Michigan is placed in No. 3 Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast
\nNo. 7 Wisconsin is placed in No. 2 Denver’s Regional, the East.
\nNo. 8 Harvard is placed in No. 1 Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.<\/p>\nNo. 3 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Therefore:<\/p>\n
No. 10 Boston University is placed in No. 7 Wisconsin’s Regional, the East, as the host.
\nNo. 9 Dartmouth is placed in No. 8 Harvard’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 11 UNH is placed in No. 6 Michigan’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 12 North Dakota is placed in No. 5 Cornell’s Regional, the West.<\/p>\nNo. 4 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
One more time, taking No. 16 v. No. 1, No. 15 v. No. 2, etc.<\/p>\n
No. 16 Quinnipiac is sent to Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 15 Bemidji State is sent to Denver’s Regional, the East.
\nNo. 14 Ohio State is sent to Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 13 UML is sent to Minnesota’s Regional, the West.<\/p>\nThe brackets as we have set them up:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Massachusetts-Lowell vs. Minnesota
\nNorth Dakota vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Quinnipiac vs. Colorado College
\nDartmouth vs. Harvard<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Wisconsin<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Ohio State vs. Boston College
\nNew Hampshire vs. Michigan<\/p>\nOur first concern is avoiding intraconference matchups. We have just one, Dartmouth vs. Harvard. We simply switch Dartmouth with UNH. <\/p>\n
We now have our bracket:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Massachusetts-Lowell vs. Minnesota
\nNorth Dakota vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Quinnipiac vs. Colorado College
\nNew Hampshire vs. Harvard<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Wisconsin<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Ohio State vs. Boston College
\nDartmouth vs. Michigan<\/p>\nBracketing 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 West and Midwest Regionals face each other in one semifinal (Minnesota and Colorado College’s brackets), while the winners of the East and Northeast Regionals (Denver and Boston College’s brackets) play the other semifinal. <\/p>\n
But …<\/p>\n
Bonus Time<\/h4>\n
We know there is a bonus component to the criteria, the NCAA’s tweak to the system which rewards “good” nonconference wins (wins against nonconference opponents in the top 15 of the Ratings Percentage Index).<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Now remember, nonconference wins against conference opponents do not count toward the bonus. For example, when Alaska-Anchorage defeated Minnesota in the Nye Frontier Classic, that didn’t count.<\/p>\n
Our seedings are now:<\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Denver
\n3 Boston College
\n4 Minnesota
\n5 Cornell
\n6 Michigan
\n7 Wisconsin
\n8 Harvard
\n9 Dartmouth
\n10 Boston University
\n11 New Hampshire
\n12 North Dakota
\n13 Massachusetts-Lowell
\n14 Maine
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Quinnipiac<\/p>\nThere is one difference, Maine replacing Ohio State in the tournament. Oh, those bonus points.<\/p>\n
So our new brackets, using bracket-filling as above, have one change. <\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Massachusetts-Lowell vs. Minnesota
\nNorth Dakota vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Quinnipiac vs. Colorado College
\nNew Hampshire vs. Harvard<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Maine vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Wisconsin<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nDartmouth vs. Michigan<\/p>\nWhat if we took these numbers: .005 for a good road win, .003 for a good neutral win and .001 for a good home win.<\/p>\n
We’ve got one major change and two small ones. The small ones are that Harvard and Wisconsin have switched places and Boston College and Denver have switched places. The major one is that Ohio State is back in, and Maine is back out. What? We’ll talk in a moment. Our seedings:<\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Boston College
\n3 Denver
\n4 Minnesota
\n5 Cornell
\n6 Michigan
\n7 Harvard
\n8 Wisconsin
\n9 Dartmouth
\n10 Boston University
\n11 New Hampshire
\n12 North Dakota
\n13 Massachusetts-Lowell
\n14 Ohio State
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Quinnipiac <\/p>\nAnd our brackets:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Massachusetts-Lowell vs. Minnesota
\nNorth Dakota vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Quinnipiac vs. Colorado College
\nDartmouth vs. Wisconsin<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Ohio State vs. Denver
\nNew Hampshire vs. Michigan<\/p>\nWe’re good.<\/p>\n
OK, so let’s get this straight. Maine is out with no bonus, in with a 3-2-1 bonus, but out with a 5-3-1 bonus. How is that?<\/p>\n
With the 3-2-1 bonus, both Maine and Ohio State have 16 PWR wins, but Maine gets the tournament slot based upon its higher RPI, which swings the head-to-head comparison to the Black Bears. With the 5-3-1 bonus, Ohio State has 18 and Maine has 17. Where did the extra two wins for Ohio State come from? And the extra one for Maine?<\/p>\n
The answer to one of those questions is Miami. Miami enters as a TUC with the 5-3-1 bonus. The RedHawks were not there in the 3-2-1 bonus. That’s one. Where’s the other one for Ohio State? It comes from Ohio State turning the comparison on Wisconsin. Without Miami, Ohio State loses the TUC criteria to Wisconsin, with Miami, it wins it. That’s enough to give Ohio State another PWR win.<\/p>\n
Let’s talk more about what happened this past weekend. Who were the big winners? Who were the big losers?<\/p>\n
You would expect those that had bad weekends to be the big losers. That is roughly correct.<\/p>\n
UML and Ohio State were the big losers this week. They each lost four comparison wins, UML lost five places and Ohio State lost four places. UML went 0-2 this weekend while Ohio State was idle. Ouch.<\/p>\n
In going 0-2 this past weekend, UML lost four comparison wins to Harvard, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan State, enough to drop the River Hawks five spots. Lowell was winning the head-to-head comparison with Harvard, 2-1, but after this weekend, it’s now 3-0 in favor of Harvard.<\/p>\n
How did two criteria switch? UML had a higher RPI than Harvard last week. This week, it’s the other way around. The other one that switched was record against Common Opponents. UML went 0-2 against Maine, which Harvard has played. Harvard lost to Dartmouth, which Lowell has played. Harvard’s COP is now 12-7-1, Lowell’s 11-7-3 — advantage Harvard. And in turn, a 3-0 criteria win for Harvard.<\/p>\n
Against North Dakota it was an RPI and TUC criteria switch. With Wisconsin it was an RPI switch and with Michigan State it was a TUC switch.<\/p>\n
How about Ohio State? The Buckeyes were idle and they lost four spots. What happened?<\/p>\n
Wisconsin, North Dakota, Dartmouth and Maine turned their comparisons on Ohio State. We mentioned before that the appearance of Miami as a TUC benefits Ohio State, while the lack of an appearance by Miami hurts the Buckeyes. Last week Miami was in, this week it’s out. Worse yet for OSU, last week UAA was out, this week the Seawolves are in.<\/p>\n
As a result, Wisconsin turned the TUC comparison on Ohio State. North Dakota and Maine turned it on RPI, Dartmouth turned the TUC comparison because the Big Green went from 8-5-2 last week to 10-5-2. Ohio State last week was 9-5-2 with Miami in, this week, 7-5-2 with Miami out. <\/p>\n
How about some of the big winners this week? Maine was one, Dartmouth another.<\/p>\n
Dartmouth gained three comparison wins, good enough to move up six<\/i> spots. The Big Green turned comparisons with Ohio State, New Hampshire and Colgate. We already talked about the Ohio State comparison, so what about the other two? The TUC comparison with UNH is one, as UNH was 9-6-3 before last weekend, Dartmouth 7-5-2. Dartmouth is now 9-5-2, UNH is now 9-7-4. Colgate was also hurt by the TUC criterion as Colgate went 0-1 against TUCs last weekend, and Dartmouth went 2-0.<\/p>\n
I said in the “Tuesday at the Rink” chat session that Maine had to go 4-0 the next two weeks in order to have a chance at an at-large bid. They are there right now after just two wins. But, if they lose this weekend, they may well be on the outside looking in. But how did Maine gain four comparison wins and move up four spots?<\/p>\n
The Black Bears turned comparisons with Ohio State, Colgate, Michigan State and Duluth. We saw Ohio State’s reasoning before. The turn with Colgate came because of RPI and TUC. With Michigan State it was a pure TUC turn and with Duluth it was a TUC turn because of Maine’s 2-0 weekend, and the addition of the 0-3-1 record Duluth has against UAA into the TUC mix.<\/p>\n
North Dakota picked up two comparison wins this week, against Lowell and Ohio State. Harvard picked up one with the change over Lowell.<\/p>\n
It’s still all volatile.<\/p>\n
Let’s address one more issue here. I’ve gotten some email regarding the fact that autobid teams are ultimately counted as TUCs. In this case Quinnipiac makes a difference, since Quinnipiac has played three teams that are under consideration here: Colorado College, Maine and Dartmouth. CC and Maine defeated Quinnipiac while Dartmouth lost to Quinnipiac. The emails wonder if that changes anything.<\/p>\n
It doesn’t change CC, as the Tigers are already number one and a win against a TUC only helps.<\/p>\n
It doesn’t change Maine, believe it or not. One more TUC win does not change any of the comparisons that Maine has lost into wins.<\/p>\n
But it does move Dartmouth in one comparison, with Wisconsin. Without Quinnipiac, Dartmouth is 10-5-2 (.6471) against TUC’s and Wisconsin is 15-9-2 (.6154). With Quinnipiac, Dartmouth is 10-6-2 (.6111). Wisconsin now wins that comparison instead of losing it. That keeps Wisconsin as the No. 7 seed, but drops Dartmouth from 9 to 12.<\/p>\n
But you know what? Because of intraconference matchups, host schools, etc. the bracket does not change<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Good question, though.<\/p>\n
See you next week, and it will be big since the regular season ends.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week’s seeds — and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.<\/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: Feb. 28, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week's seeds -- and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27181\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week's seeds -- and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27181\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"College Hockey | USCHO.com\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OfficialUSCHO\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-03-01T01:11:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2010-08-18T00:56:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1175\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"763\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jayson Moy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@USCHO\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@USCHO\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jayson Moy\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/\",\"name\":\"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-01T01:11:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2010-08-18T00:56:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0\"},\"description\":\"The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week's seeds -- and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"width\":1175,\"height\":763},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/\",\"name\":\"College Hockey | USCHO.com\",\"description\":\"Men's and Women's D-I and D-III College Hockey News, Features, Scores, Statistics, Fan Forum, Blogs\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0\",\"name\":\"Jayson Moy\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/0844fd38a6823ecd776d66f78a8809cc\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/74ee8f7930ed5a3d4781a8ff3e4eb3f5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/74ee8f7930ed5a3d4781a8ff3e4eb3f5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jayson Moy\"},\"description\":\"Senior Writer Jayson Moy is a senior writer and has been with USCHO since its inception. He covered the ECAC from 1996 to 2003 and is the 2001 recipient of the ECAC Media Recognition Award. He has been writing Bracketology since 2004 and has never missed predicting the NCAA field.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/author\/jayson\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","description":"The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week's seeds -- and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27181","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","og_description":"The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week's seeds -- and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27181","og_site_name":"College Hockey | USCHO.com","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OfficialUSCHO\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-01T01:11:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2010-08-18T00:56:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1175,"height":763,"url":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jayson Moy","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@USCHO","twitter_site":"@USCHO","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jayson Moy","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/","url":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/","name":"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","datePublished":"2005-03-01T01:11:34+00:00","dateModified":"2010-08-18T00:56:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0"},"description":"The shuffle on the bubble continues, as Jayson Moy examines this week's seeds -- and takes a look at some quantum leaps and drops.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","width":1175,"height":763},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2005\/02\/28\/bracketology-feb-28-2005\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bracketology: Feb. 28, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/","name":"College Hockey | USCHO.com","description":"Men's and Women's D-I and D-III College Hockey News, Features, Scores, Statistics, Fan Forum, Blogs","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0","name":"Jayson Moy","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/0844fd38a6823ecd776d66f78a8809cc","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/74ee8f7930ed5a3d4781a8ff3e4eb3f5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/74ee8f7930ed5a3d4781a8ff3e4eb3f5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jayson Moy"},"description":"Senior Writer Jayson Moy is a senior writer and has been with USCHO since its inception. He covered the ECAC from 1996 to 2003 and is the 2001 recipient of the ECAC Media Recognition Award. He has been writing Bracketology since 2004 and has never missed predicting the NCAA field.","url":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/author\/jayson\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27181"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27181\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/140328"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27181"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=27181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}