2025-26 University of North Dakota Hockey Season

[Green Banner]

good insight into Ben's ride so far. Definitely a good person. His dad and grandpa would be very proud. 

 

[sioux rube]

Here's the Herald's attempt at projecting the 2026 NCAA men's hockey tournament bracket.

Albany
1 Michigan vs. 16 Bentley
7 Providence vs. 11 Cornell

Sioux Falls
2 North Dakota vs. 15 Merrimack
8 Minnesota Duluth vs. 10 Quinnipiac

Worcester
3 Michigan State vs. 14 UConn
6 Dartmouth vs. 9 Penn State

Loveland
4 Western Michigan vs. 13 Minnesota State
5 Denver vs. 12 Wisconsin

[ND_Texan]

18 minutes ago, sioux rube said:

Here's the Herald's attempt at projecting the 2026 NCAA men's hockey tournament bracket.

Albany
1 Michigan vs. 16 Bentley
7 Providence vs. 11 Cornell

Sioux Falls
2 North Dakota vs. 15 Merrimack
8 Minnesota Duluth vs. 10 Quinnipiac

Worcester
3 Michigan State vs. 14 UConn
6 Dartmouth vs. 9 Penn State

Loveland
4 Western Michigan vs. 13 Minnesota State
5 Denver vs. 12 Wisconsin

Bullcrap. Obviously Schloss has insight into the committee's feebleness. Still hoping the NPI is used for seeding, as it was intended.

[Dustin]

33 minutes ago, ND_Texan said:

Still hoping the NPI is used for seeding, as it was intended.

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."

[Fratt Mattin]

55 minutes ago, Dustin said:

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."

I don't get this argument at all. So the NPI isn't precise enough to determine matchups, but it's precise enough to determine who makes the tournament and who doesn't? Not to mention, this presents it like the committee is tinkering with the bracket for fairness purposes, which they aren't. They're tinkering with it for travel/attendance reasons, which is completely ridiculous

[ND_Texan]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

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."

There are teams sitting at #17 thru #19 that were "so close" to getting selected, but weren't. Isn't that more important than being so close that seeding becomes subjective? Explain your lame ass logic to St. Thomas, Augie and UMass.

[Dustin]

7 minutes ago, Fratt Mattin said:

So the NPI isn't precise enough to determine matchups, but it's precise enough to determine who makes the tournament and who doesn't?

 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.).

[Dustin]

10 minutes ago, ND_Texan said:

Explain your lame ass logic to St. Thomas, Augie and UMass

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.

[Fratt Mattin]

22 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 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.).

But they aren't adjusting the matchups based on fairness. If they were doing that I could maybe get on board. What they're doing is adjusting matchups for better attendance and easier travel, which is not fair. The highest ranked teams deserve to play the worst teams. Now, if you believe the NPI is not the best way to determine that and want to have the committee do their own ranking to determine seeding, that's fine. That wouldn't be my preferred system, but at least the underlying goal would still be to give every team the most fair matchup possible

[Dustin]

9 minutes ago, Fratt Mattin said:

But they aren't adjusting the matchups based on fairness. If they were doing that I could maybe get on board. What they're doing is adjusting matchups for better attendance and easier travel, which is not fair. The highest ranked teams deserve to play the worst teams. Now, if you believe the NPI is not the best way to determine that and want to have the committee do their own ranking to determine seeding, that's fine. That wouldn't be my preferred system, but at least the underlying goal would still be to give every team the most fair matchup possible

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.

[Fratt Mattin]

1 minute ago, Dustin said:

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.

The bracket will still be relatively fair overall, but we know that they don't tinker to try to make things more fair, they tinker to boost attendance and lower travel costs. It's hardly the end of the world, it just bothers me that they adjust matchups based on anything other than trying to give the best teams the easiest games

[nodakvindy]

Fair is in the eye of the beholder. To some fair is holding to the singular ranking (NPI).  To me it's using that as a guideline but separating conference foes into different regions as best possible. Highest seeds would be closer to home if possible. 

I'd go with this

Albany

Michigan-Bentley, UMD-QU

Worcester

WMU-UConn, Dartmouth-Wisconsin

Loveland

Mich St.-Merrimack, Denver-Cornell

SIoux Falls

UND-Minnesota St., Providence-Penn St.

[scpa0305]

With the new 19 year old rule, curious if Reschny signs 

[jk]

What is the new 19 year old rule?

[nodakgirl93]

28 minutes ago, nodakvindy said:

Fair is in the eye of the beholder. To some fair is holding to the singular ranking (NPI).  To me it's using that as a guideline but separating conference foes into different regions as best possible. Highest seeds would be closer to home if possible. 

I'd go with this

Albany

Michigan-Bentley, UMD-QU

Worcester

WMU-UConn, Dartmouth-Wisconsin

Loveland

Mich St.-Merrimack, Denver-Cornell

SIoux Falls

UND-Minnesota St., Providence-Penn St.

They ain't giving UND a 4 seed that's 13 in the NPI over a 4 seed that's 19. That's ridiculous. 

[mattim]

29 minutes ago, nodakvindy said:

Fair is in the eye of the beholder. To some fair is holding to the singular ranking (NPI).  To me it's using that as a guideline but separating conference foes into different regions as best possible. Highest seeds would be closer to home if possible. 

I'd go with this

Albany

Michigan-Bentley, UMD-QU

Worcester

WMU-UConn, Dartmouth-Wisconsin

Loveland

Mich St.-Merrimack, Denver-Cornell

SIoux Falls

UND-Minnesota St., Providence-Penn St.

You think they will put NCHC in each regional? 

[brianvf]

19 minutes ago, jk said:

What is the new 19 year old rule?

 

[nodakvindy]

21 minutes ago, mattim said:

You think they will put NCHC in each regional? 

No I dont think so, but in my eyes that is what would be fair. And not just nchc, Big 10 as well. 

[ND_Texan]

The brackets could have been set within 10 minutes of DU beating UMD. The travel and attendance considerations are nonsense. 

[nodakgirl93]

3 minutes ago, nodakvindy said:

No I dont think so, but in my eyes that is what would be fair. And not just nchc, Big 10 as well. 

What's fair is following bracket integrity instead of making personal decisions. 

[ND_Texan]

1 hour ago, Fratt Mattin said:

The bracket will still be relatively fair overall, but we know that they don't tinker to try to make things more fair, they tinker to boost attendance and lower travel costs. It's hardly the end of the world, it just bothers me that they adjust matchups based on anything other than trying to give the best teams the easiest games

There should be no adjustments whatsoever.

[ND_Texan]

3 minutes ago, ND_Texan said:

The brackets could have been set within 10 minutes of DU beating UMD. The travel and attendance considerations are nonsense. 

Site A: 1 plays 16, 8 plays

Site B: 2 plays 15, 7 plays 10

Site C: 3 plays 14, 6 plays 11
Site D: 4 plays 13, 5 plays 12

There, fixed it. Easy peasy.

[scpa0305]

37 minutes ago, jk said:

What is the new 19 year old rule?

The way I wrote that doesn’t make a ton of sense as Reschny played college hockey so I think he could sign anyway? Someone here could correct me.

However, moving forward (starting with last years draft class), all 19 year old CHL players drafted in the first round can play in the AHL next year. This will sway a few guys dominating the CHL from playing NCAA. So think late 08’s and early 07s 

[nodakvindy]

30 minutes ago, nodakgirl93 said:

They ain't giving UND a 4 seed that's 13 in the NPI over a 4 seed that's 19. That's ridiculous. 

I didn't say they would. I said what I would do based on the criteria I prioritize for fairness. That means separating conference teams and not overly relying on a single criteria (NPI) that in reality lacks the sample size to be precise to that level. 

[tnt]

1 minute ago, nodakvindy said:

I didn't say they would. I said what I would do based on the criteria I prioritize for fairness. That means separating conference teams and not overly relying on a single criteria (NPI) that in reality lacks the sample size to be precise to that level. 

Fairness?  2 playing #13 instead of #19?