HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Does anybody have the link to the MSHSL state tournament section matchups for next season. With the new sections out it would fun to see which sections play who at next years state tournament.
Either post the link or simply bost the schedule.
Thanks

The pairings for State are here
http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/publications ... Hockey.htm

PROJECTED PAIRINGS

Boys' Class AA/A: A seeding meeting to determine state tournament pairings will be held on the Saturday proceeding the state tournament. The participating coaches will seed teams 1-4 in their respective tournament, and the remaining teams, representing seeds 5-8, will be determined by a blind draw.



Girls' Class AA/A

Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2007 2 1 8 5 4 7 6 3
2008 3 8 1 6 7 4 5 2
2009 6 3 2 7 8 1 4 5
2010 7 6 5 8 3 2 1 4
2011 5 7 4 3 1 8 2 6
2012 8 4 7 2 6 5 3 1
2013 4 5 6 1 2 3 8 7

Anybody know why the girls don't use the same methodology for tournament seeding as the boys do?

it was talked about at the coaches meeting last year and probably will again this year. If it goes well for the boys this year - I have no dought in my mind it will be passed this spring by the girls coaches association

I think seeding would be a very good move for the girls game

I think by the time we "realign" for 2009 on we could see a NCAA like setup with the top 64 going into the top tourney... Or at least this may be seriously considered...

shootthepucknow wrote:it was talked about at the coaches meeting last year and probably will again this year. If it goes well for the boys this year - I have no dought in my mind it will be passed this spring by the girls coaches association

This was voted down at the spring meeting, next chance would be at the fall meeting usually held of MEA weekend.

JJhockeySS wrote:

shootthepucknow wrote:it was talked about at the coaches meeting last year and probably will again this year. If it goes well for the boys this year - I have no dought in my mind it will be passed this spring by the girls coaches association

This was voted down at the spring meeting, next chance would be at the fall meeting usually held of MEA weekend.

Was it close this time? The vote I mean...

ghshockeyfan wrote: Was it close this time? The vote I mean...

I think the closest it has been was the first time it was voted on 2 years back, I think it has less support each year. I think the consensus was to see how it worked with the boys this year and re-visit next year.

Understandable. Nice that the girls don't have to be the test case on this one.

ghshockeyfan wrote:Understandable. Nice that the girls don't have to be the test case on this one.

I can't imagine any downside to seeding for the tournament, other than the inevitable disagreements about SOS, etc. Maybe the computer rankings would finally have a practical purpose to at least provide an analytical basis. Why is this such a controversial idea? Makes a lot more sense for fairness than the current rotation IMO.

keepitreal wrote:

ghshockeyfan wrote:Understandable. Nice that the girls don't have to be the test case on this one.

I can't imagine any downside to seeding for the tournament, other than the inevitable disagreements about SOS, etc. Maybe the computer rankings would finally have a practical purpose to at least provide an analytical basis. Why is this such a controversial idea? Makes a lot more sense for fairness than the current rotation IMO.

Remember, I'm one that wants to seed the entire state NCAA style! I support seeding the tourney...

GHS...that kind of idea as always fascinated me, but it will never happen.

Reason: Imagine austin having to travel to Warroad for a first round game.

You could try to do neutral sites, but even then you're going to have lots of travel and probably hotel accomodations etc.

Plus, the fans wouldn't travel like they would if the game was just 30 miles down the road.

I think there is a way to create a hybrid between regions (as the NCAA does) and sections (as MSHSL does) while using seeding.

Using the new "sections":


For the North:
I would take the top 16 teams from 6A, 7A/AA, & 8A/AA and seed/make 2 "AA" regionals with greatest attempt to consider section parity but also geographic distance - Moorhead & Duluth would be sites for regionals?. The remaining teams would go into 3 "A" regionals done more by geography than ability I suppose - again probably Duluth & Moorhead (or St. Cloud?), & probably Bemidji...


For the South:
I would take the top 8 teams from 1A/AA, 2A, & 3A and make 1 "AA" regional - Owatonna or Rochester? The remaining teams would go into 3 "A" regionals done more by geography than ability I suppose - not sure on locations...


For the Metro:
All remaining sections and seed top 40 teams so that top 5 get their own section and then continue doing so to make 5 "AA" sections. Pick 5 best sites in the metro for sections "Parade, Braemar, Vets, Aldrich, something from N & S metro, etc. The remaining teams would go into 2 metro "A" brackets and have similar regionals that could be seeded by ability since it's all local...


I'd play all the games Thur-Sat in the AA and I'd play them all the way out as 8-team tourneys (3rd, consolation, 7th, etc.) to make it worth the trip for the outstate teams. For A you may have some sections with 7/9/10 teams so some play-in may need to be done, etc. but I'd play it out too once brackets established similar to an 8-team classical setup...


If done with this past season's ratings but the coming season's sections:

S(1) AA - Rochester or Owatonna?
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
25 AA Farmington 66.895 66 60.633 30 23 6 1
27 AA Roch. Mayo 65.276 58 56.156 32 23 9 0
33 A Austin 40.891 94 76.933 28 24 4 0
35 A New Prague 33.303 47 50.815 27 15 10 2
63 AA Lakev. North 10.597 49 51.889 27 11 15 1
68 A Mankato West 7.581 96 77.852 28 17 10 1
69 AA Lakev. South 7.278 56 55.607 28 10 16 2
71 A Faribault 6.734 99 78.778 27 16 10 1

M(2) AA
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
1 AA Eden Prairie 1081.718 33 44.481 27 26 1 0
11 AA Coon Rapids 154.811 12 34.643 28 19 6 3
15 A Breck 120.941 70 62.800 29 24 5 0
30 AA Hastings 56.424 26 40.964 28 15 9 4
34 AA Eastview 36.449 35 44.615 26 14 11 1
47 AA North St. Paul Polars 19.026 37 45.731 26 11 13 2
50 AA Prior Lake 17.713 55 54.731 26 13 11 2
61 AA Woodbury 12.184 23 39.240 26 8 16 2


M(3) AA
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
2 AA Edina 658.889 3 28.519 27 22 2 3
9 AA Wayzata 202.771 1 22.357 28 15 8 5
16 AA Burnsville 114.392 24 39.581 31 20 9 2
26 AA Hill-Murray Pioneers 66.835 25 40.444 27 16 9 2
36 A South St. Paul 32.562 51 52.462 26 17 9 0
46 AA Mounds View 19.613 16 35.654 26 9 16 1
51 A Mahtomedi 16.898 45 50.259 27 12 13 2
60 A Totino-Grace 12.464 46 50.320 26 11 13 2


M(4) AA
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
3 AA Benilde-St. Margarets 542.865 9 34.333 31 26 4 1
8 AA Centennial 216.620 10 34.500 28 22 5 1
17 AA Blaine 109.533 13 34.889 27 16 8 3
23 AA Hopkins 82.420 4 30.346 26 14 10 2
38 AA Anoka 30.360 29 42.846 26 13 12 1
45 AA Maple Grove 19.665 19 36.259 27 9 16 2
52 A Henry Sibley 16.543 40 46.889 27 11 14 2
59 AA Chaska 12.651 32 43.926 27 10 17 0


M(5) AA
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
4 A Blake 361.875 48 50.833 30 26 4 0
7 AA Roseville 218.358 7 31.935 31 21 7 3
18 AA North Metro Stars 107.008 20 37.900 30 19 8 3
22 AA Eagan 92.668 39 46.481 27 19 7 1
39 AA White Bear Lake 29.610 6 30.962 26 8 14 4
43 AA Spring Lake Park/St. Anthony 23.685 57 56.077 26 15 9 2
53 AA Shakopee 15.527 62 59.333 27 13 10 4
57 A Richfield 13.714 65 60.320 27 15 11 1


M(6) AA
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
5 AA Academy of Holy Angels 353.410 34 44.571 28 24 4 0
6 AA Stillwater 255.605 5 30.677 31 22 6 3
19 AA Irondale 105.972 50 52.111 27 21 5 1
20 AA Cretin-Derham Hall 100.065 22 38.704 27 18 8 1
40 AA Minnetonka 27.380 17 35.800 26 10 13 3
42 AA Rob. Armstrong 26.371 36 45.440 25 12 11 2
55 A Simley 13.813 71 64.192 27 16 11 0
56 AA Apple Valley 13.765 54 54.560 26 12 11 3


N(7) AA - Duluth
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
10 AA Cloquet/Esko/Carlton 157.623 2 25.346 28 17 7 4
12 AA Grand Rapids/Greenway 149.978 8 32.100 30 21 9 0
24 AA Forest Lake 69.561 27 41.846 26 16 7 3
31 A Hibbing/Chisholm 48.823 18 36.033 30 15 13 2
37 AA Duluth Central/Denfeld/East 30.542 38 46.348 26 15 9 2
41 AA Cambridge-Isanti 26.486 78 68.185 27 19 7 1
44 AA Proctor/Hermantown/Marshall 21.869 30 43.000 27 13 12 2
49 A Silver Bay/Two Harbors 17.763 61 59.250 27 14 12 1


N(8) AA - Moorhead
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
13 AA Bemidji 128.838 28 42.767 30 22 7 1
14 A Crookston 123.201 67 62.379 30 25 4 1
21 A Warroad 95.067 53 53.833 27 21 5 1
28 A Alexandria 63.970 88 73.586 29 25 4 0
29 AA Elk River 59.726 14 34.893 28 15 12 1
32 AA Moorhead 42.792 43 49.760 26 17 9 0
48 AA St. Cld. Tech 18.453 64 59.593 27 16 11 0
54 A Roseau 13.898 60 58.808 27 15 12 0





S(1) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
74 A New Ulm 5.475 111 87.625 26 17 9 0
75 A Marshall 5.379 113 88.750 29 21 8 0
107 A Fairmont 0.271 121 107.909 22 14 8 0
112 A Luverne 0.157 123 109.476 24 12 11 1
122 A Redwood Valley 0.001 122 109.059 17 0 17 0
123 A Windom Area 0.001 120 106.130 23 4 18 1
124 A Worthington 0.001 124 111.000 23 3 19 1


S(2) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
88 AA Owatonna 2.382 85 72.815 27 10 15 2
99 A Willmar 0.724 105 80.923 26 9 17 0
100 A Hutchinson 0.540 68 62.417 24 4 20 0
102 AA Dodge County 0.454 118 104.520 26 15 11 0
111 A Litchfield/Dassel-Cokato 0.181 104 80.846 26 4 20 2
118 A Mankato East 0.055 109 85.385 26 3 22 1
119 A St. Peter/Lesueur-Henderson 0.047 119 104.792 25 9 16 0


S(3) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
78 A Albert Lea Tigers 4.791 101 79.111 27 15 11 1
85 AA Winona Winhawks 2.696 97 78.227 24 11 11 2
93 A Northfield 1.618 89 74.115 26 11 15 0
105 AA Roch. John Marshall 0.329 102 80.174 23 5 17 1
106 A Red Wing 0.294 75 66.478 24 5 19 0
120 AA Roch. Century 0.029 103 80.591 22 1 20 1
121 A Waseca 0.024 114 95.409 22 5 17 0


M(4) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
62 A Mound-Westonka 11.581 86 72.893 28 18 10 0
72 AA Buffalo 6.714 69 62.704 27 12 14 1
76 A St. Louis Park 4.947 42 48.444 27 6 19 2
81 AA St. Paul Blades 3.814 52 53.696 23 8 15 0
83 A St. Paul United 3.391 80 69.087 26 12 13 1
87 AA Rob. Cooper 2.397 59 56.704 27 5 19 3
90 AA Minneapolis Novas 2.240 81 69.192 25 9 14 2
104 AA Tartan 0.436 72 65.080 26 5 21 0
109 A St. Paul Saints 0.229 92 76.364 25 6 19 0
114 A Minnehaha Academy 0.124 95 77.542 25 4 21 0



M(5) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
65 AA Bloom. Jefferson 9.390 41 48.280 25 8 15 2
67 AA Andover 8.422 11 34.560 26 6 19 1
79 AA Champlin Park 4.445 21 38.500 24 4 19 1
80 AA Park of Cottage Grove 4.256 15 35.115 26 3 22 1
84 AA Rosemount 2.946 63 59.462 26 7 16 3
86 A Orono 2.408 93 76.538 26 10 14 2
94 AA Rogers 1.548 79 69.038 26 8 18 0
103 AA Bloom. Kennedy 0.450 77 67.692 26 4 21 1
A Holy Family/Waconia


N(6) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
64 AA North Wright County River Hawks 9.450 87 73.269 26 15 9 2
70 AA St. Cld. Icebreakers 6.858 76 66.962 26 13 13 0
82 A Fergus Falls 3.509 84 72.259 27 12 14 1
89 A Detroit Lakes 2.277 100 79.083 25 11 11 3
108 A Morris/Benson/Hancock 0.230 115 97.727 22 8 11 3
110 A Long Prairie-Grey Eagle/Wadena-Deer Cr 0.189 117 103.450 22 8 11 3
116 A Little Falls 0.074 112 87.923 26 3 23 0


N(7) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
58 AA Chisago Lakes/Pine City 13.141 31 43.385 26 9 15 2
73 AA St. Francis/North Branch 5.851 44 49.800 26 8 17 1
95 A Eveleth 1.337 110 85.667 27 13 13 1
96 A International Falls 1.043 98 78.375 26 9 17 0
97 A Moose Lake 1.008 106 81.600 26 11 13 2
113 A East Range Lady Knights 0.154 116 100.000 19 4 13 2
115 A Princeton 0.076 107 82.261 23 2 21 0


N(8) A
RK CL TEAM RATING RK RATING GP W L T
66 AA Brainerd 8.618 74 66.423 26 14 12 0
77 AA River Lakes Stars 4.863 82 69.538 26 11 13 2
91 A East Grand Forks 1.923 83 71.167 27 10 16 1
92 A Thief River Falls 1.727 73 65.087 23 7 16 0
98 A Lake of the Woods 0.951 91 75.238 26 9 17 0
101 AA Sartell/Sauk Rapids Stormn Sabres 0.493 90 74.577 26 5 21 0
117 A Park Rapids 0.057 108 82.818 22 1 20 1

This looks to me as a set up to make sure the tournament is only metro schools.

ghshockeyfan wrote:I think there is a way to create a hybrid between regions (as the NCAA does) and sections (as MSHSL does) while using seeding.

If the MSHSL were to ever determine that achieving balance amongst the sections should be their principle objective in leading up to the State Tournament, then I think your idea is worthy of future consideration. But realistically, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

First, it's too much of a radical departure from the way things have been done in the past, and with the MSHSL tradition seems to matter a lot.

Then others would object to the loss of section rivalries, especially in the Metro area. The sections would totally change every single year.

Others would object to the use of rankings as the method of determining section pairings, however impartial (computer based) the rankings may be - even though in college they've been using a computer based method (Pairwise) for years.

And then you have the question of why even bother to have a tournament for the teams that aren't good enough to make the main tournament. If you should happen to win it, what does it really mean? That you're the 65th best team in the State? I can see where it would be hard for the schools that make the second-tier event to get excited and rally around their teams.

I'm remember boys Tier 1 and 2. You had a premier tournament made up of really good big schools, and a weak sister tourney made up of many mediocre to bad big schools. Look at what size school are ranked between 65 and 73 on GHS deal. Impose Tier 1 and 2 and I guarantee you will get (primarily) two tournaments for big schools and the privates - the losers will be the small school publics.

Also - do we want high school coaches to play cutthroat every game for KRACH ranking purposes or otherwise miss out on the tourney? Personally, I want him/her to focus on improvement, to play the back-up goalie in some games, to sometimes play the 3rd line when it counts, to play the senior that is a bubble player in some games, to play the younger kids who may need to step up next year in some games, to reward a hard-working JV kid, to mix up the lines and starters, etc.

It's all about what the goals are. Mine are well defined. The question is what these are for the MSHSL. We all fear change, but let's not hide behind the reality people. Currently we have a 2nd Tier tourney with a few top teams playing in it that should be AA. End of story.

ghshockeyfan wrote:Currently we have a 2nd Tier tourney with a few top teams playing in it that should be AA. End of story.

ghs, I agree that with the way it's currently set up (class determination based on enrollment) you could consider it to be a bit of a "2nd Tier" tourney, in that the small schools will not normally be as good as the big schools. But the A Tournament does feature most of the best of the small schools, based on an objective criteria (school size), and this does create more excitement I think because you still get some high quality teams in there to watch. The Class A boys tournament is going on right now, and St. Thomas, Hermantown, Little Falls and Duluth Marshall, etc. are all very good teams with excellent records. In girls this year you had Alexandria, Austin, Breck and obviously Blake all having excellent records, and this created interest and buzz beyond just the players and parents involved. All of the teams could feel proud for having gotten there - they were the best of all the schools of similar size.

If one team gets to the point where they dominate Class A year after year, then maybe something would have to be done to "force" them up to AA, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

MNHockeyFan wrote:In girls this year you had Alexandria, Austin, Breck and obviously Blake all having excellent records, and this created interest and buzz beyond just the players and parents involved. All of the teams could feel proud for having gotten there - they were the best of all the schools of similar size.

I do agree with GHS on the concept, and really like the idea, but have to say MNH may be right too. If you look at the teams listed hear by MNH, how many would have never made it to state? Maybe none of them would have? So what is better, seeing THE BEST, all in one tourney, or seeing most of the best in one, and maybe the next tier down in another? You wouldn't have that with the 64 team concept.

I don't believe that A privates = A publics. The notion of school size dictating potential for success is moot if you lump the two together.

Now, not all private school A teams belong in AA either. And, we no longer appear to have issues with A teams dominated by OE's. Similarly though, there are some building AA programs that would belong more in an A level setup. And, we still have an issue with too many of the top AA teams being in a select couple sections...

The question becomes what, if anything, should be done to address all of this. If something should be done, it would be what I posted before. If not worried about any of this, then carry on as is...

ghshockeyfan wrote:I don't believe that A privates = A publics. The notion of school size dictating potential for success is moot if you lump the two together.

ghs, but until there is a sustained dynasty of an A private school, one that attracts the top talent year after year, why shouldn't they be allowed to play against schools of similar enrollment. They certainly don't have the benefit of their own youth feeder programs to rely on year after year, so you've got to think any small private school would have difficulty maintaining any superiority their were able to achieve over long stretches of time. Yet if that were to happen, I'm sure the coaches could apply some pressure for them to move to AA.

This is exactly my point of wanting current year results to dictate team placement in the higher level (we'll say "AA" for now) tourney.

I don't think it's fair to force an A school to move up for 4 years. Maybe 2, but 4 is crazy. Better yet would be a year-to-year evaluation.

Privates may not have the "luxury" of a feeder, but also have the "luxury" of taking from everyone else's feeder. That's the difference I believe. Yes, some are better at attracting disproportionate amounts of high talent. Those are the teams that I think belong out of A. This is where the correlation breaks down between school size and which groups they shoudl be playing/competitive with.

I'm not anti-private but I am pro-"spirit" of the class A setup. (when we have no other choice (i.e. tiers...))

rumor on the street is BSM wants to go back to A as soon as they can

notahockeyguy wrote:rumor on the street is BSM wants to go back to A as soon as they can

I would'nt dout it!!!!!! What ever it takes!!!