HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

STC18:

It's because they want to believe that.

Cathedral plays a weaker schedule than Tech as ranked by MinnHock.

Cathedral plays in a weaker section than Tech, again ranked by MinnHock.

Cathedral lost to Tech in the one meeting. I am biased, but by what measure are they BETTER? I am with you, both are good hockey teams. It should be left at that. But some people can't resist starting a debate. Is one better than the other? Maybe on a particular night.

STC18 wrote:

George Blanda wrote:That goal scored off the face-off was more than a little soft.

That had to be the weakest goal I've seen this year so far. But I personally believe Tech was all around the better team in this tournament and Tech and Cathedral are pretty equal teams and I don't see how you can say Cathedral is still the better team after they lost to Tech by five.

Like I said...It's my opinion. Yours is yours, mine is mine.

That said...Cathedral doesn't have another shot to prove themselves this year against Tech. So, unless Apollo beats Tech in these next two...Tech has ALL of the bragging rights.

I don't understand where strength of schedule and strength of section come in to play. Just another pointless comment out of zippy, I guess.

There is no reason for Cathedral to start debate...they got worked on the scoreboard and that's all that really matters as far as the city's "bragging rights" are concerned.

Well, if you aren't using those to form your opinion, what are you using? Gut feel? What is more pointless than that? Might as well lick your finger and stick it up to the wind. That's why I refrain from saying who is BETTER. By what measure?

Or...try this one...

Go and watch each team play more than once...I've seen Tech play four times this year...I've seen Cathedral play about that same number.

Tech's best two games of the year were this weekend vs. Apollo and Cathedral. Cathedral and Apollo's worst games of the year came against Tech...

It's not rocket science. It's not plugging numbers in to a computer. It's about seeing teams play more than once and basing an evaluation on that. That's what I try to do. Use the hockey knowledge that I have, which is adequate, to form an opinion. Tech was better on that night, there's no doubt about it. But, in previous games, Cathedral has looked like a better team than Tech.

That's how I see who is a better team. I'm not shaking a magic 8-ball. I'm not looking at bogus numbers off a computer. I base an evaluation (opinion) off of how I see teams play.

George Blanda wrote:Or...try this one...

Go and watch each team play more than once...I've seen Tech play four times this year...I've seen Cathedral play about that same number.

Tech's best two games of the year were this weekend vs. Apollo and Cathedral. Cathedral and Apollo's worst games of the year came against Tech...

It's not rocket science. It's not plugging numbers in to a computer. It's about seeing teams play more than once and basing an evaluation on that. That's what I try to do. Use the hockey knowledge that I have, which is adequate, to form an opinion. Tech was better on that night, there's no doubt about it. But, in previous games, Cathedral has looked like a better team than Tech.

That's how I see who is a better team. I'm not shaking a magic 8-ball. I'm not looking at bogus numbers off a computer. I base an evaluation (opinion) off of how I see teams play.

Agreed, you can't base how good a team is based on how much strength there section has, but you kind of can off of their strength of schedule. But almost anybody can beat anyone on any given night and the best way to evaluate a team is to go and watch them play at least a few times.

Fair enough.

That's what I was looking for -- how you formulate your opinion.

But I do look at the strength of the opposing team as well. Take Tech vs. BSM. I haven't seen a better high school team yet this year than BSM. I haven't seen Roseau or others play yet, but BSM was hands down the best I've seen this year.

I think strength of opposition makes a big difference. But that's me.

If a team like Morris/Benson a few years ago goes 14-0 in their first fourteen playing jokes is one thing. But Cathedral has already played three top ten Class A teams (according to Followthepuck.com). On top of that they've played a good Tech team and an ok Rogers club.

They haven't gotten all of their wins against patty-cakes like years previous.

George Blanda wrote:If a team like Morris/Benson a few years ago goes 14-0 in their first fourteen playing jokes is one thing. But Cathedral has already played three top ten Class A teams (according to Followthepuck.com). On top of that they've played a good Tech team and an ok Rogers club.

They haven't gotten all of their wins against patty-cakes like years previous.

I'll say again SCC played like well oiled machine against Rogers, and in fact, of the teams Rogers has played this year, I'd say they rank right up there.
That includes Maple Grove, Armstrong, Buffalo...except Tonka and well.. they are in another class all together.

I would have to say that the Tech vs SCC game played again would have very different results...kind of fit's into the "fluke" catagorey IMO.
Sometimes everything just fits together and it happened for Tech.
But that's why they play em congrats to them on winning the ship.

zippitydoda wrote:Fair enough.

That's what I was looking for -- how you formulate your opinion.

But I do look at the strength of the opposing team as well. Take Tech vs. BSM. I haven't seen a better high school team yet this year than BSM. I haven't seen Roseau or others play yet, but BSM was hands down the best I've seen this year.

I think strength of opposition makes a big difference. But that's me.

Strength of opponents and schedules can weigh into the opinion, IF they win those games. Just because a team plays tough opposition does not make them a good team, unless they win those games - regularly. A team has to win the games they should win, and if they're really good, win those that they shouldn't.

George Blanda wrote:Or...try this one...

Go and watch each team play more than once...I've seen Tech play four times this year...I've seen Cathedral play about that same number.

Tech's best two games of the year were this weekend vs. Apollo and Cathedral. Cathedral and Apollo's worst games of the year came against Tech...

It's not rocket science. It's not plugging numbers in to a computer. It's about seeing teams play more than once and basing an evaluation on that. That's what I try to do. Use the hockey knowledge that I have, which is adequate, to form an opinion. Tech was better on that night, there's no doubt about it. But, in previous games, Cathedral has looked like a better team than Tech.

That's how I see who is a better team. I'm not shaking a magic 8-ball. I'm not looking at bogus numbers off a computer. I base an evaluation (opinion) off of how I see teams play.

It's easy to say a team played their worst when they lose. On any given night a team loses, a fan or player would say they played "bad", and more than likely the victors team would say they played "good". I base a team playing good or bad (for the most part, with exceptions) on their opponent working them. It's easy to say you played bad, but did the other team make you play bad? Perhaps they're the reason you played bad? Just a thought..

[gspan] wrote:

George Blanda wrote:Or...try this one...

Go and watch each team play more than once...I've seen Tech play four times this year...I've seen Cathedral play about that same number.

Tech's best two games of the year were this weekend vs. Apollo and Cathedral. Cathedral and Apollo's worst games of the year came against Tech...

It's not rocket science. It's not plugging numbers in to a computer. It's about seeing teams play more than once and basing an evaluation on that. That's what I try to do. Use the hockey knowledge that I have, which is adequate, to form an opinion. Tech was better on that night, there's no doubt about it. But, in previous games, Cathedral has looked like a better team than Tech.

That's how I see who is a better team. I'm not shaking a magic 8-ball. I'm not looking at bogus numbers off a computer. I base an evaluation (opinion) off of how I see teams play.

It's easy to say a team played their worst when they lose. On any given night a team loses, a fan or player would say they played "bad", and more than likely the victors team would say they played "good". I base a team playing good or bad (for the most part, with exceptions) on their opponent working them. It's easy to say you played bad, but did the other team make you play bad? Perhaps they're the reason you played bad? Just a thought..

Exactly, maybe they just made them look bad.

I agree with you to a certain extent.

But, what I noticed was that Cathedral played with no heart on this particular night. They didn't have good goaltending and they played like they didn't want to get hit. Tech took Cathedral out of their game by playing physical, so that was one reason why Cathedral played bad. But Tech wasn't the reason why Cathedral couldn't catch a pass...

George Blanda wrote: But Tech wasn't the reason why Cathedral couldn't catch a pass...

or were they? sometimes if a team plays physical, the opponent can be scared to catch the puck. they "hear the footsteps", or maybe not. So much speculation...

moorhead will be a great test for us saturday though, and sauk rapids should be a good game thursday

[gspan] wrote:

George Blanda wrote: But Tech wasn't the reason why Cathedral couldn't catch a pass...

or were they? sometimes if a team plays physical, the opponent can be scared to catch the puck. they "hear the footsteps", or maybe not. So much speculation...

Alot of times in a physical game the opponet will stop winning races to the puck, and lose alot of the heart. This is a good point.

I do not think that Moorehead is a test that Tech will even have a chance at passing IMO.

[gspan] wrote:

George Blanda wrote: But Tech wasn't the reason why Cathedral couldn't catch a pass...

or were they? sometimes if a team plays physical, the opponent can be scared to catch the puck. they "hear the footsteps", or maybe not. So much speculation...

moorhead will be a great test for us saturday though, and sauk rapids should be a good game thursday

No, they weren't. Cathedral beat themselves by not coming out to play against a Tech team that played the best game I've seen them play in a very long time.

I don't think Cathedral "beat themselves" by not coming out to play.

We'll see.

There's enough hot air in terms of predictions to reinflate the Hindenburg. Doesn't mean a thing. We'll know for sure after Saturday.

Who cares how Cathedral lost? Scared or not? Ready to play or not? Sounds like excuses to me. While that game didn't prove Cathedral has any serious shortcomings, it did prove Tech can play well in big games.

zippitydoda wrote:it did prove Tech can play well in big games.

No it didn't. BSM was a big game, CEC was a big game, Brainerd was a big game. They didn't play well in any of those games.

All it proved is that this year they MAY be the best team in St. Cloud. Congrats. Play well against Moorhead on saturday, and then maybe talk a little.

Agree. Can't compare SCC to a BSM or a Brainerd or even Cloquet, but those games don't have near the rivalry that Cathedral/Tech does, nor do they have all the ancillary, emotional subplots of players who have played with each other and like/don't like each other, the bragging rights factor, how well each team knows the other etc.

So, I respectfully disagree. Sorry, it was a big game.

Ben Dover wrote:I don't think Cathedral "beat themselves" by not coming out to play.

Ooh yeah and how about that Spencer kid on tech, pretty solid if you ask me.

mikelson? cmon he feckin blows...at jv.

hmmm

nsideHocKey17 wrote:

Ben Dover wrote:I don't think Cathedral "beat themselves" by not coming out to play.

Ooh yeah and how about that Spencer kid on tech, pretty solid if you ask me.

mikelson? cmon he feckin blows...at jv.

Good one.

OldTimer1234 wrote:I do not think that Moorehead is a test that Tech will even have a chance at passing IMO.

oldtimer seems a bit more biased than the rest of us, although we're all guilty of it.

zippitydoda wrote:Agree. Can't compare SCC to a BSM or a Brainerd or even Cloquet, but those games don't have near the rivalry that Cathedral/Tech does, nor do they have all the ancillary, emotional subplots of players who have played with each other and like/don't like each other, the bragging rights factor, how well each team knows the other etc.

So, I respectfully disagree. Sorry, it was a big game.

I didn't say it wasn't a big game. I just said it didn't prove that Tech can win big games. Playing well in one game doesn't prove anything. They could be turning the season around, but one good win doesn't prove that. I really hope they do turn it around, makes for a much more interesting playoffs in 8AA. Again, congrats on beating Cathedral(That wasn't sarcastic either time)