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 third 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
• Sixteen teams are selected to participate in the national tournament. <\/p>\n
• There are four regional sites (East – Worcester, Massachusetts, Northeast – Amherst, Massachusetts, Midwest – Grand Rapids, Mich., West – Minneapolis, Minn.)<\/p>\n
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home. <\/p>\n
• No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible in order of their ranking 1-4. <\/p>\n
• 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
• 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.<\/p>\n
Given these facts, here is the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and all conference leaders based on winning percentage (Holy Cross, Michigan, Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State, Colgate, New Hampshire and Wisconsin) (through all games of Monday, January 24, 2005): <\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Boston College
\n3 Minnesota
\n4 Denver
\n5 Michigan
\n6 Cornell
\n7 Harvard
\n8 New Hampshire
\n9t Mass.-Lowell
\n9t Colgate
\n11t Wisconsin
\n11t Boston University
\n13t North Dakota
\n13t Northern Michigan
\n15t Dartmouth
\n15t Ohio State
\n— Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State
\n— Holy Cross<\/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. In the current version, there are bubbles at 9, 11, 13 and 15.<\/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 Boston College
\n3 Minnesota
\n4 Denver
\n5 Michigan
\n6 Cornell
\n7 Harvard
\n8 New Hampshire
\n9 Mass.-Lowell
\n10 Colgate
\n11 Wisconsin
\n12 Boston University
\n13 North Dakota
\n14 Northern Michigan
\n15 Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State
\n16 Holy Cross <\/p>\nAll ties were broken by individual comparison wins. Alabama-Hunstville is seeded ahead of Holy Cross due to RPI win.<\/p>\n
The main differences from last week are that Ohio State has been replaced by Northern Michigan, Denver has taken a No. 1 seed from Michigan, and Cornell has jumped up.<\/p>\n
Step Two<\/b><\/p>\n
Now it’s time to assign the seeds.<\/p>\n
No. 1 Seeds — Colorado College, Boston College, Minnesota, Denver
\nNo. 2 Seeds — Michigan, Cornell, Harvard, New Hampshire
\nNo. 3 Seeds — Mass.-Lowell, Colgate, Wisconsin, Boston University
\nNo. 4 Seeds — North Dakota, Northern Michigan, Alabama-Huntsville, Holy Cross<\/p>\nStep Three<\/b> <\/p>\n
Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals. Because Minnesota is hosting a regional, the Gophers are placed first.<\/p>\n
We then place the other No. 1 seeds based on proximity to the regional sites. <\/p>\n
No. 3 Minnesota is placed in the West Regional in Minneapolis.
\nNo. 1 Colorado College is then placed in the Midwest Regional in Grand Rapids.
\nNo. 2 Boston College is placed in the Northeast Regional in Amherst.
\nNo. 4 Denver is placed in the East Regional in Worcester.<\/p>\nStep Four<\/b> <\/p>\n
Now we place the other 12 teams so as to avoid intra-conference 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 that host schools 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 Michigan is placed in No. 4 Denver’s Regional, the East.
\nNo. 6 Cornell is placed in No. 3 Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
\nNo. 7 Harvard is placed in No. 2 Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 8 New Hampshire 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. 12 Boston University is placed in No. 5 Michigan’s Regional, the East, as the host.
\nNo. 9 Mass.-Lowell is placed in No. 8 New Hampshire’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 10 Colgate is placed in No. 7 Harvard’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 11 Wisconsin is placed in No. 6 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 Holy Cross is sent to Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 15 Alabama-Hunstville\/Bemidji State is sent to Boston College’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 14 Northern Michigan is sent to Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
\nNo. 13 North Dakota is sent to Denver’s Regional, the East.<\/p>\nThe brackets as we have set them up:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Northern Michigan vs. Minnesota
\nWisconsin vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nMass.-Lowell vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Michigan<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nColgate vs. Harvard <\/p>\nOur first concern is avoiding intra-conference matchups. We have a few of them, don’t we? Let’s start with the North Dakota\/Denver matchup in Worcester. <\/p>\n
We can’t move North Dakota to the West Regional, since that creates another WCHA-WCHA matchup, so we have to switch them with the next highest available seed. In this case that’s UAH\/Bemidji.<\/p>\n
Let’s move on to the two intraconference matchups we have in the 2-3 games, UML\/UNH and Colgate\/Harvard. The simple fix is to switch UML and Colgate. It also makes sense because UML and Colgate are tied in the PairWise, so the rankings really are interchangeable.<\/p>\n
So we have our new brackets with no intraconference matchups. Here they are:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Northern Michigan vs. Minnesota
\nWisconsin vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nColgate vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Michigan<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Boston College
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Harvard <\/p>\nSo the tournament is now fixed.<\/p>\n
Boston College gets the short end of the stick here, just as Cornell did two years ago, but it’s unavoidable.<\/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 East Regionals face each other in one semifinal (Colorado College and Denver’s brackets), while the winners of the West and Northeast Regionals (Minnesota and Boston College’s brackets) play the other semifinal. <\/p>\n
Let’s take a look at this another way, though. What if we sent BC, as the No. 2 overall seed to Worcester instead of Amherst. Does that make things easier?<\/p>\n
Let’s bracket away:<\/p>\n
No. 1 Seeds<\/i><\/p>\n
No. 3 Minnesota is placed in the West Regional in Minneapolis.
\nNo. 1 Colorado College is then placed in the Midwest Regional in Grand Rapids.
\nNo. 2 Boston College is placed in the East Regional in Worcester.
\nNo. 4 Denver is placed in the Northeast Regional in Amherst.<\/p>\nNo. 2 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
No. 5 Michigan is placed in No. 4 Denver’s Regional, the Northeast.
\nNo. 6 Cornell is placed in No. 3 Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
\nNo. 7 Harvard is placed in No. 2 Boston College’s Regional, the East.
\nNo. 8 New Hampshire is placed in No. 1 Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.<\/p>\nNo. 3 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
No. 12 Boston University is placed in No. 7 Harvard’s Regional, the East, as the host.
\nNo. 9 Mass.-Lowell is placed in No. 8 New Hampshire’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 10 Colgate is placed in No. 6 Cornell’s Regional, the West, because the Regional of seed No. 7, Harvard, has already been placed.
\nNo. 11 Wisconsin is placed in No. 5 Michigan’s Regional, the Northeast.<\/p>\nNo. 4 Seeds<\/i> <\/p>\n
No. 16 Holy Cross is sent to Colorado College’s Regional, the Midwest.
\nNo. 15 Alabama-Hunstville\/Bemidji State is sent to Boston College’s Regional, the East.
\nNo. 14 Northern Michigan is sent to Minnesota’s Regional, the West.
\nNo. 13 North Dakota is sent to Denver’s Regional, the Northeast.<\/p>\nOur matchups:<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Northern Michigan vs. Minnesota
\nColgate vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nMass.-Lowell vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Denver
\nWisconsin vs. Michigan<\/p>\nWe avoid intraconference matchups, meaning we have to switch North Dakota. The same scenario applies as above.<\/p>\n
No we have to break up Colgate\/Cornell and UML\/UNH. We switch Colgate and UML again.<\/p>\n
We now have:<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Northern Michigan vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nColgate vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Denver
\nWisconsin vs. Michigan<\/p>\nWhich scenario is better? In option one, we have more bracket integrity than in the second scenario. In the first one, there are only three inaccuracies, because of the fact that we had to avoid intraconference matchups. In scenario number two, we have four inaccuracies. One because of BU being a host, and the other three for avoiding intraconference matchups. We choose scenario number one.<\/p>\n
Another way to look at it is that, ideally, you want the regionals to have 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
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.<\/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
Remember that non-conference wins against conference opponents do not count as “good” wins. For instance, when Alaska-Anchorage defeated Minnesota in the Nye Frontier Classic, that didn’t count toward the bonus.<\/p>\n
Our seedings are now:<\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Boston College
\n3 Minnesota
\n4 Denver
\n5 Michigan
\n6 Cornell
\n7 Harvard
\n8 New Hampshire
\n9 Wisconsin
\n10 Mass.-Lowell
\n11 Boston University
\n12 Colgate
\n13 North Dakota
\n14 Dartmouth
\n15 Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State
\n16 Holy Cross <\/p>\nThere is one noticeable difference — Dartmouth is in the tournament, Northern Michigan is not. Everything else is pretty much the same.<\/p>\n
So, our new brackets, using our bracket-filling like above, we have a few changes. <\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nWisconsin vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Michigan<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nColgate vs. Harvard <\/p>\nWe have two intra-conference matchups in North Dakota\/Denver and Colgate\/Harvard. We have to switch North Dakota with UAH\/Bemidji as we did above. Then we can only switch Colgate with Wisconsin. So our final brackets are:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nColgate vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Michigan<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Boston College
\nWisconsin vs. Harvard <\/p>\nWhat if we decided to put BC in Worcester instead of Amherst? Our brackets are now:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nWisconsin vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard <\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Denver
\nColgate vs. Michigan <\/p>\nAnd we make the North Dakota\/UAH-Bemidji switch to avoid the WCHA-WCHA matchup. Our brackets become:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nWisconsin vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
North Dakota vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard <\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Denver
\nColgate vs. Michigan <\/p>\nWhich one to use? We went with bracket integrity the first time, so we’ll do that again. This time, BC in Worcester maintains better bracket integrity.<\/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
Wisconsin moves into a No. 2 seed over UNH. North Dakota moves into a No. 3 seed, in fact, all the way to No. 9 overall, while Colgate falls to a No. 4 seed.<\/p>\n
So our brackets are:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nNorth Dakota vs. Wisconsin<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Colgate vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Michigan<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nNew Hampshire vs. Harvard <\/p>\nWe have to worry about one intraconference matchup: North Dakota\/Wisconsin. Since UNH and North Dakota are tied in the PairWise, we will switch those two teams. That solves it. <\/p>\n
So our new brackets are:<\/p>\n
West Regional: <\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional: <\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nNew Hampshire vs. Wisconsin<\/p>\nEast Regional: <\/p>\n
Colgate vs. Denver
\nBoston University vs. Michigan<\/p>\nNortheast Regional: <\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nNorth Dakota vs. Harvard <\/p>\nWhat if we put Boston College in Worcester to begin with? Here are those brackets:<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nNew Hampshire vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nNorth Dakota vs. Wisconsin <\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
Colgate vs. Denver
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Michigan<\/p>\nWe make the switch of UNH and North Dakota, and that gives us:<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Dartmouth vs. Minnesota
\nNorth Dakota vs. Cornell<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Holy Cross vs. Colorado College
\nNew Hampshire vs. Wisconsin <\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
Alabama-Huntsville\/Bemidji State vs. Boston College
\nBoston University vs. Harvard<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
Colgate vs. Denver
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Michigan<\/p>\nWhich one do we choose? Bracket integrity says to use scenario number one.<\/p>\n
Whew. A lot going on there.<\/p>\n
That’s it for this week, but we’ll be back with another analysis next week.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.<\/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: Jan. 24, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.\" \/>\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\/27042\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bracketology: Jan. 24, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27042\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-24T21:38:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2010-08-18T00:56:06+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=\"13 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\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/\",\"name\":\"Bracketology: Jan. 24, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-24T21:38:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2010-08-18T00:56:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0\"},\"description\":\"The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#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\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bracketology: Jan. 24, 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: Jan. 24, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","description":"The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.","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\/27042","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bracketology: Jan. 24, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","og_description":"The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27042","og_site_name":"College Hockey | USCHO.com","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OfficialUSCHO\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-24T21:38:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2010-08-18T00:56:06+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/","url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/","name":"Bracketology: Jan. 24, 2005 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","datePublished":"2005-01-24T21:38:36+00:00","dateModified":"2010-08-18T00:56:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0"},"description":"The third installment of Bracketology contains some twists, including an interesting conference breakdown and hair-splitting decisions.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2005\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#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\/01\/24\/bracketology-jan-24-2005\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bracketology: Jan. 24, 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\/27042"}],"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=27042"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27042\/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=27042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27042"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=27042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}