HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Well they would have to change that for this to work even if someones feelings get hurt.

Goldy Gopher wrote:

BBB wrote:Instead of a AA vs A champion, lets have the 7th seeds play and the 8th seeds play. That way when Moorhead would have beat Alex 10-0 and Lakeville beat New Ulm 10-0 it would quiet the guys who think A hockey is any good and even the oddball on here last year saying the A tourney was as deep as the AA.

Last time I checked they only seed the top 4. Hmm, I must have missed something.

Didn't miss anything, but it is really a joke not to seed 1-8. Typical feel good MSHSL. Probably not hard to figure out the 7th and 8th seeds .

mulefarm wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:

BBB wrote:Instead of a AA vs A champion, lets have the 7th seeds play and the 8th seeds play. That way when Moorhead would have beat Alex 10-0 and Lakeville beat New Ulm 10-0 it would quiet the guys who think A hockey is any good and even the oddball on here last year saying the A tourney was as deep as the AA.

Last time I checked they only seed the top 4. Hmm, I must have missed something.

Didn't miss anything, but it is really a joke not to seed 1-8. Typical feel good MSHSL. Probably not hard to figure out the 7th and 8th seeds .

It likely has nothing to do with hurting anyone's feelings....but to each his own.

defense wrote:

mulefarm wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:

Last time I checked they only seed the top 4. Hmm, I must have missed something.

Didn't miss anything, but it is really a joke not to seed 1-8. Typical feel good MSHSL. Probably not hard to figure out the 7th and 8th seeds .

It likely has nothing to do with hurting anyone's feelings....but to each his own.

Why don't thet seed 1-8?

rapidsrapids wrote:So, you are saying that an official schedule from Grand Rapids Athletic Director Pat Rendle is a rumor? www.grhshockey.com will have the schedule up today. It's already on ironrangeconference.org.

So GR plays in HBG Friday night @ 7:30, then shows up the next morning in Tonka to start @ 10am? That's what the schedule posted @ grhshockey.com says??? Something tells me the schedule needs some tweaking yet...

mulefarm wrote:

defense wrote:

mulefarm wrote: Didn't miss anything, but it is really a joke not to seed 1-8. Typical feel good MSHSL. Probably not hard to figure out the 7th and 8th seeds .

It likely has nothing to do with hurting anyone's feelings....but to each his own.

Why don't thet seed 1-8?

In my opinion: The fact that they do not seed 1-8 is them conceding that while they can figure out who the top 4 are, figuring out who is actually #1, #2, #3 etc.... is almost impossible. I get that they follow bracket integrity with 1-4 anyway, but by not gaurenteeing that the top seed will play the worst team, they are taking the biggest advantage of being #1 away. Make sense???

defense wrote:

mulefarm wrote:

defense wrote: It likely has nothing to do with hurting anyone's feelings....but to each his own.

Why don't thet seed 1-8?

In my opinion: The fact that they do not seed 1-8 is them conceding that while they can figure out who the top 4 are, figuring out who is actually #1, #2, #3 etc.... is almost impossible. I get that they follow bracket integrity with 1-4 anyway, but by not gaurenteeing that the top seed will play the worst team, they are taking the biggest advantage of being #1 away. Make sense???

I'd consider the fact that they won't have to face the 2 seed until the championship a pretty big advantage. Which is exactly what the current system is set up to prevent.

Goldy Gopher wrote:

defense wrote:

mulefarm wrote: Why don't thet seed 1-8?

In my opinion: The fact that they do not seed 1-8 is them conceding that while they can figure out who the top 4 are, figuring out who is actually #1, #2, #3 etc.... is almost impossible. I get that they follow bracket integrity with 1-4 anyway, but by not gaurenteeing that the top seed will play the worst team, they are taking the biggest advantage of being #1 away. Make sense???

I'd consider the fact that they won't have to face the 2 seed until the championship a pretty big advantage. Which is exactly what the current system is set up to prevent.

Why don't the sections just seed 1-4?

I think that the reason they don't seed 1-8 is because of TV. TV runs everything in sports, from the pros on down. If you are trying to sell ads (not an easy thing these days) you don't want a 1 vs. 8 every year.

Back around 1998 Jefferson (who wouldn't have been #1 that year had seeding taken place) played Owatonna. I think it was 8-0. Owatonna got maybe a few shots on goal. And Jefferson wasn't trying. If teams were seeded 1-8, that could happen every year.

Remember, before seeding teams that would have been ranked somewhere between 1 and 4 often met in the first round. In 1985 Burnsville and Bemidji met in the first round and they were two of the three favorites to win the whole thing.

In 1979, Edina East, Hill, Grand Rapids and Roseau were all in the top bracket. Four very good teams. The bottom bracket was a cake walk for John Marshall, with Harding, Roosevelt and i don't recall the other team. It was a complete joke. And that is what seeding, even 1-4, prevents.

It's not perfect, but it works well enough.

Sections aren't seeded 1-4 because the MSHSL doesn't get any revenue from TV for those games.

Follow the money.

BBB wrote:

Coming from a guy from community (Minnetonka) that hasn't won anything in boys athletics in my lifetime, thats a funny comment. Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

OOOO...touch me...I'm on fire... Rolling Eyes

I am not sure how old you are so I can say what your lifetime is but as far as boys athletics go Minnetonka won the state football title about 6 years ago and has won the boys basketball, golf, and lacrosse titles in the last few years. I think they are usually good in baseball and all the less popular sports but I don't know if they have won anything in those. Unfortunately, the affluence in the community along with 3 rinks hasn't led to a state hockey title.

It's hard to believe I forgot that 'Tonka scored that prestigious La Crosse championship. Now that's what the Dad from A Christsmas Story would call "A Major Award".

There must be a glitch in the back end of this website because my computer didn't show anything relating to how 'prestigious' a boys sport is.
If it makes you feel better I will leave out lacrosse due to the lack of prestige. But from as far as boys athletics is concerned, they have won football, basketball and golf in the last few years. Had they not went into this early a.m. hours with Hill-Murray a few yrs ago in hockey, they may have been able to beat Edina for a hockey title. But that's a whole other topic to go off on. prestige, hockey title or not, it's still hard to say they haven't won anything in athletics. How has your school fared over the last 5 years as far as boys athletics is concerned?

BBB wrote:There must be a glitch in the back end of this website because my computer didn't show anything relating to how 'prestigious' a boys sport is.
If it makes you feel better I will leave out lacrosse due to the lack of prestige. But from as far as boys athletics is concerned, they have won football, basketball and golf in the last few years. Had they not went into this early a.m. hours with Hill-Murray a few yrs ago in hockey, they may have been able to beat Edina for a hockey title. But that's a whole other topic to go off on. prestige, hockey title or not, it's still hard to say they haven't won anything in athletics. How has your school fared over the last 5 years as far as boys athletics is concerned?

Relax, BBB. From the mid 70's on I have been told year after year that soccer is going to be a major sport in this country. More recently, I've been told that lacrosse is really growing. If someone wants to play lacrosse, that's great. It's a fine sport. I don't believe it will ever have a great hold on the public's consciousness. Most people wouldn't consider a badminton championship a big deal either.

Man, I just know I've sent hundreds of badminton and lacrosse players into years of therapy.

Hill could have won the last five lacrosse titles and it still wouldn't be on my radar.

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote:

BBB wrote:There must be a glitch in the back end of this website because my computer didn't show anything relating to how 'prestigious' a boys sport is.
If it makes you feel better I will leave out lacrosse due to the lack of prestige. But from as far as boys athletics is concerned, they have won football, basketball and golf in the last few years. Had they not went into this early a.m. hours with Hill-Murray a few yrs ago in hockey, they may have been able to beat Edina for a hockey title. But that's a whole other topic to go off on. prestige, hockey title or not, it's still hard to say they haven't won anything in athletics. How has your school fared over the last 5 years as far as boys athletics is concerned?

Relax, BBB. From the mid 70's on I have been told year after year that soccer is going to be a major sport in this country. More recently, I've been told that lacrosse is really growing. If someone wants to play lacrosse, that's great. It's a fine sport. I don't believe it will ever have a great hold on the public's consciousness. Most people wouldn't consider a badminton championship a big deal either.

Man, I just know I've sent hundreds of badminton and lacrosse players into years of therapy.

Hill could have won the last five lacrosse titles and it still wouldn't be on my radar.

Just what do you consider prestigous?

This thread has wandered way off topic. It would be OK to start a couple of new ones, like "Has Minnetonka won any prestigious state titles recently?" or "Does it make sense to seed only the Top 4 teams in the State Tournament?"

MNHockeyFan wrote:This thread has wandered way off topic. It would be OK to start a couple of new ones, like "Has Minnetonka won any prestigious state titles recently?" or "Does it make sense to seed only the Top 4 teams in the State Tournament?"

Typical.

Hill could have won the last five lacrosse titles and it still wouldn't be on my radar.

No they couldn't have. Hill hasn't won 5 championships combined in all sports in its history. Pretty sad with all the kids who go there for a good education and happen to be good athletes, that they don't have more success. Especially playing out of a two horse section every year (at least in hockey).

mulefarm wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:

defense wrote: In my opinion: The fact that they do not seed 1-8 is them conceding that while they can figure out who the top 4 are, figuring out who is actually #1, #2, #3 etc.... is almost impossible. I get that they follow bracket integrity with 1-4 anyway, but by not gaurenteeing that the top seed will play the worst team, they are taking the biggest advantage of being #1 away. Make sense???

I'd consider the fact that they won't have to face the 2 seed until the championship a pretty big advantage. Which is exactly what the current system is set up to prevent.

Why don't the sections just seed 1-4?

Teams in the same section have many more common opponents and are much more familar with each other, allowing the coaches to rank them accurately 1-whatever.

Any more brain busters?

Kinda like when the Grand Rapids and Cloquet coaches have to sit down and seed the Elk Rivers and Andovers.

Just what do you consider prestigous?[/quote]

All sports are prestigious. All athletes deserve a trophy, the bigger the better.
And all state tournaments should be held in professional arenas or stadiums. Even those that only fill 5% of the seats. Oh, yeah, and they should all be televised live on broadcast.

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote:All sports are prestigious. All athletes deserve a trophy, the bigger the better.
And all state tournaments should be held in professional arenas or stadiums. Even those that only fill 5% of the seats. Oh, yeah, and they should all be televised live on broadcast.

You're kidding...

I hope.

Goldy Gopher wrote:

defense wrote:

mulefarm wrote: Why don't thet seed 1-8?

In my opinion: The fact that they do not seed 1-8 is them conceding that while they can figure out who the top 4 are, figuring out who is actually #1, #2, #3 etc.... is almost impossible. I get that they follow bracket integrity with 1-4 anyway, but by not gaurenteeing that the top seed will play the worst team, they are taking the biggest advantage of being #1 away. Make sense???

I'd consider the fact that they won't have to face the 2 seed until the championship a pretty big advantage. Which is exactly what the current system is set up to prevent.

Or is the #4 seed really the 2nd best team in the tourney???

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote:Relax, BBB. From the mid 70's on I have been told year after year that soccer is going to be a major sport in this country. More recently, I've been told that lacrosse is really growing. If someone wants to play lacrosse, that's great. It's a fine sport. I don't believe it will ever have a great hold on the public's consciousness. Most people wouldn't consider a badminton championship a big deal either.

So you missed this?:

If it makes you feel better I will leave out lacrosse due to the lack of prestige. But from as far as boys athletics is concerned, they have won football, basketball and golf in the last few years. Had they not went into this early a.m. hours with Hill-Murray a few yrs ago in hockey, they may have been able to beat Edina for a hockey title.

You either have an ax to grind or like to troll. Solid.

No Slap Shot, I didn't miss BBB's comment. But it came after and in response to to my comment that you quoted.

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote:No Slap Shot, I didn't miss BBB's comment. But it came after and in response to to my comment that you quoted.

Dude, it was quoted in the same post (made prior) to your reply and included within:

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote:

BBB wrote:There must be a glitch in the back end of this website because my computer didn't show anything relating to how 'prestigious' a boys sport is.
If it makes you feel better I will leave out lacrosse due to the lack of prestige. But from as far as boys athletics is concerned, they have won football, basketball and golf in the last few years. Had they not went into this early a.m. hours with Hill-Murray a few yrs ago in hockey, they may have been able to beat Edina for a hockey title. But that's a whole other topic to go off on. prestige, hockey title or not, it's still hard to say they haven't won anything in athletics. How has your school fared over the last 5 years as far as boys athletics is concerned?

Relax, BBB. From the mid 70's on I have been told year after year that soccer is going to be a major sport in this country. More recently, I've been told that lacrosse is really growing. If someone wants to play lacrosse, that's great. It's a fine sport. I don't believe it will ever have a great hold on the public's consciousness. Most people wouldn't consider a badminton championship a big deal either.

Man, I just know I've sent hundreds of badminton and lacrosse players into years of therapy.

Hill could have won the last five lacrosse titles and it still wouldn't be on my radar.