HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Roseville employed a good strategy against H-M that worked, so it would have been interesting to see what other teams at the State Tourney would have done if H-M had made it.

Tonka figured out not to let Flug get behind the D, for her break-aways. I am sure they could have found a way to stop HB.

Yes, I'll take two please.

Absolutely YES!!!!!!

Homer wrote:EP,
I would say your regular season record does matter when it comes time to do the seeding for the sections.

I was just looking at the boys side and noticed all the #1 seeds advanced to the section final (except 4AA which is still awaiting results). Looks like advancing to state usually means you have to beat the best record in your section. If that's the case, regular season results change little other than the order in which you play the good teams.

Play everyone even until you start ramping up for playoffs. Hopefully by then you've buttressed your third and fourth line enough that they become an asset instead of a liability.

luckyEPDad wrote: I was just looking at the boys side and noticed all the #1 seeds advanced to the section final (except 4AA which is still awaiting results). Looks like advancing to state usually means you have to beat the best record in your section. If that's the case, regular season results change little other than the order in which you play the good teams.

Play everyone even until you start ramping up for playoffs. Hopefully by then you've buttressed your third and fourth line enough that they become an asset instead of a liability.

Well everyone knows that boys hockey and girls hockey is exactly the same, so this totally makes sense.

Looking at recent history (AA) they started seeding the girls tourney 4 years ago. In that time the lowest seed to reach finals is #3 (once in 2010). The #1 seed has won the title all four years. I'd say how you perform all year does matter.

No, how you perform post season is what matters. It is just that how HS teams do during the regular season closely matches how they do in post season. I think that points to wide spread shortsightedness in HS hockey coaching. Professional sports teams do not play regular and post season games the same way. NHL teams are not putting their top stars on the ice every other shift and sitting the rest of the bench on a non-conference Wednesday night game. Professional coaches don't try to win every game. They manage their resources to win the most games. I don't think HS coaches are doing this. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but nobody has yet provided a reason why. Saying my question is stupid, or that I'm crazy to ask it isn't providing a reason.

Everything comes down to economics. I just can't wrap my head around the economics of HS hockey. The HS hockey regular season has a lot more in common with professional pre-season games than regular season games. From what I can see teams derive little benefit from wins during the regular season. Everyone advances to the post season. Seeding matters little. Only one team advances per section, so you nearly always have to go through the best teams to advance. I certainly understand the desire to win every game, but does the benefit of a regular season win outweigh the benefit that could be derived from protecting top players and providing playing time for the third and fourth lines? I don't know the answer so that is why I ask.

On the other hand, teams can't just drift through the regular season, treat the games as glorified practice, and assume that once the postseason starts and games do matter that they'll be able to flip a switch and start winning. Teams have to learn how to win, and in general, teams are better at the end of the season than they were at the start.

I agree with you to the extent that it doesn't make sense for a team to kill itself trying to win during the season and be worn down once tournament play begins. I think it is best for all concerned if players skate normal shifts rather than leaving the top players on the ice at all times.

Back to the Hannah Brandt question. I think one additional benefit is for her teammates to watch HB play the game the way it's supposed to be played - the smart hockey sense, the work ethic, etc. Plus, they get to play with her and against her in practice. Plus, they may be motivated to play better and "be more like HB". Granted, none of them will be able to, but set your sights high and aspire to greatness. I suppose if you boil it down to the question, "would I want my daughter to have HB as a teammate?". Absolutely. I think she would benefit tremendously from facing HB as a defenseman or skating with her as a forward in dozens of practices throughout the season.

There was a "similar" thread running on the boys thread albiet a different title.

Rarely is there a HS team that makes state, let alone a team that makes the championship game without atleast one top D1 recruit - boys or girls.

Hockey is a team sport, but it often takes individual effort to win against top teams or in play-off hockey.

Some times that effort from the top skater does not show up on the score sheet and only those at the game and watching the game realized that.

I think you play to win every game while trying to develop the entire team to make a run in the sections and state. These things don't always have to conflict - but at times they do.

Yes, at times this could mean playing certain players more than others. Especially when those players are HB-like - and those players are few and far between.

We all know HB made others around her better. I bet many could look like an NHL-level-player if you put one or more other NHL all-stars around them.

Different teams "drop-off" at certain levels in different ways. I can remember teams from Park CG a number of years back where I swear they had more depth than any other program in the state. Their JV players were as strong as many of their Varsity role players. This was very unique and compare that to most other programs where JV is almost recreational vs competitive.