HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Your comment referencing a past comment of "you need to beat those teams" was completely taken out of context. See, when a team is 6-19, who they played is completely irrelevent. No case whatsoever can be made that said team is good when you lost 3 times more games than you won. Winning 24% of your games, whether playing a good schedule or a killer schedule, is not something you can paint a "good team" picture around. You win 13-14 games, now a case can be made due to a very tuff sched. Sorry, 6 wins is 6 wins and 6 wins is terrible. So thus a comment of "you played a hard schedule but you also need to beat some of those teams" would be completely justified.

I want to be perfectly clear. While SSP needed to adjust their schedule, they SHOULD have kept 2 or so more "tough games". That is my opinion. That said, I would call their schedule, average to good for a an A team, as in addition to playing some AA conf games, they are playing 5 tough non conf teams (ranked A or AA teams). I would have no problem with SSP being ranked lower than they are as they only have a couple "good wins", HM and NP, but also they have some bad losses, NSP, Prior Lakeso really that doesnt mean much either - they are lucky to be ranked. Had they beat Farm or Hibbing, I would say they should be a little higher.

Mostly, who you schedule should matter a lot, and who you beat should matter some also. My point is, if your record is terrible (ie, not even close to .500), then sorry, SOS is a factor but certainly not enough to overcome the record. To put in perspective, if Simley played even just this years SSP schedule, and lets just to say a number, say they were 10-8, I would be first in line saying they deserve a top 10 ranking.

mnhockgal wrote:Your right on Breck, their schedule is ridiculous. This is why I pointed out Simley also - nice record, til you realize they play no one, and thus arent deserving of a ranking.

Breck does have three nice wins over Irondale and Armstrong (twice). Irondale tied BSM and are 14-3-1 overall. Armstrong has been inconsistent but they did tie Edina and lost to them in their other game by just one goal, so they are not a weak team by any means. Breck also has wins over Minnetonka, Mahtomedi and Maple Grove, all of which are at least average teams. Too bad Breck's non-conference schedule hasn't been stronger than it's been, but they've won all the games they were expected to win, and so you have to give them credit. They are very young and will be a force to be reckoned with in the next few years. This is one team that should seriously consider moving up to AA (Blake being the other logical candidate). According to KRACH, Breck's SOS ranking of 78 is about the same as Farmington (79) and is better than Alexandria (91) and Austin (105), two Class A teams that have been hyped a lot more on this forum. If you are a Class A team in the state tournament (or secional playoffs) you probably would want to avoid having to play Breck as long as possible.

mnhockgal wrote:Your comment referencing a past comment of "you need to beat those teams" was completely taken out of context. See, when a team is 6-19, who they played is completely irrelevent. No case whatsoever can be made that said team is good when you lost 3 times more games than you won. Winning 24% of your games, whether playing a good schedule or a killer schedule, is not something you can paint a "good team" picture around. You win 13-14 games, now a case can be made due to a very tuff sched. Sorry, 6 wins is 6 wins and 6 wins is terrible. So thus a comment of "you played a hard schedule but you also need to beat some of those teams" would be completely justified.

I want to be perfectly clear. While SSP needed to adjust their schedule, they SHOULD have kept 2 or so more "tough games". That is my opinion. That said, I would call their schedule, average to good for a an A team, as in addition to playing some AA conf games, they are playing 5 tough non conf teams (ranked A or AA teams). I would have no problem with SSP being ranked lower than they are as they only have a couple "good wins", HM and NP, but also they have some bad losses, NSP, Prior Lakeso really that doesnt mean much either - they are lucky to be ranked. Had they beat Farm or Hibbing, I would say they should be a little higher.

Mostly, who you schedule should matter a lot, and who you beat should matter some also. My point is, if your record is terrible (ie, not even close to .500), then sorry, SOS is a factor but certainly not enough to overcome the record. To put in perspective, if Simley played even just this years SSP schedule, and lets just to say a number, say they were 10-8, I would be first in line saying they deserve a top 10 ranking.

I often find that when I have a point I have "taken something out of context."

So, let's just be blunt.

If you're an A team, and you beat other ranked A teams, should you be ranked?

That, to me, and many, is all that matters. Be 20-5 and play no one or 5-20 and play the best, and all that matters in the end ranking wise is who you beat!

I don't care who else you play, your SOS, how many games you win or lose. Again, all that matters is who you beat.

So, as discussed above, Simley has lost to SSP 3-0, Farmington 2-1 OT, & Mahtomedi 1-0. They have won vs. Richfield 2-0 EN, Shakopee 4-3 OT, & Mound-Westonka 5-1. It would seem logical to put them somewhere above the teams they've beaten and below those they haven't reguardless of their other games against non-ranked opponents (unless they lost them... which they haven't).

A year ago someone was on here talking about how it was important to have a winning record to get ranked. Now that person is saying that it's about record AND who you beat (I think?). I've been waiting a year to have this very discussion but I had feared that it may never come up. Indeed it has and I couldn't be more happy!

Ladies & gentlemen all that matters when you seed or rank teams is who they beat relative to the group their being ranked with. Head-to-head competition means the most. From there it's about common opponents. Outside of common opponents or head-to-head little else matters. This should make sense, but some miss this point due to biases I believe.

In the case of ranking Class A teams, we have to keep in mind that most of them are inferior to Class AA teams (as they should be). Also, we have to keep in mind that many of them are homegrown public school teams and not OE heavy publics or talent-loaded privates.

With this in mind, anyone can look at the common opponents, but more importantly head-to-head play, and come up with a quality ranking based on results...

To do anything but this would be wrong. Best example is Hibbing. They are 9-10-1 but are easily one of the top 5 Class A teams. Do we throw them out of the rankings because they are under .500? No way, they have won the key games against other Class A opponents to justify their Top 5 Class A ranking! They have chosen to play a difficult schedule though. Thus, their record suffers. Similarly, Simley played a tough schedule last year with a truly homegrown Class A team. They ended up with an ugly record, but beat other Class A opponents that justified their ranking.

To say that you'd throw out Simley a year ago, would mean you'd have to throw out Hibbing now. It's no different. We rank Hibbing based on who they have beaten in Class A out of the ranked teams. Similarly, a year ago, we didn't stop at looking just at an overall record for Simley. Rankers looked at which Class A teams they beat.

By the way, for this very reason, the quote below is one of the most flawed pieces of "logic" that I've ever seen on this board, and there are some B A D ones! Believe me!!! (remember, we're talking Class A here!!! - GOOD is a "relative" term to the group your referencing!!!):

mnhockgal wrote:Your comment referencing a past comment of "you need to beat those teams" was completely taken out of context. See, when a team is 6-19, who they played is completely irrelevent. No case whatsoever can be made that said team is good when you lost 3 times more games than you won. Winning 24% of your games, whether playing a good schedule or a killer schedule, is not something you can paint a "good team" picture around. You win 13-14 games, now a case can be made due to a very tuff sched. Sorry, 6 wins is 6 wins and 6 wins is terrible. So thus a comment of "you played a hard schedule but you also need to beat some of those teams" would be completely justified.

Mostly, who you schedule should matter a lot, and who you beat should matter some also. My point is, if your record is terrible (ie, not even close to .500), then sorry, SOS is a factor but certainly not enough to overcome the record. To put in perspective, if Simley played even just this years SSP schedule, and lets just to say a number, say they were 10-8, I would be first in line saying they deserve a top 10 ranking.

Just read my email, and someone who reads this forum but won't post came up with the best way to illustrate some points...

They said:

1) If you take a HS boys team and they play 20 games against the NHL and 5 against other HS boys you will only use the 5 games against other HS boys teams to rank them relative to other HS boys teams. You won't "punish" them HS ranking wise for playing and losing all 20 games to the NHL teams. If they go 5-20 and beat all the other top HS boys teams, they deserve to be the #1 team in HS boys even with a 5-20 record.

2) Assume the HS boys team is = to a Class A girls team, and the NHL is = Class AA girls. Same idea applies. You don't punish Class A teams with poor records rankings wise if they play many top AA opponents. You only use their Class A ranked opponents as a guide as to how you rank them.

3) You don't punish any team for playing weak opponents as long as they win all those games, but you also don't give them more credit than they're due for doing so (winning) either. Meaning, your HS boys team from #1 could play 20 games against squirts and that woudl get them no higher in the HS boys rankings even if they were 20-0. Now, if their remaining 5 games were against ranked HS boys opponents, that's still what you use to evaluate their ranking as in #1 above. Lose those 5 games and you're not ranked at all, win them all and you're likely #1.

This sure makes a heck of a lot of sense to me, but again, it supports what most rankers do look at - games against opponents within the group your ranking vs being blinded by overall record when schedule contains many other weak/strong teams...

Also, the above illustrates the flaw in the below logic - "it's all relative!!!:"

ghshockeyfan wrote:By the way, for this very reason, the quote below is one of the most flawed pieces of "logic" that I've ever seen on this board, and there are some B A D ones! Believe me!!! (remember, we're talking Class A here!!! - GOOD is a "relative" term to the group your referencing!!!):

mnhockgal wrote:Your comment referencing a past comment of "you need to beat those teams" was completely taken out of context. See, when a team is 6-19, who they played is completely irrelevent. No case whatsoever can be made that said team is good when you lost 3 times more games than you won. Winning 24% of your games, whether playing a good schedule or a killer schedule, is not something you can paint a "good team" picture around. You win 13-14 games, now a case can be made due to a very tuff sched. Sorry, 6 wins is 6 wins and 6 wins is terrible. So thus a comment of "you played a hard schedule but you also need to beat some of those teams" would be completely justified.

Mostly, who you schedule should matter a lot, and who you beat should matter some also. My point is, if your record is terrible (ie, not even close to .500), then sorry, SOS is a factor but certainly not enough to overcome the record. To put in perspective, if Simley played even just this years SSP schedule, and lets just to say a number, say they were 10-8, I would be first in line saying they deserve a top 10 ranking.

You know, as I read the above post, and read, and read, and read, I was struck by several things. The fact that a varsity coach "has waited a year" for such an important and vital discussion such as a ranking debate to take place certainly was in the running of what to address. However, I think it will be satisfactory enough to simply bring up the outright bewilderment and amazement that someone actually can say a team which lost 3 times as many games as it won, deserved to be ranked. Think about that. Say it 3 times out loud, and try not to laugh.

Nope, we simply need to look at "who they beat". Perhaps someone smarter than the rest of us can enlighten us on exactly which of those 6 big wins was the one to propel a 6-19 team to deserve to be into the rankings??? Was it the one over (5-22 Park)? (12-12-3) Hastings? How about the St Cloud Ice breakers? Must be the Zephs, which actually was a solid A team who pushed SSP in the playoffs, but were 13-14-1 themselves. Maybe it was Richfield (7 wins)? Lakeville (7 wins)??? Maybe its just that a couple were against AA teams and hey, it doesnt matter that those AA teams werent too good, they were AA! Thats ok though, as for this season, we are counting wins against vaunted Shakopee and MdWestonka! Amazing.

The absolute best part though, is the Hibbing comparison. Similar schedule to Simley last year, with one slight difference. With 5 games still left to play, Hibbing has 50% more wins already than Simley got all last year. Good, applicable comparison!

Varsity coaches are usually passionate about their teams, but have a tendancy to be more impartial than biased rival fans I've found.

Who Simley beat last year is why they were at the very bottom of the Top 20 IN CLASS A! Remember, it's all relative to CLASS A, as that's the group they're ranked with! PCG/Hastings/SCI are all AA teams, so these W's have nothing to do with Simley's 05-06 considerations (much like the OA record doesn't either). It was only the games vs. some of the A teams you mentioned that were looked at rankings consideration wise as the rest of the schedule was very solid.

What's still being missed is that RECORD ALONE DOESN'T DETERMINE RANKING. Some may not understand this, and I guess it's an opinion that is pretty well accepted by anyone who seeds/ranks teams. There is one part of this that is VERY hard to understand. That is that if we're ranking CLASS AA then overall record has to be very high. Why? Becuase there's not another tier above Class AA for Class AA teams to play and have such games counted in their record (as there is for A vs AA).

I'm not certain as to how much more clear I can make this, but it is what it is. If we disagree about the logic, then this may be why this thread was started in the beginning - as there is a lack of understanding as to what rankers, people seeding teams, etc. look at!

REMEMBER - special set of circumstances for Class A as those teams can play up against teams in AA so you have to look head-to-head & common opponents and not be blinded by overall record - or most seem to think this anyway!

My favorite is this piece of sarcasm, as the BOLD ids actually what we are supposed to be considering in an Class A ranking, but it's only acknowledged in a sarcastic posting which proves that the point is being missed entirely:

Nope, we simply need to look at "who they beat". Perhaps someone smarter than the rest of us can enlighten us on exactly which of those 6 big wins was the one to propel a 6-19 team to deserve to be into the rankings??? Was it the one over (5-22 Park)? (12-12-3) Hastings? How about the St Cloud Ice breakers? Must be the Zephs, which actually was a solid A team who pushed SSP in the playoffs, but were 13-14-1 themselves. Maybe it was Richfield (7 wins)? Lakeville (7 wins)??? Maybe its just that a couple were against AA teams and hey, it doesnt matter that those AA teams werent too good, they were AA! Thats ok though, as for this season, we are counting wins against vaunted Shakopee and MdWestonka! Amazing.

And, I agree, this is the best best part too as it proves that this is not understood at all (so, maybe the above wasn't sarcasm but instead a lack of true understanding...???) - remember, it's about WHO YOU BEAT! So, Simley only beat a select few decent CLASS A teams last year, hence a 17-20 ranking. Hibbing beat some better CLASS A teams and thus a top 5-10 ranking...

The absolute best part though, is the Hibbing comparison. Similar schedule to Simley last year, with one slight difference. With 5 games still left to play, Hibbing has 50% more wins already than Simley got all last year. Good, applicable comparison!

Another email I received says this:

FYI - OA=Over-All, SOS=Strength-of-Schedule

Using OA record above all else to seed teams would get you attacked by your fellow coaches at a seeding meeting. When ranking teams it's common practice to:

1) Look at head-to-head games between teams in group you're trying to seed/rank.

2) Look at Common Opponents of the teams in the group where head-to-head isn't applicable or available.

3) Then, in the case of ties or close calls, you'd look to SOS & OA Record, Conf. Championships, etc. to break ties - only after exhausting use of 1 & 2 above.

Never should OA record be the first item that would preclude ranking consideration.

It just gets better and better. I love how your enlightening us all on "record isnt all that matters", when in the greatest of irony, that has been my point all along, is my point now, and will be tomorrow. Who you play and who you beat are critical factors along with record when determing seed or ranking. So please, quit arguing with yourself and attempting to spin that I or others dont get that. Sorry, you nor anyone else, can spin that 6-19 deserves to be ranked.

Its also great how now your saying you were rated where you should have been (funny, last year it was should have been in the top 10. At least we are making some progress). No, see a team that beat one, count em, one good A team, and 5 other teams ranging from avg to terrible, and ONLY won 1/4 of their overall games shouldnt be ranked lower. They shouldnt be ranked at all. Nor should a 12-6 team who has played a very soft schedule and beaten only one good A team.

Why isnt Chaska rated??? Granted they are 6-14 but they did beat New Prague. Sure NP is in A, but they are as good as any AA team, look at what they did in the Kaposia! Chaska deserves a ranking!

Where would you rank Chaska?

xk1 wrote:Where would you rank Chaska?

The same place I would have Simley last year.

Best rankings IMO are those done by LPH, they seem to have the best grasp on the game!

mnhockgal wrote:

xk1 wrote:Where would you rank Chaska?

The same place I would have Simley last year.

mnhockgal: So your issue with this goes something like this: If Team A is 20-0, Team B is 9-11, and Team C is 2-18. And Team B beats Team A, and Team C then beats Team B, then they are all equal, there for should be ranked the same? And should stay that way even in a new year?

IMHO! It simply does not work that way, too many variables. And the best thing I can say is get out to ALL these teams play, make your own judgement, and thus your own rankings. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong, which is true about any current ranking, but they will be yours. Then we can discuss, and even argue, politely of course. But right now you are arguing a completely intangable subject. Let the kids play the game!

hotdog wrote:Best rankings IMO are those done by LPH, they seem to have the best grasp on the game!

Hotdog, I like LPH also, seems to be the best judgement for the most part. Yet it sure seems that the KARCH ratings are starting to play out fairly correctly also?

hockeyrube7 wrote:

mnhockgal wrote:

xk1 wrote:Where would you rank Chaska?

The same place I would have Simley last year.

mnhockgal: So your issue with this goes something like this: If Team A is 20-0, Team B is 9-11, and Team C is 2-18. And Team B beats Team A, and Team C then beats Team B, then they are all equal, there for should be ranked the same? And should stay that way even in a new year?

IMHO! It simply does not work that way, too many variables. And the best thing I can say is get out to ALL these teams play, make your own judgement, and thus your own rankings. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong, which is true about any current ranking, but they will be yours. Then we can discuss, and even argue, politely of course. But right now you are arguing a completely intangable subject. Let the kids play the game!

??? Did you mean to address this to the other individual who thinks beating one or 2 teams warrants a ranking even if you only win 1/4 of your games? You arent really thinking thats what I was saying, right?

Not trying to be a smart alec - I really dont understand how you came up with that and am thinking you meant to answer someone else. Either way, I have been pretty basic I think on this. A teams SOS, who they beat and their record should be the 3 things looked at in ranking or seeding. A team 24-1, with a weak SOS, who beat 3 ranked teams, in my world can be ranked BELOW a team with a 20-5 record with a very tuff schedule, who beat 6 ranked teams. My topic started out being about that, and not understanding or liking how it seems no time or research goes into the rankings when a simple 5-10 mins of looking at a teams schedule etc would be be all that is needed. Certainly not an important issue, just an annoyance to me!

Then, somehow, the end of this thread became about me having to defend my outrageous notion that, sorry, but also in my world, no 6-19 team can ever be ranked regardless how tuff SOS. No team losing 75% of its games deserves a ranking! Crazy thinking I know!!! How that even merits a discussion is beyond most people, but thats what has been the last part of the debate. No idea how anyone can think 6 (out of 25) wins, if against the right teams, is justification for a ranking. But then it really became laughable when I posted who the 6 wins were against - then it moved into a whole nother category, as their was one "quality win" of the 6 (again, with losing 75% of the time it still certainly wouldnt have matter had their been 3 or 4 more qual wins)!!!

mnhockgal wrote:??? Did you mean to address this to the other individual who thinks beating one or 2 teams warrants a ranking even if you only win 1/4 of your games? You arent really thinking thats what I was saying, right?

Yes, I meant that for you. Sorry, I guess I was "WAY" off base with that one. I'll keep out of it and let you rant about a team from last year. I will say this, you sound like you have way too many issues with rankings, which you do realize first of all, they are ALL just opinions, right? And second of all, if you don't like it get involved, and stop complaining. Again, get out and see these teams play if it means anything to you.

hockeyrube7 wrote:

mnhockgal wrote:??? Did you mean to address this to the other individual who thinks beating one or 2 teams warrants a ranking even if you only win 1/4 of your games? You arent really thinking thats what I was saying, right?

Yes, I meant that for you. Sorry, I guess I was "WAY" off base with that one. I'll keep out of it and let you rant about a team from last year. I will say this, you sound like you have way too many issues with rankings, which you do realize first of all, they are ALL just opinions, right? And second of all, if you don't like it get involved, and stop complaining. Again, get out and see these teams play if it means anything to you.

Hey sorry, I was really off base coming on a discussion board and bringing up a such an off the wall topic of who does the rankings, and why isnt much time/effort put in? Crazy, over the top stuff, and ranting too. There is no room for debating or posting pet peeve type of stuff on a message board!!!

Your post however, really hit home in your telling me to do something about it. Your right, this topic is way too important to simply "debate" or complain about. Its something needing looking into. But then, worse yet, is my having the tamarity to "question" an ahead of the curve, progressive philosophy of someone who feels a 6-19 team deserves a ranking. Clearly I am not progressive, or smart enough to comphrend that and I simply shouldnt have responded so I wouldnt have embarrassed myself!

Anyway, I am going to take your advice and do something about this. I have acquired the email address of my local congressman, and I am currently looking for one for Governor Pawlenty. TPaw is a huge hockey guy, is from SSP, and I think will act immeiditately on this. If you have any other suggestions, I would appreciate it.

xk1 wrote:Where would you rank Chaska?

By the way, where would you have them ranked?

Krach has them at 50, I will go with that.

xk1 wrote:Krach has them at 50, I will go with that.

Finally, someone with a clue!!! I would agree...

By the way, you mentioned earlier you would move Warroad up to about 5. Have you seen them - whats their offense look like without Roberts? I loved their scrappiness last year...

I would have to defer to a nothern guy for specifics, haven't seen them since early November. I just liked the way they played, solid D, good goaltender and a scrappy offense but no big finishers. I think they are in the same section as Crookston so they might not make it to the show anyway.