HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Should all conferences have the same standards for conference play and determining the winner?

Who cares? I mean I'm not trying to be rude but....its conference play how is it unfair if one is set up different than another. If you like how someone elses Conf. is set yours up like theres. maybe i'm missing something here?

Conferences are for for people to give out "all-conference awards" to their favorite players. They have no bearing on the actual high school hockey season.
HSWATCHER you should order six plaques and mail them to your favorite players each year. They would have just as much meaning as some of the conference awards do.

I'm just curious what people think. There are conferences in the cities where all the teams play each team twice and take up a good deal of their whole season, where there are other conferences where teams don't even play some of the teams in their conference.

I think it's great when I start threads with polls and the things the people say are calling me dumb because of my opinion although it's in the majority.

It is my personal opinion that the MSHSL should assign conferences and that they should all have the same rules for league play. There are 12 teams in the Lake conference who each have 22 conference games. If they enter a tournament, that's all their games for the season. Then there are teams that play in the LSC conference and barely have 10 conference games.

A conference affiliation is only important for two reasons:

1. Scheduling

2. Winning another title

That doesn't go against what I'm saying, it actually helps it. The reason I think the standards should be the same is for scheduling purposes.

HShockeywatcher wrote:That doesn't go against what I'm saying, it actually helps it. The reason I think the standards should be the same is for scheduling purposes.

Give an example as to what you think these standards should be.

I think the main thing is the ease(lack of) of changing conferences or playing independant.

I have no problem with conferences being diffrent but I would like to see it become easier to change conferences for just one sport or become independant for 1 sport.

How easy would it be if Hill said they wanted to move to the suburban east just for hockey?

No reason a team should be in a different conference for just one sport.

Example;
Each conference will have 9-11 teams. Scoring will be 2 points for a win and 1 point for a time, while each team can play each other team twice. If two teams agree not to play each other twice, they must play once with a win counting 4 points and a tie 2 points.

There are 153 teams in the state. 153/9=17, which could be the number of conferences. Just an idea. That there is no issue with at all.

It is just "unfair" how a top team like Edina has 8 conference games and can schedule whoever they want for 17 other games, and a top Lake conference team has 22 conference games and can schedule 3 non-conference games.

If you don't like the conference you are in, get out. Why would the MSHSL set them up? They already do something like that, it's called sections. Give it up HShockeyquestion.

That's totally different. It's like in college how they have conferences and regions. Not sure how that works either.

But your response is good, "if you don't like it, get out."

HSwatcher you should have seen how nice outside it was this weekend

Maybe a round of golf, or sit in a boat panfishing...then just maybe you could come up with some of your own answers ?....that you like.

But just to stay on topic,
Mostly it's for ease of scheduling, but it's also another way to award players in those conferences where their team may not get to state even though they are very good players.

Not that the ideas are bad here, but in my opinion, nothing needs to be changed here.

Iowa football does something similar to what you suggest, they don't have conferences they have regions, you play every team in your region once during the regular season and teams make the playoffs based on their region standings.

It only works in football because they're are only so many games you can play and unlike Minnesota they don't allow every team in the playoffs only the top 2 in each region for a total of a 16 team playoff per class instead of a 64 team playoff that Minnesota uses.

Changing or altering Conferences in any way is a contentious issue, just remember what Cretin had to go through a few years ago, the MSHSL can mandate what conference you're in, but it's not an easy process. The trend is for Conferences to get bigger, be it college or high school. By becoming bigger you have more control; less scheduling, easier to set rates for officials, usually less travel - all of which save money. The reality is most schools don't have the luxury of setting their own budget or charging a fee to make the sport break even.

Why wouldn't you want to be in a different conference for just one sport?

Some schools happen to be very good at only a few select sports. Would it be crazy to think they may want to join a tougher conference for that particular sport.

This is mostly seen in the NCAA when it comes to football and basketball the 2 biggest $$$ makers.

Examples
Notre Dame Football. The WCHA (not the best example but I hope you get my point).

Orange and Black wrote:Why wouldn't you want to be in a different conference for just one sport?

Some schools happen to be very good at only a few select sports. Would it be crazy to think they may want to join a tougher conference for that particular sport.

This is mostly seen in the NCAA when it comes to football and basketball the 2 biggest $$$ makers.

Examples
Notre Dame Football. The WCHA (not the best example but I hope you get my point).

Notre Dame is independent in football because of 1. Scheduling, they would not be able to play all the non-conference games that they want too. 2. Money, their contract with NBC is worth millions, and they don't have to share it with anyone.

And I'm not going to address the WCHA example, because you said yourself it wasn't good.


I'm not a huge fan of playing independent in any sport, I think it takes a huge accomplishment, (conference championship/all conference) off the table from the beginning. Also conference rivalries and games in general take on more meaning, because you have to fight hard every game, otherwise you might not be taking home the conference crown.

Also, on topic, this thread is dumb. Conferences can do whatever they want.


And why does he ask so many questions?

In addition to regular season play would a conference tournament at the end, like they do in college, be a good idea?

I ask so many because I can and because I'm bored with nothing going on. I like to discuss things when people are respectful about them and have meaningful conversations to get the opinions of others.

HShockeywatcher wrote:In addition to regular season play would a conference tournament at the end, like they do in college, be a good idea?

I ask so many because I can and because I'm bored with nothing going on. I like to discuss things when people are respectful about them and have meaningful conversations to get the opinions of others.

You just discussed the number of games being a problem with conferences and now you want to add more? Make up your mind.

My mind is made up. I meant something that was post season, so it wouldn't count for the number of games in the season.

HShockeywatcher wrote:My mind is made up.

Of what? That is the ten million dollar question...

Neutron 14 wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:My mind is made up.

Of what? That is the ten million dollar question...

Nice! way to go Neut...I'm gonna guess a lot of mis firing electrons

HShockeywatcher wrote:My mind is made up. I meant something that was post season, so it wouldn't count for the number of games in the season.

So then the hockey season would stretch into April? When are they gonna play this tournament? It will have to push back sections and state. Kids play other sports other than hockey...

Why would it have to push anything back? Have it take 3 days, or something like that. The first sectional game of the team I follow was 7 days (that's one whole week) after their last regular season game. Plenty of time in there. Or you could start it before the end of the season. Just ideas.

Fatigue will play a larger factor then. Also, if you were a coach of a top team, would you want to risk injury to one of your star players in a conference tourney and not have them for sections or state? There is a reason they don't do it, just leave it be.