MNHockeyFan wrote:Do you think there would ever be a consensus to base the AA/A decision on a polling system, however accurate KRACH may be? And the whole "Tier I/Tier II" naming convention probably won't fly again - don't most people remember it as a bad experiment in the boys tournament from years ago?
No, there would never be a consensus to base on a polling system because some feel that coaches are biased for whatever reason (although, usually, they're truly the best and most impartial in many respects - human wise that is)... I still believe that KRACH would be best suited to divide up the teams into top/bottom (this is what the KRACH method was devised for initially I believe - as well as seeding use when head-to-head play between all participants wasn't possible)
And, I agree, you can't call it "T1/T2." It has to be something else. Like "tenure" in general the "Tiers" have a bad name based on the boys "experiment." Note 1 - we need some sort of tenure for coaches. Note 2 - I sometimes wonder if the MSHSL actually wanted tiers and all they accomplished, or if they went with their 2nd choice first as to protect classes from the backlash of moving away from a one-class boys tourney... I still believe though that their goal wasn't to give A powers a tourney to win every year when they should be playing with the big boys (AA/T1), and also believe the goal was participation and growing the sport in smaller less-traditional communities. This being said, A teams that should be playing AA don't accomplish that goal... Nor does struggling big school programs playing with AA... Adjustments need to be made (forced) as needed IMHO...
MNHockeyFan wrote:Maybe making just a gradual change would be more accepted, like allowing the really poor AA schools to move down, and shortening the committment period on elective decisions (to move up or down) from 4 to 2 years. This would retain the main enrollment-based classification system but allow a little more flexibility.
Gradual change will always be better accepted no matter the situation. Just human nature I guess. A hybrid may be best then, but not certain we'll get it...
MNHockeyFan wrote:I have to admit, the "A" tournament is more interesting for fans if it showcases the best of the "small schools" playing against each other, as opposed to a tournament featuring "the best of the worst" if you know what I mean.
Agreed, but what is the goal? To grow the sport in non-traditional regions and give more chance for participation for all? Or to have A powers that belong at AA continuously blocking the opportunity for true small-school communities that are trying to grow a sport?
Remember - the MSHSL is a participation based entity. Crowning champions or creating amazing tourneys probably isn't their true philosophical objective? I would hope/guess that it's more about getting as many kids interested/participating in sports as possible.
I would argue that the A tourney is more about the participants than the spectators, whereas the AA is the equal or as much about both? I do understand though that the experience of a Class A or T2 tourney will be less in that fewer fans will attend, etc. if the product is poor. I would argue though that if you can be a top 20 A team and be average as far as the 126 MSHSL teams overall, then the T2 setup only really would create parity in T2. Parity, usually, is better for interest - hence the desire to get all the top teams to the State tourney in AA. I also think that we often forget that Class A tourney isn't meant - team strength wise - to be on par with AA.
) which teams play in which tier and then seed the teams accordingly using some type of geographic representation model (keep 2 N sections & 1 S/S Metro section for Tier 1 = Class AA - something different might need to be done for T2=A).