Regular season schedule - sections or conferences

[SEMinnyHCKY]

I read recently that Cloquet's coach suggested that teams should be playing teams in their sections and do away with conferences. What are your feelings about this?

My two cents - I think that many teams already play games against their sectional opponents in their conferences and many teams try to schedule non - conference games against their sectional opponents, right? So, what would be the point of only playing games against sectional opponents (besides easier seeding when the playoffs begin)? What about northern teams playing metro teams in the regular season? There are some great rivalry games that would be lost also - White Bear - Hill-Murray would be one. Also, AA would never play A teams.

[HShockeywatcher]

I doubt the coaches intent is to only play sectional opponents, but rather not be bound to play conference opponents at all.

I have commented on this is other threads; I don't know the percentage, but many other states around the country have districts. Districts are basically sections, and there are no conferences. You play those teams each once or twice (depending on the sport) and the top X teams from your district make it to state.

The issue, in my opinion, is that there is no statewide standard for size of and amount of games in conference play nor section seeding.

Take Holy Angels for example. They ended their season last year 9-1 with their 1 loss to Shattuck and were 4-0-1 in sectional play, tying Edina, not playing Jefferson or Burnsville and beating all other teams they played. I made my best argument for them to have the #2 seed, but the powers that be didn't agree. Is it the school's "fault" for not playing more teams? Should there be more guidelines for seeding?

Is it "fair" that schools in the Lake conference get to play 4 other quality opponents twice a year and then schedule whatever they for 17 other games while some schools "have to" play mediocre competition in conference games?

Is it "fair" that some teams have section opponents in their conference so a conference game can be used for section seeding and others don't?

I have seen both the district systems first hand and have seen the section/conference system first hand and see pluses and minuses to both.
-In a conference, you get to play teams year in and year out, good or bad.
-In a district system, if your school gets bigger or smaller and moved into another class, your opponents change dramatically.
-In a section system, you can play whoever you want, sometimes very few teams in your section, and seeding (which affects home ice/field) is determined by what people think will happen on paper.
-In a district system, all the games were played in real life and places come from results of actual games.

So, my personal "solution" to all of this would be to change the system to something in the middle. I like what a conference brings, but I also think many of the seeding issues are silly and easy to resolve.
I believe there should be a universal formula for section seeding and an attempt at requiring a certain number of games between sectional opponents.

[elliott70]

Sectional games get more attention form everyone, coaches, fans, players, media.

Conferences guarantee you games - especially if you ar a lower level team - with teams that will give you competition you need to improve.

Both are needed to gauge and improve the team.

Conference championships were at one time significant, not as much anymore.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

A conference is a voluntary association, with the exception of a school that is unable to gain entry to any conference may be forced into a conference by the MSHSL. A section is based on assignment, although there is an appeal process available.

Over the last twenty years there have been periodic upheavals among conferences. These have been instigated by enrollment changes and a desire to avoid schools that have high caliber teams in certain sports. Football is the biggest motivator. Enrollment size has more to do with how good a school is in football than in any other sport. Conferences as a whole would be more stable if their were separate conferences just for football.
No one wants to be in a conference with football powers like Eden Prairie, CDH, Minnetonka or Wayzata.

[TheHockeyDJ]

Conferences are worthless. You can still play teams in your "conference" for regular season competition. You don't need to be in a "conference" to play games. Sections are obviously important because that is where you go for the playoffs. You don't have conference playoff games. Grand Rapids could still play Hibbing and Virginia for regular season games because it is generally very good competition. But why do they need to be in a conference when they aren't even in the same class? Just play the regular season with two types of games, sectional and non-sectional. Is it that tough to figure out?

[defense]

I think there is major factor that is being missed: SCHEDULING. Getting into a conference takes a lot of work off of the AD. Regardless if the team is high caliber or not, it still takes a lot of work to set up a non-conference game, much less an independant season. And the funny part of the whole thing is, generally if you are an independant, your schedules look pretty familiar year to year...you do have the opportunity to schedule different games and that is fun.

[goldy313]

Conferences are by and large for all sports and different sports have different lengths; 8 games in football, a few triangulars or quads in track, swimming, wrestling, and golf to 25 games in hockey and basketball. Sure they do allow for ease in scheduling but also hold down costs and guarentee games, matches, and meets for all schools and athletes. They also allow schools with traditional rivals to play each other yearly where as sectional scheduling doesn't - that was one of the big gripes football coaches had with moving to a sectional schedule. If you're a metro school this isn't a big deal as nearly all schools are in the same class and travel isn't much, outstate this isn't the case.

[HShockeywatcher]

Conferences are by and large for all sports and different sports have different lengths; 8 games in football, a few triangulars or quads in track, swimming, wrestling, and golf to 25 games in hockey and basketball. Sure they do allow for ease in scheduling but also hold down costs and guarentee games, matches, and meets for all schools and athletes. They also allow schools with traditional rivals to play each other yearly where as sectional scheduling doesn't - that was one of the big gripes football coaches had with moving to a sectional schedule. If you're a metro school this isn't a big deal as nearly all schools are in the same class and travel isn't much, outstate this isn't the case.

Agreed. The issue, though, is that if you play a conference schedule where those in your conference aren't in your class or common opponents with those in your section, seeding for sections (which is done by voting in MN) can be difficult or "unfair." Sectional play, while easier on scheduling (which I agree with) is completely "fair."

Whatever system you use will have issues. My opinion is that if you can get to a system that takes the human element out of seeding, however you do that, would be best.

[goldy313]

When I was coaching football in Iowa, we moved from conferences to section play not being from there it didn't matter to me but it hurt the town and interest in games. Not being able to play the next town over because of class difference was a bad thing. Basketball went to a schedule where you played in a conference but also had to play every team in your district. In conferences that made you play twice like ours the second game was considered your district game, then when it came time to seed only your district record was used and there was a pretty strict criteria for seeding.

The major drawback was you could be 19-1 overall, win your conference and with 1 loss in the district and be seeded behind a team that was 10-10 overall, fourth in the conference but 8-0 in the district because your 1 loss on the year was at their gym in your second conference game.