HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

GopherWild wrote:With the State Tournament approaching I thought I would run a question. Should only the top 4 be seeded or all 8 going 1-8.

The MSHSL adopted the seeding process after meeting with Bob Lee who had noticed a drop-off in activity over the five years starting around section time. It was instated to increase posting and user activity and create a healthy dose of debate and manical outrage. I think Bob is a complete Genius.

sticksuphigh wrote:

GopherWild wrote:With the State Tournament approaching I thought I would run a question. Should only the top 4 be seeded or all 8 going 1-8.

The MSHSL adopted the seeding process after meeting with Bob Lee who had noticed a drop-off in activity over the five years starting around section time. It was instated to increase posting and user activity and create a healthy dose of debate and manical outrage. I think Bob is a complete Genius.

nice theory.....

Seeding 1-8 is obviously correct. After all, a favorable position in the brackets is something EARNED through superior previous play. And, after all that's the way it's done in all the sectional playoffs...is it not?

Seems odd that the number 1 ranked team should have to play Blaine, a higher ranked team than teams 2, 3 & 4 play against in the first round. And then, they be placed in the same bracket as Hill, who was ranked higher than Benilde.

Go figure.

seeding 1-8 is just too stinkin predictable. usually you figure out who's playing who after half the season. Random draw at least leaves some excitment in the mix, an unpredictability that leaves everyone cupping their ear and falling off the edge of their seat to find out who gets to play who.

If you seed 1-8 in the sections,(if only 8 teams) then why wouldn't you seed 1-8 in the state. In the sections, some of the 1 vs 8 games are not good for either team or the game of hockey. I know they have to be played and the higher ranked team earned that advantage and that is our system. In most years I dont't think(if ranked) there would be blowouts and occasionally an upset (1vs8) would occur in the state. Again, the highest ranked team has earned that advantage and I don't think it would tarnish the state.

OldTexasRam wrote:Seeding 1-8 is obviously correct. After all, a favorable position in the brackets is something EARNED through superior previous play. And, after all that's the way it's done in all the sectional playoffs...is it not?

Seems odd that the number 1 ranked team should have to play Blaine, a higher ranked team than teams 2, 3 & 4 play against in the first round. And then, they be placed in the same bracket as Hill, who was ranked higher than Benilde.

Go figure.

But when there has only been 1,2,or 3 games total played between all the teams, how can you determine who is better?

i think the way they seed it now is fine id rather watch hill/south than roseau/south. and how can you say roseau is better than hill, edina, or benilde? they havent played (not saying roseau isnt better) im just not convinced they are for sure better than any of those 3 and are deserving of the advantages in state that a #1 team gets in sections

pondyplayer93 wrote:

OldTexasRam wrote:Seeding 1-8 is obviously correct. After all, a favorable position in the brackets is something EARNED through superior previous play. And, after all that's the way it's done in all the sectional playoffs...is it not?

Seems odd that the number 1 ranked team should have to play Blaine, a higher ranked team than teams 2, 3 & 4 play against in the first round. And then, they be placed in the same bracket as Hill, who was ranked higher than Benilde.

Go figure.

But when there has only been 1,2,or 3 games total played between all the teams, how can you determine who is better?

i think the way they seed it now is fine id rather watch hill/south than roseau/south. and how can you say roseau is better than hill, edina, or benilde? they havent played (not saying roseau isnt better) im just not convinced they are for sure better than any of those 3 and are deserving of the advantages in state that a #1 team gets in sections

perfect
I completely agree.
Numbers 1, 2 , 3, and, 4 really are NOT 1, 2, 3, and 4, instead they are the top 4 teams. This is why they give the #1 seed no advantage....

right i am really looking forward to how the semifinals play out assuming all those teams win

I say let the top two teams in each section in, seed all 16, and extend the state tournament another game.

defense wrote:

pondyplayer93 wrote:

OldTexasRam wrote:Seeding 1-8 is obviously correct. After all, a favorable position in the brackets is something EARNED through superior previous play. And, after all that's the way it's done in all the sectional playoffs...is it not?

Seems odd that the number 1 ranked team should have to play Blaine, a higher ranked team than teams 2, 3 & 4 play against in the first round. And then, they be placed in the same bracket as Hill, who was ranked higher than Benilde.

Go figure.

But when there has only been 1,2,or 3 games total played between all the teams, how can you determine who is better?

i think the way they seed it now is fine id rather watch hill/south than roseau/south. and how can you say roseau is better than hill, edina, or benilde? they havent played (not saying roseau isnt better) im just not convinced they are for sure better than any of those 3 and are deserving of the advantages in state that a #1 team gets in sections

perfect
I completely agree.
Numbers 1, 2 , 3, and, 4 really are NOT 1, 2, 3, and 4, instead they are the top 4 teams. This is why they give the #1 seed no advantage....

Well, you should write the NFL commissioner since they have it wrong too, as well as countless other playoffs in sports.

pondyplayer93 wrote:

OldTexasRam wrote:Seeding 1-8 is obviously correct. After all, a favorable position in the brackets is something EARNED through superior previous play. And, after all that's the way it's done in all the sectional playoffs...is it not?

Seems odd that the number 1 ranked team should have to play Blaine, a higher ranked team than teams 2, 3 & 4 play against in the first round. And then, they be placed in the same bracket as Hill, who was ranked higher than Benilde.

Go figure.

But when there has only been 1,2,or 3 games total played between all the teams, how can you determine who is better?

i think the way they seed it now is fine id rather watch hill/south than roseau/south. and how can you say roseau is better than hill, edina, or benilde? they havent played (not saying roseau isnt better) im just not convinced they are for sure better than any of those 3 and are deserving of the advantages in state that a #1 team gets in sections

I understand your point. However, the answer is - the various ratings, their records and finally, the coaches vote. I'm just saying it should be 1-8, not 1-4 and then draw out of a hat.

OldTexasRam wrote:

defense wrote:

pondyplayer93 wrote:
But when there has only been 1,2,or 3 games total played between all the teams, how can you determine who is better?

i think the way they seed it now is fine id rather watch hill/south than roseau/south. and how can you say roseau is better than hill, edina, or benilde? they havent played (not saying roseau isnt better) im just not convinced they are for sure better than any of those 3 and are deserving of the advantages in state that a #1 team gets in sections

perfect
I completely agree.
Numbers 1, 2 , 3, and, 4 really are NOT 1, 2, 3, and 4, instead they are the top 4 teams. This is why they give the #1 seed no advantage....

Well, you should write the NFL commissioner since they have it wrong too, as well as countless other playoffs in sports.

Camparing the NFL to this is apples and oranges. The point in that post was not who had it right just that 1, 2, 3, and 4 really don't mean a thing other than they are the top 4 teams.........in that system.....