Post-Season Change

[HShockeywatcher]

Every year we have discussions with people on both sides of the issue debating the lopsided games in the playoffs. With the exception of a handful of cases over the last 20 years, lower seeds who haven't done well on a whole in the regular season have not made it to state in hockey, nor have they in other sports. We have plenty of games that serve very little purpose for anyone.

I like the idea of a one class system just like the rest of most people, in all sports. I think of handfuls of teams over the last decade who weren't in the top class of their sport that would've made it far in a one class system and created some awesome match ups many would like to see. That being said, I also don't pretend to live in the fantasy world of going back to a one class class system when in the real world MN will be handing out 7 football trophies next year and some states hand out more than 10.

My opinion is that the answer, within a two class system, is to have fewer teams reach the playoffs. Right now, the minimum number of games a team who plays a full schedule is 26 games, some bottom seeds even get 27 because of play in games. Why not allow a 26 or 27 game regular season and only allow certain teams to make it to the post season?

My proposition:
*16 sets of teams (like our sections now, call them what you will)
*4-6 teams per group
*Standard of each being mandated to play the rest home/away
*Teams can agree to play once, no less
*1 pt for win, no ties in these games.
*Top 1 or 2 teams from each group make playoffs for either 16 or 32 teams in playoffs

Better playoffs, a handful of more meaningful games for teams who won't make it to state along with a non-debatable post season seeding process.

[royals03]

Not bad, but how do you make the groups? Do you set it up by region or by random draw? Do you mix it with 2 northern mid-state and 2 southern minnesota teams?
My thought process was a little different and that was a 2 year rating scheme to avoid stacked sections. Take a teams average ranking over a two year span and break it down from there. Now this system does not stop the lopsided games in sections, however it does avoid a section seeding process and hopefully you end up with the top 8 teams in the state tournament. I would still keep it a 2 class system or let 16 teams make it to state 1st and 2nd from every section, than break that into a 4 group 4 team round robin to get to the final 4. 25 regular season games 3-4 section games and between 3-5 state tournament games depending on how well you do. A team could play 34 games. Nice!

[HShockeywatcher]

Not bad, but how do you make the groups? Do you set it up by region or by random draw? Do you mix it with 2 northern mid-state and 2 southern minnesota teams?
My thought process was a little different and that was a 2 year rating scheme to avoid stacked sections. Take a teams average ranking over a two year span and break it down from there. Now this system does not stop the lopsided games in sections, however it does avoid a section seeding process and hopefully you end up with the top 8 teams in the state tournament. I would still keep it a 2 class system or let 16 teams make it to state 1st and 2nd from every section, than break that into a 4 group 4 team round robin to get to the final 4. 25 regular season games 3-4 section games and between 3-5 state tournament games depending on how well you do. A team could play 34 games. Nice!

My opinion: completely regional.
Advancing based solely on pts during reg. season play.

[grandmeadowhockeyfan]

I agree with one class in hockey playoffs but how can you say to eliminate teams from postseason. Have you looked around and noticed any upsets. The kids play till they lose. Keep playoffs with everybody making it. Win move on lose go home. There is no better system. Or maybe your team is from Eden prairie, grand rapids, white bear lake, centennial, etc

[HShockeywatcher]

I agree with one class in hockey playoffs but how can you say to eliminate teams from postseason. Have you looked around and noticed any upsets. The kids play till they lose. Keep playoffs with everybody making it. Win move on lose go home. There is no better system. Or maybe your team is from Eden prairie, grand rapids, white bear lake, centennial, etc

MN is unique in allowing all teams into the playoffs I believe. Many states do not. It makes the regular season (and losses from penalty) matter.

Upsets out of sections? In the last 20 years you can count on two hands the number of teams out of both sections that were not a top 4 seed. Then, if you look at how well those same teams did at state (which is what playoffs is ultimately about) it is not good.

There are threads every year about "classless blowouts." There are roughly 70 meaningless games a year to start the postseason that if you asked both teams' players/coaches/fans, they would likely tell you they would've preferred to have played against someone of more similar caliber.

Think about the implications in all sports. A 9 game football season where the 2-6 team has an opportunity to play their last game and not get blown out. From a practical standpoint, these games make little sense.

[Mite-dad]

I wouldn't mind keeping the 2 class system, but allowing the top two from each section advance. That way if a section has two very good teams, they would still have a chance to win a state title.

[gitter]

I agree with one class in hockey playoffs but how can you say to eliminate teams from postseason. Have you looked around and noticed any upsets. The kids play till they lose. Keep playoffs with everybody making it. Win move on lose go home. There is no better system. Or maybe your team is from Eden prairie, grand rapids, white bear lake, centennial, etc

MN is unique in allowing all teams into the playoffs I believe. Many states do not. It makes the regular season (and losses from penalty) matter.

Upsets out of sections? In the last 20 years you can count on two hands the number of teams out of both sections that were not a top 4 seed. Then, if you look at how well those same teams did at state (which is what playoffs is ultimately about) it is not good.

There are threads every year about "classless blowouts." There are roughly 70 meaningless games a year to start the postseason that if you asked both teams' players/coaches/fans, they would likely tell you they would've preferred to have played against someone of more similar caliber.

Think about the implications in all sports. A 9 game football season where the 2-6 team has an opportunity to play their last game and not get blown out. From a practical standpoint, these games make little sense.

This is silly. You don't think for a second, Armstrong's season ended terrific for those guys beating EP and losing to Benilde? Under your scenario they would never have played the game against EP. Neither would have Forest Lake, or Hastings, or St. Paul Johnson, or any other team that nobody believed in. It doesn't matter they don't make it to State, that one game was probably better than their entire season. You're saying throw all those games away because this year there were the same number of 10+ goal differentials.

Armstrong got throttled 3 times by top 10 teams throughout the year. Should we get rid of those regular season games too? How do you determine who plays who each year? Jefferson won 7 games all year (same as Armstrong) - should they play all teams with Armstrong-like caliber, even though the entire team is returning but 3 kids? What about teams like Walker-Hackensack-Akeley from 2 or 3 years ago who didn't win a game? Maybe just shut their program down so they don't have to deal with losing by 10 every game in the regular season. I mean if we are going to "save" those programs from playoff losses, certainly we have to "save" them from regular season debacles too.

I'm glad you weren't around in 1980. We wouldn't have sent a hockey team to the winter Olympics.

[HShockeywatcher]

This is silly. You don't think for a second, Armstrong's season ended terrific for those guys beating EP and losing to Benilde?

I didn't say that at all, nor do I think that opinion is wrong. This is one opinion. It happens to be one that is shared by over half who have voted on the poll, as well as the organizations of many of the larger states around the country, every collegiate organization and professional organization of team sports. To say it is silly is a bit of stretch.

There are great points on both "sides" of the discussion.

[gitter]

This is silly. You don't think for a second, Armstrong's season ended terrific for those guys beating EP and losing to Benilde?

I didn't say that at all, nor do I think that opinion is wrong.

Upsets out of sections? In the last 20 years you can count on two hands the number of teams out of both sections that were not a top 4 seed. Then, if you look at how well those same teams did at state (which is what playoffs is ultimately about) it is not good.

You just completely based any upset in sections on whether they made it to state or not, and if they did make it, it was a poor showing. My statement above is absolutely correct in reference to yours.

[EREmpireStrikesBack]

[HShockeywatcher]

Yeah, still amazes me people argue with opinions being right or wrong. Oh well, always good for a laugh.

[tonkahockey5]

I think the best solution for AA is to take the 72 teams that are already currently in all the sections now and keep all of them as part of the tournament. This will provide for the Cinderella stories like Armstrong and St. Paul Johnson and many more in years to come. However seed all the teams 1-72 and then place them in 4 regions much like the NCAA mens basketball tournament. There would be 18 teams in each region and the seeding would adjust slightly for teams to be located in the region that they are closest too however this would not always work (this is just like the NCAA format as well). This would provide that the 8 best teams get to the tournament every year because the teams would be spread out among the 4 regions every year based on their play that season. For Example this year you could have a Northeast, Southwest, Northwest, and South regions. In the northeast you could have #1 Duluth East, in the southwest #1 Minnetonka, in the North west #1 Maple Grove, in the South #1 Eagan. Then the number 5 overall team would be Edina so they would be the #2 seed in Eagans region as the lowest #1 seed. So #2 in south would be edina, #2 in Northwest would be Benilde SM, #2 in South west would be EP, and # 2 in northeast would be Hill-Murrary. And so on for all 18 seeds in each region. #17 and #18 would have a play in game to play the 1 seed and #15 and #16 would have a play in to play the #2 seed in each region. This would provide for a very exciting and fair tournament every year with all the excitement of March Madness except with something a million times better! High School Hockey in Minnesota!

[HShockeywatcher]

This would provide for a very exciting and fair tournament every year with all the excitement of March Madness except with something a million times better! High School Hockey in Minnesota!

I don't think you are wrong, but it is unrealistic because the state (most states) wants "equal" representation from the state. That is something the mshsl has made very clear on a regular basis. A very real negative of going away from the current model would possibly be an even bigger tendency to leave less talented outstate programs.

But if you can think of a mix, I think that'd be cool. Just my opinion.

[tonkahockey5]

Yes that is the argument I have heard against it most but this would give everyone a chance to advance. For example this year obviously Duluth East in an out of state team that can make it. and I also believe Moorhead, Brainerd, Grand Rapids, Bemidji, and Roseau for a few would all have a very good chance of advancing in what would be the nothwest and northeast. The system now with Lakeville North or South being in every year needs to stop. That section shouldn't even be considered an "out-of state" section since it is always one of those 2 teams it seems. It is the 7AA and the 8AA that would have to be equally represented. I believe there is a way this could be done in the format I gave to include all the teams. Will there be years when there will be more metro teams that not...yes of course but that is how it is right now anyway. 1AA Lakeville N or S, 2AA Edina or Burnsville, 3AA Eagan or Hastings, 4AA Hill-Murray, Stillwater, Roseville, St. PJ, 5AA Maple Grove or Blaine, 6AA Minnetonka or BSM, 7AA Duluth East or Andover, 8AA Moorhead or Brainerd. Those are the teams that are left right now. 18 teams and how many out of those 18 are not "metro" teams in the section system that is suppose to even everything out...3. Duluth East, Moorhead, and Brainerd. So if the system already favors metro teams and still gives "out-of-state" teams a chance we might as well commit to it fully and make it fair across the board. And I am not biased to metro teams...I think some of the best hockey teams and players are from out-of-state teams and I think in the large playoff system they would have as good of chance as any to get to the Xcel. Would this be an up hill battle to get passed of course. But I think it could be an amazing system and bring even more awareness and excitment to high school hockey in minnesota. Which in the MSHSL minds should show up as $$$. But I think it needs be changed not for that reason but purely to make the sport better in this state.

[elliott70]

Duluth East in an out of state team that can make it.

Really????

[tonkahockey5]

[quote="elliott70"][quote="tonkahockey5"] Duluth East in an [i][u][b]out of state team [/b][/u][/i]that can make it. [/quote]


Really????
[/quote]

That is why I said "obviously" in front of that statement...

[EHSHack]

Yes that is the argument I have heard against it most but this would give everyone a chance to advance. For example this year obviously Duluth East in an out of state team that can make it. and I also believe Moorhead, Brainerd, Grand Rapids, Bemidji, and Roseau for a few would all have a very good chance of advancing in what would be the nothwest and northeast. The system now with Lakeville North or South being in every year needs to stop. That section shouldn't even be considered an "out-of state" section since it is always one of those 2 teams it seems. It is the 7AA and the 8AA that would have to be equally represented. I believe there is a way this could be done in the format I gave to include all the teams. Will there be years when there will be more metro teams that not...yes of course but that is how it is right now anyway. 1AA Lakeville N or S, 2AA Edina or Burnsville, 3AA Eagan or Hastings, 4AA Hill-Murray, Stillwater, Roseville, St. PJ, 5AA Maple Grove or Blaine, 6AA Minnetonka or BSM, 7AA Duluth East or Andover, 8AA Moorhead or Brainerd. Those are the teams that are left right now. 18 teams and how many out of those 18 are not "metro" teams in the section system that is suppose to even everything out...3. Duluth East, Moorhead, and Brainerd. So if the system already favors metro teams and still gives "out-of-state" teams a chance we might as well commit to it fully and make it fair across the board. And I am not biased to metro teams...I think some of the best hockey teams and players are from out-of-state teams and I think in the large playoff system they would have as good of chance as any to get to the Xcel. Would this be an up hill battle to get passed of course. But I think it could be an amazing system and bring even more awareness and excitment to high school hockey in minnesota. Which in the MSHSL minds should show up as $$$. But I think it needs be changed not for that reason but purely to make the sport better in this state.

I think the words you are looking for are "OUTSTATE" not "OUT OF STATE"

[EHSHack]

Duluth East in an out of state team that can make it.

Really????

That is why I said "obviously" in front of that statement...

Swing and a miss.

[HShockeywatcher]

Amusing that comments continue to be made about how "classless" games this is an attempt to avoid are, but not about the idea of simply avoiding those games. Seems we continue to want something to complain about instead of discussing solutions to the issue.

[DubCHAGuy]

Amusing that comments continue to be made about how classless games this is an attempt to avoid are, but not about the idea of simply avoiding those games. Seems we continue to want something to complain about instead of discussing solutions to the issue.

Not really. At least to me, it's just not worth changing the best HS playoff tournament (tournaments, now that we have 2 of them) in the US over what occasionally happens in the first round, or that class A can lack depth and balance, or even that the "Top 8" teams don't make it to the X. Like someone else said, its cool that Armstrong, Johnson, Hastings, among others pulled upsets. They don't need to go on to win state championships to appreciate that.

I also like seeing both public and private school teams from all over the state at the state tournament. Hockey fans know that Tonka, EP, Burnsville, the loser of 4A & 7AA had great teams this year, that doesn't mean they are entitled to playing in the state tournament. It's about beating your rivals to represent your section.

Just because a few people get bent out of shape over a couple blowouts or watching a team they think they're favorite team is "better" than advance deeper into the playoffs doesn't mean anything needs to be fixed.

Thats why I voted for no change. Just one guys opinion.

[HShockeywatcher]

Amusing that comments continue to be made about how classless games this is an attempt to avoid are, but not about the idea of simply avoiding those games. Seems we continue to want something to complain about instead of discussing solutions to the issue.

Not really. At least to me, it's just not worth changing the best HS playoff tournament (tournaments, now that we have 2 of them) in the US over what occasionally happens in the first round, or that class A can lack depth and balance, or even that the "Top 8" teams don't make it to the X. Like someone else said, its cool that Armstrong, Johnson, Hastings, among others pulled upsets. They don't need to go on to win state championships to appreciate that.

I also like seeing both public and private school teams from all over the state at the state tournament. Hockey fans know that Tonka, EP, Burnsville, the loser of 4A & 7AA had great teams this year, that doesn't mean they are entitled to playing in the state tournament. It's about beating your rivals to represent your section.

My point was that either (1) those with the opinion that these are in fact "classless" could be discussing not having the game or (2) those [like you] who don't think a change is necessary could voice that opinion instead of beating a dead horse.

That being said, your comment is why I am personally on the fence about the issue. Those games are great to see happen. That being said, being a numbers guy, I understand that those games are a small fraction of the total games. The games where the home team could realistically win 30+ to less than 2 if they wanted are more prevelant. To me, I would prefer to sacrifice the small fraction of games that are upsets if it means not having these games.

After having experienced a different regular/post season format first hand, I see the pros and cons of both. The thing to consider is that in this proposed format we have all the teams playing against each other during the regular season, where the regular season games actually matter. Hearing things like "they may have lost the first two, but they have the opportunity to win the one that actually matter" is silly to me.

This format doesn't provide less representation from around the state fyi. Just less "bad match ups" in the post season. I also enjoy seeing teams from around the state. If you had 16 "regions" where the top 2 in the region made the post season, you would see many teams from around the state in some cool match ups that we don't get to see. Or 8 sections with two subsections, however you wanted to phrase it.

[EREmpireStrikesBack]

Why is HSSomethingOrAnother using the word classless so much? Seems fitting.

[HShockeywatcher]

Why is HSSomethingOrAnother using the word classless so much? Seems fitting.

Quoting. I missed the quotes once, but that has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.

[SouthSuburban]

Summoning my inner Rick Flair, "To be the best, you gotta beat the best. WHOOOOO!"

Couple options here - Quit finding a way to complain about the system because little billy's team had a 'tough section' or could have made it out of another one. At the end of the year, people remember who won the title, then move on. The class AA winner has to win 6 in a row, 5 of which are usually tough games. Instead of trying to change the best open system of any state (which makes this tournament so great), appreciate the accomplishment of the 8 teams that make it through to the X and watch them battle their hearts out for the most coveted high school trophy in the nation. There will be blowouts, there will be upsets, there will be controversy - it's a part of high school sports. On championship Saturday, the team hoisting the trophy did what it takes and deserves the glory and memories, not to be second guessed on what could have been. If people only remember who won the title, and your team lost, why does it matter when/where they lost? Would going 0-2 in the tournament really satisfy little Billy more than losing in the section tournament? NO! - Because his team didn't win the title.

The NCAA basketball tournament gets so much hype because you have to earn your way in (AA Section seeding) and on opening day, everyone has a chance (AA structure). At the end of the tournament, it's not always the best regular season team who hoists the trophy, but rather the one who won 6 in a row, got a couple bounces and did what it takes to come out on top. The one and done format creates excitement, tension and forces the best team to perform 6 straight times. The lesser teams that don't make the field get the NIT (Class A equivalent) and still get to play in a great arena.

These new ideas are turning into a BCS mentallity - We should crown Minnetonka co-champions because they ended the season ranked #1 but lost to BSM at a bad time? WRONG! - They lost! They are DONE! Regardless of who you lose to, you don't move on, get a second chance, get a 'backdoor', you're DONE! You shake the opponents hand, tip your cap and spend the remaining years of your life wondering what could have been - Don't pretend like every single one of us doesn't do that.

A Trophy for all? If that be the case, and you're looking for the most 'fair' games, make 8 tournaments for AA - All of the #1's play at the X, #2's at Marriucci, #3's at Amsoil, #4's at SCSU, #5's at Mankato, #6's at Bemidji, #7's at Ridder and #8's on the nicest remaining outdoor rink. That way we can give out 32 medals - 8 for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and consolation champions of each respective tournament. We'll turn it into the post season Schwann's format... Oh, you don't like that because your team could beat someone from the level higher? Then shut up and prove it on the ice. The format works. There will always be controversy and better sections, but hockey is like the economy or stock market - when you make a change, there will be a shift in power again and you're right back where you started.

For now, let's appreciate the greatness that happens from play-ins to the championship. Not necessarily the best, but the most deserving team always has, and always will come out on top.