HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

[/quote]
Do away with conferences and make the sections more important. A 14 to 16 game sectional season would leave room for 10 more non-sectional games. Not much different than the current conference schedules.

The sectional record would be the determining factor for seeding teams and the top four teams are in and the rest are waiting until next season. [/quote]

Good idea - would also provide a little motivation to do a little bit better in regular season. Way it is now, kids know they will be in Section playoffs no matter where they finish the season.

do away with 2 classes and make 8 sections of 16-20 teams. or 16 sections with 8-10 teams. round of 16 wednesday at xcel and marriucci. then quarters on thursday, semis on friday and finals on saturday. need to win your first game to get into losers bracket portion.

the only change that will occur are switching to more classes, too bad ehh?

do away with 2 classes and make 8 sections of 16-20 teams. or 16 sections with 8-10 teams. round of 16 wednesday at xcel and marriucci. then quarters on thursday, semis on friday and finals on saturday. need to win your first game to get into losers bracket portion.

the only change that will occur are switching to more classes, too bad ehh?

marchmadness wrote:do away with 2 classes and make 8 sections of 16-20 teams. or 16 sections with 8-10 teams. round of 16 wednesday at xcel and marriucci. then quarters on thursday, semis on friday and finals on saturday. need to win your first game to get into losers bracket portion.

the only change that will occur are switching to more classes, too bad ehh?

The whole purpose of having a two class system is so that some small schools get a chance to play other small schools for the chance at a state tournament. In your plan all that will happen is the schools that are currently AA will knock off the A schools and we will be left with a AA state tourney.

not necessarily. keep the 16 sections as they are. some people believe that a can play with aa, atleast those that make it to the tourney. so basically combine the 16 section winners into one tournament. the same teams will make it to state then play it out from there.

O-townClown wrote:
...why not do this?

..........1
.....4
5
8

..........2
.....3
6
7

O Town's idea here isn't a bad one. In my mind, the positives certainly outweigh the negatives. This format resembles that used by some sectionals in the one class era. Back then, the top four seeds were sent right to the quarterfinals and seeds 5 to whatever fought it out to get there.

because then for the 1st seeded teams may actually not have a good feel for the game and if the 6 and 7th seeded teams want wins they need to win more games during the seasons

I find it hard to believe we need to change anything when we have such a great thing going. You may have a few blow outs but that is life. Look at the NCAA march madness. Yes a 16 has never knocked off a 1 but a 2 has fell to a 15. The fun part is, there is a chance. If we adopted O-towns system, we would not have had the pleasure of seeing Rogers upset Champlin. Blow outs will happen and they happen between good teams as well. Last year in the 4A final, Little Falls destroyed 2 seed Fergus Falls 10-1. I like that you are thinking out of the box, but if ain't broke, don't fix it.

fan2007 wrote:If we adopted O-towns system, we would not have had the pleasure of seeing Rogers upset Champlin.

This is absolutely not true.

A 7 beats the 6 to get the 3. If they keep winning they would face the 2. Rogers is still in the mix and can get out of sections in either format.

Thanks for the support Shanty. I find it odd that so many people say "it ain't broke" when the margins of all the 1/8 games indicate there is a gross competitive imbalance. Also, somehow people have turned a thread into how brackets are aligned into a A/AA vs. one-class discussion.

Look at how badly the season ended for all the 8 seeds. Looks broke to me.

what is the point in prolonging it? Also, why make it more agonizing by giving false hope? A blowout loss is easier to take than a 1 goal OT loss anyway isn't it? The basis of this is that an 8 seed won't beat, or even be competitive with a 1 seed. What is the point of making them play a couple lower seeded teams before getting blown out? (if they made it that far)

Irishmans Shanty wrote:

O-townClown wrote:
...why not do this?

..........1
.....4
5
8

..........2
.....3
6
7

O Town's idea here isn't a bad one. In my mind, the positives certainly outweigh the negatives. This format resembles that used by some sectionals in the one class era. Back then, the top four seeds were sent right to the quarterfinals and seeds 5 to whatever fought it out to get there.

That's true but back then you could kind of figure where you would be seeded prior to playoffs and schedule accordingly. We blew it one year and had to play early round games, we played Shattuck in a playoff game, SSP in a regular season game, Lourdes in a playoff game before closing out our regular season with another game. It was a nightmare.

O'towns suggestion would probably cause teams to sit 10 days at least before playing a team that's fresh, the diffence between a 2 and 3 seed is small, even 1 and 4 isn't usually much. I don't think coaches would want to sit and not play for that long before playing for your season. I think if it were a 1 class tournament that would work, that's how it did work, but 8 teams isn't enough to allow a staggered start.

7-Rogers/Zimmerman 2
2-Champlin Park 0


*Everyone deserves their shot at the top seeds thats why playoffs are designed the way they are. They are set up to give the top teams the advantage but still give the low seeds a chance for the upset.*