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
Section Seeding
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
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.
-
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
Re: Section seeding
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.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.
-
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
Re: Section seeding
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.MNHockeyFan wrote: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.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.
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?