Since this is October, who are the teams most likely to make it to state this year who have never been there? And please include your reasoning.
Maybe these lists should be by section.
Who will make Tourney for 1st time?
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
GivinYaTheBusiness
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:16 pm
- Location: Iron Range
Re:
GRG Lightning...
First Timers
Possibles for AA
1 - Nobody new
2 - Hill Murray, Sibley, Blades
3 - Nobody new
4 - Maple Grove, is this where the North Stars ended up?
5 - Nobody new
6 - Edina
7 - Forest Lake, GRG
8 - Has Bemidji been there yet?
1 - Nobody new
2 - Hill Murray, Sibley, Blades
3 - Nobody new
4 - Maple Grove, is this where the North Stars ended up?
5 - Nobody new
6 - Edina
7 - Forest Lake, GRG
8 - Has Bemidji been there yet?
-
GivinYaTheBusiness
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:16 pm
- Location: Iron Range
Re:
I like the Lightning's shots this year. Cloquet lost a big player in Maunu, still return a lot. But it was close last year.
They've got a huge returning line with Newton, Arola, Erickson.
Plus, they've got Erickson...
They've got a huge returning line with Newton, Arola, Erickson.
Plus, they've got Erickson...
-
SEhockeyDAD
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:50 am
first time
C'mon, everyone's missing the easy one. Section 3A; probably New Ulm?
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
For the first time we see an 8-team Class A tourney. Some will knock this as a "weak" tourney, but those that do don't get the point of the HS Classes.
Class A is NOT about putting a tourney on the ice that will rival AA. Once we've established that fact, I think many will take a different look at Class A tourney & hockey.
There is a problem however. School size doesn't correlate directly to team quality. Meaning, while Class A is a chance for smaller/weaker teams to experience or "participate" in state, we've misinterpreted this goal for too long.
Many of the Class A teams that don't fit the true idea of a participation driven tourney have jumped to AA. I think this is wise. I wish more would do so as needed. I also think we either need to change the "4-year commitment" rule to allow this to happen yearly, or look at a new "Class" structure based on team quality vs. enrollment #'s.
The participation of community based teams in Class A hockey will help grow the sport in non-traditional hockey communities. It's not meant to be a place for recruited talent to be showcased, or traditional powerhouses to win year after year against small-school competition.
For all these reasons, I still think that the old Boys Tourney Tiers from the early 90's best accomplish the true "participation" based goal of Class A hockey.
Yes, it may not put the fans in the stands and many will bash the quality, but honestly it best accomplishes the true goal. It may have been that the idea was just too progressive at the time it was done with the boys...
If our goal is to send the best 16 teams to state, or to have two equal 8-team tourneys, then we need a sweet 16 with one class. Else, we need to reevaluate the goal of Class A...
If we want to afford opportunity to the lower-half of the teams in the state, we need to use a rating system to identify those teams by quality (top 1/2 & bottom 1/2) - or do it based on sub-.500 record. The problem with record though is that teams that play weak/strong schedules may be incorrectly placed in one tourney vs. the other (very similar to how the enrollment does this currently as it doesn't look at true team quality but instead an easily measured item). I think the KRACH ( http://www.bgoski.com/rank/Rankings.htm ) rating could easily identify the top 64 teams and use that for Class AA and then take the remaining teams and make that the A tourney. It would be an honor to make the AA group at all even for sections, there would be few blowout section games, the path to state would only allow the best teams through, and organizers could decide to seed the top 8 teams in separate sections to ensure possibility of all 8 advancing to state if they could get through the tougher Class AA play as a result of these changes... (those in section 3AA & 6AA the past few years especially could appreciate this) Similarly, there would be a legitimate opportunity for true weaker teams to compete in a meaningful Class A opportunity that would help promote the sport in non-traditional communities and also not just allow such teams to be knocked out by Class AA caliber teams. Remember - that is the goal of classes...
This, to me, makes the most sense. More work? Not so much, but I think the first thing that has to change is the flawed perception that Class A tourneys are meant to be equal to AA in quality, etc. If we played by the true intent/goal and not by the enrollment rules, we'd have a lot better chance of accomplishing the true mission of Class A tourney...
Class A is NOT about putting a tourney on the ice that will rival AA. Once we've established that fact, I think many will take a different look at Class A tourney & hockey.
There is a problem however. School size doesn't correlate directly to team quality. Meaning, while Class A is a chance for smaller/weaker teams to experience or "participate" in state, we've misinterpreted this goal for too long.
Many of the Class A teams that don't fit the true idea of a participation driven tourney have jumped to AA. I think this is wise. I wish more would do so as needed. I also think we either need to change the "4-year commitment" rule to allow this to happen yearly, or look at a new "Class" structure based on team quality vs. enrollment #'s.
The participation of community based teams in Class A hockey will help grow the sport in non-traditional hockey communities. It's not meant to be a place for recruited talent to be showcased, or traditional powerhouses to win year after year against small-school competition.
For all these reasons, I still think that the old Boys Tourney Tiers from the early 90's best accomplish the true "participation" based goal of Class A hockey.
Yes, it may not put the fans in the stands and many will bash the quality, but honestly it best accomplishes the true goal. It may have been that the idea was just too progressive at the time it was done with the boys...
If our goal is to send the best 16 teams to state, or to have two equal 8-team tourneys, then we need a sweet 16 with one class. Else, we need to reevaluate the goal of Class A...
If we want to afford opportunity to the lower-half of the teams in the state, we need to use a rating system to identify those teams by quality (top 1/2 & bottom 1/2) - or do it based on sub-.500 record. The problem with record though is that teams that play weak/strong schedules may be incorrectly placed in one tourney vs. the other (very similar to how the enrollment does this currently as it doesn't look at true team quality but instead an easily measured item). I think the KRACH ( http://www.bgoski.com/rank/Rankings.htm ) rating could easily identify the top 64 teams and use that for Class AA and then take the remaining teams and make that the A tourney. It would be an honor to make the AA group at all even for sections, there would be few blowout section games, the path to state would only allow the best teams through, and organizers could decide to seed the top 8 teams in separate sections to ensure possibility of all 8 advancing to state if they could get through the tougher Class AA play as a result of these changes... (those in section 3AA & 6AA the past few years especially could appreciate this) Similarly, there would be a legitimate opportunity for true weaker teams to compete in a meaningful Class A opportunity that would help promote the sport in non-traditional communities and also not just allow such teams to be knocked out by Class AA caliber teams. Remember - that is the goal of classes...
This, to me, makes the most sense. More work? Not so much, but I think the first thing that has to change is the flawed perception that Class A tourneys are meant to be equal to AA in quality, etc. If we played by the true intent/goal and not by the enrollment rules, we'd have a lot better chance of accomplishing the true mission of Class A tourney...
-
SEhockeyDAD
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:50 am
Single A
My perception of the A tourney is that its a true state tournament for "small" schools that reallisticallly would never expect to be able to get to that level if they had to compete with the big schools. Maybe thats my perception of what it should be, because the A state champs of late have been teams that competed well with the AA state contenders.
I understand opposing opinions about a section like 3A. I sympathize with teams who face a tough section tournament and resent that a team from 3A might not face even a top 100 team in order to play at state. However, I must admit I'm a little more in favor of the way its laid out now.
For one, SW MN girls hockey needs this. Young girls in New Ulm or Marshall, who otherwise never would have tried hockey, could be motivated to play because they watched older girls they know play in the state tournament. Without any hope of making it to state, girls hockey would totally fade away west of Mankato. Besides, I for one like the unkown underdogs presence at state. If a samll town goalie is able to steal a game at state, that becomes a terrific story, and attracts some nice attention to girls hockey. Moreso than the 10 seed beating the 7 seed.
As for those top ten teams that get beat in a loaded section, its unfortunate. Maybe its not even right. The thing is, it happens at the highest levels of sports. Just ask Twins, A's and Yankee fans how they feel about the Cardinals and Mets playing for a world series berth.
Anyway, I have to think that it would be a tough sell to change the way state tournaments are constructed. How many highly placed MSHSL officials would have to be convinced to rework things. How many sports would be affected? Do AD's have any say in the matter? Superintendants? If seeding the whole state is best for the kids, great, but I have a feeling that there would have to be a lot ducks lined up and hoops jumped through to make it happen.
I understand opposing opinions about a section like 3A. I sympathize with teams who face a tough section tournament and resent that a team from 3A might not face even a top 100 team in order to play at state. However, I must admit I'm a little more in favor of the way its laid out now.
For one, SW MN girls hockey needs this. Young girls in New Ulm or Marshall, who otherwise never would have tried hockey, could be motivated to play because they watched older girls they know play in the state tournament. Without any hope of making it to state, girls hockey would totally fade away west of Mankato. Besides, I for one like the unkown underdogs presence at state. If a samll town goalie is able to steal a game at state, that becomes a terrific story, and attracts some nice attention to girls hockey. Moreso than the 10 seed beating the 7 seed.
As for those top ten teams that get beat in a loaded section, its unfortunate. Maybe its not even right. The thing is, it happens at the highest levels of sports. Just ask Twins, A's and Yankee fans how they feel about the Cardinals and Mets playing for a world series berth.
Anyway, I have to think that it would be a tough sell to change the way state tournaments are constructed. How many highly placed MSHSL officials would have to be convinced to rework things. How many sports would be affected? Do AD's have any say in the matter? Superintendants? If seeding the whole state is best for the kids, great, but I have a feeling that there would have to be a lot ducks lined up and hoops jumped through to make it happen.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
My guess is that the MSHSL went with the A/AA vs Tiers with boys as a result of backlash by Small MN schools that always were strong but couldn't quite see themselves making it to state year-after-year as they would as A in an A/AA enrollment setup. This, coupled with a misunderstanding public, resulted in what we have today I assume. To me, it makes far more sense to hope that the participation in the T2 would reach far more communities than just the Class A powers that we feel need that A vs. T2 goal. But, that's just my perception.
I don't think that the MSHSL will go back to a tier setup for many reasons even though that WAS their original goal. I point to the fact that they went with tiers first with the boys when they split into multiple classes as a sign of what the true intent and spirit was of moving away from a one-class tourney. The point was simple - to reach more non-traditional communities. I woudl say that reaching small-school powers isn't the goal of classes either, but we're catering to them and missing helping the true ones in need of the experience and excitement that a T2 tourney could create in non-traditional hockey communities.
I personally would rather have my Class A team play in a Tier setup and maybe be one of the last few teams to make the T1 as that in itself is an accomplishment - and in those years that I have that "best team ever for my school" I'd want to take a run at the true top tourney, but should I have to make a 4-year commitment to do so? That makes no sense.
The argument that we need a tourney by enrollment to give small-school powers a chance to win a tourney year-after-year just doens't seem like a good enough reason not to help many more communities with a tier based tourney. The incentive structure currently is flawed as too many teams stay class A and dominate year after year. There at least needs to be a provision to move them to AA then.
I also believe that the S MN teams COULD continue to get a team in the top tourney year-after-year if they were designated a section as they are currently. But, some would likely prefer to assign the top 8 teams to different sections so that we had a chance to see the best 8 at state. And, unfortunately, I can't remember if a S MN team has ever been a top 10 in AA prior to sections - so I'm sure that this isn't a popular suggestion for that reason.
I will say this though - I guess a A/AA is better for those A powers than a T1/T2 setup as it would make it hard for the top Small-School teams to make a run at State in the low end of the T1 tourney. I suppose the "reward" is not that great to make that T1 year-after-year and never likely get anywhere.
I don't think that the MSHSL will go back to a tier setup for many reasons even though that WAS their original goal. I point to the fact that they went with tiers first with the boys when they split into multiple classes as a sign of what the true intent and spirit was of moving away from a one-class tourney. The point was simple - to reach more non-traditional communities. I woudl say that reaching small-school powers isn't the goal of classes either, but we're catering to them and missing helping the true ones in need of the experience and excitement that a T2 tourney could create in non-traditional hockey communities.
I personally would rather have my Class A team play in a Tier setup and maybe be one of the last few teams to make the T1 as that in itself is an accomplishment - and in those years that I have that "best team ever for my school" I'd want to take a run at the true top tourney, but should I have to make a 4-year commitment to do so? That makes no sense.
The argument that we need a tourney by enrollment to give small-school powers a chance to win a tourney year-after-year just doens't seem like a good enough reason not to help many more communities with a tier based tourney. The incentive structure currently is flawed as too many teams stay class A and dominate year after year. There at least needs to be a provision to move them to AA then.
I also believe that the S MN teams COULD continue to get a team in the top tourney year-after-year if they were designated a section as they are currently. But, some would likely prefer to assign the top 8 teams to different sections so that we had a chance to see the best 8 at state. And, unfortunately, I can't remember if a S MN team has ever been a top 10 in AA prior to sections - so I'm sure that this isn't a popular suggestion for that reason.
I will say this though - I guess a A/AA is better for those A powers than a T1/T2 setup as it would make it hard for the top Small-School teams to make a run at State in the low end of the T1 tourney. I suppose the "reward" is not that great to make that T1 year-after-year and never likely get anywhere.
-
SEhockeyDAD
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:50 am
T1/T2
One last thought: Tier 1/Tier 2 (based on KRACH or something like that) is actually a pretty good aspiration. I wonder, though, how likely would it be for lower tier 1 teams to assess their situations and "try" for the tier 2 tourney? I know what it entails: intentionally losing or tie enough to drop their ranking. Unthinkable to many of us, but maybe not beneath some. Sorry, I shouldn't think the worst, but someone's always going to figure out how to manipulate any system. And switching from one of the worst teams in a division to a potential champion in another is pretty tempting.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Yes. I suppose. It's entirely possible, unless we call it T1 & T2. then, any "established" team should want to be a T1 team. Any "newer" team with less history and/or (re)building should see the T2 tourney as a stepping stone into T1 over the next few years.
I guess I'd just rather see the top 64 teams playoff for a real top tourney and the next group go for the participation and "program building" tourney.
Is it possible that you'll have teams that year-after-year won't make the T1? Sure, but let's hope that there would be incentive in the "making T1" sections notion.
Truly, what we're talking about is removing all the Class A teams that rank in the top 64 teams in state from Class A and moving them to AA and taking the AA teams ranked 64 to 126 and moving them to A.
I woudl think that any good A coach would much rather be the last team to make a T1 tourney than be constantly winning a Class A tourney that they really were too good for. Note that my team would have been the last or 2nd to last Class A team bumped up to T1 if we had done this a year ago.
The real issue is the 4-year opt-up rule. If we could make this a yearly or two-year thing it would be much better...
I guess I'd just rather see the top 64 teams playoff for a real top tourney and the next group go for the participation and "program building" tourney.
Is it possible that you'll have teams that year-after-year won't make the T1? Sure, but let's hope that there would be incentive in the "making T1" sections notion.
Truly, what we're talking about is removing all the Class A teams that rank in the top 64 teams in state from Class A and moving them to AA and taking the AA teams ranked 64 to 126 and moving them to A.
I woudl think that any good A coach would much rather be the last team to make a T1 tourney than be constantly winning a Class A tourney that they really were too good for. Note that my team would have been the last or 2nd to last Class A team bumped up to T1 if we had done this a year ago.
The real issue is the 4-year opt-up rule. If we could make this a yearly or two-year thing it would be much better...
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Ya, we're quite off topic here now!!! I guess this tangent was a preemptive strike at all those that would jump on here and bash the quality of the Class A tourney. The goal needs to be understood though, and that view may stop the Class A bashing...
I'll hold back any further tourney "purpose" discussion and leave it to the "new tourney teams" initial point of this thread (as long as we can stay away from bashing the quality of the A tourney that is...)...
I'll hold back any further tourney "purpose" discussion and leave it to the "new tourney teams" initial point of this thread (as long as we can stay away from bashing the quality of the A tourney that is...)...
-
SWHockeyGuy
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:45 pm
You are right that this is the easy one! I do not believe that any of the schools in the new 3 A have been to state.C'mon, everyone's missing the easy one. Section 3A; probably New Ulm?
It more than likely will come down to New Ulm and Marshall. The past 6 meetings the record is New Ulm with 1 win, marshall with 1 win, and 4 ties. It should be a good section final game!
-
GivinYaTheBusiness
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:16 pm
- Location: Iron Range
Re:
We also can't rule out Bemidji! They'll be VERY tough this year.