Should head-to-head results be only factor in section seeding?

[SpreadOut!]

Wonder what people think about what should be biggest factor in section seeding? The trend seems to be head-to-head results rule over everything else. Is that just? I ask because there is a Star Tribune story today on the girls side of the game, where Blake got #1 section seed over Edina, based entirely on their 1-0 victory over Edina during season, despite Edina’s far superior overall record and ranking. See Star Tribune story link below. I’m not one to feel sorry for Edina, but this doesn’t seem right to me. Shouldn’t we be looking at overall body of work instead of result of just one super tight game between two teams? Also, does allowing coaches to vote on seeding invite mischief…allowing coaches to team up on and screw over teams they don’t like, which may also be a factor in the Edina-Blake seeding beef?

https://m.startribune.com/girls-high-sc ... 600250039/

[elliott70]

And if Team A beats Team B
Tema B beats Team C
And Team C beats Team A????

Team A beats Team B when Team B starting goal tender is out with the flu.

Coaches voting works IF the coaches are playing all or most of the teams in their section,
AND they are honest and not playing games.

Coach Randolph was accused of playing games but who knows when a coach honestly feels about another team, or they are trying to manipulate the system.

QRF is close by season end but not nearly perfect.

Pagestat gives great results but who is to say that cannot be fooled with.

Even Karl and ClassAguy are not without sin.

Bottom line is.....
I have no idea what the ideal system is but pagestat would be my choice.

[TTpuckster]

Hard to say, but I agree with Elliott.
(Boy that was painful).

[elliott70]

Hard to say, but I agree with Elliott.
(Boy that was painful).

[east hockey]

And if Team A beats Team B
Tema B beats Team C
And Team C beats Team A????

Team A beats Team B when Team B starting goal tender is out with the flu.

Coaches voting works IF the coaches are playing all or most of the teams in their section,
AND they are honest and not playing games.

Coach Randolph was accused of playing games but who knows when a coach honestly feels about another team, or they are trying to manipulate the system.

QRF is close by season end but not nearly perfect.

Pagestat gives great results but who is to say that cannot be fooled with.

Even Karl and ClassAguy are not without sin.

Bottom line is.....
I have no idea what the ideal system is but pagestat would be my choice.

Wait until next season. I'm working on a "Likeability Index" for all the teams which will be factored in after their initial PageStat rating is calculated. If that works, a two-dice system will be implemented so some random variability is included.

Lee

[elliott70]

And if Team A beats Team B
Tema B beats Team C
And Team C beats Team A????

Team A beats Team B when Team B starting goal tender is out with the flu.

Coaches voting works IF the coaches are playing all or most of the teams in their section,
AND they are honest and not playing games.

Coach Randolph was accused of playing games but who knows when a coach honestly feels about another team, or they are trying to manipulate the system.

QRF is close by season end but not nearly perfect.

Pagestat gives great results but who is to say that cannot be fooled with.

Even Karl and ClassAguy are not without sin.

Bottom line is.....
I have no idea what the ideal system is but pagestat would be my choice.

Wait until next season. I'm working on a "Likeability Index" for all the teams which will be factored in after their initial PageStat rating is calculated. If that works, a two-dice system will be implemented so some random variability is included.

Lee

It must be nice to be retired

[SpreadOut!]

I agree that a third party system like Pagestat, along the lines of Pairwise in NCAA, makes the most sense. I don’t trust the coaches at all given intense rivalries and self interest. For example, will be curious to see where Maple Grove ends up in 5AA this year. There is no love for them in section, given they are three-time defending champs. Assuming Rogers is #1 seed, given recent head-to-head results with MG, does Maple Grove get #2 seed given better overall ranking and body of work compared to Champlin Park and Centennial, or do they fall to #4? You know Rogers would rather face MG in final versus semis, but you also know Champlin and Centennial would rather face each other in semis instead of playing MG or Rogers in semis. How does this impact coach voting? I’m guessing substantially.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I thinking seeding should be a prediction of the likelihood of a team to win a tournament.

I probably would have weighted a team's record more so in the past. But the game is different today. Coaches don't worry much about early season results. Sure, everybody wants to win every game, and to not get blown out. But losing a tight early season game to a quality opponent doesn't seem to be nearly as concerning as it was 20 years ago. And early season is pretty well anything before Jan 1. Typically, Hill and White Bear meet before Christmas, and when they meet in late Feb or March, the chatter isn't about the Dec game; its more about how the two have been playing more recently.

It seems like state tournament seeding is based on predicted success more so than section tournaments.

[east hockey]

And if Team A beats Team B
Tema B beats Team C
And Team C beats Team A????

Team A beats Team B when Team B starting goal tender is out with the flu.

Coaches voting works IF the coaches are playing all or most of the teams in their section,
AND they are honest and not playing games.

Coach Randolph was accused of playing games but who knows when a coach honestly feels about another team, or they are trying to manipulate the system.

QRF is close by season end but not nearly perfect.

Pagestat gives great results but who is to say that cannot be fooled with.

Even Karl and ClassAguy are not without sin.

Bottom line is.....
I have no idea what the ideal system is but pagestat would be my choice.

Wait until next season. I'm working on a "Likeability Index" for all the teams which will be factored in after their initial PageStat rating is calculated. If that works, a two-dice system will be implemented so some random variability is included.

Lee

It must be nice to be retired

Hey, it was either that or apply at Kwik Trip

Lee

[SEC Scotty]

I thinking seeding should be a prediction of the likelihood of a team to win a tournament.

I probably would have weighted a team's record more so in the past. But the game is different today. Coaches don't worry much about early season results. Sure, everybody wants to win every game, and to not get blown out. But losing a tight early season game to a quality opponent doesn't seem to be nearly as concerning as it was 20 years ago. And early season is pretty well anything before Jan 1. Typically, Hill and White Bear meet before Christmas, and when they meet in late Feb or March, the chatter isn't about the Dec game; its more about how the two have been playing more recently.

It seems like state tournament seeding is based on predicted success more so than section tournaments.

[SEC Scotty]

I thinking seeding should be a prediction of the likelihood of a team to win a tournament.

I probably would have weighted a team's record more so in the past. But the game is different today. Coaches don't worry much about early season results. Sure, everybody wants to win every game, and to not get blown out. But losing a tight early season game to a quality opponent doesn't seem to be nearly as concerning as it was 20 years ago. And early season is pretty well anything before Jan 1. Typically, Hill and White Bear meet before Christmas, and when they meet in late Feb or March, the chatter isn't about the Dec game; its more about how the two have been playing more recently.

It seems like state tournament seeding is based on predicted success more so than section tournaments.

Ok. Who’s making the predictions?

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I thinking seeding should be a prediction of the likelihood of a team to win a tournament.

I probably would have weighted a team's record more so in the past. But the game is different today. Coaches don't worry much about early season results. Sure, everybody wants to win every game, and to not get blown out. But losing a tight early season game to a quality opponent doesn't seem to be nearly as concerning as it was 20 years ago. And early season is pretty well anything before Jan 1. Typically, Hill and White Bear meet before Christmas, and when they meet in late Feb or March, the chatter isn't about the Dec game; its more about how the two have been playing more recently.

It seems like state tournament seeding is based on predicted success more so than section tournaments.

Ok. Who’s making the predictions?

The coaches.

Yes, yes, I know they're not perfect, I know they come with biases and axes to grind. No system is ideal. Well, no practical system. At some point, you have to just drop the puck and play the game, and the winner is determined by whoever scores more goals.

We can't have 11 camera angles and review every play. It's a game, and games are about having fun. At the end of the day, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

[InThePipes]

The coaches.

Yes, yes, I know they're not perfect, I know they come with biases and axes to grind. No system is ideal. Well, no practical system. At some point, you have to just drop the puck and play the game, and the winner is determined by whoever scores more goals.

We can't have 11 camera angles and review every play. It's a game, and games are about having fun. At the end of the day, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Agree 100%, no system is ever perfect and we've lost the plot on a lot of it in recent years.

[BlueLineSpecial]

Head-to-head should weigh considerably when seeding sections. Far more than overall record. If sections are to exist at all, then of course head-to-head (and overall section record) needs to be the primary factor. If it's just going to be based primarily on overall record, then do away with sections altogether and just make 'sections' a seeding of all 64-ish teams, and the 8 left standing go to State.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I'd give far more weight to a game played on Feb 10 than a game played on Dec 10. If the buggy only head to head game was in Dec, I just don't see that as having much bearing on seeding that takes place on Feb 18th.

In any case, a coach can use whatever parameters he cares to use. Using records, whether head to head or overall, would not yield a clear result. There is way too much variance in scheduling.

And don't start with this "ditch conferences and play two games against each section team" nonsense. It might work for fut-buh, but not for hockey. I don't want my Pioneers wasting two games each against Roseville, Gentry, and Mounds View.

[Rails Hockey]

I thinking seeding should be a prediction of the likelihood of a team to win a tournament.

I probably would have weighted a team's record more so in the past. But the game is different today. Coaches don't worry much about early season results. Sure, everybody wants to win every game, and to not get blown out. But losing a tight early season game to a quality opponent doesn't seem to be nearly as concerning as it was 20 years ago. And early season is pretty well anything before Jan 1. Typically, Hill and White Bear meet before Christmas, and when they meet in late Feb or March, the chatter isn't about the Dec game; its more about how the two have been playing more recently.

It seems like state tournament seeding is based on predicted success more so than section tournaments.

Ok. Who’s making the predictions?

We can't have 11 camera angles and review every play. It's a game, and games are about having fun. At the end of the day, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Amen, great advice for all!

[BlueLineSpecial]

I'd give far more weight to a game played on Feb 10 than a game played on Dec 10. If the buggy only head to head game was in Dec, I just don't see that as having much bearing on seeding that takes place on Feb 18th.

In any case, a coach can use whatever parameters he cares to use. Using records, whether head to head or overall, would not yield a clear result. There is way too much variance in scheduling.

And don't start with this "ditch conferences and play two games against each section team" nonsense. It might work for fut-buh, but not for hockey. I don't want my Pioneers wasting two games each against Roseville, Gentry, and Mounds View.

I don't disagree, and I'm sure the coaches are considering those types of things. The reality though is that at the end of the day, your record is your record when it's being used to seed teams. Thats whether the W's came in December of February. If one team is 5-3 against section teams but went 0-3 in February, they need to be seeded higher than the team that goes 3-5 against section teams but went 3-0 in February. If all things are equal record-wise, then sure, whomever is hotter may deserve a higher seed.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I'd give far more weight to a game played on Feb 10 than a game played on Dec 10. If the buggy only head to head game was in Dec, I just don't see that as having much bearing on seeding that takes place on Feb 18th.

In any case, a coach can use whatever parameters he cares to use. Using records, whether head to head or overall, would not yield a clear result. There is way too much variance in scheduling.

And don't start with this "ditch conferences and play two games against each section team" nonsense. It might work for fut-buh, but not for hockey. I don't want my Pioneers wasting two games each against Roseville, Gentry, and Mounds View.

I don't disagree, and I'm sure the coaches are considering those types of things. The reality though is that at the end of the day, your record is your record when it's being used to seed teams. Thats whether the W's came in December of February. If one team is 5-3 against section teams but went 0-3 in February, they need to be seeded higher than the team that goes 3-5 against section teams but went 3-0 in February. If all things are equal record-wise, then sure, whomever is hotter may deserve a higher seed.

Well, that's only reality for coaches who accept your position. Nothing binds coaches to using overall records, or intra-section records, or anything else.

Once we move outside a subjective system, we would have some sort of algorithm, which of course would not have any controversy, and would always make perfect sense, amiright?

In any case, overall records are a poor basis for comparison. Teams schedules are just to varied.

Einstein said that not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

[elliott70]

I'd give far more weight to a game played on Feb 10 than a game played on Dec 10. If the buggy only head to head game was in Dec, I just don't see that as having much bearing on seeding that takes place on Feb 18th.

In any case, a coach can use whatever parameters he cares to use. Using records, whether head to head or overall, would not yield a clear result. There is way too much variance in scheduling.

And don't start with this "ditch conferences and play two games against each section team" nonsense. It might work for fut-buh, but not for hockey. I don't want my Pioneers wasting two games each against Roseville, Gentry, and Mounds View.

I don't disagree, and I'm sure the coaches are considering those types of things. The reality though is that at the end of the day, your record is your record when it's being used to seed teams. Thats whether the W's came in December of February. If one team is 5-3 against section teams but went 0-3 in February, they need to be seeded higher than the team that goes 3-5 against section teams but went 3-0 in February. If all things are equal record-wise, then sure, whomever is hotter may deserve a higher seed.

Well, that's only reality for coaches who accept your position. Nothing binds coaches to using overall records, or intra-section records, or anything else.

Once we move outside a subjective system, we would have some sort of algorithm, which of course would not have any controversy, and would always make perfect sense, amiright?

In any case, overall records are a poor basis for comparison. Teams schedules are just to varied.

Einstein said that not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

My distant relative.

[SEC Scotty]

I thinking seeding should be a prediction of the likelihood of a team to win a tournament.

I probably would have weighted a team's record more so in the past. But the game is different today. Coaches don't worry much about early season results. Sure, everybody wants to win every game, and to not get blown out. But losing a tight early season game to a quality opponent doesn't seem to be nearly as concerning as it was 20 years ago. And early season is pretty well anything before Jan 1. Typically, Hill and White Bear meet before Christmas, and when they meet in late Feb or March, the chatter isn't about the Dec game; its more about how the two have been playing more recently.

It seems like state tournament seeding is based on predicted success more so than section tournaments.

Ok. Who’s making the predictions?

The coaches.

Yes, yes, I know they're not perfect, I know they come with biases and axes to grind. No system is ideal. Well, no practical system. At some point, you have to just drop the puck and play the game, and the winner is determined by whoever scores more goals.

We can't have 11 camera angles and review every play. It's a game, and games are about having fun. At the end of the day, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Video replay is ruining all sports. That’s why high school hockey is so great. 5 bucks to get in with the old fart discount, 3 bucks for popcorn, no commercial breaks, replays and other BS.

[BlueLineSpecial]

I'd give far more weight to a game played on Feb 10 than a game played on Dec 10. If the buggy only head to head game was in Dec, I just don't see that as having much bearing on seeding that takes place on Feb 18th.

In any case, a coach can use whatever parameters he cares to use. Using records, whether head to head or overall, would not yield a clear result. There is way too much variance in scheduling.

And don't start with this "ditch conferences and play two games against each section team" nonsense. It might work for fut-buh, but not for hockey. I don't want my Pioneers wasting two games each against Roseville, Gentry, and Mounds View.

I don't disagree, and I'm sure the coaches are considering those types of things. The reality though is that at the end of the day, your record is your record when it's being used to seed teams. Thats whether the W's came in December of February. If one team is 5-3 against section teams but went 0-3 in February, they need to be seeded higher than the team that goes 3-5 against section teams but went 3-0 in February. If all things are equal record-wise, then sure, whomever is hotter may deserve a higher seed.

Well, that's only reality for coaches who accept your position. Nothing binds coaches to using overall records, or intra-section records, or anything else.

Once we move outside a subjective system, we would have some sort of algorithm, which of course would not have any controversy, and would always make perfect sense, amiright?

In any case, overall records are a poor basis for comparison. Teams schedules are just to varied.

Einstein said that not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Very true - coaches can use whatever metrics they see fit. My personal opinion is that head-to-head and overall section wins should be #1 and #2 in considering seeding. #3 would be overall record. But who really cares. One way or another you have to be the last team standing. If you are a coach and your prevailing reason for seeding one team lower or higher is to avoid that team to the extent possible, well thats weak.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

Ok. Who’s making the predictions?

The coaches.

Yes, yes, I know they're not perfect, I know they come with biases and axes to grind. No system is ideal. Well, no practical system. At some point, you have to just drop the puck and play the game, and the winner is determined by whoever scores more goals.

We can't have 11 camera angles and review every play. It's a game, and games are about having fun. At the end of the day, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Video replay is ruining all sports. That’s why high school hockey is so great. 5 bucks to get in with the old fart discount, 3 bucks for popcorn, no commercial breaks, replays and other BS.

Whaaaat? Old guys get a discount? Best thing I've heard all day.

I don't get the old guy discount, ergo I'm not an old guy. Sweet.

[Green and White Fan]

The body of work in section play is what should be used to determine section seedings. If 2 teams seem to be in a tie with section games, then look at their body of work and common opponents.

When it comes to the state tournament, I am old school and wish they would go back to the tournament basically being set years ahead of time and get away from the sometimes biased seeding process. So what if the 2 best teams on paper meet in the quarters?

[elliott70]

SHOW ME THE DISCOUNT!

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

The two best teams meeting in the quarterfinal blows, that's why we shouldn't go back to that.