HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Wow, these discussion are entertaining. Maybe rapids was rated to high from the start? They did not get the results they wanted last year in section play and this year they do not play with there best player. Every time there is a loss by rapids seems like there is always a very good reason. Then on the other side you have one parent always stating the great play of one player. question i have is this ranking based on only this season or is it a combination of the past one year? 5 years? ????? if it is just based on this year wouldn't a Win in head to head competition carry more weight then excuses? Maybe if in December Rapids had had thier star player they would have won the game, however i guess as of now we will never know. typically assumptions don't play into rankings do they? to me its just fun hockey. if history repeats itself these teams will play again in february. Cant wait to see what the issues are at that time.

scorekeeper wrote:

BodyShots wrote:I'm sorry, but how can Flake beat Rapids to end their season last year, and beat them in the second game this year and not be ranked ahead of Rapids at this time. Granted, if Flake starts to lose, and Rapids starts a winning streak, then you move Rapids ahead of Flake. But for rankings as of 12/2/12, I would absolutely put Flake above Rapids.

Absolutely agree.

The answer to the Flake-Rapids questions comes down to this: IMO, the benefit of a human ranking at this point in the season is that it can look at certain results and say "that was probably an upset, not a completely accurate reflection of where teams will end up at the end of the year." While the computers may be better in the long run, at this point in the season a human can weed through some of that and keep us from having some of the screwy early season rankings we see out of the computers. (See the KRACH rankings posted on this forum, which have Eastview in the top 5...I don't mean to slam either the system or the Lightning, and I'm sure that will correct itself unless Eastview goes on a tear, but that will take a little time.) To avoid taking that time and having teams bounce around all over the place, you have to draw a line somewhere and say "this game was probably an upset."

People claimed I had Rapids overrated last year; that was true for a week or two at the start of the season, but after that I had them exactly where the computers had them--in the 10-15 range. Even with that upset, and Flake's near-win over a pretty good Andover team in the 7AA semis, Rapids is still 20 about spots ahead of Flake in the end-of-season computer rankings. It was an upset, period.

And for that matter, last season's playoff game doesn't matter in this year's rankings. What does matter is returning talent, quality of youth teams feeding in, and so on...and if we're strictly comparing Rapids and Flake, it is hard for Flake to come out ahead there.

The point is to rise above basic transitive property "X beat Y so X is better than Y" logic and have some foresight. When I drew up the rankings, I was still pretty convinced Rapids will be proven the somewhat better team in the long run.

Now, it may certainly be the case that Rapids just isn't that good, and as the situation surrounding the missing players seems to be getting murkier, the odds of that are probably getting higher. If Flake beats Stillwater and Mounds View this week, and if Rapids loses to Roseau (or anyone else, for that matter), I'll be on board the Ranger bandwagon and the Thunderhawks will likely be gone from the rankings. But until then, I'll continue to apply that "conservative" appeal I put out at the beginning of this week's rankings.

karl(east) wrote:

scorekeeper wrote:

BodyShots wrote:I'm sorry, but how can Flake beat Rapids to end their season last year, and beat them in the second game this year and not be ranked ahead of Rapids at this time. Granted, if Flake starts to lose, and Rapids starts a winning streak, then you move Rapids ahead of Flake. But for rankings as of 12/2/12, I would absolutely put Flake above Rapids.

Absolutely agree.

The answer to the Flake-Rapids questions comes down to this: IMO, the benefit of a human ranking at this point in the season is that it can look at certain results and say "that was probably an upset, not a completely accurate reflection of where teams will end up at the end of the year." While the computers may be better in the long run, at this point in the season a human can weed through some of that and keep us from having some of the screwy early season rankings we see out of the computers. (See the KRACH rankings posted on this forum, which have Eastview in the top 5...I don't mean to slam either the system or the Lightning, and I'm sure that will correct itself unless Eastview goes on a tear, but that will take a little time.) To avoid taking that time and having teams bounce around all over the place, you have to draw a line somewhere and say "this game was probably an upset."

People claimed I had Rapids overrated last year; that was true for a week or two at the start of the season, but after that I had them exactly where the computers had them--in the 10-15 range. Even with that upset, and Flake's near-win over a pretty good Andover team in the 7AA semis, Rapids is still 20 about spots ahead of Flake in the end-of-season computer rankings. It was an upset, period.

And for that matter, last season's playoff game doesn't matter in this year's rankings. What does matter is returning talent, quality of youth teams feeding in, and so on...and if we're strictly comparing Rapids and Flake, it is hard for Flake to come out ahead there.

The point is to rise above basic transitive property "X beat Y so X is better than Y" logic and have some foresight. When I drew up the rankings, I was still pretty convinced Rapids will be proven the somewhat better team in the long run.

Now, it may certainly be the case that Rapids just isn't that good, and as the situation surrounding the missing players seems to be getting murkier, the odds of that are probably getting higher. If Flake beats Stillwater and Mounds View this week, and if Rapids loses to Roseau (or anyone else, for that matter), I'll be on board the Ranger bandwagon and the Thunderhawks will likely be gone from the rankings. But until then, I'll continue to apply that "conservative" appeal I put out at the beginning of this week's rankings.

I'm in 100% agreement with that. Last year was an upset, one game FL won, overall GR was the better team. With this year in view only, FL surprised last week, but it was just one game. Let's let it play out a bit an see if that game is indeed a foreshadow of what is to come, or something that will prove to be as relevant as a mid-November scrimmage when it's all said and done.

I'm very impressed at your energy you put into your rankings. As I mentioned before the reading is very entertaining. I thank you for your opinions and for taking the time to write about it.

SimplyPut wrote:I'm very impressed at your energy you put into your rankings. As I mentioned before the reading is very entertaining. I thank you for your opinions and for taking the time to write about it.

Thanks...and trust me, this wouldn't be half as fun as it is if I didn't get all the comments and disagreements. I need all of you to push me.

karl(east) wrote:

scorekeeper wrote:

BodyShots wrote:I'm sorry, but how can Flake beat Rapids to end their season last year, and beat them in the second game this year and not be ranked ahead of Rapids at this time. Granted, if Flake starts to lose, and Rapids starts a winning streak, then you move Rapids ahead of Flake. But for rankings as of 12/2/12, I would absolutely put Flake above Rapids.

Absolutely agree.

The answer to the Flake-Rapids questions comes down to this: IMO, the benefit of a human ranking at this point in the season is that it can look at certain results and say "that was probably an upset, not a completely accurate reflection of where teams will end up at the end of the year." While the computers may be better in the long run, at this point in the season a human can weed through some of that and keep us from having some of the screwy early season rankings we see out of the computers. (See the KRACH rankings posted on this forum, which have Eastview in the top 5...I don't mean to slam either the system or the Lightning, and I'm sure that will correct itself unless Eastview goes on a tear, but that will take a little time.) To avoid taking that time and having teams bounce around all over the place, you have to draw a line somewhere and say "this game was probably an upset."

People claimed I had Rapids overrated last year; that was true for a week or two at the start of the season, but after that I had them exactly where the computers had them--in the 10-15 range. Even with that upset, and Flake's near-win over a pretty good Andover team in the 7AA semis, Rapids is still 20 about spots ahead of Flake in the end-of-season computer rankings. It was an upset, period.

And for that matter, last season's playoff game doesn't matter in this year's rankings. What does matter is returning talent, quality of youth teams feeding in, and so on...and if we're strictly comparing Rapids and Flake, it is hard for Flake to come out ahead there.

The point is to rise above basic transitive property "X beat Y so X is better than Y" logic and have some foresight. When I drew up the rankings, I was still pretty convinced Rapids will be proven the somewhat better team in the long run.

Now, it may certainly be the case that Rapids just isn't that good, and as the situation surrounding the missing players seems to be getting murkier, the odds of that are probably getting higher. If Flake beats Stillwater and Mounds View this week, and if Rapids loses to Roseau (or anyone else, for that matter), I'll be on board the Ranger bandwagon and the Thunderhawks will likely be gone from the rankings. But until then, I'll continue to apply that "conservative" appeal I put out at the beginning of this week's rankings.

So you rank based on where you think a team will be at the end of the year, instead of where they are today...

Interesting that I saw Kentucky was not ranked in the top 25 this week, but I think everybody expects them to be in the top 25 by the end of the year.

BodyShots wrote:So you rank based on where you think a team will be at the end of the year, instead of where they are today...

Interesting that I saw Kentucky was not ranked in the top 25 this week, but I think everybody expects them to be in the top 25 by the end of the year.

Yes, but Kentucky has played seven games, and lost three of them. That's a decent sample size for saying that a team doesn't deserve to be in the Top 25 right now. But let's say they'd just lost their season opener against Maryland (a decent but unranked team), and were 0-1. Based on that one loss alone, do you really think they would have dropped straight out of the poll from their spot in the top ten? Dropping to #15-#20, sure. But all the way out? Nah. The voters would give them some benefit of the doubt.

karl(east) wrote:But let's say they'd just lost their season opener against Maryland (a decent but unranked team), and were 0-1....The voters would give them some benefit of the doubt.

Over the years I've noticed that the first game of the season, in any sport, is the most unpredictable as to which team wins. Lots of reasons for this, like in hockey the coach is usually still experimenting with his line combinations; the players are often nervous and/or too overanxious so they're fighting the puck, etc. etc.

So if you're the underdog and want to have the best chance of pulling the upset, be the first to play the more talented team. After the first few games or so, things will have settled in for them and you'll have less of a chance.

karl(east) wrote:

BodyShots wrote:So you rank based on where you think a team will be at the end of the year, instead of where they are today...

Interesting that I saw Kentucky was not ranked in the top 25 this week, but I think everybody expects them to be in the top 25 by the end of the year.

Yes, but Kentucky has played seven games, and lost three of them. That's a decent sample size for saying that a team doesn't deserve to be in the Top 25 right now. But let's say they'd just lost their season opener against Maryland (a decent but unranked team), and were 0-1. Based on that one loss alone, do you really think they would have dropped straight out of the poll from their spot in the top ten? Dropping to #15-#20, sure. But all the way out? Nah. The voters would give them some benefit of the doubt.

Nah, I would have put Flake at 14 and dropped Rapids to around 17 or 18 behind BJ and Cent.