HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

High School Girls AA - Nov. 11, 2015
1 HILL-MURRAY (9)
2 Minnetonka (1)
3 Edina
4 Wayzata
5 Eden Prairie
6 Maple Grove
7 Lakeville North
8 Lakeville South
9 Blaine
10 Cretin-Derham Hall
11 Elk River/Zimmerman
12 Roseau
13 Buffalo
14 Dodge County
15 Chaska/Chanhassen
16 Centennial
17 Mounds View
18 Stillwater Area
19 Hopkins
20 White Bear Lake

High School Girls A - Nov. 11, 2015
1 BLAKE (5)
2 Breck (2)
3 Thief River Falls (2)
4 St. Paul United
5 Warroad (1)
6 East Grand Forks
7 Orono
8 Proctor/Hermantown
9 Red Wing
10 New Prague
11 South St. Paul
12 Alexandria
13 Mound Westonka
14 Hibbing/Chisholm
15 Hutchinson
16 Mahtomedi
17 New Ulm
18 Northfield
19 Moose Lake Area
20 Princeton

MNHockeyFan wrote:High School Girls AA - Nov. 11, 2015
1 HILL-MURRAY (9)
2 Minnetonka (1)
3 Edina
4 Wayzata
5 Eden Prairie
6 Maple Grove
7 Lakeville North
8 Lakeville South
9 Blaine
10 Cretin-Derham Hall
11 Elk River/Zimmerman
12 Roseau
13 Buffalo
14 Dodge County
15 Chaska/Chanhassen
16 Centennial
17 Mounds View
18 Stillwater Area
19 Hopkins
20 White Bear Lake

High School Girls A - Nov. 11, 2015
1 BLAKE (5)
2 Breck (2)
3 Thief River Falls (2)
4 St. Paul United
5 Warroad (1)
6 East Grand Forks
7 Orono
8 Proctor/Hermantown
9 Red Wing
10 New Prague
11 South St. Paul
12 Alexandria
13 Mound Westonka
14 Hibbing/Chisholm
15 Hutchinson
16 Mahtomedi
17 New Ulm
18 Northfield
19 Moose Lake Area
20 Princeton

Now that we have a small sample of information, having Blake #1 right now over Breck looks a bit silly. Maybe the voting was done before last night.

"Now that we have a small sample of information, having Blake #1 right now over Breck looks a bit silly. Maybe the voting was done before last night."

Meaning Breck should be a clear #1?

Breck has to beat some better teams (including Blake, who they have lost to how many times in a row) to override a Blake record which only includes a loss to HM. I agree, I think this might be Breck's year, but calling this ranking "silly" is just silly. Not that LPH's opinion really matters, at least until MAYBE January.

Blake lost a 2-goal game to the #1 ranked and defending AA state champs, and Breck has one win against a team that posted a 9-14 record last year. I don't think a statistician would call that a sample, not even with the modifier 'small' in front.

Breck can only play who they're scheduled against and they beat that team. As of now they're undefeated and Blake is not. As of today Breck is better than Blake, and if we claim they're not based on evidence other than record, then exactly why do we bother playing the games?

(and I forgot Blake beat CDH while making this argument. apologies)

I have no dog in this fight, but I do not care for polls and rankings that rely on anything other than current results. Call it the Alabama/Notre Dame/USC football effect, where the team's name gets it a preseason top 5 ranking.

Yes, I believe a statistician would call a sample size of 1 oxymoronic at best.

massalsa wrote:"Now that we have a small sample of information, having Blake #1 right now over Breck looks a bit silly. Maybe the voting was done before last night."

Meaning Breck should be a clear #1?

No, not at all. I don't know if Breck should be a clear #1. All I know is that if results mean anything, Blake should NOT be #1.

Dude, this poll barely means anything in February. Even less now. Should we talk about why TRF is 3 when they only played 1 game against DL? Or that Warroad is in the top 10 without playing a game yet?

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Dude, this poll barely means anything in February. Even less now. Should we talk about why TRF is 3 when they only played 1 game against DL? Or that Warroad is in the top 10 without playing a game yet?

I do wish polls accurately reflected the state of results at the time the poll is taken. That's all I'm saying. I think it would be pretty fun to say, to take the current example, "Blake dropped to #26 after going 1-1 in their first week of play." It would make the polls more worthy of observation.

If Alabama was not moved down from #2 after losing to Ole Miss this past September, what would be the point of the poll? That's my argument.

jg2112 wrote:

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Dude, this poll barely means anything in February. Even less now. Should we talk about why TRF is 3 when they only played 1 game against DL? Or that Warroad is in the top 10 without playing a game yet?

I do wish polls accurately reflected the state of results at the time the poll is taken. That's all I'm saying. I think it would be pretty fun to say, to take the current example, "Blake dropped to #26 after going 1-1 in their first week of play." It would make the polls more worthy of observation.

If Alabama was not moved down from #2 after losing to Ole Miss this past September, what would be the point of the poll? That's my argument.

You keep using the word poll, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thanks for the TPB reference, Inigo. Well spoken, sir.

Alright jg. Give us your top 20 today - where some teams have 2, most have 1, and a few have 0 games on record at this moment in time

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Alright jg. Give us your top 20 today - where some teams have 2, most have 1, and a few have 0 games on record at this moment in time

That's the point.

I don't have a top 20.

At this point, all I know is who should not be at the top of the rankings, or else games have no meaning.

This sigh is the sound of me giving up.

Do you know what actually has no meaning?

Rankings 2 weeks in to the season.

jg2112 wrote:

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Dude, this poll barely means anything in February. Even less now. Should we talk about why TRF is 3 when they only played 1 game against DL? Or that Warroad is in the top 10 without playing a game yet?

I do wish polls accurately reflected the state of results at the time the poll is taken. That's all I'm saying. I think it would be pretty fun to say, to take the current example, "Blake dropped to #26 after going 1-1 in their first week of play." It would make the polls more worthy of observation.

If Alabama was not moved down from #2 after losing to Ole Miss this past September, what would be the point of the poll? That's my argument.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34395

This will reflect the current results - and only ever reflects the current results.

It is not a poll, but instead a computer ranking based on only the results.

For better viewing, go to:

http://www.mghca.com/page/show/427504-krach-rankings

rwb1351 wrote:Do you know what actually has no meaning?

Rankings 2 weeks in to the season.

This is true. Human, computer, or otherwise.

But, this early in the year, I'll take a human poll (e.g. LPH) over a computer (e.g. KRACH) any day. Even though those humans are biased - they have more information to go on as too few scores exist to get something reasonable determined with a computer.

First, demanding the polls adjust after Blake losing to an incredible HM team is not jus silly it a little embarassing. Tonka beat Prior Lake and looked like a team that would struggle to win games all year. Tonka beat Roseau and looked like a fast well oiled machine. They are neither and somewhere in between. Austin is ranked ahead of EP so lets just pack a lunch, sit in our dear stand a little longer and wait for the real big bucks to come out and show themselves.

36Guy wrote:First, demanding the polls adjust after Blake losing to an incredible HM team is not jus silly it a little embarassing. Tonka beat Prior Lake and looked like a team that would struggle to win games all year. Tonka beat Roseau and looked like a fast well oiled machine. They are neither and somewhere in between. Austin is ranked ahead of EP so lets just pack a lunch, sit in our dear stand a little longer and wait for the real big bucks to come out and show themselves.

Agreed, it's far too early - let's talk in late Dec/early Jan at the earliest.

I think some of this is driven by our assumption now that everything should be refreshed in real-time or on-demand.

Patience, grasshoppers. As the flower reveals its bloom only when fully ready so, too, will the top teams reveal their true nature.

High School Girls AA - Nov. 18, 2015
1 HILL-MURRAY (8)
2 Minnetonka (2)
3 Edina
4 Wayzata
5 Eden Prairie
6 Blaine
7 Maple Grove
8 Lakeville South
9 Elk River/Zimmerman
10 Cretin-Derham Hall
11 Lakeville North
12 Roseau
13 Chaska/Chanhassen
14 Dodge County
15 Buffalo
16 Centennial
17 Mounds View
18 Stillwater Area
19 White Bear Lake
20 Spring Lake Park/Coon Rapids

High School Girls A - Nov. 18, 2015
1 BLAKE (8)
2 Breck (1)
3 Thief River Falls (1)
4 St. Paul United
5 Warroad
6 East Grand Forks
7 Proctor/Hermantown
8 Orono
9 Red Wing
10 New Prague
11 Alexandria
12 South St. Paul
13 Mound Westonka
14 Hutchinson
15 Hibbing/Chisholm
16 New Ulm
17 Mahtomedi
18 Northfield
19 Princeton
20 Moose Lake Area

Pre-season rankings are fun.
Rankings after 2 weeks are fun.
Rankings after 2 months will be fun.
No ranking will earn any player a bar for her letter jacket.

It isn't harmful to poll coaches, or writers, or fans - it's fun.
It's a forum; it's a way to brag up your own kids or give other posters grief about their teams.
On a forum you can talk about which 12 year olds are the best, instead of 'let's wait until they're 16 or 17'.

InigoMontoya wrote:Pre-season rankings are fun.
Rankings after 2 weeks are fun.
Rankings after 2 months will be fun.
No ranking will earn any player a bar for her letter jacket.

It isn't harmful to poll coaches, or writers, or fans - it's fun.
It's a forum; it's a way to brag up your own kids or give other posters grief about their teams.
On a forum you can talk about which 12 year olds are the best, instead of 'let's wait until they're 16 or 17'.

Mr. Montoya, I would have to agree with you! Harmless things like rankings are why juvenile adults like myself type about rankings of teams I have never seen play during the work day.

I was not very specific in my post mainly because I don't type as fast as NTMH. I was mainly trying to make a point that a #1 class A team losing to a #1 AA team does not warrant an automatic fall in the rankings. And second, determining the who the top team in the state is after one game is a bit silly.

Wow...that was fun, somewhat like a cool shower after a good soak in the tub, thanks for the tip!!

I did find in a little disappointing though that someone would type a whole paragraph on how fun doing rankings is and then not rank any teams. Kinda like seeing your favorite band in concert and they don't play your favorite song...oh well

Is St Paul United an A team based on free and reduced, or did they petition down? In any case, it's exciting that they don't play Blake or Breck until January. Will be interesting to see if they'll leap frog any undefeated teams along the way. Pretty good start.