Six weeks out, and there’s only so much room in the East for No. 3 seeds

Do Jon Gillies and Providence deserve to stay close to home at the expense of Michael Matheson and Boston College? (photo: Melissa Wade)

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 would wind up come selection time using what we know now.

It’s a look into the possible thought processes behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams.

We’ll keep bringing you a new one every week until we make our final picks before the field is announced on March 22.

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.

Since USCHO began the PairWise Rankings, we have correctly identified all of the teams that have been selected to the NCAA tournament.

For the past four 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 not a be-all, end-all analysis of the bracket. I am trying to give you, the reader, an idea of what the committee might be thinking and not exactly what they are thinking.

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 — Providence, R.I.; Northeast — Manchester, N.H.; Midwest — South Bend, Ind.; West — Fargo, N.D.).

• 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: Brown in Providence, New Hampshire in Manchester, Notre Dame in South Bend and North Dakota in Fargo.

• 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 2015 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. 3 (before Wednesday night’s Providence-Connecticut game):

1 Minnesota State
2 North Dakota
3 Boston University
4 Omaha
5 Minnesota-Duluth
6 Bowling Green
7 Michigan Tech
8 Miami
9 Denver
10 Providence
11 Harvard
12 Boston College
13 Massachusetts-Lowell
14 Michigan
15 Quinnipiac
16t Vermont
16t Yale
16t Merrimack
24 Robert Morris

Current conference leaders based on winning percentage:

Atlantic Hockey: Robert Morris
Big Ten: Michigan
ECAC Hockey: Quinnipiac
Hockey East: Boston University
NCHC: North Dakota (by head-to-head over Omaha)
WCHA: Minnesota 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 after applying the tiebreakers.

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 Robert Morris.

From there, we can start looking at the ties and bubbles in a more detailed fashion.

There are no ties and bubbles this week.

If there were, then we break all of our ties based upon the RPI.

Therefore, the 16 teams in the tournament, in rank order, are:

1 Minnesota State
2 North Dakota
3 Boston University
4 Omaha
5 Minnesota-Duluth
6 Bowling Green
7 Michigan Tech
8 Miami
9 Denver
10 Providence
11 Harvard
12 Boston College
13 Massachusetts-Lowell
14 Michigan
15 Quinnipiac
16 Robert Morris

Step two

Now it’s time to assign the seeds.

No. 1 seeds: Minnesota State, North Dakota, Boston University, Omaha

No. 2 seeds: Minnesota-Duluth, Bowling Green, Michigan Tech, Miami

No. 3 seeds: Denver, Providence, Harvard, Boston College

No. 4 seeds: Massachusetts-Lowell, Michigan, Quinnipiac, Robert Morris

Step three

Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals.

North Dakota, as a host institution, is placed first.

No. 2 North Dakota is placed in the West Regional in Fargo.
No. 1 Minnesota State is placed in the Midwest Regional in South Bend.
No. 3 Boston University is placed in the East Regional in Providence.
No. 4 Omaha is placed in the Northeast Regional in Manchester.

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 (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 Miami is placed in No. 1 Minnesota State’s regional, the Midwest Regional.
No. 7 Michigan Tech is placed in No. 2 North Dakota’s regional, the West Regional.
No. 6 Bowling Green is placed in No. 3 Boston University’s regional, the East Regional.
No. 5 Minnesota-Duluth is placed in No. 4 Omaha’s regional, the Northeast 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 Denver is placed in No. 8 Miami’s regional, the Midwest Regional.
No. 10 Providence is placed in No. 7 Michigan Tech’s regional, the West Regional.
No. 11 Harvard is placed in No. 6 Bowling Green’s regional, the East Regional.
No. 12 Boston College is placed in No. 5 Minnesota-Duluth’s regional, the Northeast Regional.

No. 4 seeds

One more time, taking No. 16 vs. No. 1, No. 15 vs. No. 2, etc.

No. 16 Robert Morris is sent to No. 1 Minnesota State’s regional, the Midwest Regional.
No. 15 Quinnipiac is sent to No. 2 North Dakota’s regional, the West Regional.
No. 14 Michigan is sent to No. 3 Boston University’s regional, the East Regional.
No. 13 Massachustts-Lowell is sent to No. 4 Omaha’s regional, the Northeast Regional.

The brackets as we have set them up:

East Regional (Providence):
14 Michigan vs. 3 Boston University
11 Harvard vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha
12 Boston College vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
9 Denver vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 2 North Dakota
10 Providence vs. 7 Michigan Tech

Our first concern is avoiding intraconference matchups. We have one — Denver vs. Miami — so let’s solve it.

We can swap Denver with Providence.

East Regional (Providence):
14 Michigan vs. 3 Boston University
11 Harvard vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha
12 Boston College vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
10 Providence vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 2 North Dakota
9 Denver vs. 7 Michigan Tech

What else can we do to make the bracket more appealing in terms of attendance?

We can swap Michigan with Quinnipiac to put the teams in their own regions.

East Regional (Providence):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 3 Boston University
11 Harvard vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha
12 Boston College vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
10 Providence vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
14 Michigan vs. 2 North Dakota
9 Denver vs. 7 Michigan Tech

What else can we do to make this bracket from an attendance standpoint?

You can look at bringing Providence to the Providence regional. (Remember, the Friars aren’t the host there; Brown is.) But that does mean swapping out Harvard with Providence.

So do you do this?

I would make the argument that the higher seed should get geographic precedence. Therefore, I would make this move and send Harvard to the Midwest and bring Providence to the East.

East Regional (Providence):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 3 Boston University
10 Providence vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha
12 Boston College vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
11 Harvard vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
14 Michigan vs. 2 North Dakota
9 Denver vs. 7 Michigan Tech

Then one may also ask, why wouldn’t you move Boston College to the Midwest instead and move Harvard to the Northeast?

That’s a good point. If I did it before, then I need to do it again. Even though I know that Boston College may be a better draw, I can’t have a double standard.

East Regional (Providence):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 3 Boston University
10 Providence vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha
11 Harvard vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
12 Boston College vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
14 Michigan vs. 2 North Dakota
9 Denver vs. 7 Michigan Tech

That Midwest Regional is very, very iffy on the attendance side of things. But there isn’t much else that you can do for that.

So that looks like our bracket for the week.

See you here next week for the next Bracketology.

Here’s a summary of everything that we have covered.

This week’s brackets

East Regional (Providence):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 3 Boston University
10 Providence vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha
11 Harvard vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
12 Boston College vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
14 Michigan vs. 2 North Dakota
9 Denver vs. 7 Michigan Tech

Conference breakdowns

NCHC — 5
Hockey East — 4
WCHA — 3
ECAC Hockey — 2
Big Ten — 1
Atlantic Hockey — 1

On the move

In: Massachusetts-Lowell

Out: Vermont

Attendance woes?

South Bend is looking very, very iffy.

Last week’s brackets

East Regional (Providence):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 3 Boston University
11 Denver vs. 6 Bowling Green

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Boston College vs. 4 Omaha
9 Providence vs. 5 Harvard

Midwest Regional (South Bend):
16 Robert Morris vs. 1 Minnesota State
12 Michigan vs. 8 Miami

West Regional (Fargo):
14 Vermont vs. 2 North Dakota
10 Michigan Tech vs. 7 Minnesota-Duluth

124 COMMENTS

  1. Tech and MSU are #1 and #2 in the pairwise. That will be a great matchup in Houghton next weekend. I’ll bet nobody saw the WCHA having a #1-#2 matchup in conference play.

  2. Sorry Jayson, West Regional wrong. Unbiased, neutral Committee will have North Dakota vs. Michigan and Minnesota-Duluth vs. Denver. They will ship Michigan Tech to NE Regional.

    • I agree with Jayson’s Denver – Providence switch because it avoids an intra-conference match-up without a major sacrifice in bracket integrity. The swap isn’t mandatory here, because the NCHC has 5 teams in the tourney. If the tourney had these 16 teams, I think the NCAA swaps Michigan with Robert Morris to boost South Bend attendance. MN State gets screwed having to play a much stronger 4 seed, but the NCAA would do it for the $$$.

      • I was in Madison in 2008, there were 3 WCHA teams there so don’t tell me it would not happen. There were 6 WCHA teams and they stuck 3 in Madison and split the others in each other Regional.

        • they actually left one out of a regional………we wouldn’t want to have that all WCHA frozen four again……have to make sure to save a spot for one of those east coast teams.

          • No, they had one in each regional in 2008. CC in West, St. Cloud in East, and Minnesota in NE. Try as they might, because of the bands we fell in, the Committee had to spread the other 3 out.

        • Yes in the very unlikely event that any conf gets 6 teams in and they have 3 that are all 2 seeds and two that are 3 seeds, there is no way to avoid at least one conf matchup then. So they put three teams in one conf just to make sure they didn’t have two games that were conf matchups.

          But unless it just can’t be avoided like this one year you keep brining up (which btw is seriously unlikely to happen again now that there is another auto bid conf with the big10 taking away one of the at large teams that got in) there is no way they have two teams from the same conf play one another.

          • They had options in 2008. Realizing there had to be one 2/3 matchup with WCHA teams, they could have sent Sioux to Colorado Springs and put UNH in Madison. By doing this there would be a better WCHA split of 2-2-1-1. Prior to 2008 there had never been 3 teams from same conference in one Regional, precedent has been set.

          • Wow, there is no way you actually went to DU. I live in Denver and know many people that went to the school and they are all really bright. You seem to be hung up on this one thing. Yes the president has been set that “IF 6 TEAMS FROM THE SAME CONFERENCE” are in the tournament they can put three teams in one bracket. How does that even help your argument? in 2008 they still would have had to play another wcha team if both the top seeds won.

      • The NCAA will bend over backwards to make sure the 1 seed plays the 16 seed. So Michigan will not be swapped with Robert Morris.

  3. Sorry Jayson, West Regional wrong. Unbiased, neutral Committee will have North Dakota vs. Michigan and Minnesota-Duluth vs. Denver. They will ship Michigan Tech to NE Regional.

    • I agree with Jayson’s Denver – Providence switch because it avoids an intra-conference match-up without a major sacrifice in bracket integrity. The swap isn’t mandatory here, because the NCHC has 5 teams in the tourney. If the tourney had these 16 teams, I think the NCAA swaps Michigan with Robert Morris to boost South Bend attendance. MN State gets screwed having to play a much stronger 4 seed, but the NCAA would do it for the $$$.

      • I was in Madison in 2008, there were 3 WCHA teams there so don’t tell me it would not happen. There were 6 WCHA teams and they stuck 3 in Madison and split the others in each other Regional.

        • they actually left one out of a regional………we wouldn’t want to have that all WCHA frozen four again……have to make sure to save a spot for one of those east coast teams.

          • No, they had one in each regional in 2008. CC in West, St. Cloud in East, and Minnesota in NE. Try as they might, because of the bands we fell in, the Committee had to spread the other 3 out.

        • Yes in the very unlikely event that any conf gets 6 teams in and they have 3 that are all 2 seeds and two that are 3 seeds, there is no way to avoid at least one conf matchup then. So they put three teams in one conf just to make sure they didn’t have two games that were conf matchups.

          But unless it just can’t be avoided like this one year you keep brining up (which btw is seriously unlikely to happen again now that there is another auto bid conf with the big10 taking away one of the at large teams that got in) there is no way they have two teams from the same conf play one another.

          • They had options in 2008. Realizing there had to be one 2/3 matchup with WCHA teams, they could have sent Sioux to Colorado Springs and put UNH in Madison. By doing this there would be a better WCHA split of 2-2-1-1. Prior to 2008 there had never been 3 teams from same conference in one Regional, precedent has been set.

          • Wow, there is no way you actually went to DU. I live in Denver and know many people that went to the school and they are all really bright. You seem to be hung up on this one thing. Yes the president has been set that “IF 6 TEAMS FROM THE SAME CONFERENCE” are in the tournament they can put three teams in one bracket. How does that even help your argument? in 2008 they still would have had to play another wcha team if both the top seeds won.

      • The NCAA will bend over backwards to make sure the 1 seed plays the 16 seed. So Michigan will not be swapped with Robert Morris.

  4. Throwing it to the wolves but what would ya say about a tourney like this:
    1-16 play one game at higher seeds home ice…(1vs16, 2vs15, 3vs14, etc……) winner moves on to one of two regions.
    Two regions: Seed the 8 teams 1-8 based on the original 1-16.
    West region seeds:
    1,3,5,7
    East region seeds:
    2,4,6,8
    (every other year the West see’s the #1 seed)
    Play round robin tourney (World junior/Olympic style) to get to a final four. (4 teams play 6 games (1vs4, 1vs3, 1vs2, etc….))
    Reseed based on round robin records and/or initial 1-16 rankings. Then play the final four semis and champ.
    West/East regions at predetermined locales and final four at a different predetermined locale.
    Clear as mud?
    Adds two games to the existing tourney for the final two teams and one more for the final four losers.

    • Good ideas, but try this: Eight on campus series. 1-16. 2-15 etc. Best of three. )Just like in the late 80’s early 90’s when there were just eight teams). Then four regional sites. Then the FF. With no week off between the regional and the FF. You would get extra games on campus, which could bring excitement and more revenue in. And still fill your regional. And finish on the same week-end as before.
      Thoughts friends?

          • Playing three games in three nights is a tough way to go. The old WCHA had that as the first round of the tourney and you could see a directly correlation between the teams that had to go a third night and those that swept. That extra game is a killer. Maybe do two games total goals series, which is fun because teams on the second night usually play a pretty hectic up and down kind of game, but that isn’t a great solution.

      • Better solution probably but you almost have to have two weeks between the regionals and the FF or airfare is a killer to most fans. Plus home ice is probably never going to happen again. They did it and moved away from it for a reason.

        The best next step (imho) is to try two super regionals with 8 teams at each which would draw a lot of fans and give them the chance to watch some teams live that they would normally not get to see plus gives fans the chance to watch 6 games instead of 3 like the 4 regionals are now.

    • A one game home ice idea will never fly. The smaller schools will never go for it and they shouldn’t. The bigger schools already have the advantage of better programs, better recruiting, facilities, etc and now they get home ice in the NCAA tournament more often than not. I love UND and this would be great for them but think about the bigger picture for all of college hockey. Do you really think this idea is a good solution to help grow the sport?

      • Thanks for sharing your opinion, I do appreciate it. Home ice has been used before. The other side of big vs. small school is the added revenue, national exposure (hockey, campus, community, etc..), recruiting, etc….that a home ice game generates for small schools. CC, Union, RIT, etc…would surely consider a home ice game/format suggested.

        • I hear you but look past the last few years and how many of those smaller schools would ever see home ice? I think that you would see a lot of years where you have BC, MN, UND, MI, BU and the like having home ice advantage. Plus to your point they have used home ice and I would think it was changed for a reason, going back to that is unlikely.

          • Unlikely….I unfortunately have to agree. The home ice games would bring more attention to the larger tourney, imo. And the round robin more often than not brings the cream to the top. Maybe two regionals, both 8 team, two division round robins. 4 winners meet at the FF and champ?

    • I like the idea of first round home ice but I would do a best of three, and instead of 2 region with 4 teams just send the final 8 to the final site. round 1 Thursday, round 2 Friday, and championship game on Sunday. The finals a major event to sell college hockey

  5. Throwing it to the wolves but what would ya say about a tourney like this:
    1-16 play one game at higher seeds home ice…(1vs16, 2vs15, 3vs14, etc……) winner moves on to one of two regions.
    Two regions: Seed the 8 teams 1-8 based on the original 1-16.
    West region seeds:
    1,3,5,7
    East region seeds:
    2,4,6,8
    (every other year the West see’s the #1 seed)
    Play round robin tourney (World junior/Olympic style) to get to a final four. (4 teams play 6 games (1vs7, 1vs5, 1vs3, etc….))
    Reseed based on round robin records and/or initial 1-16 rankings. Then play the final four semis and champ.
    West/East regions at predetermined locales and final four at a different predetermined locale.
    Clear as mud?
    Adds two games to the existing tourney for the final two teams and one more for the final four losers.

    • Good ideas, but try this: Eight on campus series. 1-16. 2-15 etc. Best of three. )Just like in the late 80’s early 90’s when there were just eight teams). Then four regional sites. Then the FF. With no week off between the regional and the FF. You would get extra games on campus, which could bring excitement and more revenue in. And still fill your regional. And finish on the same week-end as before.
      Thoughts friends?

          • Playing three games in three nights is a tough way to go. The old WCHA had that as the first round of the tourney and you could see a directly correlation between the teams that had to go a third night and those that swept. That extra game is a killer. Maybe do two games total goals series, which is fun because teams on the second night usually play a pretty hectic up and down kind of game, but that isn’t a great solution.

      • Better solution probably but you almost have to have two weeks between the regionals and the FF or airfare is a killer to most fans. Plus home ice is probably never going to happen again. They did it and moved away from it for a reason.

        The best next step (imho) is to try two super regionals with 8 teams at each which would draw a lot of fans and give them the chance to watch some teams live that they would normally not get to see plus gives fans the chance to watch 6 games instead of 3 like the 4 regionals are now.

    • A one game home ice idea will never fly. The smaller schools will never go for it and they shouldn’t. The bigger schools already have the advantage of better programs, better recruiting, facilities, etc and now they get home ice in the NCAA tournament more often than not. I love UND and this would be great for them but think about the bigger picture for all of college hockey. Do you really think this idea is a good solution to help grow the sport?

      • Thanks for sharing your opinion, I do appreciate it. Home ice has been used before. The other side of big vs. small school is the added revenue, national exposure (hockey, campus, community, etc..), recruiting, etc….that a home ice game generates for small schools. CC, Union, RIT, etc…would surely consider a home ice game/format suggested.

        • I hear you but look past the last few years and how many of those smaller schools would ever see home ice? I think that you would see a lot of years where you have BC, MN, UND, MI, BU and the like having home ice advantage. Plus to your point they have used home ice and I would think it was changed for a reason, going back to that is unlikely.

          • Unlikely….I unfortunately have to agree. The home ice games would bring more attention to the larger tourney, imo. And the round robin more often than not brings the cream to the top. Maybe two regionals, both 8 team, two division round robins. 4 winners meet at the FF and champ?

    • I like the idea of first round home ice but I would do a best of three, and instead of 2 region with 4 teams just send the final 8 to the final site. round 1 Thursday, round 2 Friday, and championship game on Sunday. The finals a major event to sell college hockey

  6. Fargo will be a sell out. I don’t know why they would have it at such a small arena, it only hold 5700 people and there will be a lot of disappointed Sioux fans who won’t be able to get tickets.

    • It was sold out minutes after tix went on sale. The North Dakota Champions Club was able to purchase over a third of the available tix in advance of the general public sale. Add in the ND student tix, 4 team allotments, NCAA allotment, UND allotment, etc…..didn’t leave many for sale to the public.

      • Yes, it could have been played at the Ralph, but UND put the bid in for Fargo since they assumed others would put a bid in, too. No one did, so in hindsight, they could have bid that the regional was at REA, but wanted to make sure they got it, so they went Fargo. No, the Scheels Arena in Fargo is the second biggest.

      • NCAA makes no sense (not news, I know). Doesn’t want to play on campus, but gives Notre Dame a regional at its on-campus risk, but opts for Fargo instead of GF, which would have sold double the seats just as quickly as the Fargo regional sold out. Can’t say “no” to campus sites and bend over backwards to Notre Dame (which, because they likely won’t make the tournament, will be the least-attended regional. Look at the Icebreaker attendance at the beginning of the year for proof of that).

        • Only reason they get to host at their own arena is because they were the only team to put a bid in for the Midwest regional. Either way, its still crap.

  7. Fargo will be a sell out. I don’t know why they would have it at such a small arena, it only hold 5700 people and there will be a lot of disappointed Sioux fans who won’t be able to get tickets.

    • It was sold out minutes after tix went on sale. The North Dakota Champions Club was able to purchase over a third of the available tix in advance of the general public sale. Add in the ND student tix, 4 team allotments, NCAA allotment, UND allotment, etc…..didn’t leave many for sale to the public.

      • Yes, it could have been played at the Ralph, but UND put the bid in for Fargo since they assumed others would put a bid in, too. No one did, so in hindsight, they could have bid that the regional was at REA, but wanted to make sure they got it, so they went Fargo. No, the Scheels Arena in Fargo is the second biggest.

      • NCAA makes no sense (not news, I know). Doesn’t want to play on campus, but gives Notre Dame a regional at its on-campus risk, but opts for Fargo instead of GF, which would have sold double the seats just as quickly as the Fargo regional sold out. Can’t say “no” to campus sites and bend over backwards to Notre Dame (which, because they likely won’t make the tournament, will be the least-attended regional. Look at the Icebreaker attendance at the beginning of the year for proof of that).

        • Only reason they get to host at their own arena is because they were the only team to put a bid in for the Midwest regional. Either way, its still crap.

  8. I’ll keep up my weekly rant on Bowking Green’s undeserving PWR rating. A loss and a tie to Bemidji St last weekend and they stay at #6 in the PWR.

  9. I’ll keep up my weekly rant on Bowling Green’s undeserving PWR rating. A loss and a tie to Bemidji St last weekend and they stay at #6 in the PWR.

  10. Northeast Regional (Manchester):
    13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha(1 Seed)
    11 Harvard vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth(2 Seed)

    Mass-Lowell to Manchester: 33 Miles

    Harvard to Manchester: 52 Miles

    NCAA saying no campus arenas because they want regionals to be played at neutral sites: PRICELESS

    • With intelligence limited to universities, this is the sort of rule-making one gets. The sooner the NCAA gets out of the business and pleasure of athletics, the better.

  11. Northeast Regional (Manchester):
    13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Omaha(1 Seed)
    11 Harvard vs. 5 Minnesota-Duluth(2 Seed)

    Mass-Lowell to Manchester: 33 Miles

    Harvard to Manchester: 52 Miles

    NCAA saying no campus arenas because they want regionals to be played at neutral sites: PRICELESS

    • With intelligence limited to universities, this is the sort of rule-making one gets. The sooner the NCAA gets out of the business and pleasure of athletics, the better.

  12. Swapping Michigan with Robert Morris makes the Midwest regional attendance woes go away. I don’t understand why Jason Moy did not make that swap.

    • Making that swap would do a disservice to the #1 seed, “rewarding” them with a game against a #14 seed in a building full of Michigan fans. #1 should always play #16 if at all possible.

      • According to Moy, any team in a band is interchangeable if it serves the purpose of avoiding intra-conference match-ups, boosts attendance, etc. Remember, Michigan is #14 and would be traded with a #16. They are in the same band (13-16). Just because they are MICHIGAN should mean nothing. Anyway, the season didn’t end today so the bracket is like a Marshawn Lynch Second-and-1 run; doesn’t exist.

  13. Swapping Michigan with Robert Morris makes the Midwest regional attendance woes go away. I don’t understand why Jason Moy did not make that swap.

    • Making that swap would do a disservice to the #1 seed, “rewarding” them with a game against a #14 seed in a building full of Michigan fans. #1 should always play #16 if at all possible.

      • According to Moy, any team in a band is interchangeable if it serves the purpose of avoiding intra-conference match-ups, boosts attendance, etc. Remember, Michigan is #14 and would be traded with a #16. They are in the same band (13-16). Just because they are MICHIGAN should mean nothing. Anyway, the season didn’t end today so the bracket is like a Marshawn Lynch Second-and-1 run; doesn’t exist.

  14. Would this work
    Round 1: would have the top 8 teams at home playing a 3 game series, 16 would go to 1, 15 to 3 etc.
    Round 2: Now we are down to 8 teams, after a week off all 8 teams will play at the final site location. 4 games Thursday, 2 games Friday and the Finals on Sunday. This would make the host city and college hockey the location to be for that weekend.

  15. Would this work
    Round 1: would have the top 8 teams at home playing a 3 game series, 16 would go to 1, 15 to 3 etc.
    Round 2: Now we are down to 8 teams, after a week off all 8 teams will play at the final site location. 4 games Thursday, 2 games Friday and the Finals on Sunday. This would make the host city and college hockey the location to be for that weekend.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here