Strength of Schedule

[wisconsinprephockey]

I dont know how strength of schedule is figured out and I don't care. Not what I want people to talk about in this one.

The question I am wondering is
A. What do you respect more in a teams schedule?
B. What do you think should be the biggest factor in determining strength of schedule?

The two options I have in mind are:

Choice 1
A team who plays, say 5 or 6 games against ELITE teams and the rest of their games are against weaker teams

or

Choice 2
A team who really doesnt play but 1 maybe 2 games against ELITE teams, plays very few against weak teams, and the rest of their schedule is filled with very strong(but not elite) teams

which is more respectable and which in your opinion is tougher

[mnwild18]

I think the second one is tougher. You can never have an off night.

[gopherhockey33]

i agree.

[eyeinthesky]

your choice of elite and strong teams makes no sense, and richfield is not a weak team, and NSP is not this bad every year, they won the conferance 3 years ago

[NumberCruncher]

Based on the teams you mentioned I feel that Choice #2 is the clear favorite

But even if you did not give examples, I feel that Choice #2 can give you a better grip on how good a team is. With Choice #1, the team gets a few tests after easy stretches and maybe will have a good game against an elite team and it could throw many things out of whack, which leads to some extreme overrated/underrated debates. Choice #2 involves a lot more consistency and to escape with a good record there solidifies the label of a "good team".

[Can't Never Tried]

Well I'm not sure why you would do #1 i think if that happens it has a lot to do with your forced Conf. games, so It may look like you like you chose to play weaker teams but didn't have choice.

I say # 2 is probably the better choice, but again depending on your Conf. and how many teams are in it, aren't you a bit limited.

Playing a tougher schedule well like +.500 , will always gain you more respect.
IMO

[HShockeywatcher]

Obviously choice 2 would be best, which is why a lake conference schedule is usually really strong (every year but this one).

That being said, a team doesn't really get to pick its conference just for one sport. Not to change the topic to what it shouldn't be, but Holy Angels would love if their conference opponents were better. They're getting there, but they have no control over that.

As Hill Murray and many others do not.

[STC18]

Totally agree with mnwild, choice 2 you gotta be a team that is very consistent and plays well all of the time to have a good record.

[wisconsinprephockey]

your choice of elite and strong teams makes no sense, and richfield is not a weak team, and NSP is not this bad every year, they won the conferance 3 years ago

Not here to argue who was good three years ago...dont care.
Just used them as an example so people could get a clear picture i was getting at (based on this years performance.

Dont read too much into it.

[NumberCruncher]

I think it would have been a lot better if specific teams were not included

[wisconsinprephockey]

I think it would have been a lot better if specific teams were not included

My bad, just wanted to paint a picture for everyone, thought it may be confusing otherwise

[wisconsinprephockey]

Well said everyone, gotta say I cant disagree.

However just for the sake of discussion; while you can prove yourself to be a "good team" as number cruncher said (in choice #2), does the fact that you aren't playing any elite teams make it hard to establish yourself as an elite team?

Choice #2 involves a lot more consistency and to escape with a good record there solidifies the label of a "good team".

With option 1, even tho you are playing a lot of weaker teams if you win all or even most of your games against elite teams you can establish yourself as elite. I can see where the over/underrated argument can come in there as numbercruncher also stated, but if you win all or the vast majority of those games against the elite teams won't that pretty much erase any doubt?

What do y'all think?

[FormerBlaineBengal01]

Choice #2 might be a lot like playing in the NWSC. Every night either team could win it, you have the cream of the crop near the top but that does not in anyway mean any one of the teams on the bottom can't come in and smack them in the mouth and take the "W" away from them...

[Slapshot*67]

If it is a Truely elite team. There really wouldnt be a conferance that would match up. As stated in an earlier post if the elite team where to play 5 to 6 elite teams during the season. that would be in my opinion a better gage of power. There have been a few teams in the resent past that have played in what I think are tough conf. And really walked away with the title and dominated the otherwise stronger teams. But when those teams matched up with other elite teams and beat them as well you and I all knew they where truly the best.

[MNGPSNUT]

The team that best fits the no 1 choise is Wayzata. They played an unbelievable non-conf schedule, and had to play in a semi tough Conf in the Classic Lake. having Edina, and Minnetonka twice each during the last part of your schedule is not easy, but it does prep you for the sections very well. Their record may not be great, but if you looked at whom they played it is tough not to give them a fair shake. Getting a 5 seed in 4AA is not bad considering how they faired vs other 4AA teams. I think Davis has done a great job in scheduling those elite teams for his troops. I really think that it shows and deserves great respect. They don't back away from the top teams, like some teams do. Being in the 5 team Classic Lake Conf enables them to schedule other top teams.

PS: I'm not a Wayzata fan, but the way they run the program is very nicely done.