HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Thoughts?<br><br>I think so.<br><br>While Class A seems to be OK (two very top teams according to KRACH not playing in first round), we see that #2 Stillwater and #1 EP (highest ranked teams in tourney) face off right away in AA, in the same half of the bracket with #3 Cloquet...<br><br>In the other half of the bracket, KRACH #6 RV & #7 AHA (the 4th & 5th highest ranked team in tourney) face off round 1 too - another top grouping for that half of the bracket...<br><br>These are great examples I think of why this seeding needs to be considered. I know other sports are doing this on at least a trial basis, and it has been discussed (or even passed already???) for hockey too...<br><br>If seeded, AA tourney may look like this:<br><br>1)#1 EP (1) vs #27 Moorhead (8') <br>2)#6 Roseville (4) vs #8 Holy Angels (5)<br>3)#3 Cloquet (3) vs #15 Coon Rapids (6)<br>4)#2 Stillwater (2) vs #26 Mayo (7)<br><br>Instead of:<br><br>1)#15 Coon Rapids (6) vs #26 Mayo (7)<br>2)#6 Roseville (4) vs #8 Holy Angels (5)<br>3)#1 EP (1) vs #2 Stillwater (2)<br>4)#3 Cloquet (3) vs #27 Moorhead (8') <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 2/19/06 1:34 am<br></i>

Short answer, yes, I think so too. <p></p><i></i>

Don't ask someone from Rochester. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :\ --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

Minnesota is so far behind the times compared to many other states, who have all figured out that it's best to have the best two teams play for the championship and not in the quarterfinals...<br><br>Look at many other places, including neighboring states like South Dakota, and you'll find seeded state tournaments that work wonderfully! <p></p><i></i>

The MSHSL had the Girls and boys soccer tournaments seeded this year on a trial basis i believe. Maybe they will start seeding other sports now that it went well for soccer. <p></p><i></i>

According to the Krach rankings - the Class A tournament will be setup as if it was seeded.<br>#1-SSP vs #4-Alexandria<br>#2-Warroad vs. #3 New Prague <p></p><i></i>

Next year it will be...<br>1 vs 2<br>3 vs 8<br>4 vs 5<br>6 vs 7<br><br>The projected pairings can be found at<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/publications ... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

I like the way that this set up for A as it is in theory as if it were seeded.<br><br>AA had BIG isues though as what some consider as the top two teams are facing off in a 1st day QF...<br><br>I'd go for seeding on a one year trial basis starting next year and then likely adopting this permanently heading into section realignment after next year... <p></p><i></i>

Just to play devil's advocate here, there is on advantage to the current system, there are no politics and no judgemental issues. I suspect you can't even get an agreement on what rankings to use for seeding. <p></p><i></i>

In my opinion, the non-political advantage to the lack of seeding undermines the girls game far more substantially. If the desire is to create the sort of hype that the Stillwater/NSP game provided in section final, then we don't want a "championship" like game to happen in the quarterfinals. This simply isn't good for the game and non-conducive to creating the best atmosphere the last day at all finals games...<br><br>There will be some debate about how the teams are seeded, but if the idea of bias is of concern in the seeding, I can think of a number of computer models that could be employed to take this off the hands of the MSHSL. maybe an average of the availalb emodels would be acceptible, or simply a coaches voted rank. If a coach tried to sabotage the seeding, I think they would be run out of town by their peers... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 2/20/06 1:06 pm<br></i>

I am not arguing against seeding but it won't cause you to meet your goals any more iftren than the current method.<br><br>The classic 8 team seeding formula rarely leads to a 1-2 final. If you look at the sections, I believe only section 3 ended up with the 1-2 final. I see the same every year at Kaposia and Schwan as well.<br><br>The top 2 teams (in your opinion) will meet at State, just on Thursday. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 2/20/06 1:33 pm<br></i>

Right. Devils Advocate - I know. Worth making the point too I agree.<br><br>I believe that we are seeing more parity in the game, and that's what the "upsets" are a product of in sections as much as anything.<br><br>Similarly though, we should always attempt to set things up best, vs. just roll with that which has a better liklihood for something wrong happening. At least seeding gives us a chance to avoid a 1v2 QF Game.<br><br>Of course, there's still the bias concern to worry about too...<br><br>I'm not saying that I think 1v2 are playing on Thur. necissarily... But LPH, KRACH, etc., and many others may feel that way... <p></p><i></i>

I think most agree on EP 1 and SW 2 but I didn't want who is 1-2 as a part of the discussion. I actually didn't realize only 1 number 2 made it to finals. I guess BV did as well, but not against the #1.<br><br>I agree there is a lot of parity after #1 which is why I for one am glad EP and SW will meet up Thursday as I want to see who is best and now I am guaranteed I will. <p></p><i></i>

Right on sections.<br><br>I think EP is the #1 to most. Who is #2 may be more debatable, but SW may have an edge in many areas and Jones is part of that I believe.<br><br>We are guaranteed to see an EP/SW game this way, but as far as building towards a high attendance & hyped final? This is the worst thing that could happen.<br><br>But - as we say - even if these are #1 & #2 to all there is still no guarantee that if we put them on opposite sides of the bracket and make their road the easiest that they will even make it there - that's why the games are played obviously!<br><br>Agreed that who is #1 & 2 isn't really the point of this discussion, it's instead how we seed or don't seed... I was using the specific teams for illustration of a point I guess... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 2/20/06 2:12 pm<br></i>

Best final I ever saw was NSP and ER after EP upset SSP. Second best was Jefferson vs Blaine, I think that was a 1-2 final but Blaine had the tougher raod to finals.<br>I think big school turnout is the bigger factor than the rank of who is playing, there are only so many parents and reqular girls HS hockey fans. <p></p><i></i>

I would tend to think that for the same reasons we seed sections it would make sense to seed the state tournament. If not, why do we seed sections? why not make them random as well? Let me state that there is no perfect system and the seeding will not always be unanimous but it still makes sense to get it as close as possible. Every college national tournament that i can think of is seeded. They dont put teams in their national tournaments randomly. <p></p><i></i>

If the seeding is based on a system like Krach or some equivalent, free from politics and judgemet I would agree that seeding just plain make sense and is the fair thing to do, I am just trying to point out it may not prove the results you think it will.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Agreed, but it has a higher liklihood of producing correct results than a random alignment I believe. <p></p><i></i>

So what is the goal? If you want 1 vs 2 do you think it would work better if 1-3 and 2-4 was used in semis? <br>The traditional seeding alignment was developed to make it as easy as possible for 1 to win, not to get a 1-2 matchup. <p></p><i></i>

I hear you.<br><br>The goal is 1v2 in final, 3v4 in 3rd, 5v6 in consolation, 7&8 2 & out. this would theoritically produce the best finals, but like you said no guarantee of attendance boost as we can only speculate the attendance generated by schools from any potential geographic locale and their respective fan following...<br><br>I do believe though that you'd get far more metro fans out to watch a good final than one that already occured in QF... <p></p><i></i>

I think the best games of the year are the section finals. I think the game to get to State produces the best competion, once you get there it's all gravy. What I wish is that they held the section finals for the Metro sections in one rink last Saturday. <p></p><i></i>

I agree. Would be great. <p></p><i></i>

xk, <br><br>I like the idea of hosting the section finals all on the same day, same rink, what a great day of hockey that would be.<br><br>I agree that the state tourney should be seeded, the problem is the last time this was brought to the coaches assoc, it was overwhelmingly voted down. It received very little support. I think most coaches like the idea of a seeded tourney, but the problem is no one wants to be responsible for the actual seeding. There are so many things for the coaches/teams to do from the time they win the section champ, until they leave for the tourney, that trying to get those coaches together to seed would be next to impossible. Especially considering the distance that they need to travel.<br><br>I think there is a way to do it, it would take some creativity, and persuading some people that change is good. <p></p><i></i>

JJ -<br><br>I didn't know that this was voted down! Shows that I need to be @ more meetings I guess...<br><br>Oh well.<br><br>You can seed via fax/email though. No need to do so in person. Many sections do it this way I hear.<br><br>This aside, I can see how maybe it's more about not wanting the additional responsibility/headache.<br><br>I've never been through the rigors of the week between sections and state, so easy for me to sit back and make these sorts of suggestions!!! I've heard that this week can be absolutely overwhelming!!!<br><br>I'm off to watch my 12A's play in the first round of playoffs. Should be fun! <p></p><i></i>

EASY OBVIOUS ANSWER YESS <p></p><i></i>