It’s time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology — College Hockey Style. It’s our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the season ended today. <\/p>\n
It’s a look into what are the possible thought processes behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams.<\/p>\n
This is the first installment of Bracketology, and we’ll be bringing you a new one every week until we make our final picks before the field is announced.<\/p>\n
Here are the facts:<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 Sixteen teams are selected to participate in the national tournament.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 There are four regional sites (East — Albany, N.Y.. Northeast — Worcester, Mass., Midwest — Madison, Wis., West — Colorado Springs, Colo.)<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 A host institution which 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, Rensselaer in Albany, Holy Cross in Worcester, Wisconsin in Madison and Colorado College in Colorado Springs.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 Seedings will not be switched, as opposed to years past. To avoid undesirable first-round matchups, including intra-conference 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
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 likelihood of playoff-type atmosphere at each regional site. For the model, the following is a basic set of priorities:<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 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
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 Host institutions that qualify will be placed at home.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible in order of their ranking 1-4.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 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
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The biggest change this year is the fact that in past years the NCAA included a bonus factor for “good” nonconference wins. This year, it is no more. There are no more bonus points for anything.<\/p>\n
So it becomes pretty easy this year, doesn’t it? Take the straight PairWise Rankings (PWR) and then follow the rules and you have the tournament. It’s that easy, right? <\/p>\n
You know better than that.<\/p>\n
Given these facts, here are the top 16 of the current PWR, and the current conference leaders (through all games of January 14, 2007):<\/p>\n
1t Colorado College
\n1t Michigan
\n3 Denver
\n4t Miami
\n4t New Hampshire
\n6 North Dakota
\n7 Northeastern
\n8t Massachusetts
\n8t Michigan State
\n10 Mass.-Lowell
\n11 Notre Dame
\n12t Boston College
\n12t Clarkson
\n12t Quinnipiac
\n15 St. Cloud
\n16 Minn.-Duluth
\n— Bemidji State
\n— Sacred Heart<\/p>\nCurrent conference leaders:<\/p>\n
Atlantic Hockey: Sacred Heart
\nCHA: Bemidji State
\nCCHA: Michigan
\nECAC: Clarkson
\nHockey East: New Hampshire
\nWCHA: Colorado College<\/p>\nNotes<\/h4>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played. i.e.<\/i>, the NCAA tournament starts tomorrow.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 Because there are an uneven amount of games played inside each conference, I will be using winning percentage, not points accumulated, to determine who the current leader in each conference is. This team is my assumed tournament champion and autobid winner.<\/p>\n
Step 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 in any current league leaders that are not currently in the Top 16, those being Sacred Heart and Bemidji State.<\/p>\n
From there, we can start looking at the bubble in a more detailed fashion.<\/p>\n
The bubbles consist of CC and Michigan at number 1, Miami and UNH at number 4, Massachusetts and Michigan State at number 8 and BC, Clarkson and Quinnipiac at number 12.<\/p>\n
Looking at the head-to-head PairWise comparisons we break all of our ties. CC beats Michigan, Miami beats UNH, Massachusetts beats Michigan State. So all of those are broken.<\/p>\n
Now we have to break the three-way tie at 12. Since all of them win one comparison, we break via the Ratings Percentage Index. That gives us an order of BC, Quinnipiac and then Clarkson. And we break the Sacred Heart\/Bemidji tie via RPI, which gives Bemidji the 15th spot.<\/p>\n
Therefore the 16 teams in the tournament, in rank order, are:<\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Michigan
\n3 Denver
\n4 Miami
\n5 New Hampshire
\n6 North Dakota
\n7 Northeastern
\n8 Massachusetts
\n9 Michigan State
\n10 Mass.-Lowell
\n11 Notre Dame
\n12 Boston College
\n13 Quinnipiac
\n14 Clarkson
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Sacred Heart<\/p>\nStep Two<\/b><\/p>\n
Now it’s time to assign the seeds.<\/p>\n
No. 1 Seeds — Colorado College, Michigan, Denver, Miami
\nNo. 2 Seeds — New Hampshire, North Dakota, Northeastern, Massachusetts
\nNo. 3 Seeds — Michigan State, Mass.-Lowell, Notre Dame, Boston College
\nNo. 4 Seeds — Quinnipiac, Clarkson, Bemidji State, Sacred Heart<\/p>\nStep Three<\/b><\/p>\n
Place the No. 1 seeds in regionals. Following the guidelines. Because of the fact that Colorado College is hosting a regional, the Tigers are placed first. We then place the other No. 1 seeds based on proximity to the regional sites.<\/p>\n
No. 1 Colorado College is then placed in the West Regional in Colorado Springs.
\nNo. 2 Michigan is placed in the Midwest Regional in Madison.
\nNo. 3 Denver is placed in the East Regional in Albany.
\nNo. 4 Miami is placed in the Northeast 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 (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 Massachusetts is placed in No. 1 Colorado College’s Regional, the West Regional.
\nNo. 7 Northeastern is placed in No. 2 Michigan’s Regional, the Midwest Regional.
\nNo. 6 North Dakota is placed in No. 3 Denver’s Regional, the East Regional.
\nNo. 5 New Hampshire is placed in No. 4 Miami’s Regional, the Northeast Regional.<\/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. 9 Michigan State is placed in No. 8 Massachusetts’s Regional, the West Regional.
\nNo. 10 Mass.-Lowell is placed in No. 7 Northeastern’s Regional, the Midwest Regional.
\nNo. 11 Notre Dame is placed in No. 6 North Dakota’s Regional, the East Regional.
\nNo. 12 Boston College is placed in No. 5 New Hampshire’s Regional, the Northeast Regional.<\/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 Sacred Heart is sent to Colorado College’s Regional, the West Regional.
\nNo. 15 Bemidji State is sent to Michigan’s Regional, the Midwest Regional.
\nNo. 14 Clarkson is sent to Denver’s Regional, the East Regional.
\nNo. 13 Quinnipiac is sent to Miami’s Regional, the Northeast Regional.<\/p>\nThe brackets as we have set them up:<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Sacred Heart vs. Colorado College
\nMichigan State vs. Massachusetts<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Michigan
\nMass.-Lowell vs. Northeastern<\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
Clarkson vs. Denver
\nNotre Dame vs. North Dakota<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
Quinnipiac vs. Miami
\nBoston College vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nOur first concern is avoiding intra-conference matchups. We have two of these in Mass.-Lowell vs. Northeastern and Boston College vs. New Hampshire.<\/p>\n
We can’t just switch teams here since all four are Hockey East teams. So we have to find another way, but we have a problem. We have three Hockey East teams in the second band, and two Hockey East teams in the third band. We cannot avoid an all-Hockey East matchup no matter what.<\/p>\n
Is this okay? Yes, it is. There is a rule in the selection criteria that states:<\/p>\n
“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 the avoidance of first-round conference matchups).”<\/p>\n
So we can do this, per the NCAA’s selection criteria.<\/p>\n
But we can try to avoid one of these matchups. So we switch Mass.-Lowell with Notre Dame.<\/p>\n
So the tournament is now fixed.<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Sacred Heart vs. Colorado College
\nMichigan State vs. Massachusetts<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Michigan
\nNotre Dame vs. Northeastern<\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
Clarkson vs. Denver
\nMass.-Lowell vs. North Dakota<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
Quinnipiac vs. Miami
\nBoston College vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nThe biggest question you might ask is:<\/p>\n
Why is Denver in Albany and Miami in Worcester? Why not the other way around?<\/i><\/p>\n
I think the easiest answer there is attendance. UNH and BC in Worcester, Clarkson in Albany. That works for me, so that’s what I would do.<\/p>\n
Now let’s get back to the thing I hate most, which of course is the Hockey East matchup that occurs in the first round in Worcester. Great for the attendance, but is it really what you want?<\/p>\n
Let’s think about this a little bit more.<\/p>\n
Let’s remember how we rank the teams 1-16. When there is a tie in the PWR, what do we do? We break it using the RPI.<\/p>\n
But is this really the case?<\/p>\n
Let’s go to this statement in the selection criteria of the Championship Handbook:<\/p>\n
“If the point process provides a tie, the Ratings Percentage Index may<\/i> serve as the determining factor, regardless of the difference.”<\/p>\n
The key word here is may<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Which means that we don’t have to break ties in the PWR by RPI. It’s commonly done, but does it always have to be used? No.<\/p>\n
So, let’s go back to ranking the teams again. We have a tie to break at 12 between Boston College, Quinnipiac and Clarkson. Yes, BC has a higher RPI than the other two, but do we have to break the tie based upon the RPI? <\/p>\n
According to the selection criteria, the answer is no.<\/p>\n
So, I am going to give Quinnipiac the number 12 ranking and BC number 13.<\/p>\n
Remember, I can do that. I do not have to be strict and break the PWR tie by using RPI.<\/p>\n
So, my rank order is now:<\/p>\n
1 Colorado College
\n2 Michigan
\n3 Denver
\n4 Miami
\n5 New Hampshire
\n6 North Dakota
\n7 Northeastern
\n8 Massachusetts
\n9 Michigan State
\n10 Mass.-Lowell
\n11 Notre Dame
\n12 Quinnipiac
\n13 Boston College
\n14 Clarkson
\n15 Bemidji State
\n16 Sacred Heart<\/p>\nSo now how does that change the tournament? Not much, except for one thing. We have different matchups in Worcester.<\/p>\n
We now have Quinnipiac vs. New Hampshire and Boston College vs. Miami. We’ve now avoided the all-Hockey East matchup in the first round and stayed within the rules.<\/p>\n
Our tournament now:<\/p>\n
West Regional:<\/p>\n
Sacred Heart vs. Colorado College
\nMichigan State vs. Massachusetts<\/p>\nMidwest Regional:<\/p>\n
Bemidji State vs. Michigan
\nNotre Dame vs. Northeastern<\/p>\nEast Regional:<\/p>\n
Clarkson vs. Denver
\nMass.-Lowell vs. North Dakota<\/p>\nNortheast Regional:<\/p>\n
Boston College vs. Miami
\nQuinnipiac vs. New Hampshire<\/p>\nIn the semifinals the West winner takes on the Northeast winner and the East winner takes on the Midwest winner.<\/p>\n
That’s our first look at Bracketology. Was it what you expected? Was it not?<\/p>\n
That’s it for this week, we’ll be back with another analysis next week.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It’s time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology — College Hockey Style. It’s our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the season ended today. It’s a look into what are the possible thought processes behind selecting and seeding the NCAA tournament teams. This is the first installment […]<\/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":[5],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008 - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It's time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology -- College Hockey Style. It's our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the\" \/>\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\/29575\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It's time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology -- College Hockey Style. It's our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29575\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-15T20:54:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2010-08-18T00:57:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-admin.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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/\",\"name\":\"Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008 - College Hockey | USCHO.com\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-15T20:54:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2010-08-18T00:57:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0\"},\"description\":\"It's time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology -- College Hockey Style. It's our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#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\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008\"}]},{\"@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. 15, 2008 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","description":"It's time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology -- College Hockey Style. It's our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the","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\/29575","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","og_description":"It's time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology -- College Hockey Style. It's our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29575","og_site_name":"College Hockey | USCHO.com","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OfficialUSCHO\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-15T20:54:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2010-08-18T00:57:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1175,"height":763,"url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/","url":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/","name":"Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008 - College Hockey | USCHO.com","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/uscho.jpg","datePublished":"2008-01-15T20:54:41+00:00","dateModified":"2010-08-18T00:57:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/#\/schema\/person\/5c2cea64cc964ec8368242f6397de9d0"},"description":"It's time once again to do what we like to call Bracketology -- College Hockey Style. It's our weekly look at how the NCAA tournament would look if the","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#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\/2008\/01\/15\/bracketology-jan-15-2008\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bracketology: Jan. 15, 2008"}]},{"@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\/29575"}],"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=29575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29575\/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=29575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29575"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=29575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}