Dustin

When the bracket comes out later today, we can see what adjustments were made and then determine whether they were fair. Until then, we are only speculating what they will do. Certain swaps, if they do indeed get made, make sense to me. We'll just have to see how the committee uses the NPI. This is their first shot at it.

A) It's not my logic, it's system's. But an education and career heavy in the math helps me understand the system, flaws and all. B) Those teams knew that the requirements were, and they didn't do them. I would have no hard feelings explaining to them why they didn't make the tournament. In fact, they would be silly to ask, because they should already know.

They don't claim that it is precise enough to do either of those things, but what they do claim is that it is objective. So basically, the qualifying teams have objectively met the requirements, either by winning a conference tournament or through the NPI, and there's no dispute or backroom bargaining of who qualifies (i.e. right now, no one is arguing who is in the tournament, just who they play and where). After the qualifying teams are determined, it does appear that they are willing to allow some subjectivity when it comes to regional assignments/matchups for the sake of impreciseness due to small sample size (i.e. not enough games, teams mostly playing only conference opponents, etc.).

From CHN: "The NPI -- and KRACH, for that matter -- is not precise enough for the committee to confine itself so strictly to a 1-16 ordering of the teams based upon it. It's a good method for selecting teams -- because at least an objective system, even if flawed, eliminates the problems with subjectivity. But in seeding, there's no need to be so locked into the numbers when they are so close."

Correct.

And all four Big Ten teams in 2 regionals.

The qualifying teams, in order. #1 Seeds: Michigan, North Dakota, Michigan State, Western Michigan #2 Seeds: Denver, Dartmouth, Providence, Minnesota-Duluth #3 Seeds: Penn State, Quinnipiac, Cornell, Wisconsin #4 Seeds: Minnesota State, Connecticut, Merrimack, Bentley In perfectly true seeding, Dartmouth and Cornell would be paired for a regional semi-final, so there will be at least one swap. I think committee likes that Western Michigan and Denver pair for a regional, so only one NCHC team can make it out. I think they also swap Providence and Minn-Duluth for the same reason, plus that would be a natural attendance/travel swap. I think the committee pair Big Ten teams so only few can make it out of the regionals. That said, here's the way I see the bracket. Worcester: Michigan vs. Bentley, Providence vs. Penn State Sioux Falls: North Dakota vs. Merrimack, Minn-Duluth vs. Quinnipiac Albany: Michigan State vs. UConn, Dartmouth vs. Wisconsin Loveland: Western Michigan vs. Minnesota State, Denver vs. Cornell

Very much so. But, you have to beat good teams to win it all. Doesn’t matter if it’s the Bulldogs or someone else.

Was going to say something similar in that I hope they both wear themselves out for the NCAA tournament.

Trading a close regional assignment for a banner? I feel like there’s only so many opportunities to hang a banner, so I would doubt it.

I’ve got NCHC on my computer and Big ten on TV, so updates from Hockey East, et al are appreciated.

Also: "If Denver beats Minnesota Duluth in the NCHC championship game, it increases Minnesota Duluth's odds of being in the Sioux Falls Regional. If the Bulldogs win the playoff title, there's still a chance the NCAA sends the Bulldogs to Sioux Falls, but odds increase that the Bulldogs will be in Worcester or Albany."

What to know entering the final day before NCAA tournament bracket selection - Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, East Grand Forks news, weather & sports "If Augustana does not make it, Minnesota State would become UND's most likely first-round opponent (but not guaranteed)."

You'd think. I was even thinking Mike Hastings, as he would be familiar recruiting for a Minnesota team. But if you can make Big Ten money at Wisconsin without the pressure of the "Pride on Ice" maybe you ride that gig into retirement.

That's true.

What about Minnesota State? I could see the committee putting them in Sioux Falls, especially if Augustana doesn't make it.

I had the same thought. Though, I think UND will be ready to take care of business. I'm guessing they will be very eager to put a different narrative out there than the UMD drubbing.

Potulny isn't exactly tearing up the AHL, and coaches don't seem to last too long at that level, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was interested. Raboin was the drum I was beating last March for UND, so he would be a solid pick as well. It's a job that should get a lot of interest, but unlike other sports at U of M, results are actually expected.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/dane-jackson-named-nchc-herb-brooks-coach-of-the-year "When Dane Jackson was named head coach on the evening of March 29, he didn't have much time to enjoy the moment. He inherited a decimated roster, and rival teams were working to get even more players in the portal. It looked bleak in the moment, but it didn't turn out that way." What a brilliant turnaround. You know what would be a nice first year anniversary gift - a trip to Las Vegas.

I guess where I was going with all this was wondering what Jackson's going to do when put in the same situation next week.

That's fair. For curiosity, I watched the start of the 2016 Frozen Four semi-final vs. Denver (Our first Frozen Four playing of the post-Hakstol era), trying to pay close attention to any mention of what line is playing, short shifts, double shifts, etc. 19:45 "Big line of North Dakota out there to start" - Referring to the CBS line. Denver started their third line. 19:37 "Quick line change for Brad Berry" - basically a stop in play at 19:42 and already a line change (18 second shift). Went to the "heavy" line against Denver's Pac-Rim line. 18:53 "The big line is right back out there for North Dakota" - there was not a third line played before bringing CBS line back. 17:49 "The fourth line out there" - I think he's referring to Denver, but I think UND's fourth line was also out there. On the ice were Chyzyk, Janatuinen, Shaw, Sanderson, Thompson. 17:18 line change was completed after a zone clear. On ice for UND now are Olson, Gersich, Ausmus, Stecher, Simonson. At 17:00, they were called the "grinding fourth line," so maybe the Chyzyk line was considered third line. 16:43 "Heavy line..." - against the Pac-Rim line again. 16:25 CBS line is out after a puck went out of play. 15:30 Line change is complete after an earlier partial change - now out: Chyzyk, Ausmus, Stecher, Sanderson, Janatuinen. 15:15 Stop in play, and another new line out: Johnson, Poganski, Gardner, Poolman, LaDue. 14:40 Deep zone dump and a line change: Simonson, Gersich, Olson, Thompson, Shaw. 14:05 Begin partial change. 13:43 (after change to CBS line is complete) "Playing that line a lot. Seems like their double shifting." So, it seems that Berry was very deliberate about short shifts and getting his top line out often. I feel Hakstol would have just rolled lines

Regarding long TV timeouts, roster depth, and playing 4 lines, this was one area I felt Hakstol didn't manage very well. I felt he was generally out-coached by the opponent during the NCAA tournament, especially the Frozen Four. I don't have any statistical analysis or even specific cases off the top my head, but that was my general perception when watching those games.

Agree. I think the loss was a blessing in disguise. As long as any illness is over, we are entering the NCAA with a healthy, very deep roster, that should be able to wear down any team.

I would agree - ESPN will choose early/late games based on potential viewers. I would guess UND would be late, almost regardless of who they play, because that game would have the best optics for television.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi Over-emphasis on the 1-16, 2-15 seeding: The NPI -- and KRACH, for that matter -- is not precise enough for the committee to confine itself so strictly to a 1-16 ordering of the teams based upon it. It's a good method for selecting teams -- because at least an objective system, even if flawed, eliminates the problems with subjectivity. But in seeding, there's no need to be so locked into the numbers when they are so close. These are too small sample sizes to do that to yourself.