HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

bauerboy wrote:You gotta be kidding me with crookston at 12! Ill admit there win against EGF deserves some recognition but come end of the year i guarantee theyre out of the top 20 and section 8 will either be EGF or TRF

I agree completely, yeah Crookston squeaked one by EGF but they don't deserve the 12th seed over EGF, Warroad, or TRF. End of the year they won't be a contender for the section 8A championship. If i remember right not too long ago people were jumping on the LOW bandwagon, what happened to that and is everyone going to get all excited about Crookston now because of one win over EGF?

drop the puck wrote:I guess the performance (or general lack there of) of the top A teams - THIS YEAR - clearly demonstrates why two levels of play are needed.

The top A teams appear to be middle of the road, if not week AA level teams.

Agree with the post above, conference strength of STA will be known by the end of next weekend.

The lack of performance of the A teams against AA teams demonstrates something.... I doubt that it demonstrates why two divisions are needed.
Maybe it demonstrates that ranking teams is very tough.

Throwing out discussion prompt on the poll question. I understand (but don't agree with) the idea of not wanting to rank all 8; are we worried about hurting feelings?

I am the lone vote for 6; using the principle that the difference between 7 and 8 is usually negligible, so we can spare hurting feelings.
Also, we have seen in recent years (and it looks like this year) where the difference between the 4th seed and the 6th seed is also negligible and a team that would've been the 5th or 6th seed gets paired up with a top seed.

The vast majority of people have selected 8, while the next portion have selected 4. I'm curious to hear opinions from both sides. I've thought of a 1 v 5, 2 v 6, 3 v 7, and 4 v 8 format to increase competitiveness, or something like that. I agree what they are doing now is better than selecting the sections ahead of time, but it randomly gives certain teams an advantage.

Thoughts?

And my opinion would go right along with my last post: It is very difficult to rank teams. I voted for 4.
The idea behind ranking for the state tournement was so that two top teams did not face eachother in the first round. I get that. Where I start to have problems is when we get into who is actually ranked #1,#2,#3 and #4 under the current system.
There is no way to accurately rank teams to a specific seed in the state tournement. WHY? Because it comes down to opinion when the coaches vote. They are forced into making a decision based solely on their opinions because all of teams have not played each other and not all of the teams have common opponents. This said, they likely can make an accurate guestimate on who the top 2 teams are. And it is very likely that there are 2 other teams that are close to the top 2. Now putting them top 4 in order, that becomes quite a bit tougher, the people who set the thing up knew this. What we really have in the current system 4 top seeds and 4 bottom seeds, no one really is #1 or #2, they are just 4 top seeds. The fact that they put #'s on them is purely for the fans. You see, I don't think it comes down to hurting feelings, I think it comes down to being fair.
In order to have more competitive semi's and finals, they felt they had to do something, because it is impossible to say that the 24-1 team is better than the 23-2 team they decided to only seed 4 teams. This way the 23-2 team wouldn't get the #4 seed and have to play probably a much tougher opponent in #5 who could be 20-5, and the 24-1 team wouldn't get the #1 seed and get to play the 12-13 team.

Rkhockey_7 wrote:At the end of the year crookstan will be 4th in section 8 with trf and egf in the finals to go to state

I have seen all the top teams in section 8 play this year and for you to put crookston as no:1 is a joke to the whole section. crookston beat EGF by pure luck they were out shot 3 to 1 , and to say it will be TRF and EGF in the finals. I happen to watch that game against Warroad and TRF and Warroad beat TRF in every aspect of the game and made it look really ez a 5 to 2 butt whooping, Warroad had the same problem against Bemidji out played them badly just couldn't finish, out shot them 2 to 1.
EGF should have the no:1 spot in the section and it looks like warroad has fiquired out there scoring problem. should make it interesting

defense wrote:And my opinion would go right along with my last post: It is very difficult to rank teams. I voted for 4.
The idea behind ranking for the state tournement was so that two top teams did not face eachother in the first round. I get that. Where I start to have problems is when we get into who is actually ranked #1,#2,#3 and #4 under the current system.

Not at all saying you're wrong, but was that really to sole reason for ranking?

In the AA basketball tournament a few years ago (when there wasn't ranking...well still isn't in AA) a team beat the #1 team in the first round, the #2 in the second round, then lost in the final and got 2nd.
The #2 team also lost to the #1 team a couple years before that in the first round. They still don't seed in the A and AA for basketball and not at all for football or baseball.

I don't know if what you are saying is opinion or fact, but to me ranking provides for the most competitive play in the later rounds, and generally rewards teams for their regular season play, both SOS and results.

defense wrote:There is no way to accurately rank teams to a specific seed in the state tournement. WHY? Because it comes down to opinion when the coaches vote. They are forced into making a decision based solely on their opinions because all of teams have not played each other and not all of the teams have common opponents. This said, they likely can make an accurate guestimate on who the top 2 teams are. And it is very likely that there are 2 other teams that are close to the top 2. Now putting them top 4 in order, that becomes quite a bit tougher, the people who set the thing up knew this. What we really have in the current system 4 top seeds and 4 bottom seeds, no one really is #1 or #2, they are just 4 top seeds. The fact that they put #'s on them is purely for the fans. You see, I don't think it comes down to hurting feelings, I think it comes down to being fair.

I agree with everything you said about difficulty in ranking. In the recent years, with the exception of last year, the team everyone thinks is best has "earned" playing a better team than a team who was voted worse than you. In 2009, the 3rd and 4th seeds had easier opponents than the top two seeds. Also, looking back now, from 07-09, the #1 played who I believe would've been the #5 seed had they seeded more.

So, if what you said earlier is really the point, then it is accomplished, but if it's more than that, it seems like a silly way to do it to me.

defense wrote: In order to have more competitive semi's and finals, they felt they had to do something, because it is impossible to say that the 24-1 team is better than the 23-2 team they decided to only seed 4 teams. This way the 23-2 team wouldn't get the #4 seed and have to play probably a much tougher opponent in #5 who could be 20-5, and the 24-1 team wouldn't get the #1 seed and get to play the 12-13 team.

Can you explain yourself a little more? Your opening sentence is about the semi's and finals, then you talk about quarter matchups...

We could very easily have a 22-1-2 or 21-2-2 team getting to state unseeded. The top teams generally have more losses because of tougher competition. But point made.

Didn't that #1 team earn playing the 12-13 team?

Always good for discussion. Thanks defense

nungitchida wrote:

Rkhockey_7 wrote:At the end of the year crookstan will be 4th in section 8 with trf and egf in the finals to go to state

I have seen all the top teams in section 8 play this year and for you to put crookston as no:1 is a joke to the whole section. crookston beat EGF by pure luck they were out shot 3 to 1 , and to say it will be TRF and EGF in the finals. I happen to watch that game against Warroad and TRF and Warroad beat TRF in every aspect of the game and made it look really ez a 5 to 2 butt whooping, Warroad had the same problem against Bemidji out played them badly just couldn't finish, out shot them 2 to 1.
EGF should have the no:1 spot in the section and it looks like warroad has fiquired out there scoring problem. should make it interesting

We rank them by the number of goals scored compared to number of goals allowed, not shots.

As I said in my tid bit on section 8A, there are few games head to head right now. I suspect, as you are pointing out, that Warroad will come out and be a top 2 seed as usual, but for now we have the games played to go with, not history or the games you've watched.

I should've written" in order get more competitive semi's and finals, they had to do something. AND,(based on my opinion) no one can really be accurate rating who is actually #1,#2,#3 and #4, they don't just hand the #1 seed the advantage of playing the #8 seed in the first round, because the best team may have the #3 or #4 seed.
This is all my opinion, it is also why I am comfortable with the system we have. I am, however, pretty darn sure that seeding came about in order to have more competitive games later on, not in the first round. Or another way to look at it: So two top teams didn't have to play eachother in the first round. What other reason is there for seeding?

After all of the BS the main point is: It is very difficult to give a specific rank to a team when the group of teams being ranked is from throughout the state. So instead of giving specific seeds, we pick out the top 4 so that they won't play eachother in the first round.

And finally, of course the the #1 seed in a field deserves to play #8 in the first round....the question remains: Who is the top team???? Is the #1 seed really the top team????? SOS is also based a lot on opinion.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

High Flyer wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote: Let the discussion begin and let me know what you all think.


20. Rochester Lourdes (11-1)
Losing to a team New Ulm beat? Supposedly the #1 team in WI, but New Ulm beat them and you didn’t? I wasn’t really impressed, only had the high because they hadn’t lost. Period. They did beat a Superior team that others have had trouble with, but have yet to play a team in the top 20 in Class A and are having more GA than a top team would. I have no doubt they’ll make it to state, but unless they upset someone before then, they will possibly fall further on my list.
This week: Tues @ Albert Lea, Sat @ Duluth Marshall

Goal tending is the greatest equalizer and EC-Tholey is one of the best goalies around, so I'm not surprized that Rochester lost to EC. Blitzer-Moorhead just shut down #1AA Wayzata and I think Tholey is a better goalie than Blitzer.

Rochester is a top 5 team in MN and I'd say more like a top 3 team

If that goalie was so great, I'm sure he would not have allowed two goals to New Ulm...

You may be right, and we'll get a chance to see come March. But they haven't played any top teams in MN yet and have been very close with a lot of teams. The reason teams that are at the top are up there is that when they play non-quality opponents they usually shut them out or allow one goal, they don't go to OT with them.

My guess is that Lourdes will get torn apart by Marshall, Delano, St Thomas and Breck and finish 20-5. I guess time will tell.

The goalies name is Saxton Soley and he is that good. He was arguably the best goalie in the Elite League this past offseason. E.C. also has kids who can skate though defensively but they don't have a ton of top notch gal scoring. THat is how you can beat a Lourdes but lose to New Ulm, even the best ggoaltending has to get some help, he can't win them all by himself all the time

JSR wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:

High Flyer wrote:
Goal tending is the greatest equalizer and EC-Tholey is one of the best goalies around, so I'm not surprized that Rochester lost to EC. Blitzer-Moorhead just shut down #1AA Wayzata and I think Tholey is a better goalie than Blitzer.

Rochester is a top 5 team in MN and I'd say more like a top 3 team

If that goalie was so great, I'm sure he would not have allowed two goals to New Ulm...

You may be right, and we'll get a chance to see come March. But they haven't played any top teams in MN yet and have been very close with a lot of teams. The reason teams that are at the top are up there is that when they play non-quality opponents they usually shut them out or allow one goal, they don't go to OT with them.

My guess is that Lourdes will get torn apart by Marshall, Delano, St Thomas and Breck and finish 20-5. I guess time will tell.

The goalies name is Saxton Soley and he is that good. He was arguably the best goalie in the Elite League this past offseason. E.C. also has kids who can skate though defensively but they don't have a ton of top notch gal scoring. THat is how you can beat a Lourdes but lose to New Ulm, even the best ggoaltending has to get some help, he can't win them all by himself all the time

Which is also why on paper, which is how I rate teams, Lourdes can be where they are. The 0 in the L column was the only reason I had them high in the first place; they have yet to PLAY anyone in my top 20, let alone many teams that I'd have in the next 10-15 teams in the state.

If they were shutting out their opponents like Breck is, that'd be a different story. But winning in OT isn't something a top 5, or 10, team does.

nungitchida wrote:

Rkhockey_7 wrote:At the end of the year crookstan will be 4th in section 8 with trf and egf in the finals to go to state

I have seen all the top teams in section 8 play this year and for you to put crookston as no:1 is a joke to the whole section. crookston beat EGF by pure luck they were out shot 3 to 1 , and to say it will be TRF and EGF in the finals. I happen to watch that game against Warroad and TRF and Warroad beat TRF in every aspect of the game and made it look really ez a 5 to 2 butt whooping, Warroad had the same problem against Bemidji out played them badly just couldn't finish, out shot them 2 to 1.
EGF should have the no:1 spot in the section and it looks like warroad has fiquired out there scoring problem. should make it interesting

SOG for the EGF-CRX game were 32-19. It was a nice edge, but nowhere near 3 to 1. Apologize for being an idiot.

HShockeywatcher wrote:Throwing out discussion prompt on the poll question. I understand (but don't agree with) the idea of not wanting to rank all 8; are we worried about hurting feelings?

I am the lone vote for 6; using the principle that the difference between 7 and 8 is usually negligible, so we can spare hurting feelings.
Also, we have seen in recent years (and it looks like this year) where the difference between the 4th seed and the 6th seed is also negligible and a team that would've been the 5th or 6th seed gets paired up with a top seed.

The vast majority of people have selected 8, while the next portion have selected 4. I'm curious to hear opinions from both sides. I've thought of a 1 v 5, 2 v 6, 3 v 7, and 4 v 8 format to increase competitiveness, or something like that. I agree what they are doing now is better than selecting the sections ahead of time, but it randomly gives certain teams an advantage.

Thoughts?

Personally I liked the old pre-determined first round games. Wednesday and Thursday were a lot more fun to play hooky from work/school all day as there were more quality games. Friday's games were every bit as good, and obviously, saturday comes down to who still has the legs to play. Especially in AA, I don't think seeding is necessary as there are usually 7 teams (sorry section 1) who are going to provide at very least, competitive games, with 4 or 5 of those teams with a legitimate chance of winning it all.

If they HAVE to seed, I think the idea of seeding 6 seems like a good one. Might as well reward the top 2 teams/sections.