HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

First Farmington Game I've seen this year..
Gutsy performance..great game

Some great dangles...on both sides...some great saves by Farm. goalie
Some good physical D..especially #12 from farm.

also a fan from farmington told me that their #15 player is a first year player recruited from Basketball...If this is true...WOW!! Not a MS. Hockey candidate, but I've seen worse Lake Conf. boys JV players.
Farmington goalie and #12 D and #8 are the three stars respectively..

#8 did have 2 goals..but defense wins titles!!

NP did play great as well...just couldn't overcome strong D and goalie performance.

FWIW I saw this game too, but was talking most of the time so I might have missed some stuff. My belief is that NP #7 - Kilpatrick F, #10 - Ambroz F, & #17 (D) are all very strong players. Farm #5 - Ripley (F), #8 - Johnson (F), and McNamara (G) played well too (not surprisingly).

I should also mention #12 (D) from Farmington as Hon Men for her play as cited by others, but also #12 (D) from NP too.

BringRollieBack!! wrote:
#8 did have 2 goals..but defense wins titles!!

I looked at the paper this morning and Erin Johnson scored all 3 of Farmington's goals. While you need good defense and good goaltending to win these types of close games, someone's got to score too, and without #8's three goals, Farmington would not have come out on top!

I'm looking on venue feedback re Sect 2A tourney... How do people feel about Aldrich and the atmosphere, etc.? I thought it was pretty good considering that this was a Class A final for two teams far outside their natural geographic area, plenty of room for the bands - but not yet too empty, seperate seating sections for Home/Away teams, etc.

ghshockeyfan wrote:I'm looking on venue feedback re Sect 2A tourney... How do people feel about Aldrich and the atmosphere, etc.? I thought it was pretty good considering that this was a Class A final for two teams far outside their natural geographic area, plenty of room for the bands - but not yet too empty, seperate seating sections for Home/Away teams, etc.

I was surprised to see that they played so far away from where the section team's are located. Aldrich is a nice arena, but couldn't they have chosen a different neutral site that doesn't require such a long drive for both teams?

(I know, it's nothing compared to what they're used to "up north", but here in the Cities you shouldn't HAVE to).

Unfortunately no other more central locations that were neutral but met the venue requirements wanted to host.

Farmington, Richfield, & Vets (Inver Grove) were all thrown out due to that being the home of section teams - but are all nice arena choices that often host other boys & girls sections.

Burnsville, BIG, and STA turned down the opportunity to host.

I guess Aldrich has some "history" in a G HS Hockey sense too as it was the site of the first HS State tourney...

I thought that it seemed more full than I anticipated it would, but it still was far from capacity.

With section realignment coming this year it will be intersting to see how much the sections change geographically and I anticipate that this may be very little for Class A since they were just constructed mid-alignment period last season... That being said however, I don't know how the "assisted lunch" rule may impact more teams opting down (counts numbers different for enrollment) and also not certain as to if some growing schools/communities have grown too large for Class A now?

ghshockeyfan wrote:Unfortunately no other more central locations that were neutral but met the venue requirements wanted to host.

Farmington, Richfield, & Vets (Inver Grove) were all thrown out due to that being the home of section teams - but are all nice arena choices that often host other boys & girls sections.

Burnsville, BIG, and STA turned down the opportunity to host.

I guess Aldrich has some "history" in a G HS Hockey sense too as it was the site of the first HS State tourney...

I thought that it seemed more full than I anticipated it would, but it still was far from capacity.

With section realignment coming this year it will be intersting to see how much the sections change geographically and I anticipate that this may be very little for Class A since they were just constructed mid-alignment period last season... That being said however, I don't know how the "assisted lunch" rule may impact more teams opting down (counts numbers different for enrollment) and also not certain as to if some growing schools/communities have grown too large for Class A now?

I was going to suggest the Bloomington and Burnsville arenas - why they would turn down a money-making event such as this? And I suppose Wakota was also ruled out because Simley plays there?

Also is there any thought to re-doing the AA vs. A classification system? I was thinking maybe instead of it being based on just enrollment and the "assisted lunch" rule (which seems artificial and a little hokey to me) why not allow the really poor AA teams the opportunity to move down to A, and put something in that would force the perennial A powers to play up to AA? This could be based upon their won/lost records over the past two or three years, or some other automatic trigger. If you look at a programs like Rochester Century, John Marshall, Tartan, Dodge County, Cooper they have virtually no shot at being competitive at AA over the next few years - why not give them the OPTION to move to A until they recover a bit? Then you've got a half-dozen or so perennial A powers that win 20+ games for 2-3 years in a row, and the other A teams in their sections have virtually no shot at advancing to state. For whatever reason under the current elective system they choose to not move up, preferring instead to dominate their small school competition and go to state every year. That has to be awfully frustrating if you're one of the other A schools in their section trying to build your program.

Maybe this is a dumb idea but it's something that should at least be discussed...

Wakota was ruled out due to there not being stands on both sides I believe (separate visitor/home sections)? Years ago they had this, but not anymore obviously.

As to the idea that tourney level participation should be somewhat driven by team ability, I agree. I think that this is best accomplished by using a tier based system that uses a season ending method to evaluate (KRACH??? ) which teams play in which tier and then seed the teams accordingly using some type of geographic representation model (keep 2 N sections & 1 S/S Metro section for Tier 1 = Class AA - something different might need to be done for T2=A).

What this accomplishes is the best teams being in the best tourney and also allows for the capability to consider a seeded metro as to allow the best teams to advance to state and not meet all in one section...

AND, it also allows teams to not have to make a 4-year opt-up commitment when they may be unsure as to if they'll be competitive during that entire span.

I think Tiers like this allow for programs to grow and build with the ultimate goal being winning at T2, then qualification for the T1 sections, then ultimately getting to a T1 tourney, etc.

ghshockeyfan wrote:As to the idea that tourney level participation should be somewhat driven by team ability, I agree. I think that this is best accomplished by using a tier based system that uses a season ending method to evaluate (KRACH??? ) which teams play in which tier and then seed the teams accordingly using some type of geographic representation model (keep 2 N sections & 1 S/S Metro section for Tier 1 = Class AA - something different might need to be done for T2=A).

What this accomplishes is the best teams being in the best tourney and also allows for the capability to consider a seeded metro as to allow the best teams to advance to state and not meet all in one section...

AND, it also allows teams to not have to make a 4-year opt-up commitment when they may be unsure as to if they'll be competitive during that entire span.

I think Tiers like this allow for programs to grow and build with the ultimate goal being winning at T2, then qualification for the T1 sections, then ultimately getting to a T1 tourney, etc.

Do you think there would ever be a consensus to base the AA/A decision on a polling system, however accurate KRACH may be? And the whole "Tier I/Tier II" naming convention probably won't fly again - don't most people remember it as a bad experiment in the boys tournament from years ago?

Maybe making just a gradual change would be more accepted, like allowing the really poor AA schools to move down, and shortening the committment period on elective decisions (to move up or down) from 4 to 2 years. This would retain the main enrollment-based classification system but allow a little more flexibility.

I have to admit, the "A" tournament is more interesting for fans if it showcases the best of the "small schools" playing against each other, as opposed to a tournament featuring "the best of the worst" if you know what I mean.

MNHockeyFan wrote:Do you think there would ever be a consensus to base the AA/A decision on a polling system, however accurate KRACH may be? And the whole "Tier I/Tier II" naming convention probably won't fly again - don't most people remember it as a bad experiment in the boys tournament from years ago?

No, there would never be a consensus to base on a polling system because some feel that coaches are biased for whatever reason (although, usually, they're truly the best and most impartial in many respects - human wise that is)... I still believe that KRACH would be best suited to divide up the teams into top/bottom (this is what the KRACH method was devised for initially I believe - as well as seeding use when head-to-head play between all participants wasn't possible)

And, I agree, you can't call it "T1/T2." It has to be something else. Like "tenure" in general the "Tiers" have a bad name based on the boys "experiment." Note 1 - we need some sort of tenure for coaches. Note 2 - I sometimes wonder if the MSHSL actually wanted tiers and all they accomplished, or if they went with their 2nd choice first as to protect classes from the backlash of moving away from a one-class boys tourney... I still believe though that their goal wasn't to give A powers a tourney to win every year when they should be playing with the big boys (AA/T1), and also believe the goal was participation and growing the sport in smaller less-traditional communities. This being said, A teams that should be playing AA don't accomplish that goal... Nor does struggling big school programs playing with AA... Adjustments need to be made (forced) as needed IMHO...

MNHockeyFan wrote:Maybe making just a gradual change would be more accepted, like allowing the really poor AA schools to move down, and shortening the committment period on elective decisions (to move up or down) from 4 to 2 years. This would retain the main enrollment-based classification system but allow a little more flexibility.

Gradual change will always be better accepted no matter the situation. Just human nature I guess. A hybrid may be best then, but not certain we'll get it...

MNHockeyFan wrote:I have to admit, the "A" tournament is more interesting for fans if it showcases the best of the "small schools" playing against each other, as opposed to a tournament featuring "the best of the worst" if you know what I mean.

Agreed, but what is the goal? To grow the sport in non-traditional regions and give more chance for participation for all? Or to have A powers that belong at AA continuously blocking the opportunity for true small-school communities that are trying to grow a sport?

Remember - the MSHSL is a participation based entity. Crowning champions or creating amazing tourneys probably isn't their true philosophical objective? I would hope/guess that it's more about getting as many kids interested/participating in sports as possible.

I would argue that the A tourney is more about the participants than the spectators, whereas the AA is the equal or as much about both? I do understand though that the experience of a Class A or T2 tourney will be less in that fewer fans will attend, etc. if the product is poor. I would argue though that if you can be a top 20 A team and be average as far as the 126 MSHSL teams overall, then the T2 setup only really would create parity in T2. Parity, usually, is better for interest - hence the desire to get all the top teams to the State tourney in AA. I also think that we often forget that Class A tourney isn't meant - team strength wise - to be on par with AA.

I should note - none of the last few posts have anything to do with Farmington!

CONGRATS TO FARMINGTON ON A WONDERFUL SEASON SO FAR!!! They're playing some amazing hockey right now, and should be a force to be reckoned with at State!!!

ghshockeyfan wrote:I should note - none of the last few posts have anything to do with Farmington!

CONGRATS TO FARMINGTON ON A WONDERFUL SEASON SO FAR!!! They're playing some amazing hockey right now, and should be a force to be reckoned with at State!!!

Yeah, sorry for hijacking the thread - congrats to Farmington and best of luck in St. Paul.

Congrats Farmington, great game to watch. Special congrats to EJ, rip, and Erin. Must of been the power of the pink. See you guys Tuesday night.
Rip you owe T and I, We kept your mother in the buliding the entire 3rd period. I never knew their was so much stress as a mother. I'll stick to the bench.

New Prague had a slow start, Farmington came out firing and that was all the difference. New PRague recovered and had some stretches where they outgunned farmington, but McNamara played a great game, as did the entire Farmington team. Congratulations to both teams for their outstanding seasons and the great show they put on last night, and good luck to them.

GHS, you commented on No. 17 for New Prague. That's Breanne Hrabe. You might have seen her brother Cory around the Vet's Arena last year, he was playing for the junior team that uses that as a home rink.

As to the realignment coming up, I would expect Farmington to move up to Class AA, based on their rapidly increasing enrollment.

As for the venue, I agree Aldrich is a great place to watch a hockey game. I didn't like the distance, but understand why it was played there. I would still like to see it further to the south.

Congrats to Farmington