It’s time once again for what we like to call Bracketology — college hockey style. It’s our latest investigation of 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
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 are the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and all conference leaders, based on winning percentage (Quinnipiac, Michigan, Bemidji State, Cornell, Boston College and Denver) (through all games of Saturday, March 12, 2005): <\/p>\n
1t Colorado College
\n1t Denver
\n1t Boston College
\n4 Minnesota
\n5 Cornell
\n6t Harvard
\n6t Michigan
\n8 Boston University
\n9 Wisconsin
\n10 North Dakota
\n11t New Hampshire
\n11t Maine
\n13t Colgate
\n13t Dartmouth
\n15 Ohio State
\n16t Michigan State
\n16t Vermont
\n26 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 Harvard
\n7 Michigan
\n8 Boston University
\n9 Wisconsin
\n10 North Dakota
\n11 New Hampshire
\n12 Maine
\n13 Colgate
\n14 Dartmouth
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Quinnipiac <\/p>\nAll ties were broken because of individual comparison wins. <\/p>\n
The biggest difference from Saturday morning is that Colgate is now in the tournament and Ohio State is out. Bowling Green getting swept by Alaska-Fairbanks — and therefore leaving the ranks of Teams Under Comparison — really, really, really<\/i> hurt both Ohio State and Michigan.<\/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, Harvard, Michigan, Boston University
\nNo. 3 Seeds — Wisconsin, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine
\nNo. 4 Seeds — Colgate, Dartmouth, 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 school.
\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 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 (unless you are a host school, in which case you must be assigned to your home regional). <\/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. 8 Boston University is placed in No. 2 Denver’s Regional, the East, as the host.
\nNo. 5 Cornell is placed in No. 4 Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
\nNo. 6 Harvard is placed in No. 3 Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 7 Michigan is placed in No. 2 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
In this case with the No. 2 seeds being displaced, we’re trying to get the 8-9, 7-10, 6-11, and 5-12 matchups as close as possible.<\/p>\n
Therefore:<\/p>\n
No. 9 Wisconsin is placed in No. 7 Michigan’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 10 North Dakota is placed in No. 8 Boston University’s Regional, the East.
\nNo. 11 New Hampshire is placed in No. 6 Harvard’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 12 Maine is placed in No. 5 Cornell’s Regional, the West.<\/p>\nNo. 4 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
One more time, and this time we’re going back to 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 Dartmouth is sent to Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 13 Colgate is sent to Minnesota’s Regional, the West.<\/p>\nThe brackets as we have set them up:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
13 Colgate vs. 4 Minnesota
\n12 Maine vs. 5 Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
16 Quinnipiac vs. 1 Colorado College
\n9 Wisconsin vs. 7 Michigan<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
15 Bemidji State vs. 2 Denver
\n10 North Dakota vs. 8 Boston University<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
14 Dartmouth vs. 3 Boston College
\n11 New Hampshire vs. 6 Harvard<\/p>\nOur first concern is avoiding intraconference matchups. We have none, so this is our bracket.<\/p>\n
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 West Regionals face each other in one semifinal (Colorado College and Minnesota’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 teams in the Top 15 of the RPI rankings.<\/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
Recall that nonconference wins against conference opponents do not count toward the bonus. For instance, when Alaska-Anchorage defeated Minnesota in the Nye Frontier Classic, that didn’t count.<\/p>\n
Our seedings are now:<\/p>\n
1 Boston College
\n2 Colorado College
\n3 Denver
\n4 Minnesota
\n5 Cornell
\n6 Harvard
\n7 Michigan
\n8 Boston University
\n9 Wisconsin
\n10 North Dakota
\n11 New Hampshire
\n12 Maine
\n13 Dartmouth
\n14 Colgate
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Quinnipiac <\/p>\nThere really is no difference here except that Boston College is now a clear No. 1 seed.<\/p>\n
So, our new brackets, using bracket-filling as above, are as follows:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
13 Dartmouth vs. 4 Minnesota
\n12 Maine vs. 5 Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
15 Bemidji State vs. 2 Colorado College
\n10 North Dakota vs. 7 Michigan<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
16 Quinnipiac vs. 1 Boston College
\n9 Wisconsin vs. 8 Boston University<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
14 Colgate vs. 3 Denver
\n11 New Hampshire vs. 6 Harvard<\/p>\nWow — it’s perfect. No intraconference matchups. Bracket and competitive equity is perfect. And also, attendance is great.<\/p>\n
Nice: I like it.<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
Does anything change? Nope, the brackets stay the same.<\/p>\n
What about Sunday?<\/p>\n
Which game is the most interesting?<\/i><\/p>\n
Without a doubt, it’s the Alaska-Anchorage vs. Wisconsin matchup.<\/p>\n
UAA is teetering as a TUC. We go back to the question — is it best for Wisconsin to lose this series? Last week we said no. How about right now?<\/p>\n
Wisconsin, with a loss to UAA, can potentially lose three more comparisons, to BU, North Dakota and Maine. This would put the Badgers at No. 12 at the worst in the PairWise. So perhaps losing to UAA isn’t that bad of a deal after all.<\/p>\n
The CCHA is in trouble, isn’t it?<\/i><\/p>\n
The league is teetering on the verge of only getting one bid, that’s for sure.<\/p>\n
Bowling Green and Miami getting swept does not help the CCHA. Neither can now be a TUC, which hurts the records against TUCs for some of the league’s top teams, including Michigan and Ohio State. But there is hope with UAF and WMU.<\/p>\n
UAF is right on the edge of being a TUC. A win in Detroit makes the Nanooks a TUC. But then there are two other games after that — and the first would be against Michigan, Ohio State, or Nebraska-Omaha. <\/p>\n
WMU is further back in the RPI. The Broncos will need to beat NMU Sunday, then win at least two games in Detroit.<\/p>\n
Well, this whole thing will change again with four days of games left. We’ll be back on Monday with another edition of Bracketology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It’s time once again for what we like to call Bracketology — college hockey style. It’s our latest investigation of 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. Here are the facts: \u2022 Sixteen […]<\/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: March 13, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It's time once again for what we like to call Bracketology -- college hockey style. It's our latest investigation of how the NCAA tournament might look if\" \/>\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\/27249\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bracketology: March 13, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It's time once again for what we like to call Bracketology -- college hockey style. It's our latest investigation of how the NCAA tournament might look if\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27249\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-14T01:51:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2010-08-18T00:56:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/uscho_featured-1.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/\",\"name\":\"Bracketology: March 13, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-14T01:51:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2010-08-18T00:56:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0\"},\"description\":\"It's time once again for what we like to call Bracketology -- college hockey style. It's our latest investigation of how the NCAA tournament might look if\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"width\":1175,\"height\":763},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bracketology: March 13, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.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:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0\",\"name\":\"Jayson Moy\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.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:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/author\/jayson\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bracketology: March 13, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","description":"It's time once again for what we like to call Bracketology -- college hockey style. It's our latest investigation of how the NCAA tournament might look if","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\/27249","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bracketology: March 13, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","og_description":"It's time once again for what we like to call Bracketology -- college hockey style. It's our latest investigation of how the NCAA tournament might look if","og_url":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27249","og_site_name":"College Hockey | USCHO.com","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OfficialUSCHO\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-14T01:51:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2010-08-18T00:56:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":1024,"url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/uscho_featured-1.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Jayson Moy","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@USCHO","twitter_site":"@USCHO","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jayson Moy","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/","url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/","name":"Bracketology: March 13, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","datePublished":"2005-03-14T01:51:09+00:00","dateModified":"2010-08-18T00:56:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0"},"description":"It's time once again for what we like to call Bracketology -- college hockey style. It's our latest investigation of how the NCAA tournament might look if","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","width":1175,"height":763},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/03\/13\/bracketology-march-13-2005\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bracketology: March 13, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.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:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0","name":"Jayson Moy","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.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:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/author\/jayson\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27249"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27249\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/140328"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27249"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=27249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}