AA Rankings for 2/13/22

[headsupsticksdown]

Rapids really clicking at the right time, playing Hermantown really strong and up 2-0 through the 2nd.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

This would NEVER happen as well but teams should have to play a home and home with every other team in the section and then seedings go by section standings: objective and fair: no computer rankings or subjective coaches vote
[/quote]

This is something I've thought of as well. The drawback I see is the huge gap between some of the top teams in each section and the bottom of the barrel. For example, Hopkins having to play the likes of Benilde, Wayzata, and Edina twice each season is less than ideal.
[/quote]

This is part of why I say factoring in conference champions is unfair. Edina winning it's conference should be worth a lot more than Benilde winning it's conference. And there is only so much Benilde can do about that.

[Slap Shot]

I doubt conference championships are factored into any of it outside any key wins that contributed to the overall W/L, etc.

[Green and White Fan]

I put together a rating system that strictly ranks you with how you do within your section. Your other body of work factors in, in no way. 2 points for every section win. Minus 2 points for every section loss. If you only play a team once, you get 3 points for a win. If you don't play a team in your section at least once, you get a minus 3 for each team not played. Applying that to 8AA, Elk River would have been the 1 seed, with one more point than Roseau. Moorhead would have been a 3 seed, losing to Roseau by one point because of the extra section loss to Buffalo. The rest of the teams would have fell exactly where they fell according to this mornings coaches seedings. Elk would have gotten the 1 seed by not playing 2 of the top teams in the section. Right or wrong it takes it out of the coaches hands. I would be curious to see how this would result in other sections compared to how they will be seeded. QRF is a joke as Grand Rapids, gets dinged for losing to one of the best teams in the state in Hermantown and likewise, Roseau would have gotten a big ding for losing to a top team in Warroad.

[Delayedoffsides]

I put together a rating system that strictly ranks you with how you do within your section. Your other body of work factors in, in no way. 2 points for every section win. Minus 2 points for every section loss. If you only play a team once, you get 3 points for a win. If you don't play a team in your section at least once, you get a minus 3 for each team not played. Applying that to 8AA, Elk River would have been the 1 seed, with one more point than Roseau. Moorhead would have been a 3 seed, losing to Roseau by one point because of the extra section loss to Buffalo. The rest of the teams would have fell exactly where they fell according to this mornings coaches seedings. Elk would have gotten the 1 seed by not playing 2 of the top teams in the section. Right or wrong it takes it out of the coaches hands. I would be curious to see how this would result in other sections compared to how they will be seeded. QRF is a joke as Grand Rapids, gets dinged for losing to one of the best teams in the state in Hermantown and likewise, Roseau would have gotten a big ding for losing to a top team in Warroad.

How did GR get dinged for losing to HT? According to most even if they won that game they weren’t going to catch Andover for the #1 seed anyway.

[Sparlimb]

I always see it as a one and done tournament. It doesn't matter your seed. You likely need to beat the best team in your section besides you no matter what. Every once in awhile you get lucky and there's an upset. That's why I don't care where Gentry gets placed in 4AA. If HM is a state contender, then they better be able to win that game. Period. And if they can't, then they didn't deserve to win state. Winning 6 games in a row is no joke, but someone manages it every year. And along the way they play tougher teams.

Elk River is, in no way, the #1 seed. Moorhead and Roseau are both better and will play for the section championship.

[elliott70]

I put together a rating system that strictly ranks you with how you do within your section. Your other body of work factors in, in no way. 2 points for every section win. Minus 2 points for every section loss. If you only play a team once, you get 3 points for a win. If you don't play a team in your section at least once, you get a minus 3 for each team not played. Applying that to 8AA, Elk River would have been the 1 seed, with one more point than Roseau. Moorhead would have been a 3 seed, losing to Roseau by one point because of the extra section loss to Buffalo. The rest of the teams would have fell exactly where they fell according to this mornings coaches seedings. Elk would have gotten the 1 seed by not playing 2 of the top teams in the section. Right or wrong it takes it out of the coaches hands. I would be curious to see how this would result in other sections compared to how they will be seeded. QRF is a joke as Grand Rapids, gets dinged for losing to one of the best teams in the state in Hermantown and likewise, Roseau would have gotten a big ding for losing to a top team in Warroad.

How did GR get dinged for losing to HT? According to most even if they won that game they weren’t going to catch Andover for the #1 seed anyway.

They dropped .6 of a point after the loss.

[Green and White Fan]

What if Grand Rapids would have beaten say Brainerd a bottom end AA team in a game? How would that effect their QRF? Maybe QRF is different for hockey? For other sports, wins against a terrible team in your same class or even a class higher is great for QRF, but beating a top rated team in a lower class does little or losing to a lower class is harsher even if that team is way better than a team in your Class or higher class. Like I have asked, is hockey different?

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I put together a rating system that strictly ranks you with how you do within your section. Your other body of work factors in, in no way. 2 points for every section win. Minus 2 points for every section loss. If you only play a team once, you get 3 points for a win. If you don't play a team in your section at least once, you get a minus 3 for each team not played. Applying that to 8AA, Elk River would have been the 1 seed, with one more point than Roseau. Moorhead would have been a 3 seed, losing to Roseau by one point because of the extra section loss to Buffalo. The rest of the teams would have fell exactly where they fell according to this mornings coaches seedings. Elk would have gotten the 1 seed by not playing 2 of the top teams in the section. Right or wrong it takes it out of the coaches hands. I would be curious to see how this would result in other sections compared to how they will be seeded. QRF is a joke as Grand Rapids, gets dinged for losing to one of the best teams in the state in Hermantown and likewise, Roseau would have gotten a big ding for losing to a top team in Warroad.

WTH? You lose 3 points if you don't play a team??? There is no reason on God's green earth for Hill to play Minnehaha.

That's just asinine.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I always see it as a one and done tournament. It doesn't matter your seed. You likely need to beat the best team in your section besides you no matter what. Every once in awhile you get lucky and there's an upset. That's why I don't care where Gentry gets placed in 4AA. If HM is a state contender, then they better be able to win that game. Period. And if they can't, then they didn't deserve to win state. Winning 6 games in a row is no joke, but someone manages it every year. And along the way they play tougher teams.

Elk River is, in no way, the #1 seed. Moorhead and Roseau are both better and will play for the section championship.

This is correct. Drop the puck and play the game. Ninety-nine percent of the time, quarterfinal games are inconsequential. By that I mean that it's rare for two teams meeting in the quarterfinal to both be legitimate and serious contenders for the section championship,

Now, you're down to the 4 semifinalists. Often there is a legitimate debate over who is 1 or 2, or 2 or 3. At worst, one team gets a softer opponent in the semi round. At some point, you need to just play the game, rather than a futile search for the perfect seeding method. I've not heard any alternative to coaches voting that is anything approaching something head and shoulders above that.

[Green and White Fan]

The seedings are for sections and your body of work in the section. You should play everyone at least once.

[StanleyCup55]

I put together a rating system that strictly ranks you with how you do within your section. Your other body of work factors in, in no way. 2 points for every section win. Minus 2 points for every section loss. If you only play a team once, you get 3 points for a win. If you don't play a team in your section at least once, you get a minus 3 for each team not played. Applying that to 8AA, Elk River would have been the 1 seed, with one more point than Roseau. Moorhead would have been a 3 seed, losing to Roseau by one point because of the extra section loss to Buffalo. The rest of the teams would have fell exactly where they fell according to this mornings coaches seedings. Elk would have gotten the 1 seed by not playing 2 of the top teams in the section. Right or wrong it takes it out of the coaches hands. I would be curious to see how this would result in other sections compared to how they will be seeded. QRF is a joke as Grand Rapids, gets dinged for losing to one of the best teams in the state in Hermantown and likewise, Roseau would have gotten a big ding for losing to a top team in Warroad.

How did GR get dinged for losing to HT? According to most even if they won that game they weren’t going to catch Andover for the #1 seed anyway.

How on God’s green earth would Andover be seeded above GR? Rapids beat them head to head but QRF says different so they go with that? Lol. Nice system ya got there

[east hockey]

I put together a rating system that strictly ranks you with how you do within your section. Your other body of work factors in, in no way. 2 points for every section win. Minus 2 points for every section loss. If you only play a team once, you get 3 points for a win. If you don't play a team in your section at least once, you get a minus 3 for each team not played. Applying that to 8AA, Elk River would have been the 1 seed, with one more point than Roseau. Moorhead would have been a 3 seed, losing to Roseau by one point because of the extra section loss to Buffalo. The rest of the teams would have fell exactly where they fell according to this mornings coaches seedings. Elk would have gotten the 1 seed by not playing 2 of the top teams in the section. Right or wrong it takes it out of the coaches hands. I would be curious to see how this would result in other sections compared to how they will be seeded. QRF is a joke as Grand Rapids, gets dinged for losing to one of the best teams in the state in Hermantown and likewise, Roseau would have gotten a big ding for losing to a top team in Warroad.

How did GR get dinged for losing to HT? According to most even if they won that game they weren’t going to catch Andover for the #1 seed anyway.

How on God’s green earth would Andover be seeded above GR? Rapids beat them head to head but QRF says different so they go with that? Lol. Nice system ya got there

Hey, I didn't vote for QRF. Ask the southern 7AA (and Rapids) coaches how this happened.

Lee

[Green and White Fan]

I can't believe how few games that 7AA teams play amongst their section. That section would be a nightmare without using something like QRF I guess. Using the ranking system that I used to rank 8AA, the Section would have looked like this:

Grand Rapids
Andover
Forest Lake
Blaine
Anoka
Duluth East
Cloquet
Marshall
Coon Rapids
Northern Edge

Not too far off.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

The seedings are for sections and your body of work in the section. You should play everyone at least once.

Alright, if you guys don't stop this nonsense right now I'm going right to the Capitol to lobby my legislators to oppose legalizing pot, because y'all must be smoking up a storm. (and if you're getting the good stuff, PM me.)

First, I've never heard this before. Where are you getting this?

Second, is that the standard for the state tournament seeding? Ah, no, it's not.

If there is any standard, it should be how well a team will do in the section tournament. Half of the teams in Hill's section are so uninspiring that I'm hard pressed to name more than 4 of them. And you guys want to compel us to play each of them twice? Of the 7 other teams in the Tradition Rich Metro East, we only play two of them twice. The scores for the other five opponents are so lop sided no one wants to play two games each season. We want the most difficult schedule we can get, with the most competitive games. If we don't want to play Hastings and Two Rivers twice, why would we play East Ridge and Woodbury twice? And good luck selling Simley on playing us twice; they're no more interested in that than we are.

[Green and White Fan]

SO what you are really saying is we should do away with sections and just rank teams and send the top 8 to state??? I know many in the metro would like that. OF course you should have to play games within your section. Your goal is to win your section and get to the state tournament. To fairly rank how you stack up in your section you should have to play some section games! Where have I ever mentioned playing a team twice??

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

SO what you are really saying is we should do away with sections and just rank teams and send the top 8 to state??? I know many in the metro would like that. OF course you should have to play games within your section. Your goal is to win your section and get to the state tournament. To fairly rank how you stack up in your section you should have to play some section games! Where have I ever mentioned playing a team twice??

I'm not sure where you got that; I would humbly suggest you re-read my comments.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

SO what you are really saying is we should do away with sections and just rank teams and send the top 8 to state??? I know many in the metro would like that. OF course you should have to play games within your section. Your goal is to win your section and get to the state tournament. To fairly rank how you stack up in your section you should have to play some section games! Where have I ever mentioned playing a team twice??

I'm not sure where you got that; I would humbly suggest you re-read my comments.

I stand corrected, you did mention playing each section team once, not twice.

Even at that, there is no reason for Hill to play even half the teams in it's section even once.

[Joe2015]

The seedings are for sections and your body of work in the section. You should play everyone at least once.

Agreed

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

The seedings are for sections and your body of work in the section. You should play everyone at least once.

Agreed

Again I have to ask, where did this idea come from? I've never heard it before.

To my mind, a playoff is seeded based on a (fallable) predicted finish of the teams for the purpose of fairness. And when I say fairness, I mean that you want the best two teams to meet for the championship, as opposed to them meeting in an earlier round, and a lesser team not only making it to the final via an easier path.

Further, in high school play, more weight should be given to games played more recently than those played at the beginning of the season. Would anyone here seed STA ahead of Cre-tine at this point? CDH is clearly at the top of their section, even though they lost to STA twice before Christmas. The implication here is that a game played on November 30 would be weighted equally to a game played on Feb. 18. You really want to stick with that?

It was not all that long ago that there was no state tournament seeding, and it was not at all uncommon to see a couple of teams in the top 4 meet in the first round. 1979 was a really bad set up. John Marshall had a very soft bracket, with I believe Harding, Roosevelt, and another cream puff. The upper bracket was loaded with HM, the Edina Formerly Known as East, Roseau, and Grand Rapids.

So I'm going to belabor the point by again asking, should the state tournament be seeded solely based on games between the participants?

[Joe2015]

The seedings are for sections and your body of work in the section. You should play everyone at least once.

Agreed

Again I have to ask, where did this idea come from? I've never heard it before.

To my mind, a playoff is seeded based on a (fallable) predicted finish of the teams for the purpose of fairness. And when I say fairness, I mean that you want the best two teams to meet for the championship, as opposed to them meeting in an earlier round, and a lesser team not only making it to the final via an easier path.

Further, in high school play, more weight should be given to games played more recently than those played at the beginning of the season. Would anyone here seed STA ahead of Cre-tine at this point? CDH is clearly at the top of their section, even though they lost to STA twice before Christmas. The implication here is that a game played on November 30 would be weighted equally to a game played on Feb. 18. You really want to stick with that?

It was not all that long ago that there was no state tournament seeding, and it was not at all uncommon to see a couple of teams in the top 4 meet in the first round. 1979 was a really bad set up. John Marshall had a very soft bracket, with I believe Harding, Roosevelt, and another cream puff. The upper bracket was loaded with HM, the Edina Formerly Known as East, Roseau, and Grand Rapids.

So I'm going to belabor the point by again asking, should the state tournament be seeded solely based on games between the participants?

I disagree about how we should weigh games: why should later games be weighted more?

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

Later games get weighted more because we are making predictions or estimations on how well a team will perform at the section and state tournaments. It's not uncommon, at this time of year, to hear comments like, "You don't want to be playing them now," or "They're peaking at the right time." Would you rather your team go 8 - 1 in February or December? A loss in the last week of the regular season isn't always a bad thing. Kids can start to believe the hype and get big heads with a ten game winning streak, and a little ego deflation just before sections is good. But losing 3 out of your last 5 is definitely not a good sign.

[Joe2015]

Later games get weighted more because we are making predictions or estimations on how well a team will perform at the section and state tournaments. It's not uncommon, at this time of year, to hear comments like, "You don't want to be playing them now," or "They're peaking at the right time." Would you rather your team go 8 - 1 in February or December? A loss in the last week of the regular season isn't always a bad thing. Kids can start to believe the hype and get big heads with a ten game winning streak, and a little ego deflation just before sections is good. But losing 3 out of your last 5 is definitely not a good sign.

It depends what you are talking about though: if making predictions/speculating on a message board or on a podcast or talking it over with your friends on which teams will come out of a section (or win state), sure you might bring up the argument about who is playing the best

But for section seedings, it really shouldnt matter: your seed should reflect your season as a whole. Whoever had the best season start to finish should be the top seed

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

Later games get weighted more because we are making predictions or estimations on how well a team will perform at the section and state tournaments. It's not uncommon, at this time of year, to hear comments like, "You don't want to be playing them now," or "They're peaking at the right time." Would you rather your team go 8 - 1 in February or December? A loss in the last week of the regular season isn't always a bad thing. Kids can start to believe the hype and get big heads with a ten game winning streak, and a little ego deflation just before sections is good. But losing 3 out of your last 5 is definitely not a good sign.

It depends what you are talking about though: if making predictions/speculating on a message board or on a podcast or talking it over with your friends on which teams will come out of a section (or win state), sure you might bring up the argument about who is playing the best

But for section seedings, it really shouldnt matter: your seed should reflect your season as a whole. Whoever had the best season start to finish should be the top seed

I'd agree with that at the professional level, but not at the youth level, where players can make huge strides over the course of a season. Football is an 8 game regular season, so judging by the entire season makes more sense. But in a sport with a 25 game season, more recent play is far more determinative.

What I'm saying is true. If you don't believe me, just ask me and I'll tell you.

If you ae judging by the entire season, would you weight that for strength of schedule?

[Joe2015]

Later games get weighted more because we are making predictions or estimations on how well a team will perform at the section and state tournaments. It's not uncommon, at this time of year, to hear comments like, "You don't want to be playing them now," or "They're peaking at the right time." Would you rather your team go 8 - 1 in February or December? A loss in the last week of the regular season isn't always a bad thing. Kids can start to believe the hype and get big heads with a ten game winning streak, and a little ego deflation just before sections is good. But losing 3 out of your last 5 is definitely not a good sign.

It depends what you are talking about though: if making predictions/speculating on a message board or on a podcast or talking it over with your friends on which teams will come out of a section (or win state), sure you might bring up the argument about who is playing the best

But for section seedings, it really shouldnt matter: your seed should reflect your season as a whole. Whoever had the best season start to finish should be the top seed

I'd agree with that at the professional level, but not at the youth level, where players can make huge strides over the course of a season. Football is an 8 game regular season, so judging by the entire season makes more sense. But in a sport with a 25 game season, more recent play is far more determinative.

What I'm saying is true. If you don't believe me, just ask me and I'll tell you.

If you ae judging by the entire season, would you weight that for strength of schedule?

Strength of schedule varies GREATLY from school to school. Which is EXACTLY why I agreed with the post who said section teams should have to play one another at least once. It would give much more of a apples to apples comparison

I mean look at Gentry Academy: they did NOT play a single game against the rest of the section. NOT ONE! (and to be fair, I believe thats more on the other schools not wanting to schedule them)

Its just guess work as to how they fit in that section (the seeds are out and they were seeded 4th). Wouldnt it much better if they had played every other team in the section? Personally, I think it would