{"id":1594,"date":"2017-03-15T13:32:08","date_gmt":"2017-03-15T18:32:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uscho.com\/bracketology\/?p=1594"},"modified":"2017-03-15T13:32:08","modified_gmt":"2017-03-15T18:32:08","slug":"one-more-look-at-ncaa-tournament-predictions-heading-into-conference-tournament-finals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2017\/03\/15\/one-more-look-at-ncaa-tournament-predictions-heading-into-conference-tournament-finals\/","title":{"rendered":"One more look at NCAA tournament predictions heading into conference tournament finals"},"content":{"rendered":"
We’re at that time of the year where one thing is on everyone’s minds.<\/p>\n
Will my team make the NCAA tournament? Where does it sit in the PairWise Rankings (PWR)?<\/p>\n
Those of you that are veterans of the college hockey scene know that it is all about the PairWise Rankings<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n Since USCHO began the PairWise Rankings, we have correctly identified all of the teams that have been selected to the NCAA tournament.<\/p>\n Five of the last six 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.<\/p>\n With that in mind, 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 might look like come selection time, using what we know now.<\/p>\n It’s a look into the possible thought processes behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This is the next installment of Bracketology for 2017, and we’ll be bringing you a new one every week until we make our final picks before the field is announced on March 19.<\/p>\n If you want to skip the inner workings and get to the results of the analysis, then click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Here are the facts:<\/p>\n • Sixteen teams are selected to participate in the national tournament.<\/p>\n • There are four regional sites<\/a> (East – Providence, R.I.; Northeast – Manchester, N.H.; Midwest – Cincinnati, Ohio; West – Fargo, N.D.).<\/p>\n • A host institution that is invited to the tournament plays in the regional for which it is the host and cannot be moved. The host institutions this year: Brown in Providence, New Hampshire in Manchester, Miami in Cincinnati and North Dakota in Fargo. Here are the NCAA’s guidelines on the matter, from the 2015 pre-championship manual<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 2. Step two is to place the home teams. Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n• 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.<\/p>\n