| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you prefer coaches voting or using the QRF? |
| Coaches voting |
|
87% |
[ 14 ] |
| QRF |
|
12% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
HShockeywatcher
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 6154
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:05 pm Post subject: Section Seeding |
 |
|
Does anyone know which sections are using the QRF for section seeding and which are still having coaches vote? The site doesn't have info (yet) like it did for football and I asked a couple people who don't know, just curious if anyone knows yet.
Also, there was talk that the formula has changed quite a bit; it used to not have anything to do with who you played, simply what class they were in. If that weren't changed, some could have a huge unfair advantage. Any info on what goes into it?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blueblood
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1554
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject: Section seeding |
|
|
| IMO, QRF would work well if all teams in the section were able to play each other at least once, which is not the case in section 2AA or 6AA for instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNHockeyFan
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 4058
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Section seeding |
|
|
| blueblood wrote: | | IMO, QRF would work well if all teams in the section were able to play each other at least once, which is not the case in section 2AA or 6AA for instance. |
You could also argue that it works best if all teams in the section don't face each other at least once. One of QRF's strengths is measuring the relative difficulty/ease of each team's wins and weighing those against the strength of the teams they lost to. If they all played the same schedule (common opponents) you wouldn't need a computer to help sort it all out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HShockeywatcher
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 6154
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: Section seeding |
|
|
| MNHockeyFan wrote: | | blueblood wrote: | | IMO, QRF would work well if all teams in the section were able to play each other at least once, which is not the case in section 2AA or 6AA for instance. |
You could also argue that it works best if all teams in the section don't face each other at least once. One of QRF's strengths is measuring the relative difficulty/ease of each team's wins and weighing those against the strength of the teams they lost to. If they all played the same schedule (common opponents) you wouldn't need a computer to help sort it all out. |
With the QRF system, you are correct. It also easily helps fix "issues" like there were in 7A last year (imo) with some circles that could've been argued many different ways.
On the other hand, one could also argue that the use of so many games outside of the section could positively or negatively influence a team's seeding. You could play each other team once, win against all of them by a close margin, then have a bad non-section record and end of with a worse seed.
Based on QRF, Minneapolis would've been the #6 seed last year instead of #8. From what I've seen, it's a system that rewards winning quite a bit.
Section 3A would've been different in the top 4 as well.
Maple Grove and Blaine would've been switch last night, which isn't "fair".
Beyond that, I don't see anything "wrong" with it. And it's consistent with no politics.
Do you, or anyone, know about exactly what goes into it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
