HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Very impressed this year on how well the seedings were picked for each AA section. So far all the #1's are advancing and possibly playing the #2 or #3 for the section titles. To bad section 6AA is so loaded with good teams and Section 1AA is so shy of talent. It has been this way for many years for boys and girls. If the coaches can seed the section playoffs so well why can't the MHSL rearrange the sections to get it more even? It can't be that hard. They would have several years of data to draw from and the hockey gods all over this great state would embrace it with open arms. Realignment every 3-4 years would be all that's needed. Everyone is aware that teams should not have to travel to far for section playoffs but the biggest disparity is in the metro area and just south of it. Not much of a drive for most metro teams compared to the long hauls they do up north.

I've heard it said that the MSHSL may be considering seeding teams based on a NCAA-like model (computer-ranking based to some degree), but I don't know for certain as to if there is any truth to it. Just a rumor at this point.

I think the idea is to create more interest in the tournaments by not eliminating many of the best teams due to their geographic location beimng near one another.

Many that like the old way of doing things will hate this idea.

I think 2AA needs more competition as well. RV is a very strong team and almost always is but the rest of the teams are very inconsistent.

1AA will be closer as the Lakeville teams evolve and the great year class at Mayo graduates.

I think it's all relative. WE see 6AA and think that anything else is weak to some degree - which it is in a relative sense.

I think 2AA is far better than some others.

Of course, before someone jumps on here and makes a comment about Class A, I want to say that you only have to be an average team in the state to be "ranked" in A by LPH/AP. In Class AA you have to be a 10-1 favorite over an average team to be ranked. So, let's not confuse these two unequal events (A vs AA state).

I believe someone has to replace SSP in 2AA. I think if you look at 6,4,3 and 2 AA and moved Wayzeta to 4 then shifted one good team from 3 to 2, you come up with a fairly good spread.

2AA just as all of girls Hockey needs parity, right now there are the haves and the have nots and we must figure out a way to bring the have nots up to a new level after that happens the natural rivalries will fall into place, I think we should be more concerned about getting all the sections throughout the state as good as as 6AA is

"Many that like the old way of doing things will hate this idea."

They used to think the world was flat. Times change and so do our ways of thinking and understanding what works better. The idea I brought up is not to make it more fair. It has to do with "creating more interest in the playoffs" (Quote) and having a system that is constantly creating a better balance. What we have now is a system that only changes when enough people complain loud enough.

finance_gal wrote:2AA just as all of girls Hockey needs parity, right now there are the haves and the have nots and we must figure out a way to bring the have nots up to a new level after that happens the natural rivalries will fall into place, I think we should be more concerned about getting all the sections throughout the state as good as as 6AA is

In a perfect world I would agree with you but it's not going to happen. Teams are good for a few years and then fall off. Burnsville had a top notch boys program just 10 years ago. Now they have disappeared from post regular season play. Some others have never been successful. Maybe they should get 4-5 OE's to boost their program. (Bad idea, sorry I brought it up) The best part of sports is you never know who will be successful each year. The worst part is when 4 of the top 8 AA teams are in one section and only one gets to go to the Big Show. This will still happen (hopefully to a lesser degree) no matter which way we go but in the end it makes for a better tournament if we find a way to even things out better.

ghshockeyfan wrote:I think it's all relative. WE see 6AA and think that anything else is weak to some degree - which it is in a relative sense.

I think 2AA is far better than some others.

Of course, before someone jumps on here and makes a comment about Class A, I want to say that you only have to be an average team in the state to be "ranked" in A by LPH/AP. In Class AA you have to be a 10-1 favorite over an average team to be ranked. So, let's not confuse these two unequal events (A vs AA state).

2AA is certainly formidable, as is 3AA this year. Others will make the case for the strength of their own section so I don't want to turn this into cheerleading. There are plenty of teams, including non-metro, that can beat one of the 6AA favorites on a given day. The crown is awarded in St. Paul next weekend, not at Parade on Saturday.

I guess my point is that in sports, especially in girls hockey where the participation isn't as high, the strength of individual schools and sections, will rise and fall. When SSP and Roseville were perennial 2A powers I don't remember hearing these types of complaints from section 6AA. I don't believe this requires a broad change, but small tweaks, as they are in place now. Girls hockey has achieved enough critical mass of good players that new powers will start to emerge on the chance occurance of just a few "star" and role players coming through a program at the same time. Granted that communities with large youth programs will always be deeper, but that doesn't mean they cannot be beat by a team who has the right mix of players and coaching.

And I predict there will be much more parity in a year or two once the OE dynasty effect begins to wash out of the fabric of high school sports.

SOME outstate programs in areas where girls hockey isn't that strong might not always be able to compete with even a mid-seed in a top metro conference--their situation is much more fluid. But that's just the way it is in any competition that bases it's structure on regional geographics. It's a big state and it's simply not practical or cost effective to abandon the geographic model, nor would this sit well with the traditional structure of Minnesota high school hockey that is the envy of every state in the country.

As for class 1A, again, the size of the schools creates even wider disparity in the year-to-year strength of any one team or section. Fortunes rise and fall dramatically in class A.

Here are 2,3,4,6 in Boys hockey, I am curious what people think about using this arrangement for girls.

Class: AA
Section: 2
Cretin-Derham Hall High School
Hastings High School
Henry Sibley High School
Park High School
Tartan High School
Woodbury High School
Coop: 508
Saint Paul Arlington High School
Saint Paul Central High School
Saint Paul Como Park H.S.
Saint Paul Highland Park
Coop: 1157
Saint Paul Harding High School
Saint Paul Humboldt High School
Saint Paul Johnson High School

Class: AA
Section: 3
Centennial High School
Hill-Murray School
Mounds View High School
North High School
Roseville Area High School
Stillwater Area High School
White Bear Lake Area High School
Coop: 882
Irondale High School
Saint Anthony Village High School

Class: AA
Section: 4
Anoka High School
Champlin Park High School
Coon Rapids High School
Maple Grove High School
Robbinsdale Armstrong High School
Robbinsdale Cooper High School
Wayzata High School
Coop: 857
Brooklyn Center High School
Columbia Heights High School
Fridley High School
Park Center High School
Coop: 903
Osseo High School
SAGE Academy Charter School
Coop: 1102
Blaine High School
PACT Charter School
Coop: 1126
Maranatha Christian Academy
Rogers High School
Zimmerman High School

Class: AA
Section: 6
Benilde-St. Margaret's School
Bloomington Jefferson High School
Chaska High School
Eden Prairie High School
Edina High School
Hopkins High School
Minnetonka High School
Prior Lake High School

xk1 wrote:

I believe someone has to replace SSP in 2AA. I think if you look at 6,4,3 and 2 AA and moved Wayzeta to 4 then shifted one good team from 3 to 2, you come up with a fairly good spread.

Wait a minute....I think CDH used to be in 2AA, and was moved to 5AA. (And Eagan too?) It was the MSHSL messing around with the sections that led to 2AA being weakened (along with SSP leaving). My ideal set-up would be to organize the sections with one eye on geographical/traditional rivalries and one eye on strength of programs, and then STICK WITH IT. This way, section tournaments are two-week events in and of themselves which will slowly build up rivalries and interest, instead of carefully seeded run-ups to the state tourney. The strength of the sections will never be all equal, nor should they be. If it's so darned important to get the top 8 teams to state, why not just have a year-end poll among all the coaches in the state and 'invite' the top 8? Then you'd truly have all your eggs in one basket like some of you seem to want.

I don't care about getting the top 8 teams to state. I also agree that 8 good sectional tournaments with traditional rivalries a good thing to strive for.
I am just curious why the same teams in boys are different. Which would be better?

They are different because people don't care as deeply about girls sports as they do boys, If it wasn't for title 9 we still would have just a handful of opportunities for the ladies and even though the teams and facilities exist for them, they are still treated as second rate by the athletic directors and the MSHL. Until there are demands made to maintain sections and rivalries things will remain the same and the women will continue to treated as an experiment to those with the power.

As much as one would like, you can't set up the sections just for one sport, can you imagine the mess. I am sure not all the same Regions are weak in Grils BB, Track, Soccer, Volleyball, Golf, Softball, etc. etc.

Bensonmum wrote:xk1 wrote:

I believe someone has to replace SSP in 2AA. I think if you look at 6,4,3 and 2 AA and moved Wayzeta to 4 then shifted one good team from 3 to 2, you come up with a fairly good spread.

Wait a minute....I think CDH used to be in 2AA, and was moved to 5AA. (And Eagan too?) It was the MSHSL messing around with the sections that led to 2AA being weakened (along with SSP leaving). My ideal set-up would be to organize the sections with one eye on geographical/traditional rivalries and one eye on strength of programs, and then STICK WITH IT. This way, section tournaments are two-week events in and of themselves which will slowly build up rivalries and interest, instead of carefully seeded run-ups to the state tourney. The strength of the sections will never be all equal, nor should they be. If it's so darned important to get the top 8 teams to state, why not just have a year-end poll among all the coaches in the state and 'invite' the top 8? Then you'd truly have all your eggs in one basket like some of you seem to want.

Wait, are we saying that WHAT HAPPENS ON THE ICE is what is most important vs. just how coaches vote??? I couldn't agree with this more!!! Head-to-head competition is the single most important thing, not what coaches - or anyone, computer, etc. - think for that matter! Now, granted, there are upsets that happen, but let's be honest that the game is played on ice and not on paper and certainly not on a computer!

This being said, our concerns are so far down the list as far as importance in the entire MSHSL sense, that we have to realize our sport won't be the deciding factor in any of these decisions.

I guess I believe in experiments as there really is no other way to tell if another method is better, however I don't believe that certain sports should be the continual test case based on gender, etc.

xk1 wrote:I don't care about getting the top 8 teams to state.

This year you may only get the top 3 or 4. Turns the "Big Show" into a "Little side show". MN High School Hockey will get a bad rap if they allow this to happen to often. The idea of a state tournament is to get as many of the Hot teams at the end of the season to play each other. The winner is not as important as the show itself.

I'm nay saying it would be wrong to get the top 8 but I think it's pointless to talk about it when the MSHSL doesn't want this or they would have made some attempt to do so in the last 50 years.

xk1 wrote:I'm nay saying it would be wrong to get the top 8 but I think it's pointless to talk about it when the MSHSL doesn't want this or they would have made some attempt to do so in the last 50 years.

I've heard it rumored otherwise.

Slapshotdude wrote:

xk1 wrote:I don't care about getting the top 8 teams to state.

This year you may only get the top 3 or 4. Turns the "Big Show" into a "Little side show". MN High School Hockey will get a bad rap if they allow this to happen to often. The idea of a state tournament is to get as many of the Hot teams at the end of the season to play each other. The winner is not as important as the show itself.

Could it be that more higher ranked teams will make it into the Section 6AA Semi's than the 8-team AA State tourney???

ghshockeyfan wrote:Could it be that more higher ranked teams will make it into the Section 6AA Semi's than the 8-team AA State tourney???

That's already a given!

P.S. I hope there is some basis to the rumor you've been hearing...

I have heard that people are tailgating at the section 6AA already, kidding.. Two great games tonight and it will cost me $6 for maybe 4 or 5 hours of great fun..

I rest my case. Section 6AA was loaded with good teams this year. To bad they could not have played both of yesterday's games in the "Big Show". It would have been a great show and drawn alot more attention for girls hockey.

Girls hockey will never get the attention that guys hockey gets. That's a given it's not as attrative as guys hockey. Second, there are many other games that are not played at the "Big Show" and is it a dissapointment? maybe. But last years championship was deffinately not the best game of the year, that's how things go!