This year's tournament proves once again that seeding is a farce. Just look at the how Farmington destroyed Stillwater. Well, ok, look at Burnsville up ending Wayzata. Wait, the 3rd game, yeah, that one, did you see how Anoka, uh, uh.
Well, seeding is a bad idea anyway.
Tournamnet Seeding
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
I dont like seeding the way it is done. This year it worked, other years it hasn't.
If you are going to seed then two things have to happen: conferences can only be in 2 sections.....conference teams can't meet until the 3rd game. If you seed so EP and Wayzata are in opposite brackets then the same should be true for Farmington and Burnsville.
If you are going to seed then two things have to happen: conferences can only be in 2 sections.....conference teams can't meet until the 3rd game. If you seed so EP and Wayzata are in opposite brackets then the same should be true for Farmington and Burnsville.
Given your takes on another topic we should accept this one? Most people could easily argue the 4 best teams aren't playing Friday. The 4 teams that won Thursday are playing though. Would Bemidji have lost to Stillwater? Farmington to Wayzata? They beat Wayzata earlier....Anoka was the only team clearly not in yhe same class ad their oponent.RalphCox wrote:Seeding works excellent. I can't believe there is even a discussion on this topic. Look at the two semi finals for tomorrow and argue they aren't the best 4 teams.
Fwiw a team that finished 4th in a 5 team conference was seeded #1.
-
LASERBLUE135
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Richfield
The seedings failed the FIRST YEAR they did them. EVERY underdog won the first round that year.
While that was a clear rarity, that pretty much proved seedings are bs. Back to this year, yes the favorites all won, but GR and Bemiji could argue they had to play 3 tough teams to win a title vs some other teams that clearly did not. With 5 upper tier teams and 3 happy to be there teams there are clear losers in the seeding system. And those losers will never be the metro favorites because the vote is so metro biased. That's just a fact. That said, it's a good system. It's unfair to some schools, but not so unfair that I would call it a bad system.
While that was a clear rarity, that pretty much proved seedings are bs. Back to this year, yes the favorites all won, but GR and Bemiji could argue they had to play 3 tough teams to win a title vs some other teams that clearly did not. With 5 upper tier teams and 3 happy to be there teams there are clear losers in the seeding system. And those losers will never be the metro favorites because the vote is so metro biased. That's just a fact. That said, it's a good system. It's unfair to some schools, but not so unfair that I would call it a bad system.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
Manning, concussed, probably out for the Tourney.BodyShots wrote:Who and what is their injury?Mavs wrote:seems to work...
GR is without one of their top players (suspension) and is sounds like Stillwater might have lost 2 top 6 forwards to injury yesterday. Eden Prairie has to like what is going on.
TJ Sagissor, something leg-related, questionable. He was out from the middle of the first period on yesterday.
That sucks. Feel bad for the team and players when this kind of stuff happens in a once in a lifetime event.karl(east) wrote:Manning, concussed, probably out for the Tourney.BodyShots wrote:Who and what is their injury?Mavs wrote:seems to work...
GR is without one of their top players (suspension) and is sounds like Stillwater might have lost 2 top 6 forwards to injury yesterday. Eden Prairie has to like what is going on.
TJ Sagissor, something leg-related, questionable. He was out from the middle of the first period on yesterday.
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
Teams being upset doesn't mean that seeding failed.LASERBLUE135 wrote:The seedings failed the FIRST YEAR they did them. EVERY underdog won the first round that year.
While that was a clear rarity, that pretty much proved seedings are bs. Back to this year, yes the favorites all won, but GR and Bemiji could argue they had to play 3 tough teams to win a title vs some other teams that clearly did not. With 5 upper tier teams and 3 happy to be there teams there are clear losers in the seeding system. And those losers will never be the metro favorites because the vote is so metro biased. That's just a fact. That said, it's a good system. It's unfair to some schools, but not so unfair that I would call it a bad system.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, is that only 5 teams are seeded. I understand the idea of not wanting to hurt feelings and all, but they should go to at least 6 instead of just 5, or even do all 8.
Like it or not, there are more high quality teams in the metro and it is easier for metro teams to play more of them. But that doesn't mean there is favoritism.
If Rapids had beaten EP, Wayzata and Bemidji in the regular season, they're likely the 1 or 2 seed at state. But they didn't.
Bemidji lost to Moorhead and Cloquet, tied Rapids and EGF and beat Hermantown 4-2 and Hill 6-2. I find it hard to rank them much higher here. Beat Cloquet and Moorhead and this may be different.
-
LASERBLUE135
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Richfield
I want to agree here, but it really all depends on the year. Maybe seeding the top 2 is the way to go. Maybe seeding all. Maybe seeding 6. Based on what we've seen since the seedings have been initiated is that (unlike this year) they don't mean a whole bunch. Surely you wouldn't want Hermantown and Breck playing in the first round this year, and surely you wouldn't have wanted Edina and Lakeville North playing in the first round last year. I think EVERYONE gets that. Then there are years like this year. The #1 team didn't even have 20 wins, and the teams from out of the metro (or even certain circles of the metro) get the shaft because of their conferences, schedules, travel distance, etc.HShockeywatcher wrote:Teams being upset doesn't mean that seeding failed.LASERBLUE135 wrote:The seedings failed the FIRST YEAR they did them. EVERY underdog won the first round that year.
While that was a clear rarity, that pretty much proved seedings are bs. Back to this year, yes the favorites all won, but GR and Bemiji could argue they had to play 3 tough teams to win a title vs some other teams that clearly did not. With 5 upper tier teams and 3 happy to be there teams there are clear losers in the seeding system. And those losers will never be the metro favorites because the vote is so metro biased. That's just a fact. That said, it's a good system. It's unfair to some schools, but not so unfair that I would call it a bad system.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, is that only 5 teams are seeded. I understand the idea of not wanting to hurt feelings and all, but they should go to at least 6 instead of just 5, or even do all 8.
Like it or not, there are more high quality teams in the metro and it is easier for metro teams to play more of them. But that doesn't mean there is favoritism.
If Rapids had beaten EP, Wayzata and Bemidji in the regular season, they're likely the 1 or 2 seed at state. But they didn't.
Bemidji lost to Moorhead and Cloquet, tied Rapids and EGF and beat Hermantown 4-2 and Hill 6-2. I find it hard to rank them much higher here. Beat Cloquet and Moorhead and this may be different.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
-
East Side Pioneer Guy
- Posts: 1663
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:43 pm
-
East Side Pioneer Guy
- Posts: 1663
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:43 pm
I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy, but I don't think that TV would allow for a 1 vs. 8 game every year.
Every year there is some legitimate debate about this team or that team being seeded too high or too low, usually by about two positions. But I don't recall a situation where there is squawking about 1 that should be 4 or a 5 should be 2. Has there been an unseeded team that should have been 1, 2, or 3? Has there been a 1, 2, or 3 that should have gone unseeded?
Seeding to 5 means that the 1 doesn't play the team that would have been 5 (had the seeding gone just to 4) while 2 plays the weakest team, which happened once.
No system is perfect. But seeding beats a random draw or a set rotation, which is what we had before. You young whipper snappers will learn in time that you don't risk a pretty good situation in order to get a perfect situation. It's called "overreach".
Every year there is some legitimate debate about this team or that team being seeded too high or too low, usually by about two positions. But I don't recall a situation where there is squawking about 1 that should be 4 or a 5 should be 2. Has there been an unseeded team that should have been 1, 2, or 3? Has there been a 1, 2, or 3 that should have gone unseeded?
Seeding to 5 means that the 1 doesn't play the team that would have been 5 (had the seeding gone just to 4) while 2 plays the weakest team, which happened once.
No system is perfect. But seeding beats a random draw or a set rotation, which is what we had before. You young whipper snappers will learn in time that you don't risk a pretty good situation in order to get a perfect situation. It's called "overreach".