HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I thought the meeting was taking place tomorrow? Is this the ACTUAL seedings?

WBLHockeyfan04 wrote:I thought the meeting was taking place tomorrow? Is this the ACTUAL seedings?

Yes

BodyShots wrote:It's done.

1. Tartan
2. Hill
3. WBL
4. Rose
5. Still
6. MV
Play In Games: Johnson, North, Como, and St. Paul Saints

Thought the meeting was on Sunday? So the Hill and Moorheadf game is meaningless now. I felt if they had won convincingly, they could have jumped Tartan. No Hill and WBL in the Section Final..its just not the same!

Here is why I think coaches will give more repect to Hill. HM and Tartan played the same conference schedule and produced the same record. A slight nod goes to Tartan because they beat Hill. Where coaches may give a larger nod and more respect is in their quality wins: Edina, WB, STA, and Moorhead (hopefully twice). Tartan cannot match those wins.

Here is the bracket from the MSHSL

http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/showbrackets.asp?tournid=233

I smell a WB/Roseville section final!

formerlybackofnet wrote:I smell a WB/Roseville section final!

You sir, possess a keen olfactory sense!

It's nice to see the section seeded exactly how it should be on top, basing on results of games, not opinions. The bottom teams could've probably gone either way.

BodyShots wrote:It's done.

1. Tartan
2. Hill
3. WBL
4. Rose
5. Still
6. MV
Play In Games: Johnson, North, Como, and St. Paul Saints

Whoo-hoo Tartan number 1 seed baby!

Wow, the top two seeds for the Classic Suburban Conference. I still see this section as wide open among any of the top four seeds and maybe Stillwater. You do have to think, however, that Tartan and Hill got a break since I think there is a big drop off from Mounds View at #6 to North St. Paul at #7. I think the top four seeds will make the semis, but
I also think Stillwater and Mounds View have a much better chance of pulling an uipset than North, Johnson Saints or Como do. As I've said before, if oyu played thie section tournament four times, you would probably get four different winners. For the record, I'll go along with the trend and pick a Roseville-White-Bear final.

mnhockey73 wrote:

BodyShots wrote:It's done.

1. Tartan
2. Hill
3. WBL
4. Rose
5. Still
6. MV
Play In Games: Johnson, North, Como, and St. Paul Saints

Whoo-hoo Tartan number 1 seed baby!

Truly remarkable, considering the WBL players who are juniors and seniors will no doubt remember beating Tartan teams like a rented mule year in and year out as youth players. There was probably no District 2 opponent against whom WBLAHA teams could more reliably expect to win, other than maybe North St. Paul.

So Tartan hockey clearly has come a long way.

sllek wrote:Wow, the top two seeds for the Classic Suburban Conference. I still see this section as wide open among any of the top four seeds and maybe Stillwater. You do have to think, however, that Tartan and Hill got a break since I think there is a big drop off from Mounds View at #6 to North St. Paul at #7. I think the top four seeds will make the semis, but
I also think Stillwater and Mounds View have a much better chance of pulling an uipset than North, Johnson Saints or Como do. As I've said before, if oyu played thie section tournament four times, you would probably get four different winners. For the record, I'll go along with the trend and pick a Roseville-White-Bear final.

North beat Mounds View by score of 2 to 1 tonight .... still think there is a big drop off is there from 6 to 7? If the seeding meeting were tomorrow, Mounds View might have been playing Como on Wednesday.

Truly remarkable, considering the WBL players who are juniors and seniors will no doubt remember beating Tartan teams like a rented mule year in and year out as youth players

Short memory Gump?

Tartan beat WBL in District 2 for D2 Championship as A Bantams '06 - '07
Tartan was first seed and WB third behind Stillwater

Seedings are in how bout some predictions?

joycer10 wrote:Seedings are in how bout some predictions?

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19578

There is a thread for the sections predictions.
edit; wbmd got it before me.

thorhockey wrote:

Truly remarkable, considering the WBL players who are juniors and seniors will no doubt remember beating Tartan teams like a rented mule year in and year out as youth players

Short memory Gump?

Tartan beat WBL in District 2 for D2 Championship as A Bantams '06 - '07
Tartan was first seed and WB third behind Stillwater

Yeah but how far did they go after that? Got smoked in the VFW playoffs and in Regionals.

So Tartan hockey clearly has come a long way. They just didn't have anyone good enough that Hill wanted. This section no matter who wins will always have the big asterik by it for the Hill Murray that could have been.

thorhockey wrote:

Truly remarkable, considering the WBL players who are juniors and seniors will no doubt remember beating Tartan teams like a rented mule year in and year out as youth players

Short memory Gump?

Tartan beat WBL in District 2 for D2 Championship as A Bantams '06 - '07
Tartan was first seed and WB third behind Stillwater

Well, that's two years ago. Sort of my point. The program has gotten markedly better of late after ably serving as District 2's doormat for so many years.

BodyShots wrote:It's done.

1. Tartan
2. Hill
3. WBL
4. Rose
5. Still
6. MV
Play In Games: Johnson, North, Como, and St. Paul Saints

True, H-M got some solid wins after "the incident."

(By the way, Poinstreak has a "x" before the dismissed players' names. So much for confidentiality. Not that you couldn't learn the names other ways...)

But, and it's a big but, the late-season loss to the 11-12-1 Richfield Spartans is a little tough to square with a #2 section seeding.

The Gumper wrote:

BodyShots wrote:It's done.

1. Tartan
2. Hill
3. WBL
4. Rose
5. Still
6. MV
Play In Games: Johnson, North, Como, and St. Paul Saints

True, H-M got some solid wins after "the incident."

(By the way, Poinstreak has a "x" before the dismissed players' names. So much for confidentiality. Not that you couldn't learn the names other ways...)

But, and it's a big but, the late-season loss to the 11-12-1 Richfield Spartans is a little tough to square with a #2 section seeding.

You mean as opposed to White Bear going 0-1-1 against an 11-11-3 Stillwater team and Roseville losing to a 7-17-1 Mounds View team?

sllek wrote: You mean as opposed to White Bear going 0-1-1 against an 11-11-3 Stillwater team and Roseville losing to a 7-17-1 Mounds View team?

Good point. Maybe H-M should drop even lower than #3.

Well, it appears the MSHSL got what it wanted this year & that is parity in this section. Here's the real story behind the HM "incident". These players were not removed any any wrong doings. That was just a version to throw at the public. The real story was that the high school league looked at Hill's team this year and saw a large gap between them & the rest of the teams in this section. The league was concerned that come section time nobody would pay to see the games because the outcome would never be in doubt and the scores would be pretty lopsided in Hill's favor. So the MSHSL league contacted the school and discussed a plan to make things more competitive for this section this year. The first move was to blow up one of the state's top lines by taking away 2 high end players. The league still thought HM would dominate so they requested 2 more seniors be added to the mix. Hill tried to negotiate for younger/less experienced players, but ultimately conceeded to the request.

The section now provides a realistic shot for 5 teams to grab the section title. Interest is high with the participating schools & people will come out to see what happens which will provide the MSHSL with more revenue. It appears to have worked out well for the high school league.

But you may ask, what's in it for Hill Murray? Well, the high school reminded the school that it has always turned it's back when Hill has been accused of violating the recruiting rules & they promised to continue doing so in exchange for their cooperation in this matter.

Pioneerprideguy wrote:Well, it appears the MSHSL got what it wanted this year & that is parity in this section. Here's the real story behind the HM "incident". These players were not removed any any wrong doings. That was just a version to throw at the public. The real story was that the high school league looked at Hill's team this year and saw a large gap between them & the rest of the teams in this section. The league was concerned that come section time nobody would pay to see the games because the outcome would never be in doubt and the scores would be pretty lopsided in Hill's favor. So the MSHSL league contacted the school and discussed a plan to make things more competitive for this section this year. The first move was to blow up one of the state's top lines by taking away 2 high end players. The league still thought HM would dominate so they requested 2 more seniors be added to the mix. Hill tried to negotiate for younger/less experienced players, but ultimately conceeded to the request.

The section now provides a realistic shot for 5 teams to grab the section title. Interest is high with the participating schools & people will come out to see what happens which will provide the MSHSL with more revenue. It appears to have worked out well for the high school league.

But you may ask, what's in it for Hill Murray? Well, the high school reminded the school that it has always turned it's back when Hill has been accused of violating the recruiting rules & they promised to continue doing so in exchange for their cooperation in this matter.

Pioneerprideguy wrote:Well, it appears the MSHSL got what it wanted this year & that is parity in this section. Here's the real story behind the HM "incident". These players were not removed any any wrong doings. That was just a version to throw at the public. The real story was that the high school league looked at Hill's team this year and saw a large gap between them & the rest of the teams in this section. The league was concerned that come section time nobody would pay to see the games because the outcome would never be in doubt and the scores would be pretty lopsided in Hill's favor. So the MSHSL league contacted the school and discussed a plan to make things more competitive for this section this year. The first move was to blow up one of the state's top lines by taking away 2 high end players. The league still thought HM would dominate so they requested 2 more seniors be added to the mix. Hill tried to negotiate for younger/less experienced players, but ultimately conceeded to the request.

The section now provides a realistic shot for 5 teams to grab the section title. Interest is high with the participating schools & people will come out to see what happens which will provide the MSHSL with more revenue. It appears to have worked out well for the high school league.

But you may ask, what's in it for Hill Murray? Well, the high school reminded the school that it has always turned it's back when Hill has been accused of violating the recruiting rules & they promised to continue doing so in exchange for their cooperation in this matter.

Sounds similar to what the MSHSL did to WBL last year to give HM a chance to advance to state and whip the rest of the competition! I think you're on to something PPG.

Actually Hill did see someone they wanted and needed, they got Furne from Tartan last year, without him they would not have been anything. Also, it goes both ways, i know plenty of kids and alumni who have transferred from Hill to other schools because noone at hill or anywhere else likes lechner. Also the 4 kids you are talking about, prescott, kohls, widing, and kelly, got caught smoking weed by a fellow classmate who videotaped them for a month and turned it in to school adminisrators. Sounds like Hills where all the pot heads are, not Tartan or North, Hill students can afford that kind of hobby.