HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:33 pm**

northwoods oldtimer wrote:Karl gives no credibility to single A schools which is fine it is just different criteria used to formulate a ranking opinion and he does a good job.

I would disagree with this. I didn't move down Lakeville South for losing to Breck, and Cloquet's close loss to Hermantown actually helped them. GR's drop has nothing to do with Hibbing's status as a Class A team; it has plenty to do with Hibbing weighing in around #50 in the 2-class ratings we have (PS2, Mitch's system). If they dropped after the Hermantown loss, it's because the game was lopsided, not because Hermantown is A. I try to respect good Class A teams, though I don't rank them precisely against AA teams since I don't really care about the silly arguments we get into between AA and A teams.

They also dropped a lot this week because they were probably too high last week. I was hedging my bets thinking they were improving, but it proved wrong. Plus the Moorhead win just doesn't look as good as it used to, with the Spuds struggling some.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:28 pm**

I'd be happy to see Eagan against any of the (now) top four in the first round. Then it's put up or shut time.

Who knows, maybe they'd plow through Edina, Tonka and then Maple Grove.

(Oops, an inadvertent shot at East.)

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:32 pm**

KrautBache wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote:
KrautBache wrote: No, given their records, I wouldn't like to see Eagan below Eden Prairie, anymore than I'd like to see Maple Grove below Elk River.

And I wasn't advocating for moving Maple Grove below Edina. In my opinion, the top 5 ranking should have stayed at 1. East, 2. Minnetonka, 3. Maple Grove, 4. Eagan, 5. Edina.
Is the only rational for Eagan above Edina losses? Edina has beaten both of the teams Eagan has lost to...to me it's pretty clear, but I also look beyond the record.
No, that is not my only rationale. I look beyond the records as well. And yes, Edina beat Minnetonka the 2nd time they played, but was pounded by them the first time 6-0. Eagan lost a fairly close game to Tonka the first time they played and hasn't yet had a second chance.

everyone has bad games and that was one of edina's not making excuses but they have played them 3 times there was the ugly one then beating them once and going to overtime and end up losing in the last game. I think they have showed a lot of improvement the last two times playing them

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:40 pm**

green4 wrote:
KrautBache wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote: Is the only rational for Eagan above Edina losses? Edina has beaten both of the teams Eagan has lost to...to me it's pretty clear, but I also look beyond the record.
No, that is not my only rationale. I look beyond the records as well. And yes, Edina beat Minnetonka the 2nd time they played, but was pounded by them the first time 6-0. Eagan lost a fairly close game to Tonka the first time they played and hasn't yet had a second chance.
everyone has bad games and that was one of edina's not making excuses but they have played them 3 times there was the ugly one then beating them once and going to overtime and end up losing in the last game. I think they have showed a lot of improvement the last two times playing them

I agree. My point is that at this level, it's hard to put too much value on one game. So the fact that Eagan lost to Tonka the first (and only) game they played against them doesn't mean all that much to me. And the fact that Edina beat Tonka 1 out of 3 games is not evidence that Edina is better than Eagan.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:43 pm**

KrautBache wrote:I agree. My point is that at this level, it's hard to put too much value on one game. So the fact that Eagan lost to Tonka the first (and only) game they played against them doesn't mean all that much to me. And the fact that Edina beat Tonka 1 out of 3 games is not evidence that Edina is better than Eagan.

It isn't evidence that they are better, you are correct. But it is evidence enough that they should be ranked higher. Eagan has played two top 10 teams and lost both games. I have been a HUGE Eagan supporter the last couple years and still am, and the rest of their schedule is awesome (only team I know of to allow 2 or fewer goals in all but 4 games) but you have to rank them by what they've done. They've lost to 100% of the teams in the top 10 they've played, beaten Lakeville S twice and have an incredible schedule other wise.

Does playing well against bad teams make them ranked higher than a team whose only losses are to the #2 and #3 team, who has also beaten that #2 team and beaten BOTH teams they lost to?

Not sure how else to look at it. They have a good group of players; unfortunate they couldn't play some better teams.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:30 pm**

Kraut is being a bit myopic here. Basically his logic is that Edina is 1-3 against Tonka, and Eagan is 0-1, so to him those records against Tonka cancel each other out. Doesn't make sense to me. Even if Edina was 0-3 against Tonka, the strength of schedule is so much stronger than Eagan's that I would still rank Edina ahead. But it's kind of a moot point, playoffs are looming. Eagan looked good last year, better this year, and it would take a real upset for them to miss out on playing at the X. Edina seemingly gets there every year, and I'd like to see these 2 teams head to head in March to settle it.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:31 am**

HShockeywatcher wrote: It isn't evidence that they are better, you are correct. But it is evidence enough that they should be ranked higher. Eagan has played two top 10 teams and lost both games. I have been a HUGE Eagan supporter the last couple years and still am, and the rest of their schedule is awesome (only team I know of to allow 2 or fewer goals in all but 4 games) but you have to rank them by what they've done. They've lost to 100% of the teams in the top 10 they've played, beaten Lakeville S twice and have an incredible schedule other wise.

"9. Hill-Murray (17-6)
-Monday’s win over Lakeville South was a nice boost for the Pioneers, though the tight contest against North St. Paul leaves open some room for doubt in sections. They may not have the customary Hill depth or defensive dominance, but they seem to be getting the job done all the same recently. They have one more important game coming up this Saturday that will help show where they fit in amongst the state’s top teams."

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:35 am**

Anyone else find it interesting that HockeyHub has MG and Eagan tied at 3rd this week, Edina still at 5th? Seems kind of odd to me.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:54 am**

tonkafan77 wrote:Anyone else find it interesting that HockeyHub has MG and Eagan tied at 3rd this week, Edina still at 5th? Seems kind of odd to me.

Seems right to me..

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:58 am**

mnhockeyhub.com, followthepuck.com, and the pagestat are all right in having Rapids ahead of Andover and Elk River.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:19 am**

DanFromWoodbury wrote:Kraut is being a bit myopic here. Basically his logic is that Edina is 1-3 against Tonka, and Eagan is 0-1, so to him those records against Tonka cancel each other out. Doesn't make sense to me. Even if Edina was 0-3 against Tonka, the strength of schedule is so much stronger than Eagan's that I would still rank Edina ahead. But it's kind of a moot point, playoffs are looming. Eagan looked good last year, better this year, and it would take a real upset for them to miss out on playing at the X. Edina seemingly gets there every year, and I'd like to see these 2 teams head to head in March to settle it.

As I've said, I'm looking at the big picture. I'm not being myopic. My focus on those specific games is only in response to those who want to make Eagan's two losses and Edina's one win against Tonka as the only important factors. In my view Eagan is a better team, for a variety of reasons, and the fact that they lost to two good teams should not land them behind a team that lost 4 times to two good teams.

But your statement that Edina's "strength of schedule is so much stronger than Eagan's" deserves a closer look. As I've said before, I think that there is only a negligible difference between the teams that are currently ranked 7-12. Besides the teams that Edina has lost to (MG and Tonka), how is Edina's schedule "so much stronger" this year?

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:31 am**

HShockeywatcher wrote:
KrautBache wrote:I agree. My point is that at this level, it's hard to put too much value on one game. So the fact that Eagan lost to Tonka the first (and only) game they played against them doesn't mean all that much to me. And the fact that Edina beat Tonka 1 out of 3 games is not evidence that Edina is better than Eagan.
It isn't evidence that they are better, you are correct. But it is evidence enough that they should be ranked higher. Eagan has played two top 10 teams and lost both games. I have been a HUGE Eagan supporter the last couple years and still am, and the rest of their schedule is awesome (only team I know of to allow 2 or fewer goals in all but 4 games) but you have to rank them by what they've done. They've lost to [66%] of the teams in the top 10 they've played, beaten Lakeville S twice and have an incredible schedule other wise.

Does playing well against bad teams make them ranked higher than a team whose only losses are to the #2 and #3 team, who has also beaten that #2 team and beaten BOTH teams they lost to?

So #10 is a good team, and #s 11 and 12 are bad teams? Do you really think that there is some magic in the #10? I'm not moving goalposts here, I'm just looking at the reality of the quality of the teams played, and you seem to put a lot of weight on this arbitrary #10.

I think Hockey Hub has it right.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:35 am**

the only one that got it right is karl, i would use his rankings before any of the others, he puts time into it instead of just looking at records and karl probably knows more about gr and er than any of the other sites.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:35 am**

KrautBache wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote:
KrautBache wrote:I agree. My point is that at this level, it's hard to put too much value on one game. So the fact that Eagan lost to Tonka the first (and only) game they played against them doesn't mean all that much to me. And the fact that Edina beat Tonka 1 out of 3 games is not evidence that Edina is better than Eagan.
It isn't evidence that they are better, you are correct. But it is evidence enough that they should be ranked higher. Eagan has played two top 10 teams and lost both games. I have been a HUGE Eagan supporter the last couple years and still am, and the rest of their schedule is awesome (only team I know of to allow 2 or fewer goals in all but 4 games) but you have to rank them by what they've done. They've lost to [66%] of the teams in the top 10 they've played, beaten Lakeville S twice and have an incredible schedule other wise.

Does playing well against bad teams make them ranked higher than a team whose only losses are to the #2 and #3 team, who has also beaten that #2 team and beaten BOTH teams they lost to?

So #10 is a good team, and #s 11 and 12 are bad teams? Do you really think that there is some magic in the #10? I'm not moving goalposts here, I'm just looking at the reality of the quality of the teams played, and you seem to put a lot of weight on this arbitrary #10.

I think Hockey Hub has it right.

No, I'm not putting any weight on the arbitrary #10. Whether you want to say that Lakeville South is out of the top 10 like the polls, or in it like the computers, Eagan has "quality wins" against one team and losses to the two "really good" teams they've played. Edina, on the other hand, only has losses to teams in the top 3, has beaten one of them as well, and has beaten both teams Eagan lost to.

You can play whatever semantical games you want, but who they've played and beated doesn't change. Then Eagan adds a 6-6 tie with a team outside the top 15...

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:49 am**

HShockeywatcher wrote:
KrautBache wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote: Should not.
Should too.
Should not!

Should too!

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:02 am**

KrautBache wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote:
KrautBache wrote: Should too.
Should not!
Should too!

Hey KB, why don't you forward this excellent summation to the Hermantown fans? It's just as applicable to their discussions with HSHW.

Funny how the Pioneers never seem to slip HSHW's mind whenever he's playing up the SOS of his beloved Cadets.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:09 am**

slyer wrote:the only one that got it right is karl, i would use his rankings before any of the others, he puts time into it instead of just looking at records and karl probably knows more about gr and er than any of the other sites.

Agreed.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:21 am**

Like I said before...

PuckU126 wrote:Eagan won't be able to prove themselves until State (that is if they make it).

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:33 am**

PuckU126 wrote:Like I said before...

PuckU126 wrote:Eagan won't be able to prove themselves until State (that is if they make it).

Nor will Edina. If they make it.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:49 am**

KrautBache wrote:Nor will Edina.

Silly Kraut,

The cake already has.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:01 pm**

KrautBache wrote:
DanFromWoodbury wrote:Kraut is being a bit myopic here. Basically his logic is that Edina is 1-3 against Tonka, and Eagan is 0-1, so to him those records against Tonka cancel each other out. Doesn't make sense to me. Even if Edina was 0-3 against Tonka, the strength of schedule is so much stronger than Eagan's that I would still rank Edina ahead. But it's kind of a moot point, playoffs are looming. Eagan looked good last year, better this year, and it would take a real upset for them to miss out on playing at the X. Edina seemingly gets there every year, and I'd like to see these 2 teams head to head in March to settle it.
As I've said, I'm looking at the big picture. I'm not being myopic. My focus on those specific games is only in response to those who want to make Eagan's two losses and Edina's one win against Tonka as the only important factors. In my view Eagan is a better team, for a variety of reasons, and the fact that they lost to two good teams should not land them behind a team that lost 4 times to two good teams.

But your statement that Edina's "strength of schedule is so much stronger than Eagan's" deserves a closer look. As I've said before, I think that there is only a negligible difference between the teams that are currently ranked 7-12. Besides the teams that Edina has lost to (MG and Tonka), how is Edina's schedule "so much stronger" this year?

Tonka is not the only factor has over Eagan since you keep bringing it up, Edina has beat EP twice while Eagan is 0-1
Second Edina's schedule is so much better than Eagan's... they play Minnetonka 3 times EP 3 times Wayzata twice, Grand Rapids, Elk River Maple Grove twice, Burnsville and Lakeville South while Eagan has played Lakeville south, burnsville, Hill Murray, minnetonka once and EP once

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:11 pm**

And if Edina would of came to Eagan to play this year and played the Home and Home schedule that was set up last year, no one would be having this discussion. Instead Edina opted out and Eagan had to find someone else to fill out their schedule this year. I for one have no problem with waiting and finding out who is going to x-cel then taking up this conversation.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:59 pm**

Hockey22 wrote:And if Edina would of came to Eagan to play this year and played the Home and Home schedule that was set up last year, no one would be having this discussion. Instead Edina opted out and Eagan had to find someone else to fill out their schedule this year. I for one have no problem with waiting and finding out who is going to x-cel then taking up this conversation.

Now, now, H22...there's no proof that it was Edina that opted out because they didn't want to return the favor and play an away game at Eagan, is there?

Those soft Wildcats...with their soft schedule, went out and replaced a home game against Edina with…an away game at #9 Hill-Murray. Slackers!

Anybody know who the Hornets picked up on their schedule instead of the Wildcats? With their burly, manly ultra-tough schedule, it must have been a Top-Top-Super-Top team, right?

Hmmm...let's take a look. Two non-conf games against Buffalo? Nope, they did that last year too. Ah, I see…guess it's a multiple choice question. Instead of playing Eagan, the Edina Hornets filled the empty early-season slot with either (a) Eastview, (b) @ Lakeville South, or (c) @ Anoka.

Ole!

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:57 pm**

KrautBache wrote:But your statement that Edina's "strength of schedule is so much stronger than Eagan's" deserves a closer look. As I've said before, I think that there is only a negligible difference between the teams that are currently ranked 7-12. Besides the teams that Edina has lost to (MG and Tonka), how is Edina's schedule "so much stronger" this year?

http://www.minnhock.com/strength.htm

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:57 pm**

Hockey22 wrote:And if Edina would of came to Eagan to play this year and played the Home and Home schedule that was set up last year, no one would be having this discussion. Instead Edina opted out and Eagan had to find someone else to fill out their schedule this year. I for one have no problem with waiting and finding out who is going to x-cel then taking up this conversation.

It is interesting. Odd they'd take Eagan off their schedule, and add Anoka. Quite odd. Also, they play Buffalo twice. Also, they probably could've asked Schwan's to pair them up with Tonka in the first game and have that count at a conference game. Really odd.

That being said, we can only look at the games that did in fact happen.
Just like how East wanted into the LSC and fans want to play them have a team that voted to keep them out

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

AA Rankings for 2/12/12