HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I can't help but grimace when I see the competitive imbalance of the 1/8 games. (In some sections, 1/9 because of the play-in.)

Six games have been played and the average score has been 11-1. I doubt Centennial drumming Irondale and Hill-Murray squashing North St. Paul are going to change that number much.

Rather than have the bracket unfold this way...

1
8

4
5

2
7

3
6

...why not do this?

..........1
.....4
5
8

..........2
.....3
6
7

This way the 7 and 8 seeded teams are given a chance to start sectionals with a game they could actually win, the best teams are given a bye, and you don't in any significant way alter the likelihood of teams making it to St. Paul.

I don't see the point of sending the Christians to the lions in the 21st Century. These games are ugly.

I like your thinking O-Town but isn't the issue that everyone wants to see the top seeds earn their way through the section?

In effect, the current structure supports the notion that David can beat Goliath although it actually doesn't happen very often.

I thought the whole point of playoffs was to determine the best team, not give teams a chance to play an extra game or two. Who cares if they're getting spanked in round one or round two? If they're going to take it on the chin, may as well get it over with rather than prolonging the inevitable or creating false hope.

On the flip side, if a #8 is going to make it all the way through, they're going to have to get a #1 at some point anyway - beating #5 before you get them isn't really going to give you much anyway. Just get after it.

The playoffs are fine the way they are. I don't see the scenario in which a staggered bracket has any effect other than to cause confusion among the casual fans who only pick up on high school hockey once a year for the tournaments.

who_b_dat wrote:I like your thinking O-Town but isn't the issue that everyone wants to see the top seeds earn their way through the section?

So Edina beating Kennedy 13-3 before facing Holy Angels is different than them just playing Holy Angels?

Lakeville S 12-0 over Dodge. Minnetonka 14-1 over Cooper. Roseau 13-0 over River Lakes. I fail to see how anyone is earning anything.

NBA or NHL playoffs with 1/8 make sense because the difference in talent is small. High School hockey? Difference is great. These results at least indicate as much.

Govs93 wrote:The playoffs are fine the way they are.

Feb. 23 - Johnson vs. Roseville

2:00 Sat @ Aldrich might be such a game. U gonna be there Govs?

what do they say about minds that think alike?

O-townClown wrote:

Govs93 wrote:The playoffs are fine the way they are.

Feb. 23 - Johnson vs. Roseville

And yet I still say that your idea is bogus.... What's that tell ya?


Yes, I'll be at Aldrich tomorrow.

Govs93 wrote:I thought the whole point of playoffs was to determine the best team, not give teams a chance to play an extra game or two. Who cares if they're getting spanked in round one or round two? If they're going to take it on the chin, may as well get it over with rather than prolonging the inevitable or creating false hope.

On the flip side, if a #8 is going to make it all the way through, they're going to have to get a #1 at some point anyway - beating #5 before you get them isn't really going to give you much anyway. Just get after it.

The playoffs are fine the way they are. I don't see the scenario in which a staggered bracket has any effect other than to cause confusion among the casual fans who only pick up on high school hockey once a year for the tournaments.

according to the mouth....they should all be scheduling these games anyway

For Class A:

1 vs. 8 or 9

61-7 for an average of 7 1/2 to 1

2 vs. 7 or 10

57-12 for an average of 7 to 1 1/2


Govs, there are no more games. The question is who plays them. "Getting it over with"? It wouldn't prolong the playoffs. Top seeded teams (like just #1 or perhaps #1 and #2 in each section) would skip the massacre and the lower seeded teams in the section would fight it out in meaningful games. Meaningful, competitive games.

There is nothing unfair about rewarding the top seeds with a bye. They have a de facto bye as it is. I fail to see the good in mandating non-competitive games. It shouldn't be necessary to humiliate someone en route to St. Paul.

O-townClown wrote:
..........1
.....4
5
8

..........2
.....3
6
7

The way I understand your "idea" (which is exactly my point about it being confusing), the #1 & #2 seeds would wait two games before they play, correct? The 5/8 winner would then play 4, then that winner plays 1? Is that what I'm seeing? Or are we claiming that the 5/8 game is a "play-in" and thereby justifying the #1 and #2 not playing the following game as their only "bye"? That's essentially two byes and the #1 & #2 are given an automatic berth in the section semis so they only have to play 2 games to get to the state tournament when the #5 & #6 would have to play 4. That's a better idea?

You can average out whatever you want, but I was in Anoka on Tuesday when a #7 only lost by 1 and was within 5 minutes of taking the #2 to the brink. Step into the arena when that happens and you'll know why they play those games. Granted, it doesn't happen all that often, but as you well know, when it does, they're great stories and generate a different energy than you typically get.

Giving the 1 and 2 seed multiple byes would create an uproar of unfairness worse than what the proposal is trying to address. The current system gives a great amount of weight to the regular season record while still not forclosing others from knocking the tops teams off. I can already hear the clamor if the structure was changed to give the regular season so much weight that the top teams received multiple byes.

I know.... play better in the regular season. A team that goes 0-25 doesn't deserve a "run" in the playoffs.

Lopresti wrote:I know.... play better in the regular season. A team that goes 0-25 doesn't deserve a "run" in the playoffs.

I was thinking the same thing. I think a better system would be where section teams play each other twice during the season and only the top four teams make the playoffs.

Do away with conferences and make the sections more important. A 14 to 16 game sectional season would leave room for 10 more non-sectional games. Not much different than the current conference schedules.

The sectional record would be the determining factor for seeding teams and the top four teams are in and the rest are waiting until next season. There doesn't need to be this all inclusiveness in high school because you are worried about giving everyone a chance. High school sports should be a reflection of what happens in real life. If you aren't good enough, you don't get the chance.

Interesting thought, but, this year anyway, seeding works. This year, as of Saturday morning 2/23, there has only been one upset from the quarters to the semis.

The other issue for your plan is time required. This would seem to add at least one, likely two, extra games to the playoff schedule. You know the state tourney is not going to change dates. That just means that playoffs would start at least one week earlier. Aren't we getting into playoffs soon enough?

I think that altering the current system in the manner advocated by O-Town is unnecessary and would create more problems than it would solve (presuming that there is actually a problem needing a solution).

For one, the seeding of sections would take on a level of added importance that would probably soon require an "official" state-wide ranking system and some sort of league involvement. I don't see how this could be good.

For another, getting to the tournament should require proving yourself in the spring by getting past 3-4 opponents, and having to win only one game to get to state strikes me as being a bad idea. It has been noted here that many of these are "byes" anyway. While this may be true, some of those "byes" are pretty intense and occasionally lead to legendary "David vs. Goliath" upsets.

The state tournament is still the best thing going. No need to screw around with it any further. Well intentioned tinkering doesn't always help.

I think the way break the teams into classes is the problem, not the seeding process. Most years the #7, #8 and #9 teams are a bunch of co-op schools who are punished just for fielding a team; Dodge Cty, Irondale, the Minneapolis and St. Paul city schools, Becker, River lakes, etc. Throw out the 2 sections that don't have any co-ops and 13 of the 18 7-9 seeds are co-ops.

Replace these teams with the private schools from big cities whom represent 5 of the 8 #1 seeds in A hockey and you'll have better first round section games.

That way the lower teams will have a chance at competing for a tournament.

Right now they don't have a prayer at beating the big boys in either tier.

Football has multiple tiers and no one complains about it there.

Of course, I speak as a long suffering Minnehaha parent, so I'm biased.

PuxRinmyblood wrote:I think that altering the current system in the manner advocated by O-Town is unnecessary and would create more problems than it would solve (presuming that there is actually a problem needing a solution).

For one, the seeding of sections would take on a level of added importance that would probably soon require an "official" state-wide ranking system and some sort of league involvement. I don't see how this could be good.

For another, getting to the tournament should require proving yourself in the spring by getting past 3-4 opponents, and having to win only one game to get to state strikes me as being a bad idea. It has been noted here that many of these are "byes" anyway. While this may be true, some of those "byes" are pretty intense and occasionally lead to legendary "David vs. Goliath" upsets.

The state tournament is still the best thing going. No need to screw around with it any further. Well intentioned tinkering doesn't always help.

Pux, you've misread things and reach erroneous conclusions.

1- They seed now. Nothing changes as far as a statewide ranking.
2- Top seeded teams still would need to win 2, not 1, games to advance to St. Paul.
3- There aren't legendary David over Goliath upsets in these 1/8 games.
4- Changing how sectionals are held does nothing to "screw around" (your word choice) with it further.

Name one way the present system is superior to having staggered sectionals and I'm all ears. The competitive imbalance is embarrassing for both sides. Hill-Murray ran it up on some hapless foe today. All I'm asking is why.

I think this would be a great idea if it got rid of anything. This way the bottom seeds play teams closer to them, but they play more games. You give the top 4 a first round bye, then you're left with 6. Then the top 2 have a second round bye. Then the teams left are in the semis. It's less ice time for the top teams and is the same number of games.

I agree blowouts are not needed, but this doesn't solve anything.

Take 7AA the last couple years for example, how do the top 2 seeds separate themselves that far from the 3 or 4 seeds? Answer: They don't.

If I was a coach, would I really want to not play? Take the chance of getting rusty or beating a team easily while still staying sharp.

While you're at it, why not just give the 7-8-9 seeds their own state tournament. Then they can feel special for winning the special olympic state tournament.

Maybe we should make a 2 tier tourney, so smaller schools can compete....oops they already made that mistake.

Seriously....I'll bet if you asked the Kennedy kids or Dodge county kids etc... I'd say they would still rather have the opportunity for 1 more chance

rather than no chance at all

And the top teams should have to risk injury or overconfidence by playing a 7-8 seed.

Hockeys a game based on mistakes and overcoming and capitalizing on them....Ain't broke..no fix

Or maybe we should turn this into something like the NCAA football bowl championship series. Have the 0-25 teams play eachother so we only have one complete loser for the season. Then we can seed each and every team in the state and they can play one game against eachother. Have all these freaking meaningless games across the state of hockey.

The sectional system is not broke, The only thing that is broke, is that we should have one winner. When we get to the championship games for AA and A. They should cross seed those 4 remaining teams 1-2 for both classes and have 1AA vs 2A and the other 2AA vs 1A and the winner of those two games, plays for the overall championship. I think THAT would be exciting to see. Then you could potentially have AA vs AA or A vs A in the championship.

Not a bad idea Cabela...

At the very least play out AA vs. A....who wouldn't go to that game!!

AA would probably win more than their share, but then again isn't Roseau an A school??

I say MSHSL make it happen charge some nice $$ and raise money so we can keep the lovely ladies playing at the X where they belong!!

Heck...buy some carboard cutouts to put in the empty seats, pipe in some of that MetroDome crowd noise and make them feel just like the Boys!!


Bottom line is I played for a small town team was a low seed and for 3 years we got into sections and got our butts kicked (I think to Hastings all 3 times) and you know what, the only negative effect it had was the nightmares from the scary bearded goons from Hastings that I swear were like 25 years old. NO OFFENSE TO HASTINGS PLAYERS PAST OR PRESENT INTENDED.....but this was many many years ago & I swear those JETHRO's were scary lookin!!!!!!!