QRF now for seedings

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:42 am

http://minnesota-scores.net click on announcement #3

Minnesota-scores.net and the MSHSL have come to an agreemement have come to an agreement on using the QRF for the purpose of seeding MSHSL sections.

At least for hockey East Hockey's method has proven to be far better hasn't it Lee?

Post by **east hockey** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:30 pm

goldy313 wrote:http://minnesota-scores.net click on announcement #3

Minnesota-scores.net and the MSHSL have come to an agreemement have come to an agreement on using the QRF for the purpose of seeding MSHSL sections.

At least for hockey East Hockey's method has proven to be far better hasn't it Lee?

Goldy, I haven't had the chance (or desire) to take a close look at QRF, so don't have any idea how good it is...or not. Karl? Mitch? Have either of you looked at that particular system?

Lee

blueblood · Post by **blueblood** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:51 pm

Section coaches can opt to vote or use QRF. See Minnesota-scores.net

As for the Sections, they still have a choice. Each sport can decide to seed one of two ways:
1. QRF
2. Coaches Vote

PuckRanger · Post by **PuckRanger** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Not sure if I care for this. QRF seemed to be the least accurate of the ranking systems out there. Its way to basic and doesn't account for many factors. I see that sections still have the option to have a coaches vote. I hope most of the hockey world sticks to that.

Post by **karl(east)** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:08 pm

east hockey wrote:
goldy313 wrote:http://minnesota-scores.net click on announcement #3

Minnesota-scores.net and the MSHSL have come to an agreemement have come to an agreement on using the QRF for the purpose of seeding MSHSL sections.

At least for hockey East Hockey's method has proven to be far better hasn't it Lee?
Goldy, I haven't had the chance (or desire) to take a close look at QRF, so don't have any idea how good it is...or not. Karl? Mitch? Have either of you looked at that particular system?

Lee

I've never spent a lot of time with it, but I glance at the site every now and then. For the most part the rankings are reasonably good, but I trust some of the other computerized rankings more--for example, this year's final rankings have Moorhead at #8 and Edina at #9.

But the website says they're re-doing the system this summer, so maybe they can fix things like that.

Anyone know the history of that site, and how they've managed to cozy up to the MSHSL? I suppose covering every sport helps them, and it is a pretty nice site, though the things they do are all available more comprehensively in other places, at least when it comes to hockey.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Not sure from the wording on the announcement whether the QRF is being used in all the major sports, or just in football. In the past, most football sections have used some sort of points system rather than coaches voting, and the system used varied by section. The new agreement says if they're going to use a point system, they have to use QRF.

I'm pretty sure most hockey and basketball sections use coaches voting already, and I don't see many of them switching from that.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:56 pm

While it may not be perfect, QRF has the better teams on top and the weaker ones at the bottom. I don't think anyone will be too far out of place within a section.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:36 am

It is my understanding that the new 6A football conference that starts next fall will be the first sport / state tournament in Minnesota to follow the seeding by strength vs. traditional section pathway.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:42 am

O-townClown wrote:While it may not be perfect, QRF has the better teams on top and the weaker ones at the bottom. I don't think anyone will be too far out of place within a section.

Is this serious? Wow. How did they pick this system? Lee's is MUCH better.

When I asked about the ranking system two years ago, it was explained to me that margin of victory, win/loss and class of the team you played are all that are factored in.

Beating the worst AA team is better than losing to a good A team.
I have not liked this ranking system as much as ANY other ranking system. Rankings often seem very random. But like karl said, they do many sports, so that is very nice.

deacon64 · Post by **deacon64** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:54 am

Just want to know what do letter QRF mean.

Example ASAP = as soon as possible

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:12 am

deacon64 wrote:Just want to know what do letter QRF mean.

Example ASAP = as soon as possible

QRF = Quality Results Formula

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:09 pm

Watcher, there are about 8 teams in each section. At worst you'll have a pair of teams out of place.

Lee's is much better? I didn't realize they were using Lee's.

Post by **east hockey** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:18 pm

O-townClown wrote:Watcher, there are about 8 teams in each section. At worst you'll have a pair of teams out of place.

Lee's is much better? I didn't realize they were using Lee's.

They aren't. And I really don't know which system is better. QRF? PageStat? Mitch's system? I've never compared how QRF would do when predicting section playoff games since I've never seen their ratings prior to the section tournaments. So, it's just speculation.

A computerized rating system can be useful, if the person designing the system knows what they're doing. That much is obvious.

Lee

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:51 pm

Lee, I think the work you do with your computer ranking is great.

I'd liken MSHSL using QRF over your approach to college basketball favoring RPI over something like Ken Pomeroy or Jeff Sagarin. (Not a perfect analogy since RPI is just one factor for selecting at-large bids, but you get the picture.)

When I look at QRF, the best teams are on top and the weak teams are at the bottom. When it comes time to seed the 8 teams in a section it will work just fine.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:28 pm

QRF has been horrible, they did admit to changing it and I'll hold my judgement on their new formula until the end of the year.

However....

If you look today in football QRF has Owatonna 3rd in the state ahead of 4-1 Minnetonka, 5-0 Cretin and fellow 5-0 section 1 teams Lakeville North and Lakeville South. The coaches didn't have Owatonna in the top 10 last week and I doubt they'll be there this week either. QRF would give Owatonna a seed in front of both Lakeville schools, even though Owatonna played 2 weak 4A schools and 2 weak 5A schools.

It's only week 5 and there are 8 weeks but QRF isn't looking very good right now.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:22 pm

goldy313 wrote:QRF has been horrible,

Really?

Here are the seeds last year for the Top 37 teams based off of QRF around the 3rd week of February.

1 – Lakeville S, Lakeville N,
2 – Edina, Burnsville, Jefferson, Holy Angels, Prior Lake,
3 – Eagan, Apple Valley, Cretin, Hastings, Woodbury
4 – Hill-Murray, White Bear Lake, Stillwater, Roseville, North St. Paul,
5 – Maple Grove, Blaine, Centennial, Osseo, Champlin Park,
6 – Eden Prairie, Benilde, Wayzata, Minnetonka, Armstrong
7 – Duluth East, Grand Rapids, Cloquet, Elk River, Forest Lake
8 – Moorhead, Bemidji, Brainerd, Roseau, St. Cloud Tech,

I just don't see the same problem you do. Feel free to go back further if you like.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:32 am

O-townClown wrote:
goldy313 wrote:QRF has been horrible,
Really?

Here are the seeds last year for the Top 37 teams based off of QRF around the 3rd week of February.

1 – Lakeville S, Lakeville N,
2 – Edina, Burnsville, Jefferson, Holy Angels, Prior Lake,
3 – Eagan, Apple Valley, Cretin, Hastings, Woodbury
4 – Hill-Murray, White Bear Lake, Stillwater, Roseville, North St. Paul,
5 – Maple Grove, Blaine, Centennial, Osseo, Champlin Park,
6 – Eden Prairie, Benilde, Wayzata, Minnetonka, Armstrong
7 – Duluth East, Grand Rapids, Cloquet, Elk River, Forest Lake
8 – Moorhead, Bemidji, Brainerd, Roseau, St. Cloud Tech,

I just don't see the same problem you do. Feel free to go back further if you like.

If all you care about is the AA seeding, then after a 25 game schedule, I doubt there will be many issues. Although I'd say that for 3AA and 5AA, with how much teams play each other, there could be issues.

Class A has been much different. Only a few minor issues, but in 1A La Crescent, who was seeded 8th, would've been the 3rd seed.

If this is being used in basketball and hockey, it generally isn't an issue. But like goldy said, if this is being used in football, as it is (currently) a system that sorts itself out over time, that is not a good thing. I've noticed that soccer has also been questionable.

So, I don't think it's the end of the world, but say that to the team that gets seeded 5th behind a 4th seed they beat in the one head to head match up.
That being said, I'd prefer to have a standard than trying to "unfairly" sort out A beat B beat C beat A circles in 8 sections.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:47 am

If you'd like some great examples of why this rule is "silly":

http://www.minnesota-scores.net/classst ... 04&class=4

Again, in hockey and basketball, they will probably be fine, as there are enough sections that play at "neutral" sites for a good enough part of the tourney that messing up by one place may hurt the feelings of one or two 5 seeds, but beyond that, it will probably be overall fair.

All that being said, in a sport like soccer and football, where teams play many teams in a different class, up or down, because of their conference, some sections are played at top seeds throughout and in many sections there are 1 or 2 byes, many are not done well.
It's "fair" as you can't blame the coaches now, but you are putting the state chances (and I'm guessing revenue in some cases) in the hands of what looks like a very imperfect system.

No disrespect to anyone, just my observations and concerns to stir discussion.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

QRF now for seedings

QRF now for seedings

Re: QRF now for seedings

QRF

Re: QRF now for seedings