HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

It looks like these three teams are winning some games.

Armstrong 7 Rogers 0
Armstrong 6 Mound 0
Armstrong 4 Park of Cottage Grove 1
Armstrong 3 Apple Valley 2

Breck 3 Minnetonka 1
Breck 15 Litchfield-Dassel Cokato 0
Breck 12 Hutchinson 0
Breck 8 Mound 1

Coon Rapids 4 North Metro 1
North Metro 6 Centennial 2


Does anyone have any insight into these teams?

The quality of wins isn't enough to warrant a top 20 ranking.

Boblee: Did you mean Quantity?

None of this will even out until we get at least 10 games in or so. And last year I heard a lot of the same talk about EP at the beginning of the year, "Look who they are playing." and so on, but I guess they proved them selves out.

No, I meant quality.

Just to clarify....I am not comparing Armstrong, Breck or North Metro to Eden Prairie. I'm asking, "are these previously non top 20 teams deserving more attention?" I should probably have mentioned Forest Lake in that same thought.

If I was trying to identify a sleeper team who could win state that would be Cretin D-Hall.

Sorry, my fault, I was thinking you meant a quality game. I don't call a 10-0 game a quality win.

In that case, yes these teams probably are top 20, but all those wins by large margins mean nothing, and the kids getting large stats because of this also mean nothing, yet they are on all the leader boards.

Clueless: Don't forget, out of those teams, Breck is class A.

Computer Rankings would likely show that the QUANTITY of games in general is not enough to make a top 20 case for anyone at this point.

Similarly, then the QUALITY - i.e. Strength-of-Scheudle needs to be taken into account - but you can't determine that either yet as you don't have the QUANTITY.

What about Spring Lake Park? They are 4-0 with wins over Orono, Rogers, Prior Lake and St. Louis Park.

Same deal for them, I'm afraid. Although, I will say they should be a strong team, and may be in the top 20 soon. We don't know how strong the teams are that they have played yet either. I have done stats, and so on for years, and the one thing I do know, is that none of it means anything until you get at leat 10 games or more under your belt! Things seem to level out after that, and go more the way they should. I think you will start seeing teams lose that from what you've seen shouldn't, and teams that shouldn't win by recent accounts, will win. Take a look at the Grand Rapids vs Duluth game from last night, who would have though that, or even better yet, Maple Grove vs Coon Rapids.

At this time of the year what is better? 4-0 vs teams that most teams are going to beat? or being 2-2 and losing two tough games and winning a tough game or two?

Right now, there are about 120 some teams that could try to make a case for top xyz as a beat b who beat c who is ranked ahead of d, etc. Bottom line - way too soon to tell. Wait until about Jan 1 and then we'll have some real idea of what's going on. I won't even trust the computer rankings I will run this weekend - and that will only be a rough guide until mid Jan when they start to get the data they need to be legit.

Interestingly, the computer rankings have always mirrored the coaches section rankings - and when they haven't, the computer was usually right...

boblee wrote:At this time of the year what is better? 4-0 vs teams that most teams are going to beat? or being 2-2 and losing two tough games and winning a tough game or two?

A team with a 7-19 record last year that played a tough schedule was ranked top 20 LPH in A. This shows the other "considerations" much like that quoted above.