Page 3 of 6
Re: Updated 12/18 - 10PM 7891
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:28 am
by MNHockeyFan
Have no idea what to make of this, other than to conclude that in Class AA Section 6 would again appear to be the strongest, by far. Fooling around with the numbers, the total KRACH rating for 6AA as a whole is 4570.76. All other sections COMBINED total just 2510.397. That is not to say the eventual 6AA representative in the State Tournament will win...
What struck me here is that Minnetonka has played the 2nd most difficult schedule in the State, yet they have an unblemished record at 10-0-0. Very impressive!
Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:41 am
by ghshockeyfan
MinnGirlsHockey wrote:Marty wrote:Hill will climb. They have a tough pre-conference schedule and they need to !
The question is not whether Hill will run the table in their conference, the question is
Will Hill give a goal in the Classic Suburban Conference ?
They gave up a goal last night vs. NSP....
Hill did move up quite a bit as predicted. But, they also allowed three tonight vs Henry Sibley in Conf play while apparently playing pretty deep into their bench and on some special teams/bounces.
Updated 12/21 12AM 8559
Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:42 am
by ghshockeyfan
Updated 12/21 12AM 8559
Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:58 am
by Marty
ghshockeyfan wrote:
Hill did move up quite a bit as predicted. But, they also allowed three tonight vs Henry Sibley in Conf play while apparently playing pretty deep into their bench and on some special teams/bounces.
It shows the coaching staff might actually figure it out. Two double digit scoring conference games in a row would have been poor taste and maybe Classic Suburban Conference would mobilize to try throw them out like they did STA
Classic Suburban conference may be the weakest metro conference this year. Most of the conference games for Hill will either train their youngsters or create laziness among their top lines because they will go largely unchallenged.
Sibley, Simley and North must all be rebuilidng or looking to co-op.
Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:35 am
by MN_Bowhunter
I know 2 of those schools have lost quality players to private schools, I wouldn't call it rebuilding if you were never very good in the first place. I'd call it annually struggling to field a competitive team.
LSQRANK (c) 2013
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:51 am
by OsMetroDad
LSQRANK 22-DEC-2013 Minnesota High School Girls League Class A & AA
LSQRANK is a numerical ranking system that performs a least squares best fit
of IN-season data of performance based measurable attributes between sports teams. This program adapts adjustment computation methods developed for spatial data analysis to the science of sports performance ranking. Algorithms are employed to compute composite margin of victory scores (MOV) and observation weights that are used to build the reduced Normal Equation Matrices. The solution of the equations is an iterative solution using the Cholesky solution algorithm. The solution to the system of observation
equations produces:
(1) LSQRANK, a relative ranking order of the given teams in the league;
(2) GD, a modelled goal differential based on rank & score;
(3) avgSS, an average strength of schedule of each team;
(4) Wi, a report of the standardized residuals of the observations.
A link to the 22-DEC-2013 rankings is:
http://www.aerogeomatics.com/aerosys/so ... C_2013.PDF
Re: LSQRANK (c) 2013
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 8:38 am
by ghshockeyfan
OsMetroDad wrote:LSQRANK 22-DEC-2013 Minnesota High School Girls League Class A & AA
LSQRANK is a numerical ranking system that performs a least squares best fit
of IN-season data of performance based measurable attributes between sports teams. This program adapts adjustment computation methods developed for spatial data analysis to the science of sports performance ranking. Algorithms are employed to compute composite margin of victory scores (MOV) and observation weights that are used to build the reduced Normal Equation Matrices. The solution of the equations is an iterative solution using the Cholesky solution algorithm. The solution to the system of observation
equations produces:
(1) LSQRANK, a relative ranking order of the given teams in the league;
(2) GD, a modelled goal differential based on rank & score;
(3) avgSS, an average strength of schedule of each team;
(4) Wi, a report of the standardized residuals of the observations.
A link to the 22-DEC-2013 rankings is:
http://www.aerogeomatics.com/aerosys/so ... C_2013.PDF
Least squares... I can remember calculating these by hand years ago for practice and understanding...
Problem I have with a goal diff consideration is different teams score control differently in blowouts (i.e. some don't) so this needs to be capped above a certain point at minimum.
Will be interesting to see how this compares to KRACH, QRF, LPH, etc. - Thanks for sharing!
Updated 12/22 11PM 9220
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 8:41 am
by ghshockeyfan
Updated 12/22 11PM 9220
Re: LSQRANK (c) 2013
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:44 am
by OsMetroDad
ghshockeyfan wrote:OsMetroDad wrote:LSQRANK 22-DEC-2013 Minnesota High School Girls League Class A & AA
Problem I have with a goal diff consideration is different teams score control differently in blowouts (i.e. some don't) so this needs to be capped above a certain point at minimum.
Will be interesting to see how this compares to KRACH, QRF, LPH, etc. - Thanks for sharing!
The algorithm I implemmented basically greatly down-weights run-away scores beyond the MOV threshold which is calculated at MOV_mean + 1.28*MOV_sigma. The 1.28 sigma corresponds to an alpha of 10%, so what it is doing is allowing the upper 10% tail of a normal distribution curve to be downweighted, ie, saying 1 out of every 10 games fall in that category. The actual raw MOV threhold computes to be approximately 6.85 goals which makes a good statistical basis to raise the running time goal differential from 6 to 7 goals. Currently, based on a normal distribution, by setting the running time differential to 6 goals in a single tail distribution, one is essentially saying that 1 out of every 6 games should be severely down-weighted
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:40 am
by sinbin
OMD, thanks, some very interesting stuff. Do you think that this model down-weights that runaway scores sufficiently, though, both for (1) the magnitude of the down-weighting and for (2) the threshhold of the MOV when the down-weighting begins? Thanks again and I'm also interested to see how this compares to other models.
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:57 pm
by OsMetroDad
It is possible to let the user set a specific threshold cut-off also via GUI parameter controls, ie, 6 goals if that is desired. Additionally, it is possible to also set an individual weight per observation provided that one has "good information" and a basis to apply a specific weight. In surveying & mapping, we would call this a field observation or "ground control point" where the true value of the accuraccy of the GCP is weight appropriately. Translating to a hockey game situation, if one was privy to the details of a particular blow-out game, setting a user defined weight is valid. For example, Blake recently blew out SPU 10-0. It was 6-0 after 2 periods and then SPU switched in their backup goalie which then had a 50% save percentage for the next 4 goals. So in this situation, one probablly needs to discount the entire 3rd period with regard to raw goals score (4), any credit for shots & penality kills. The composite MOV ended up to be a +14.6 , therefore an appropriate weight applied to this observation might be +/- 8.xx which is basically giving Blake credit for a 6-0 win over SPU. Looking at the overall data set, the critical observations that have the most critical role in determining the final solution are the close games, that have a relatively small +/- weight value applied to a game observation, the blowouts which get down-weight generally have a much lesser effect in a least squares solution.
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:31 pm
by hockey21
I think a few records are incomplete or inaccurate I am sure this is because of the Inconsistency between the star tribune hub and the MGHCA website not working together until lately
Spring lake park was listed as 7-3-1
But the record is 6-4-1. I had a few more reported to me that looked off not sure if it is a big deal or if anyone cares
Updated 12/27 8AM 10440
Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:15 pm
by ghshockeyfan
Updated 12/27 8AM 10440
Updated 12/29 11AM 10848
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:15 pm
by ghshockeyfan
Updated 12/29 11AM 10848
Updated 1/1 6PM 11637
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:43 pm
by ghshockeyfan
Updated 1/1 6PM 11637
Re: Updated 1/1 6PM 11637
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:50 pm
by MNHockeyFan
The Top 4 teams are all in the same Section! Does anyone remember this ever happening in previous years?
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:49 am
by D6 Girls Fan
...and that Top 8 would make a hell of a tournament, with any of the teams capable of winning it all, or losing 3 straight. I do believe those are the best eight...
LSQRANK - 01 JAN 2014 MN HS GIRLS LEAGUE
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:17 am
by OsMetroDad
New LSQRANK data released for 01-JAN-2014
data listed by overall state rank and by Section/Class seeding
Code: Select all
LSQRANK Team S CL GD (W - L-T)
1 HillMurray 4 AA 0.0 (11- 2-0)
2 BSM 6 AA 0.8 (13- 1-1)
3 Minnetonka 6 AA 0.9 (14- 1-0)
4 Edina 2 AA 0.9 (13- 3-1)
5 Wayzata 6 AA 0.9 (15- 1-1)
6 EdenPrairie 2 AA 1.0 (10- 4-0)
7 Hopkins 6 AA 1.1 (15- 1-0)
8 ThiefRiverFalls 8 A 1.1 (17- 0-0)
9 LakevilleN 1 AA 1.1 (10- 3-2)
10 EastGrandForks 8 A 1.2 (15- 1-0)
11 LakevilleS 1 AA 1.8 (10- 5-0)
12 Irondale 5 AA 1.9 (12- 4-0)
13 Achiever 4 A 2.0 (14- 3-1)
14 DodgeCounty 1 AA 2.1 (12- 5-0)
15 Blaine 5 AA 2.1 (13- 2-2)
16 Stillwater 4 AA 2.2 ( 9- 5-1)
17 MapleGrove 6 AA 2.6 ( 7- 5-2)
18 MoundsView 5 AA 2.6 ( 8- 5-3)
19 Burnsville 3 AA 2.7 ( 9- 5-1)
20 Andover 7 AA 2.8 ( 9- 5-2)
21 Eastview 3 AA 2.9 (10- 6-1)
22 Warroad 8 A 2.9 ( 7- 7-1)
23 Eagan 3 AA 2.9 ( 8- 7-1)
24 Blake 5 A 2.9 (11- 4-0)
25 ElkRiver 7 AA 3.1 ( 8- 5-2)
26 Roseville 4 AA 3.2 ( 9- 6-0)
27 BloomJeff 2 AA 3.2 ( 9- 6-1)
28 ArmstrongCooper 6 AA 3.2 ( 8- 7-1)
29 RochesterCENT 1 AA 3.3 (15- 1-0)
30 Roseau 8 AA 3.4 ( 7- 8-0)
31 Buffalo 8 AA 3.5 ( 8- 8-0)
32 Chaska 2 AA 3.5 (10- 4-1)
33 CDH 4 AA 3.5 (10- 6-0)
34 Centennial 5 AA 3.8 ( 7- 6-2)
35 SouthStPaul 4 A 3.8 (11- 4-1)
36 RochesterJM 1 AA 3.9 (12- 4-0)
37 Anoka 5 AA 4.0 ( 6- 8-1)
38 EastRidge 3 AA 4.0 (10- 6-0)
39 Hanover 1 NH 4.1 ( 2- 1-0)
40 Orono 5 A 4.1 (10- 5-1)
41 AppleValley 3 AA 4.1 ( 2-12-1)
42 HolyFamily 2 AA 4.2 ( 8- 6-0)
43 Bismark 1 ND 4.3 ( 5- 1-0)
44 RedWing 1 A 4.5 (10- 5-0)
45 Hastings 3 AA 4.5 ( 8- 7-1)
46 WhiteBearLake 4 AA 4.6 ( 6- 7-3)
47 ChamplinPark 5 AA 4.6 ( 7- 9-0)
48 GrandRapids 7 AA 4.7 ( 7- 6-2)
49 Breck 5 A 4.7 ( 4-11-1)
50 Bemidji 8 AA 4.8 ( 4- 7-2)
51 NorthWRCTY 8 AA 5.0 ( 5- 5-1)
52 MoundWestonka 5 A 5.1 ( 9- 4-2)
53 ForestLake 7 AA 5.2 ( 6- 7-1)
54 StCloud 8 AA 5.2 (12- 1-1)
55 PriorLake 2 AA 5.2 ( 3-11-0)
56 Duluth 7 AA 5.3 ( 6- 7-1)
57 Cloquet 7 AA 5.3 ( 5- 8-1)
58 SPAVIS 4 A 5.4 ( 8- 6-2)
59 ProctorHerm 7 A 5.4 ( 9- 7-0)
60 ParkCG 3 AA 5.5 ( 3-11-2)
61 NewPrague 1 A 5.5 ( 8- 8-0)
62 SpringLakePark 5 AA 5.6 ( 9- 5-1)
63 CoonRapids 5 AA 5.6 ( 3-11-2)
64 ChisagoLakes 4 A 5.7 ( 7- 9-0)
65 TotinoGrace 5 A 5.7 (10- 4-1)
66 Tartan 4 AA 5.8 ( 6- 6-0)
67 Hibbing 7 A 5.9 ( 7- 6-1)
68 RiverLakes 8 AA 6.1 ( 9- 5-0)
69 Mahtomedi 4 A 6.1 ( 8- 9-1)
70 FargoWest 1 ND 6.3 ( 4- 3-0)
71 Rogers 5 AA 6.4 ( 7- 6-1)
72 Shakopee 2 AA 6.4 ( 5- 7-3)
73 Owatonna 1 AA 6.5 ( 6- 6-0)
74 Woodbury 3 AA 6.5 ( 6-10-0)
75 Farmington 1 AA 6.6 ( 5- 9-1)
76 Princeton 5 A 6.6 (10- 6-0)
77 CentralWIS 1 WI 6.8 ( 2- 2-1)
78 SSR 8 AA 6.8 (10- 3-2)
79 NorthStPaul 4 AA 6.8 ( 2-12-0)
80 Alexandria 6 A 6.9 ( 7- 5-1)
81 FortFrances 1 ON 7.0 ( 8- 1-0)
82 USMW 1 WI 7.1 ( 2- 1-1)
83 IFALLS 7 A 7.1 ( 6- 7-1)
84 StFrancis 7 AA 7.1 ( 7- 8-3)
85 NewUlm 3 A 7.2 (11- 4-0)
86 MplsNovas 5 A 7.3 ( 5- 7-1)
87 MooseLake 7 A 7.4 ( 7- 6-2)
88 MankatoEast 2 A 7.4 (11- 4-0)
89 Hayward 1 WI 7.7 ( 5- 4-0)
90 Onalaska 1 WI 7.7 ( 3- 2-0)
91 Moorhead 8 AA 7.9 ( 3- 9-1)
92 StCroix 1 WI 8.0 ( 6- 4-1)
93 Simley 4 A 8.0 ( 5-11-0)
94 HolyAngels 5 A 8.1 ( 3- 8-2)
95 FergusFalls 6 A 8.1 ( 4- 8-1)
96 GrandForks 1 ND 8.2 ( 1- 1-0)
97 Cambridge 7 AA 8.2 ( 1-14-0)
98 StPaulBlades 4 A 8.3 ( 4- 9-3)
99 NewRichmond 1 WI 8.6 ( 1- 3-0)
100 Sibley 4 A 8.6 ( 1-14-0)
101 Northfield 1 A 8.8 ( 7- 8-0)
102 Crookston 8 A 8.8 ( 5- 8-1)
103 WSFLG 1 WI 8.9 ( 2- 4-1)
104 Hudson 1 WI 8.9 ( 3- 3-2)
105 DetroitLakes 6 A 8.9 ( 4- 6-2)
106 LDC 2 A 8.9 ( 3-10-0)
107 Rosemont 3 AA 9.0 ( 1-15-0)
108 Dryden 1 ON 9.0 ( 1- 4-0)
109 StLouisPark 6 AA 9.1 ( 3-12-1)
110 NorthMetro 6 AA 9.2 ( 3-14-0)
111 PequotLakes 6 A 9.7 ( 6- 9-0)
112 Winona 1 A 10.0 ( 4-10-0)
113 Willmar 2 A 10.0 ( 4-11-0)
114 Hutchinson 2 A 10.0 ( 4- 6-1)
115 SunPraire 1 WI 10.3 ( 1- 5-1)
116 MankatoWest 2 A 10.4 ( 5-10-0)
117 AlbertLea 1 A 10.4 ( 6-10-0)
118 Luverne 3 A 10.5 (12- 3-0)
119 Faribault 1 A 10.6 ( 4-10-1)
120 FargoNorth 1 ND 10.6 ( 0- 6-0)
121 Brainard 8 AA 10.7 ( 1-11-0)
122 RochesterMayo 1 AA 10.8 ( 2-12-0)
123 ParkRapids 8 A 10.9 ( 5- 9-1)
124 FargoSouth 1 ND 10.9 ( 1- 7-0)
125 Austin 1 A 11.1 ( 5-10-1)
126 Eveleth 7 A 11.2 ( 4- 9-2)
127 SilverBay 7 A 11.5 ( 0-11-1)
128 LPGE 6 A 11.9 ( 7- 8-0)
129 MHHAunited 4 A 12.2 ( 1-11-1)
130 Superior 1 WI 12.2 ( 1- 6-0)
131 Waseca 1 A 13.3 ( 2- 7-1)
132 LOW 8 A 14.2 ( 0- 8-0)
133 StPeter 2 A 14.6 ( 4- 8-1)
134 Marshall 3 A 14.8 ( 4- 9-1)
135 Fairmont 3 A 15.2 ( 6- 7-0)
136 Brookings 1 SD 15.8 ( 0- 1-0)
137 Morris 6 A 17.0 ( 1- 7-0)
138 Windom 3 A 20.3 ( 1- 9-1)
139 Worthington 3 A 24.7 ( 0-10-0)
Data by Section ...
Code: Select all
MN Class A Section 1
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 RedWing 44 4.5
2 NewPrague 61 5.5
3 Northfield 101 8.8
4 Winona 112 10.0
5 AlbertLea 117 10.4
6 Faribault 119 10.6
7 Austin 125 11.1
8 Waseca 131 13.3
MN Class A Section 2
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 MankatoEast 88 7.4
2 LDC 106 8.9
3 Willmar 113 10.0
4 Hutchinson 114 10.0
5 MankatoWest 116 10.4
6 StPeter 133 14.6
MN Class A Section 3
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 NewUlm 85 7.2
2 Luverne 118 10.5
3 Marshall 134 14.8
4 Fairmont 135 15.2
5 Windom 138 20.3
6 Worthington 139 24.7
MN Class A Section 4
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Achiever 13 2.0
2 SouthStPaul 35 3.8
3 SPAVIS 58 5.4
4 ChisagoLakes 64 5.7
5 Mahtomedi 69 6.1
6 Simley 93 8.0
7 StPaulBlades 98 8.3
8 Sibley 100 8.6
9 MHHAunited 129 12.2
MN Class A Section 5
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Blake 24 2.9
2 Orono 40 4.1
3 Breck 49 4.7
4 MoundWestonka 52 5.1
5 TotinoGrace 65 5.7
6 Princeton 76 6.6
7 MplsNovas 86 7.3
8 HolyAngels 94 8.1
MN Class A Section 6
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Alexandria 80 6.9
2 FergusFalls 95 8.1
3 DetroitLakes 105 8.9
4 PequotLakes 111 9.7
5 LPGE 128 11.9
6 Morris 137 17.0
MN Class A Section 7
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 ProctorHerm 59 5.4
2 Hibbing 67 5.9
3 IFALLS 83 7.1
4 MooseLake 87 7.4
5 Eveleth 126 11.2
6 SilverBay 127 11.5
MN Class A Section 8
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 ThiefRiverFalls 8 1.1
2 EastGrandForks 10 1.2
3 Warroad 22 2.9
4 Crookston 102 8.8
5 ParkRapids 123 10.9
6 LOW 132 14.2
MN Class AA Section 1
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 LakevilleN 9 1.1
2 LakevilleS 11 1.8
3 DodgeCounty 14 2.1
4 RochesterCENT 29 3.3
5 RochesterJM 36 3.9
6 Owatonna 73 6.5
7 Farmington 75 6.6
8 RochesterMayo 122 10.8
MN Class AA Section 2
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Edina 4 0.9
2 EdenPrairie 6 1.0
3 BloomJeff 27 3.2
4 Chaska 32 3.5
5 HolyFamily 42 4.2
6 PriorLake 55 5.2
7 Shakopee 72 6.4
MN Class AA Section 3
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Burnsville 19 2.7
2 Eastview 21 2.9
3 Eagan 23 2.9
4 EastRidge 38 4.0
5 AppleValley 41 4.1
6 Hastings 45 4.5
7 ParkCG 60 5.5
8 Woodbury 74 6.5
9 Rosemont 107 9.0
MN Class AA Section 4
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 HillMurray 1 0.0
2 Stillwater 16 2.2
3 Roseville 26 3.2
4 CDH 33 3.5
5 WhiteBearLake 46 4.6
6 Tartan 66 5.8
7 NorthStPaul 79 6.8
MN Class AA Section 5
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Irondale 12 1.9
2 Blaine 15 2.1
3 MoundsView 18 2.6
4 Centennial 34 3.8
5 Anoka 37 4.0
6 ChamplinPark 47 4.6
7 SpringLakePark 62 5.6
8 CoonRapids 63 5.6
9 Rogers 71 6.4
MN Class AA Section 6
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 BSM 2 0.8
2 Minnetonka 3 0.9
3 Wayzata 5 0.9
4 Hopkins 7 1.1
5 MapleGrove 17 2.6
6 ArmstrongCooper 28 3.2
7 StLouisPark 109 9.1
8 NorthMetro 110 9.2
MN Class AA Section 7
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Andover 20 2.8
2 ElkRiver 25 3.1
3 GrandRapids 48 4.7
4 ForestLake 53 5.2
5 Duluth 56 5.3
6 Cloquet 57 5.3
7 StFrancis 84 7.1
8 Cambridge 97 8.2
MN Class AA Section 8
---------------------------------
Seed Team LSQRANK GD
---------------------------------
1 Roseau 30 3.4
2 Buffalo 31 3.5
3 Bemidji 50 4.8
4 NorthWRCTY 51 5.0
5 StCloud 54 5.2
6 RiverLakes 68 6.1
7 SSR 78 6.8
8 Moorhead 91 7.9
9 Brainard 121 10.7
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:59 pm
by AAA Dad
OS Metro Dad
Thanks for posting another grading standard for us all to evaluate! A few interesting differences from LPH and KRACH
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:00 pm
by OsMetroDad
I created a prelim web site on weebly with the ranking data presented above on it. I want to get the residual analysis on the site also because I think it tells the real story about the adjustment of the data and why the teams rank as they do. The web site is :
http://lsqrank.weebly.com/
It was a bit of a bugger to get columns to align using the weebly web page building tools, so before I get the rest of the data up, I may just put a link to a PDF that can be downloaded.
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:05 am
by Marty
Breakdown by Section is interesting. Let's see how mid-season rankings translate to State participation.
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:43 pm
by 36Guy
Marty wrote:Breakdown by Section is interesting. Let's see how mid-season rankings translate to State participation.
I hate to by Danny Downer...but to much for me! Ratings are fun watch and see our favorite club rise and fall. However, micro analyzing stats probably doesn't do any better than most educated hockey peeps "gut" feeling on ranking. Stats do not show, injuries, coaching..drama, etc.
Still fun stuff....but even if the rankings were completely right, we all know the "top 8" teams do not get to go to state!
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:54 pm
by wolfman
I have a tear in my eye. I feel so bad that only one team from section 6AA will make it to state. bla-bla-bla......... What about all the teams in all the other sports that dont make it and way worse teams go to state? Were not going to change it ever boys! Deal with the way it is cause they are not changing it for girls hockey and then doing nothing in all the other HS school sports. You guys that dont like the rules can always move and take your chances at a differnt school.
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:24 pm
by sinbin
Football already changed and basketball is discussing changes. I would agree, though, that hockey is behind those sports in terms of equity and we'll all just need to live with the status quo for quite some time, if not always. Until that day of equity arrives, the reality is that many lesser teams will continue to get free passes to the state tournament. Life isn't fair; we may as well teach that reality to our children when they're young . . . and keep hitting them over the head with it year after year after year until it sinks in.
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:51 pm
by D16Dad
sinbin wrote:Football already changed and basketball is discussing changes. I would agree, though, that hockey is behind those sports in terms of equity and we'll all just need to live with the status quo for quite some time, if not always. Until that day of equity arrives, the reality is that many lesser teams will continue to get free passes to the state tournament. Life isn't fair; we may as well teach that reality to our children when they're young . . . and keep hitting them over the head with it year after year after year until it sinks in.
Very Metrocentric... Petition to be in Section 7 or Section 8, schedule a home and away game against 5 of the teams in your new section (Tuesdays and Thursdays are fun) and take advantage of your free pass. Seems like a fair deal...