50in15 wrote:Are we sure Rapids doesn't get the 5 over maple grove? I prefer Rapids is unseeded instead of section 7 vs. 8 matchup again but I have my doubts.
There's a case for Rapids, at least. There are a few common opponents against whom they don't have the same result: GR split two with ER (MG lost both), MG beat Andover twice (GR only tied them), MG beat East (GR split), and MG split with Holy Family, winning the later game (GR lost).
GR had two losses against non-top competition (Bemidji, Cloquet). MG had one (Blaine).
If somehow Rapids plays Moorhead in the first round, then the high school league has lost all credibility and the state tournament is nothing more than a metro love fest!
50in15 wrote:Are we sure Rapids doesn't get the 5 over maple grove? I prefer Rapids is unseeded instead of section 7 vs. 8 matchup again but I have my doubts.
There's a case for Rapids, at least. There are a few common opponents against whom they don't have the same result: GR split two with ER (MG lost both), MG beat Andover twice (GR only tied them), MG beat East (GR split), and MG split with Holy Family, winning the later game (GR lost).
GR had two losses against non-top competition (Bemidji, Cloquet). MG had one (Blaine).
It's close, but I'd still tip it to MG.
I've been saying the same thing reading these posts as 50in15: why is Maple Grove getting so much love as a seed & Grand Rapids getting none?
Also, to throw in: Grand Rapids beat Edina & Eden Prairie.
50in15 wrote:Are we sure Rapids doesn't get the 5 over maple grove? I prefer Rapids is unseeded instead of section 7 vs. 8 matchup again but I have my doubts.
OUCH, I just fell off my chair reading this comment!
Are you telling me a team that its section coaches seeded 4th, would get the 5th seed at the state tournament.
Matter of fact, I hope it does happen. Just to show how insane the seeding's were for Section 7AA. Somebody call the CCCP!
If Cloquet won section 7AA, they would be the 8th seed at state.
I think most people think the 4 seed in 7AA was wrong, but to a lesser extent, it wouldn't be that crazy if they nabbed a seed at state. They'll get a little cred for winning 7AA, kind of like winning 6AA. Holy Family may have been given the #1 seed (Stillwater may have had something to say about that though) if they had beat EP.
Edina in 2009 was the 2 seed in 2AA & got the 1 seed at state.
EP last year was the 2 seed in 6AA & got the 1 seed. Also, in 2014, they were a 2 (may have even been a 3) & they got the 3 seed at state.
Wayzata was a 3 seed in 6AA in 2013 & got the 4th seed at state.
I'm sure there are a bunch of other examples. I do think the coaches look at the team & really won't think about where someone was seeded in sections.
The hole in a lot of the logic on here is that it isn't a ranking system. It is a coaches vote. Coaches have biases for many reasons. EP, for example, was beaten by Grand Rapids. it's likely that they seed Rapids higher. Some teams also want to try to dictate matchups, which can wrench the whole thing. Most people on the "bored" were quite far off in their predictions last year.
Why not wait for the field to be complete before you all put Stillwater in there. They need to win before you seed them. Besides, rankings mean squat when the coaches pick the seeds.
boblee wrote:The hole in a lot of the logic on here is that it isn't a ranking system. It is a coaches vote. Coaches have biases for many reasons. EP, for example, was beaten by Grand Rapids. it's likely that they seed Rapids higher. Some teams also want to try to dictate matchups, which can wrench the whole thing. Most people on the "bored" were quite far off in their predictions last year.
The CRUX of what is wrong with both section and state seeding. Not blaming a coach for trying to get the optimal match up for their team, I would do the same thing, but if you are seeding it SHOULD be based upon "best" team, not your own interest. Why seed if involves self dealing instead of trying to create most balanced bracket? Rotate matchups of sections, I get this can match a 1 and 2 in quarters, but at least it eliminates the conflict of interest.
MWS coach wrote:The CRUX of what is wrong with both section and state seeding. Not blaming a coach for trying to get the optimal match up for their team, I would do the same thing, but if you are seeding it SHOULD be based upon "best" team, not your own interest. Why seed if involves self dealing instead of trying to create most balanced bracket? Rotate matchups of sections, I get this can match a 1 and 2 in quarters, but at least it eliminates the conflict of interest.
I also think it's easier to do this now that 1-5 are seeded.
Initially I liked the idea of seeding & wanting to avoid the 1 vs. 2 quarterfinal matchup, but maybe it's not such a bad thing? Maybe just seed 1 & 2? Sure there will be some controversy, but you'd most likely be playing a good team regardless. Just an easy way to solve avoiding a quarterfinal if there's a head & shoulders top 2 going into the tournament (2014 Edina & Lakeville North for example).
I still like the old way where you rotated the sections each year. All bias is gone. So you sometimes see a state championship in the first round. Big deal, only one team can win anyway. So a team takes consolation instead of 2nd, does anyone really care two weeks later.
I'd rather have the coaches decide than Let's Play Hockey or a computer or YHH or FollowThePuck or Karl. Those teams got there. Those teams are the ones that play.
If SW wins: 12 noon SW vs LVS 2pm STA vs GR 6pm EP vs WZ 8pm MG vs MH
If HM wins: 12 noon STA vs LVS 2pm MG vs HM 6pm EP vs WZ 8pm MH vs GR So the Northern MN fans better pull for SW to win. In any event, 17 loss WZ should be plAying #1 EP... that will be pure irony and entertainment!
boblee wrote:I'd rather have the coaches decide than Let's Play Hockey or a computer or YHH or FollowThePuck or Karl. Those teams got there. Those teams are the ones that play.
Isn't the Let's Play Hockey rankings also the coaches poll? I see the Minnesota Hockey Coaches Association (MCHA) logo next to the rankings.
If true, then the state seeds will follow similar logic to the LPH rankings since the coaches seed the teams.
Did Grand Rapids have a big enough win to leapfrog Moorhead? They would have to jump four spots. I don't think that 2OT win over DE did it, IMO.
March 1st LPH rankings:
10. Moorhead
11. Hill-Murray
12. Duluth East
13. Grand Rapids
boblee wrote:I'd rather have the coaches decide than Let's Play Hockey or a computer or YHH or FollowThePuck or Karl. Those teams got there. Those teams are the ones that play.
Isn't the Let's Play Hockey rankings also the coaches poll? I see the Minnesota Hockey Coaches Association (MCHA) logo next to the rankings.
If true, then the state seeds will follow similar logic to the LPH rankings since the coaches seed the teams.
Did Grand Rapids have a big enough win to leapfrog Moorhead? They would have to jump four spots. I don't think that 2OT win over DE did it, IMO.
March 1st LPH rankings:
10. Moorhead
11. Hill-Murray
12. Duluth East
13. Grand Rapids
There are only like 10-15 voters for the LPH poll and we don't get to know who they are.
boblee wrote:The hole in a lot of the logic on here is that it isn't a ranking system. It is a coaches vote. Coaches have biases for many reasons. EP, for example, was beaten by Grand Rapids. it's likely that they seed Rapids higher. Some teams also want to try to dictate matchups, which can wrench the whole thing. Most people on the "bored" were quite far off in their predictions last year.
You don't understand the system in place then.
Coaches rank the seven teams besides their own, the high and low rankings are thrown out giving each team 5 scores. The 5 scores are then totaled up and the teams are placed 1-5 accordingly. One coach can not, by himself, influence the rankings.
boblee wrote:The hole in a lot of the logic on here is that it isn't a ranking system. It is a coaches vote. Coaches have biases for many reasons. EP, for example, was beaten by Grand Rapids. it's likely that they seed Rapids higher. Some teams also want to try to dictate matchups, which can wrench the whole thing. Most people on the "bored" were quite far off in their predictions last year.
You don't understand the system in place then.
Coaches rank the seven teams besides their own, the high and low rankings are thrown out giving each team 5 scores. The 5 scores are then totaled up and the teams are placed 1-5 accordingly. One coach can not, by himself, influence the rankings.
I understand the situation very well. And no, one coach cannot dictate, but I am saying that each coach (and team) has a specific perception, probably unlike all of ours. Those together gave EP the 1 seed last year and put Bemidji and Rapids in the 4-5 game.
"You don't understand the system in place then." ... You must not know who I am or my background. That's fine. I understand how this works. Very, very well.
boblee wrote:The hole in a lot of the logic on here is that it isn't a ranking system. It is a coaches vote. Coaches have biases for many reasons. EP, for example, was beaten by Grand Rapids. it's likely that they seed Rapids higher. Some teams also want to try to dictate matchups, which can wrench the whole thing. Most people on the "bored" were quite far off in their predictions last year.
You don't understand the system in place then.
Coaches rank the seven teams besides their own, the high and low rankings are thrown out giving each team 5 scores. The 5 scores are then totaled up and the teams are placed 1-5 accordingly. One coach can not, by himself, influence the rankings.
I understand the situation very well. And no, one coach cannot dictate, but I am saying that each coach (and team) has a specific perception, probably unlike all of ours. Those together gave EP the 1 seed last year and put Bemidji and Rapids in the 4-5 game.
"You don't understand the system in place then." ... You must not know who I am or my background. That's fine. I understand how this works. Very, very well.
