packerboy wrote:In a random draw there is no influence or someone making the decisions that people can complain about...luck of the draw... all fair.
Sure its all luck of the draw but all fair? That can be debated.
I think we sometimes make bad policies and defend them by saying its "all fair" and "its the same for every one".
It seems we dont care how horsecrap the result is so long as we can label it all fair and the same for everyone.
I think we sacrifice quality a lot of times so we can be sanctimonious about the process.
OK PB why is it not fair......? and now who's in a tizzy?
Should they have someone choose the powerball #'s too ? no... because there is a chance that it could be, influenced, tainted, or corrupted... also what game of the top 8 teams in the state would be horse crap?
Well CNT, in years where there are 1-3 teams that are clearly above the rest it might not be fair if 1 plays 2 in the quarters and sends 2 to Mariucci for the rest of tournament while the 7th best teams beats the 8th and moves on to the semis at the X.
Some people dont think thats fair to the teams nor the fans, especially the season ticket holders, one of whom is me.
You can respond with the usual rhetoric of :"gotta play the best to beat the best and be the best" or "gotta win 3 anyway" or "its the same for everyone " but I dont buy it.
I think we all know that the state tournament does not consist of the 8 best teams in the state. Year in and year out there are teams that stand out. To pretend that all 8 teams are of the same caliber isnt reality.
Just about every tournamnet that means anything at any level is seeded, even in youth hockey. Why not the best tournament in the world?
Some years it isnt going to make much diffrence for sure but why not seed so my example above doesnt happen.
The fact is they do seed the top 4 now right? so your arguing with yourself.
I doubt it's gonna change, and because people insist on having control it will probably end up being all 8 anyway.
You can't control who will be playing Sat. night no matter what the seeds are, the players do that, so why do you feel you need to control the other games...as if what someone thinks is #1 and 2 have more right to what (the powers that seed) think is an easier path.
Like I said they earned the reward by being at the X... once there, level field give all teams the same respect regardless of their path to the X
Just because its random, doesnt mean its fair or level....it just means its random.
There is no need nor desire to control the games, only the schedule.
Just like the sections, there is no control over who plays in the final but there is control over the probability of the best teams being eliminated in the first rounds.
Some, including me, think thats whats fair or level.
You think that someone deciding who's best is what's fair?
They do the same thing in sections and many believe that's biased..although I guess in sections a lot of the time teams have played or know each other so it a bit more accurate.
But...
Ok good enough we'll let HSwatcher take over from here.... seed em, draw em, whatever it's all the same in the end.
packerboy wrote:Just because its random, doesnt mean its fair or level....it just means its random.
There is no need nor desire to control the games, only the schedule.
Just like the sections, there is no control over who plays in the final but there is control over the probability of the best teams being eliminated in the first rounds.
Some, including me, think thats whats fair or level.
Packerboy - I have to agree with your points on this matter (prior posts on this subject)!
Don't get me wrong, the "underdog" team is always going to get some fans on their side - but as a season ticket holder, I want the "best" teams playing! Would a #1 vs. #2 be a good quarterfinal game? Maybe, but then what - everything else is downhill from there?
Seed the teams - if the top seeds lose, then so be it. Otherwise, bring back the consolation bracket to the "X" and move the class A semi-finals to the Mariucci.
There is also much that can be learned outside the classroom, without a book, and off the computer.
Statistics can be used to predict the frequency of occurance of basically every phenomenon in life. The goal should not be to predict (and therefore give advantage to the predicted winner) the winner of the State HS Hockey Tournament. The winner should be the team that achieves the championship by winning the final three games of the season over other section champions.
Seeding the sections makes a little sense, only because we want the theoretical best teams to represent each section. However, we all know it really doesn't matter anyway, beacause upsets always happen, especially in HS sports,.....one reason they are so fun to watch.
Since no one person, or committee, or mathematical formula, knows which team is actually better (or playing better at the time), why bother to pretend that we do? The old section rotation process is fine, every year, the team that can win three in a row against three different section champs is the Champion, period. No need to attempt to predict it ahead of time, and give a few teams an advantage.....so we can theorectically see the two best play on Saturday night. Remember it still is HS sports, and there is a good chance of an upset to screw it up anyway. Quit pretending we know (or have a process to determine) which team is best,....and let the players decide, without any advantages.
Knowlzee, the problem with that is your assumption that if its random, no one will have an advantage. We have seen many times how the random draw has given lesser teams an opportunity to advance.
How can seeding give anyone an advantage if they are all the same?
If they arent all the same, why not seed instead of pretending they are?
Because you dont trust a group of coaches to make a seeding decision?
We dont trust a group of men to be fair but we trust a random draw.
packerboy wrote:Well Hockeyfan1, I have yet to hear an argument that seeding somehow lessons the quality of the tournamnet.
The only thing I hear is that "We shouldnt have these evil people deciding these things".
I think we need to get past that. We need people to decide things sometimes and it isnt always going to be decided in a way that we agree with.
This is an athletic event, not the lottery.
Evil???
PB c'mon
It's the kids game right? or is it ours because we pay to watch it?
Hockey seeds at state is not one of the things we need people to decide for us...
Remember these are the same "evil" people that just changed the OE rules that you preached for them to stay out of, now you think they can't or won't be influenced??
Why the change of heart?
Like I said if I were a betting man, I'd say it will be all seeded anyway so this is all just "Bored" discussion.
Wow, I stop posting on here and novels get written.
Yes, the offer stats and AP stats at most high schools. If you make it to college, they also offer stats classes at most of those institutions also.
I do re-read all of what I write before I post it. Maybe you should.
No, no 0-25 team has ever made it to state. 25-0 teams rarely make it also. It was to explain an extreme. In basketball this year a 13-13 Winona team made it to state. There are teams every year that come out of weak sections and have lousy records. And you're saying they are just as deserving as the other teams.
You're right, their post-season records going into state are all 0-0. But they still have season records we all know about, which have an influence on how good they are and what people think about them.
Okay, I have a serious question for you now. You seem to be totally anti-seeding for everything, because (and this is what I'm reading into what you're saying) if they top seeded team doesn't win, they "got it wrong." So are you saying that if something is seeded there's no point in playing because, if done correctly, the top seed should win?
The more I think about it,....I wonder if there should EVER be seeding?
If it were taxes, seeding would be the inverse of the "progressive tax" system that we have for income tax (i.e. the rich get taxed much more than the poor because they have more). With seeding, the Rich would be taxed much less,....because the rich have alot of money, because, well, they are rich. With seeding, the poor would be taxed more,......because they are poor, and don't have much money anyway. They don't have a chance at being rich anyway, so tax them.
Is this fair? Why should a lesser ranked team, have a disadvantage by facing a stronger team,.....or a stronger team have an advantage, because someone, some committee, or system determines they are better? If they are better, won't they win anyway? Why is the advantage needed? Is this fair?
HShockeywatcher wrote:
I do re-read all of what I write before I post it. Maybe you should.
Okay, I have a serious question for you now. You seem to be totally anti-seeding for everything, because (and this is what I'm reading into what you're saying) if they top seeded team doesn't win, they "got it wrong." So are you saying that if something is seeded there's no point in playing because, if done correctly, the top seed should win?
Knowlzee, in my opinion, it is a great example, but one to show the point opposite of what you are saying.
In our economy, we want everyone to help those who are lesser. That's why taxing the rich is a great idea. Not to change this topic completely, but many of the rich even want to be taxed more. And if you are looking for a tournament where you are having an average team vs an average team in the finals, then yes, 1 v 2, 3 v 4, 5 v 6, and 7 v 8 first round would be the way to go.
But when it comes to sports you don't want a level playing field. You are trying to weed out the poor. No one wants to see the combined wins of Super Bowl teams between 10 and 15, we all want to see it 25+. This is why you make ways for the smaller teams to be weeded out.
Take the NHL. You give the higher seed team home ice for the first two games. You give them more games at home. And, in most cases, they usually win, because they are probably the better team.
But it all depends what the goal of the State Tournament for the MSHSL (and you) is. If your goal is to see the best hockey, then seeding is the way to go. If your goal is to make it possible for Cinderella stories and that it's just nice for some teams to be there then seeding isn't needed.
Yes, upsets happen, but later on down the road they usually make for worse play. A real life example is in the NBA right now. The best team in the NBA is paired up with the one team they have played and not beat yet in the first round. I'm not saying they shouldn't have been paired up, but if the Warriors win the series, did they really get the seeding wrong?
HShockeywatcher wrote: If your goal is to make it possible for Cinderella stories and that it's just nice for some teams to be there then seeding isn't needed.
What!!! the so called Cinderella earned their spot at the X just as all 8 teams do..
Good grief
Stop posting again so it gets interesting and people come back.
Oh and BTW HSwatcher.... I can play on here because college was something I did long long ago.......most likely before your time, and I am "bored" and can afford to spend the time...where as you are most likely wasting your time and daddy's money. Get a job!
