Top 10 A vs Top 10 AA

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:34 pm

As a reminder, I don't think I'm saying a 4-17 team should be #1, top 10, etc. Top 20? Maybe??? The point is that it's quite possible that there are a few metro homegrown small school Class A teams with ugly records that may deserve top 20 A CONSIDERATION still. If you've read all of this, and you still don't get it, I can't help you anymore than I already have. ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4199 (1/22/06 12:46 pm) Reply | Edit Re: Single A Rankings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These stats changed again obviously with rerunning the results. Also, I think the point of an A team with 15+ losses being ranked in top 20 in anything is best illustrated by looking at today's KRACH. The A team in question has lost games to teams ranked the following: In AA: #2 (2 games) #9 #15 #16 #17 (2 games) #20 #23 (2 games) #49 (11 losses) In A: #1 #3 #5 #10 #13 (Split) #23 (6 losses) The 4 wins have come against: #30AA #51AA #55AA #13A And the tie: #42AA The remainder of this team's scheudle includes: #23A #1A #34A The team has the 8th hardest (of 126 teams) schedule in the state right now with an average opponent rank of ~35. This homegrown A team plays the 3rd hardest Class A scheudle in the state (of 55 teams). Once again we see that SOS has an impact on record and must be taken into consideration when ranking/seeding. W's alone can't be used.

Artificial Ice · Post by **Artificial Ice** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:29 pm

That is ONE TOUGH schedule, no doubt about it. Even though their record don't show it, in the long run, I'm sure it makes the players much better hockey players.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:51 pm

Right, if the players play through it and understand the point. Keep in mind though that 7 other teams have harder scheudles than this though too! When I put this scheudle together a year ago, I knew it woudl be tough. I didn't anticipate it would be quite as tough as it actually became (you can only estimate obviously). I figured it may be one of the top 25 scheudles, but not #8 of 126.

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That is ONE TOUGH schedule, no doubt about it. Even though their record don't show it, in the long run, I'm sure it makes the players much better hockey players. <hr></blockquote> Absolutely the truth, and absolutely any team playing that tough a schedule deserves MUCH praise. They also certainly dont deserve to be ranked when they have won 4 out of 22 games. Not in any class, in any age level or any sport. Period.

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:06 pm

Wow, this is just finally too much. Hey, why dont we mention its the 8th toughest schedule one more time? 5 straight posts on this thread pointing out the 8th toughest schedule. 8th out of 126. Only 7 teams have harder schedules. 118 teams have easier schedules. Everyone got that? 3rd highest in class "A". See, when someone has to say the same thing over and over and over and over, type 75 paragraphs and list ridiculous stat after ridiculous strenght of schedule stat to desparately make a point, they probably are going to end up looking a little silly. My God. Luckily there is another critical cause to take up some of the posts so its at least not the same thing every single post. No, we really need it pointed out for the 150th time how its a homegrown team. We all know its a homegrown team or more importantly we all get that SSP IS NOT A HOMEGROWN team. They have had kids transfer into their program including some from IGH. But that doesnt have anything do with mentioning its a homegrown team ad naueseum on this post and countless other threads - no, no, not at all!!! We can all now get ready for the real genuine post on how great SSP is, and how much they should be respected and certainly mentioning Homegrown 150 times is not related to or directed at SSP or EP or anyone. No, not at all. Or maybe we will get more stats on how a team that has won 4 freaking games out of 22 should be or can be ranked. Absolutely amazing. P.S. Hopefully someone mentions SSP won multiple youth state titles. Not that its relevent. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeygal</A> at: 1/27/06 9:39 pm

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:58 pm

We can agree that we both think the numbers speak for themselves and don't lie. You want to stress record w/out full SOS consideration, I want to stress SOS consideration with record. That's the difference. You yourself said you know how weak Class A is, so I don't see how it should come as any surprise that an A team that plays the best in the state and loses could still be an above average A team. The KRACH rankings are widely accepted as valid and show the SOS and still rank the team in question #18 in A. These numbers will likely change again, and as of this afternoon showed #2 in A SOS, #8 overall, etc. (sorry, just had to cite it all again!)... I hear that some like to watch us fight it out on here, but we can agree to disagree as we obvioulsy don't agree philosophically on this one! None of this is directed at SSP, EP, Privates, or any other team. I simply think there is a difference between Class A & Class AA and also between true homegrown Class A teams (small school), and AA/Public/Private/Open Enrollment teams. Also, see this post below - it may help understand my views on EP & SSP... ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4154 (1/17/06 2:10 pm) Reply | Edit Re: Eden Prairie the real deal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As time passes, I've seen more and some of my thoughts on all of this have changed/evolved to some degree. I'm quite certain that 99.9% of the players and their families that transfer initiate discussions themselves from what I've heard/seen specifically of the top programs/dynasties transfer-wise in the state so far. Privates are in the same situation, as I used to bash them but they too attract talent based on what they have to offer academically & athletically. Sometimes, for top players especially, or any player it's as much about finding a like mindset/mentality with the majority of a group rather than a small minority. This is another item that I've heard cited in discussions. From what I can tell, the education (mostly) & complete package (including hockey) are the motivation, and it doesn't take a coach initiating for people who do their homework (parents, players, general public, etc.) to understand that this is the case. From what I understand the first great metro G Hockey dynasty was built homegrown almost entirely (Roseville). After this happened, they started to attract some transfers for a while (I call this the Roseville Syndrome), but now - from what I understand - are still very strong drawing on their strong past and having obviously used this to continue to build from within (they overcame the RV Syndrome). The second great metro G Hockey dynasty was pretty much the same way, with only a sprinkling of outside players in the early years, but then predominantly more as the years passed (SSP). We have to recognize though that - like Roseville before them - SSP's best to date have probably been all homegrown, with a few more recent exceptions. The likely third great metro G Hockey dynasty is still in the making, but it too is following a similar path. Started with being predominately home grown, but has started to attract that outside talent as well (EP). As to if they will fulfill the true "dynasty" label remains to be seen, but appears quite likely. There have been some great individuals, and teams, in between these 3, but these stand out as the big three. There appears to be some great similarities relative to the team composition as the years pass in these 3 examples. the trend usually starts with predominantly homegrown top talent, then their dominance attracts other top players from the surrounding areas, and then hopefully the cycle comes full circle as it did at RV when the continued strong play builds tradition and starts to create strong building at the youth ranks from within. What can happen though is that too much outside talent can potentially start to deter younger players from ever feeling like they'll have a shot at the HS team. RV overcame this, if SSP & EP will remains to be seen - and EP also has to face more private school concerns than many realize. EP does have a ton of kids to work with though, plus great economic affluence, so this helps them. SSP is true class A school, so this leaves them with less kids obviously, and also a much different economic and otherwise demographic to work with. I would say that RV is more middle of the road in both these respects. Maybe this helped them come full circle. This all being said, what we're seeing today is nothing new. Heightened awareness? Maybe. But, maybe the issue that we truly have is if has this been "ethical" all along, and recent scores, events, etc. when much more info. is available is just making us all more upset and hypersensitive. There will always be some bad blood between dynasties I think as the passing of the torch is not always an easy thing. Some finger pointing is happening, and I think that's to be expected. What would help is some way of addressing the score differential and how teams can ethically handle these situations. That may minimize the finger pointing, etc. I think I outlined this in another post. Also, to play a little devil's advocate, we have to look at all of this from a flip side view. Is it fair for a top dynasty team to have to sit its players 1-2 periods a game (when they only get 25-30 games a year) due to being so superior? It's an interesting question, but it leads me to a bigger problem... These teams should have the capability of constructing a schedule that will allow them to not have to be in this situation often. That, I believe, is the solution to this and would alleviate a lot of trouble. Some would also argue that the extra section and state games that these top teams get would make up for periods lost due to sitting top players in the regular season - so maybe it's all a wash in the end... Lastly, open enrolment is here to stay. In all three examples above, the HS's are OUTSTANDING academically. The coaches are outstanding (and likely helped indirectly attract kids through their dedication to, and passion for, the game). The teams are comprised of kids that have a similar mindset and play hockey with a purpose, not just to pass time. Their off-season offerings attract not only the top instructors (including their own coaches), but also the surrounding area top players, which can often lead to recruiting violation claims - when truly they are just trying to offer the best camps/clinics/opportunities/competition in practice/training/scrimmages/games for their kids to better their own programs. Similarly, many of these coaches are said to be dedicating all this time to "recruit" when they do NDP, CODP, AAA, festivals, etc. - when in reality again they just have a sincere passion and investment in making the game great. I've personally been accused of all of this as well - but my recent home grown class A small school team clears my name quickly to a large degree. If I were at EP, SSP, or elsewhere I'd be guilty of every recruiting violation in the book in many eyes I'm sure though as those teams are top teams whose reputation, coaches (indirectly), players, success, and schools have attracted outside players - it's the whole package... Private schools have many of the same concerns as those publics listed above. They usually have top caliber dedicated and passionate coaches. It's no coincidence that many of the top teams (public and/or private) have coaches that are active in year round promotion OF THE SPORT (read as not their team) through various events sponsored by various coaching and sports associations. Their own players often populate these events too, which isn't a surprise as the coach and player seem to share the same dedication and passion for the game in programs with this mindset (top public & private). I think that we all need to be grateful for what all these coaches have done. No, not everyone will like them, and that's to be expected - they will be accused by many too of many things. Thank god they have thick skin and haven't said "to heck with this" for all the crap they take! As without many of the top team coaches we'd be lost as far as support for the sport in general. These coaches have fought hard for women's rights in this sport specifically. There are always a few examples of bad decisions by coaches, but predominantly these are the exception, and not the rule. Let's not forget how little these people are getting compensated as well... Their passion allows for small/little/no payment... That's enough for now, and I truly think that with a little score control a little sooner and better scheduling options (see my earlier post) that we wouldn't have all the drama we do now about transfers, scores, etc. - especially relative to the dynasties of late. Edited by: ghshockeyfan at: 1/17/06 2:37 pm Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 1/28/06 12:12 am

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:05 am

Yes, thats it - we disagree philosophically. It is so hilarious how you spin things and try to imply that I believe, or have said, stength of schedule is not important which is of course completely false. Despite my countless posts on this thread alone on how a team deserves respect and credit for playing a tough SOS, and how it absolutely should impact their ranking, or countless other posts pointing out the attributes of SSP big 3 or their whole dynasty run should be taken up even 1 or 2 more notches because they played the toughest schedule every damn year (even this year they played a tough schedule). I am on record COUNTLESS times saying SOS needs to be considered both positively and negatively (for those teams who play no one). Sidenote - By the way, hey, how did I know we would get the SSP is great reference!!! I must have inside info. Sorry - your not going to spin my opinion to try and deflect the embarrassment of your assertion that teams with 4 wins in 22 games can be or should be ranked (that you have amusingly repeated over and over and tried to show stats and SOS info this entire thread). So I will reiterate one more time my opinion on this entire debate. Yes, as completely astounding as it is that someone would actually believe that a team with 4 wins in 22 games can/should be ranked, let alone publicly post it where people can read it, let alone as that teams coach would publicly post it, yes, I will provide the masses with my part of your referenced arguing that supposedly the people like to see, and therefore I will keep this amazing debate going. Lets boil this down for people. You feel strength of schedule is the single most important factor in ranking a team and its number if wins is very overrated as a factor and is actually bordering on irrelevent. For example, you feel a team that wins LESS than 20% of the time can be ranked because they play the 8th touhest schedule out of 126 teams (everyone, thats only 7 teams have a harder schedule), therefore, only winning 4 games out of 22 is good enough to warrant be ranked (its so hard to type things like that without laughing). I, however, am from the school of thought that SOS is a large factor to be weighed heavily but I have this pesky, silly little hang up that a teams actually winning games is a factor also. For example, a team 12-10-1 but has played a top 8 schedule (8th out of 126 teams), only 7 teams with harder schedule) would deserve to be ranked. Maybe even a team a game or 2 below .500 would also - it has to be taken into consideration. But, where we part ways, is clearly I have this antiquated, out of touch feeling that wins should be at least a relevent factor in ranking. My feeling is a team who is ranked in the top 10 or top 20 should actually have won some games, like say the majority of them, or at least more than half. See, in an amazingly consistent trend, most of the teams that are ranked, actually win more often than not. As crazy as it sounds, my school of thought would even go further and say even if a team through 22 games had played the top 11 AA teams and the top 11 A teams, that they actually still be required to win some games to merit ranking. Call me crazy. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeygal</A> at: 1/28/06 9:15 am

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:19 am

Gal - you're not crazy for having a differing viewpoint. I've never attacked you for this! Many just wish that we'd use our hockey knowledge to add to this forum, not as a platform to detract from it. There's a TON of negativity and personal jabs in some contributions and other posters/readers honestly don't understand this. Agree to disagree with someone, but no need to start a war or get so worked up and negative! Best for this forum would be for me to not speak about my own squad for the percieved bias. I can do this, as long as no one bashes my team unjustly. If they do, I will use a logical argument to defend them backed up by facts. References were made long ago to a weak squad with few wins, etc. When this happens, I will chime in with ALL the facts - not just the few W's and how that automatically implies a very weak team. Let me rephrase my assessment of the situation. We differ on how strongly one can factor in SOS in rankings based on the number of games a team wins. Is this more fair? I think we have an understanding, but still a disagreement. There is no embarrasment here in standing up for what logically makes sense to you personally. I stand behind my point of view & you yours. We are both entitled to this, and thank goodness for free speech! I'm going to let this go at the request of many posters/readers of this forum that have contacted me directly. They feel that the current discussion has regressed into something that isn't productive. It's obvious that we can agree to disagree and no need to take any more personal jabs at one another or our teams based on personal bias/hatred (percieved or otherwise) on both our ends. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 1/28/06 10:20 am

stphockey · Post by **stphockey** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:26 am

I only need to add one thing - That I know for a fact there are Coaches that use the summer programs to HEAVILY RECRUIT to there programs - I know off multiple players made offers by coaches and they are usually the same COACHES and most people know who they are!!!!! END OF STORY!!!!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:42 am

I just want to add - re: the last post - I do not coach during the off-season to recruit. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 1/28/06 10:43 am

hockeywild711 · Post by **hockeywild711** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:06 am

GHS, your comments are right on the money on this one. For some reason a few people can't have respectful disagreements but need to rip on people they dont agree with. Fine, you dont like what someone says, as long as that person isnt making personal attacks on someone you should respect their opinion and state your own facts without trying to embarrass or attack them. What really bothers me are some of the personal slander attacks some make on here about specific people, even mentioning names of players or coaches. Unless you have a positive comment in naming someone personally you really shouldnt say anything. This shouldnt be a forum to attack people and make accusations because from what i have seen many of them are just hearsay and not truly fact. That is a dangerous thing to do. I personally know of a coach who has had some false statements made about them on here and was at the specific incident mentioned. The statements made are a total lie and I should have made a specific comment about what they said but i choose not to go that route.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:27 am

Well said. The best disagreement is to state your view, use facts to back it, and then move on if someone disagrees after you've attempted to clairify as needed. No need to try to attack anyone for having differing viewpoints. One of the best discussions/disagreement I had on here led to the revisiting of how KRACH calculates SOS. Someone pointed out a year ago that it wasn't working correctly, and after some tweaking it is better now as a result I believe. In that instance facts were presented to make a point, and after seeing that I agreed that there was a problem with that which I once defended. Of course, it doesn't always happen that you can change someone else's mind even after making your case, and then that's when you need to agree to disagree and not attack someone for their difference in opinion. When a debate regresses into personal attacks, the debate is over and typically the first to start making it "personal" vs. "topic based" has lost the focus of the debate I have found. By this point, it is pointless to debate any further. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 1/28/06 11:28 am

hockeyhead · Post by **hockeyhead** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:27 am

My only comment will be this one!!!! SOS is huge! Look at the BK team that ghs took over a few years back. The departing coach set up a schedule that was simple and easy and allowed BK to be competitive. It was a schedule that allowed that team to be right at or above 500.. The next year ghs changed the schedule to look more competitive, and it was... He had a better team with a worse record... This is fact! Again, lets not start the negative... If you want to be negative then send a personal message. To me this team that is 4-18 deserves to in the top 20... that's just one persons opinion... I'm done! Hockeyhead

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:34 am

You hit the nail on the head with BK - that example is a great one! There seems to be a pattern regardless of program: 1st year take the scheudle given and go about .500, 2nd year increase SOS greatly and compete but not win much. It will be interesting to see what the pattern holds for a 3rd year in a program... Stay tuned...

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Gal - you're not crazy for having a differing viewpoint. I've never attacked you for this! Many just wish that we'd use our hockey knowledge to add to this forum, not as a platform to detract from it. There's a TON of negativity and personal jabs in some contributions and other posters/readers honestly don't understand this. Agree to disagree with someone, but no need to start a war or get so worked up and negative!<hr></blockquote> No, you never attack anyone! You instead send emails to the administrator whining about someone who has the tamarity to call out your nonsense and then you also take your little subtle shots and then cover all of it up with posts like the above, trying to show how your Mr Nice guy. Its completely sickening, and embarrassing. At least have pride enough to stand behind what you say and what you mean. As for this topic, yes, we can agree to disagree as no, we arent ever going to agree on if a team with 4 wins in 22 games merits being ranked. You will have to stick to your bobo's to get to agree with you on that, although I doubt they all will either. I am signing off this thread now as the whole debate is so completely crazy its no longer entertaining! Its time to move on and with playoff hockey looming, there is plenty to talk about. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeygal</A> at: 1/29/06 9:08 am

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:30 am

I'm sorry that you had to take one last shot at me. One that proves to be unfounded as well. I hoped this sort of attack wouldn't happen and that we could just agree to disagree. I haven't written to the administrator ever about you. Others may have though. But, I honestly don't know. I won't go out on a limb and accuse anyone of this though unless I know for it to be certain. To do so would be slanderous/libelous I believe. I can fight my own battles and stand up for what I believe in. I also know when to admit I understand someone else's point and to then agree to disagree. I can even admit when I'm wrong (as this does happen sometimes to all of us). In this case, I don't agree with you (and vice versa). Doesn't mean that I have to personally call you names, degrade you, be hell-bent on getting you to change your mind, etc. I just call it what it is, a difference in opinion! Again, best for this forum would be for me to not speak about my own squad for the percieved bias. I can do this, as long as no one bashes my team unjustly. If they do, I will use a logical argument to defend them backed up by facts. References were made long ago to a weak squad with few wins, etc. When this happens, I will chime in with ALL the facts - not just the few W's and how that automatically implies a very weak team. In consideration of the last string of posts, I think I understand your frustration - it may be another issue of perception vs. reality. You may be misinterpreting my continuation of the SOS discussion as being one of "rubbing this in your face" when instead it had nothing to do with you or our disagreement. This wasn't about continually pointing out that you were "wrong," instead it was about continuing a discussion with some other posters about the topic. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was maliciously continuing to take shots at your disagreement with me, as that indeed was NOT the case. If I was so hell-bent on proving you wrong and making you admit it, I would have asked for your response and not addressed others comments. My goal isn't to make others change their mind by calling them out, but instead to give them the opporutnity to form an informed opion on a topic with all the facts. If they have a question, I answer it. If they further clairify their opinion, I may mine too to address their statements. After this, if they see it my way, great. If not, no problem. We just agree to disagree. This doesn't make them "crazy," or their position "embarasing," etc. Just means it differs from mine. I respect other people's opinions and think that this is wonderful if it can be done respectfully and without attack. Thank goodness we don't all see things the same way all the time - no matter how frustrating this can be at times when things appear so clear-cut to us based on the facts and how we interpret them. I understand your frustration with having posts removed, etc. but that happens when the negativity turns into an attack. My suggestion would be to stay away from making your statements so negatively charged and personal. Name calling, degrading statements, unfounded accusations, etc. are what get things blocked on this forum, and this also isn't the best way to make your point. Read this thread: <a href="http://p100.ezboard.com/fmnhsfrm7.showM ... =832.topic" target="top">Rules</a>. Also, what kind of example does this set for the many kids who read this forum? Is this the way they are to handle disagreements in their lives? Instead of rationally discussing and analyzing facts are they to regress to name calling and such negativity in a debate? I don't think so. I can understand that we won't ever agree that a team with the 8th best of 126 teams SOS in the state & 2nd in A (ratings subject to change this PM when I rerun the KRACH) deserves ranking consideration even with a poor record. We differ on how strongly one can factor in SOS in rankings based on the number of games a team wins. I think we have an understanding, but still a disagreement.

Artificial Ice · Post by **Artificial Ice** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:03 pm

Let's put this in a nutshell........ Rankings mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You can put all the formula's and garbage together that you want (i.e. SOS). The only thing that MATTERS, is the upcoming section tournaments. You can throw all the RANKINGS out, at this point, because the slate is wiped clean. You lose one game, you're DONE! Being #1 ranked team in the state doesn't guarantee you any victories come tournament time. All the rankings does, is create arguments.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:09 pm

I agree 100%, but I will say that "rankings" - in terms of seeding - do play a role in the section outcomes. Once that seeding is done it's one and done!

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:47 am

I'm sorry that you had to take one last shot at me. Its too bad you have to type another 10 plus paragraphs (as I predicted) of deflecting trying to show how MR Nice guy you are. Here I thought we could move on. I wonder if there will be another 10 paragraph reply explaining away your non jabs? Hilarious!

Rocketwrister · Post by **Rocketwrister** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:47 pm

Hey mnhockeygal..... Not sure why you dislike GHS so much, or his team but calm down. Life is too short....let the girls play hockey and lets cheer the team to victory. Seedings/Rankings are all good to try to predict where the teams will end up; but in all honesty a coach can vote anyway he/she feels fit. If they want to rank a 25-0 team last in the section they can....although might not be the best move BUT they are still able too. Lets stop the bickering and enjoy the next few weeks of the season/playoffs. RW www.rebelhockey.com

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:18 pm

I'm sorry that the clarification of my own thoughts and potential misperceptions (by me and others) may have come across as an attack. These were some of my perceptions/opinions about the situation. You could say this is my philosophy re: this board and the situation - to some degree. I was attempting to add some clarification as to why some posts are potentially getting removed due to the aforementioned accusations. I also chimed in with my personal view on approach to debate. It's frustrating to put the time in and have your efforts removed, and don't I know it as brevity is not one of my strong points (surprise, surprise)! It's tough though when you're sincere and passionate about something to just write a few lines I find. This being said, I hope that my dissertations aren't being misinterpreted as backpedaling/deflection. If anything, I view them as the exact opposite, solidifying my position and view through further explanation, in addition to illustrating my sincerity (why else would someone dedicate the time?). This time I kept it to two paragraphs! Well, three if you count this one I guess! I'm off to practice to prep for SSP tomorrow! Gotta love being the enormous underdog!

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:09 pm

ghs -- While I believe that both the intended motivation and true meaning of the content of your posts is clear to the vast majority in the forum. I don't want to speak for others, but I know that is the case for me personally. Also, for me personally, it isn't necessary to "masquerade" as Mr. Nice Guy...not that I think for a minute that's what you're attempting. In my opinion, you are a good guy. Possibly the most fair and objective in the forum.

FACMAN · Post by **FACMAN** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:46 pm

Brooky, you CAN speak for me -- you hit the nail on the head. Whether or not people agree with GHS, I doubt many question the meaning of his posts or his motivation. Reasonable people agree to disagree. GHS probably tried too many times to make that point when it was clear it was falling on deaf ears. I believe he showed remakable restraint.

Post by **east hockey** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You instead send emails to the administrator whining about someone who has the tamarity to call out your nonsense<hr></blockquote> No such email has been sent to either Mitch or I. You're barking up the wrong tree. After reading this thread, however, and a few others you've been involved in, my advice is to tone down the rhetoric. Clear enough, mnhockeygal? Lee ____________ Message Board arsonist since 2005 Egomaniac since 2006

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:30 pm

Thank you Lee Right on, Right on, Right on. Done.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Top 10 A vs Top 10 AA

Missing the point...

Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re missing the point

Re: Re missing the point

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: rankings

Re: rankings

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: re:

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: Missing the point

Re: Missing the point.....

Re: East Hockey