Different wasys to run a tournament

[no-fly-bys]

My son played in a B peewee tournament in Coon Rapids over the past weekend. It was a 6 team tournament with 3 in each pool. SSP won there pool and then there was Burnsville, Rogers, and Weseca. 1st Game Burnsville beat Weseca 18-0. Weseca never got a shot on goal and yes the coach told them to stop shooting so much so they were passing the puck around before they would shoot. very good sportsmanship maybe they should have stopped it 10-12 whetever! Next game Rogers 19-0 over Weseca Did not see the game but I guess they just kept comming at them is what I heard. 3rd game Rogers against BV. Tied 0-0 BV ran into a hot goaltender shots were 36-6. Now since both Rogers and Bv were tied they went into a tie breaker and it was goal differential. So Rogers went on to play SSP. Now I am not a sore parent from BV. But I would have like to see the best teams in the Championship. How could you have done this so the tie breaker could have been different?

[northwoods oldtimer]

Sounds like Coon Rapids did it right the rules that apply are in place to get the games in. I would not stress about it much at all. It is more important that your kids got at least 2 good games out of the tournament. The development is more important than the 1st place trophy.

[dogeatdog1]

My son played in a B peewee tournament in Coon Rapids over the past weekend. It was a 6 team tournament with 3 in each pool. SSP won there pool and then there was Burnsville, Rogers, and Weseca. 1st Game Burnsville beat Weseca 18-0. Weseca never got a shot on goal and yes the coach told them to stop shooting so much so they were passing the puck around before they would shoot. very good sportsmanship maybe they should have stopped it 10-12 whetever! Next game Rogers 19-0 over Weseca Did not see the game but I guess they just kept comming at them is what I heard. 3rd game Rogers against BV. Tied 0-0 BV ran into a hot goaltender shots were 36-6. Now since both Rogers and Bv were tied they went into a tie breaker and it was goal differential. So Rogers went on to play SSP. Now I am not a sore parent from BV. But I would have like to see the best teams in the Championship. How could you have done this so the tie breaker could have been different?

Sounds like Rogers was one of the best teams in the tourney and deserved to be in the finals according to the rules. Did Rogers win it? If so tell your kid that he was a champ. The trophy will be in the garbage by the time he is a bantam anyway. My 2cents. One other thing 18-0 and the coach was telling the kids to let off? Doesn't sound like that to me.

[O-townClown]

I usually see it where pool play has a max goal differential, like +5 or +6. I'm sorry, but there should be no incentive to pile on goals past a handful.

[No Political Connections]

Yup +6 for goal difference and also a +1 for a shut out most of the time.

[CRDirector]

I usually see it where pool play has a max goal differential, like +5 or +6. I'm sorry, but there should be no incentive to pile on goals past a handful.

Here are the tiebreaker from our tournament
TIEBREAKERS:
1 – Head to Head game
2 – Least amount of goals given up in all Pol games
3 – Most goals scored in all Pool games
4 – Least amount of penalty minutes in all Pool games
5 – coin flip

1 - Tied 0-0
2 - Ted 0-0
3 - Rogers won 19-18
***4 - Rogers would have won with the least amount of penalties

Even with all of the funky tiebreaker rules that you see if some of the tournamnents were you can get bonus points for shutouts and periods won, these 2 teams would have tied because neither of them gave up a goal in their 2 games.

BTW - So St. Paul beat Rogers in the Championship game in OT with 0.1 seconds remaining.

[silentbutdeadly3139]

My son played in a B peewee tournament in Coon Rapids over the past weekend. It was a 6 team tournament with 3 in each pool. SSP won there pool and then there was Burnsville, Rogers, and Weseca. 1st Game Burnsville beat Weseca 18-0. Weseca never got a shot on goal and yes the coach told them to stop shooting so much so they were passing the puck around before they would shoot. very good sportsmanship maybe they should have stopped it 10-12 whetever! Next game Rogers 19-0 over Weseca Did not see the game but I guess they just kept comming at them is what I heard. 3rd game Rogers against BV. Tied 0-0 BV ran into a hot goaltender shots were 36-6. Now since both Rogers and Bv were tied they went into a tie breaker and it was goal differential. So Rogers went on to play SSP. Now I am not a sore parent from BV. But I would have like to see the best teams in the Championship. How could you have done this so the tie breaker could have been different?

18-0 very good sportsmanship yet 19-0 is poor sportsmanship ? I doubt that but sounds like both teams played according to the rules and unfortunately tie breakers can get tricky and did in this case. Not sure how many of the 38 shots were quality or not, but pretty sure goaltenders are part of the team and can make a team good as you experienced.

As later post on the finals score shows, it sounds like Rogers was a good representative in the championship game.

Did your son have fun ? at the end of the day thats what matters.

[observer]

CR Director,

I think what people are suggesting is that in the future you cap goal differential at 6. Total goals probably isn't the best approach.

[seek & destroy]

CR Director,

I think what people are suggesting is that in the future you cap goal differential at 6. Total goals probably isn't the best approach.

Putting a cap on goal differential would have meant they were still tied and then it would have come down to penalty minutes which Rogers won anyway. Either way, Rogers was the team that should advance. It sounds like the championship game was a great game and that there were 3 good teams battling to be in it. BV couldn't beat Rogers so I don't think you can assume that they were better than Rogers. It ended up being Rogers vs. SSP.

It's too bad that the team from Waseca was struggling so bad. Tournaments are always hit or miss as to what teams are in each pool and it sounds like their team being so weak compared to the other two teams had a negative impact on the pool. Nothing you can do about that but hopefully everyone had fun.

[sinbin]

Yes, a goals scored cap should certainly be used. Other options are goals scored/goals given up ratio (irrelevant in this case) and periods won. I don't know if this tournament researched the teams prior to arranging the pools (and most tournaments I've seen don't do a particularly good job of this) is to seed the teams. Not overtly, with seedings next to the teams, but get the team records and scores (for PW and above) as close as possible to the pool/bracket draw and at least make an educated guess as to relative strength of teams. This again may have been moot as this tournament seemed to have 3 very strong and relatively equal teams, so one of them would get left out of the championship no matter what. Of course, with only 6 teams, this would seem to be an inherent problem. Even if you went to 5 teams, you could have each team play 4 games and determine the overall winner based on a thoughtful set of criteria. Six teams is just problematic.

[seek & destroy]

Yes, a goals scored cap should certainly be used. Other options are goals scored/goals given up ratio (irrelevant in this case) and periods won. I don't know if this tournament researched the teams prior to arranging the pools (and most tournaments I've seen don't do a particularly good job of this) is to seed the teams. Not overtly, with seedings next to the teams, but get the team records and scores (for PW and above) as close as possible to the pool/bracket draw and at least make an educated guess as to relative strength of teams. This again may have been moot as this tournament seemed to have 3 very strong and relatively equal teams, so one of them would get left out of the championship no matter what. Of course, with only 6 teams, this would seem to be an inherent problem. Even if you went to 5 teams, you could have each team play 4 games and determine the overall winner based on a thoughtful set of criteria. Six teams is just problematic.

The best solution is to do everything possible to expand to an 8 team tourney. That way you can use a bracket play format and have each game declare a winner by virtue of ot, shoot out or both. Winning team advances. It means you need ice for 12 games (instead of 9) but with the extra 2 teams entrance fees you can usually cover the ice/ref costs.

It may not have been possible to get that many teams but that would be the best solution if it is possible. Assuming that they had tried for 8 and ended up with 6, then their solution worked as good as any.

[JSR]

Yes, a goals scored cap should certainly be used. Other options are goals scored/goals given up ratio (irrelevant in this case) and periods won. I don't know if this tournament researched the teams prior to arranging the pools (and most tournaments I've seen don't do a particularly good job of this) is to seed the teams. Not overtly, with seedings next to the teams, but get the team records and scores (for PW and above) as close as possible to the pool/bracket draw and at least make an educated guess as to relative strength of teams. This again may have been moot as this tournament seemed to have 3 very strong and relatively equal teams, so one of them would get left out of the championship no matter what. Of course, with only 6 teams, this would seem to be an inherent problem. Even if you went to 5 teams, you could have each team play 4 games and determine the overall winner based on a thoughtful set of criteria. Six teams is just problematic.

The best solution is to do everything possible to expand to an 8 team tourney. That way you can use a bracket play format and have each game declare a winner by virtue of ot, shoot out or both. Winning team advances. It means you need ice for 12 games (instead of 9) but with the extra 2 teams entrance fees you can usually cover the ice/ref costs.

It may not have been possible to get that many teams but that would be the best solution if it is possible. Assuming that they had tried for 8 and ended up with 6, then their solution worked as good as any.

Another good way to handle it when there is 6 teams is to expand the tourney slightly. Have pool play on Saturday then advance the top TWO teams from each bracket into a semi final game on Sunday morning. Have the "1 seed" from Pool A play the "2 seed" from Pool B and the 1 seed from Pool B play the 2 seed from Pool A. The 3 seeds would play eachother in a 5th place consolation game after teh semis. Then have a championship game and maybe a third place game early afternoon on Sunday. This guarantees that everyone gets three games and offers a fourth game incentive to the top four teams in the tourney. This is how we run our home tourney's when we only get 6 teams and we get tremendous response from the teams that come because of it. It also solves the pool play problems that arise from 6 team tourneys, it allows a team to play it's way into the finals even if something went awry during pool play.

[seek & destroy]

The best solution is to do everything possible to expand to an 8 team tourney. That way you can use a bracket play format and have each game declare a winner by virtue of ot, shoot out or both. Winning team advances. It means you need ice for 12 games (instead of 9) but with the extra 2 teams entrance fees you can usually cover the ice/ref costs.

It may not have been possible to get that many teams but that would be the best solution if it is possible. Assuming that they had tried for 8 and ended up with 6, then their solution worked as good as any.

Another good way to handle it when there is 6 teams is to expand the tourney slightly. Have pool play on Saturday then advance the top TWO teams from each bracket into a semi final game on Sunday morning. Have the "1 seed" from Pool A play the "2 seed" from Pool B and the 1 seed from Pool B play the 2 seed from Pool A. The 3 seeds would play eachother in a 5th place consolation game after teh semis. Then have a championship game and maybe a third place game early afternoon on Sunday. This guarantees that everyone gets three games and offers a fourth game incentive to the top four teams in the tourney. This is how we run our home tourney's when we only get 6 teams and we get tremendous response from the teams that come because of it. It also solves the pool play problems that arise from 6 team tourneys, it allows a team to play it's way into the finals even if something went awry during pool play.

That's a great way to do a 6 team tourney! I will suggest that to our board if we come up short on our 8 team format next time. To keep it economical we would probably have the 4th game only for the winners of the seed 1 vs seed 2 games (losers are done). Thanks.

[JSR]

The best solution is to do everything possible to expand to an 8 team tourney. That way you can use a bracket play format and have each game declare a winner by virtue of ot, shoot out or both. Winning team advances. It means you need ice for 12 games (instead of 9) but with the extra 2 teams entrance fees you can usually cover the ice/ref costs.

It may not have been possible to get that many teams but that would be the best solution if it is possible. Assuming that they had tried for 8 and ended up with 6, then their solution worked as good as any.

Another good way to handle it when there is 6 teams is to expand the tourney slightly. Have pool play on Saturday then advance the top TWO teams from each bracket into a semi final game on Sunday morning. Have the "1 seed" from Pool A play the "2 seed" from Pool B and the 1 seed from Pool B play the 2 seed from Pool A. The 3 seeds would play eachother in a 5th place consolation game after teh semis. Then have a championship game and maybe a third place game early afternoon on Sunday. This guarantees that everyone gets three games and offers a fourth game incentive to the top four teams in the tourney. This is how we run our home tourney's when we only get 6 teams and we get tremendous response from the teams that come because of it. It also solves the pool play problems that arise from 6 team tourneys, it allows a team to play it's way into the finals even if something went awry during pool play.

That's a great way to do a 6 team tourney! I will suggest that to our board if we come up short on our 8 team format next time. To keep it economical we would probably have the 4th game only for the winners of the seed 1 vs seed 2 games (losers are done). Thanks.

Our organization usually only does the fourth game for the championship game (losers are done as you put it), but every once in a great while, if we cannot sell the ice time (small WI community with small association) we might just throw in the third place game. Might as well have someone using the ice than to just let it sit empty, luckily this doesn't happen very often. But yeah, the associations who have come have loved that we do it this way and we have alot of folks returning from previous years because of it.

[sinbin]

Great ideas!

[defense]

My son played in a B peewee tournament in Coon Rapids over the past weekend. It was a 6 team tournament with 3 in each pool. SSP won there pool and then there was Burnsville, Rogers, and Weseca. 1st Game Burnsville beat Weseca 18-0. Weseca never got a shot on goal and yes the coach told them to stop shooting so much so they were passing the puck around before they would shoot. very good sportsmanship maybe they should have stopped it 10-12 whetever! Next game Rogers 19-0 over Weseca Did not see the game but I guess they just kept comming at them is what I heard. 3rd game Rogers against BV. Tied 0-0 BV ran into a hot goaltender shots were 36-6. Now since both Rogers and Bv were tied they went into a tie breaker and it was goal differential. So Rogers went on to play SSP. Now I am not a sore parent from BV. But I would have like to see the best teams in the Championship. How could you have done this so the tie breaker could have been different?

Honestly, the most common sense approach here would be to use the Burnsville v Rogers game to decide who plays in the big championship match. If they do ties in this tournement(usually pools have ties) use the shots on goal for that game. Shots on goal can be problematic though as who would do the keeping of that stat etc. Really it is kind stupid to use the goal differntial as the first tiebreaker in this situation. You're using ONE game. The best solution would be to have no ties when you are only going to have three teams to a pool.