Just for fun, "if the season ended today" what would the D-1 tourney look
like?  Here's my take:

Who's in:
6 conference champions, for now, using the regular season champs, except
in Atlantic hockey where RIT is not eligible to win the tournament, so
we'll use Sacred Heart, gives us: Mn, NoDame, UNH, SLU, SH, Nia.
10 remaining from PWR, using the .003 bonus: SCSU, Clarkson, NoDak, Mia,
BosU, BosC, Mich, UMO, DU; the last spot shows as a 3-way tie b/t SLU,
MichSt, UMass; since SLU is already in, and MSU takes the comparison with
UMass, that puts MSU in.

Seeding 1-16:
1 Mn
2 NoDam
3 UNH
4 SCSU

5 Cla
6 NoDak
7 Mia
8 BosU

9 BosC
10 Mich
11 UMO
12 DU

13 SLU
14 MSU
15 Nia
16 SH

1st round pairings:
1/16 Mn/SH
2/15 NoDam/Nia
3/14 UNH/MSU
4/13 SCSU/SLU
5/12 Cla/DU
6/11 NoDak/UMO
7/9 Mia/BosC
8/10 BosU/Mich (9 & 10 swapped to avoid 2 1st round intraconference matchups)

Regional pairings, starting with the easy ones:
4/13 SCSU/SLU vs 5/12 Cla/DU in DENVER (Denver is host school)
3/14 UNH/MSU vs 6/11 NoDak/UMO in MANCHESTER (UNH is host school)
Other two brackets are nebulous.  Either Mn or NoDame has to head east to
Rochester; Michigan in Grand Rapids & Niagara in Rochester probably the
most important attendance factors among these 8 schools; with 8/10 and 7/9
matchups it's not really clear which one the 1/16 winner should draw.  I
suggest:
2/15 NoDam/Nia vs 7/9 Mia/BosC in ROCHESTER
1/16 Mn/SH vs 8/10 BosU/Mich in GRAND RAPIDS

Rochester could have attendance problems unless the committee sees Niagara
as enough of a draw.  The answer would be to get either SLU or Clarkson,
or both, into Rochester.  The best solution for this that I can find would
be to swap #9 BC and #12 DU, then you could have:
3/14 UNH/MSU vs 6/11 NoDak/UMO in MANCHESTER (UNH is host school)
1/16 Mn/SH vs 7/12 Mia/DU in DENVER (Denver is host school)
4/13 SCSU/SLU vs 5/9 Cla/BosC in ROCHESTER
2/15 NoDam/Nia vs 8/10 BosU/Mich in GRAND RAPIDS
which DOES preserve the "banding" but isn't as pure a 1-16 seeding.  All
depends, as usual, on what the committee sees as important.  The two
neutral sites would seem to have attractive matchups for attendance
purposes using this plan.

This is obviously HIGHLY subject to change based on the results on the
tourneys...it's a snapshot of a moving target, but it's fun to look at and
ponder.  And of course my logic may be mixed up.  Flame away.

Mike A