did sections hurt the tourney?

parrish4president · Post by **parrish4president** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:58 pm

just wondering what you all think......

I find that sections 1AA and 4AA are really weak, while 2AA and 6AA are waaaay overloaded

maybe its just me, but I like to see a good mix of powers in the tourney....I like to have a Edina, AHA/Hill, Jefferson, Wayzata, Roseau, Duluth East, etc....

this is just my opinion so what do you guys think?

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:04 pm

I like the current format, with geographical representation. And I'm tired of overrated

SW metro guys whining about it.

cjp8816 · Post by **cjp8816** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:05 pm

1AA is weak. its always been weak, it will continue to be weak for decades to come. and if u look at the teams @ State you do have a good mix of Powers.

BTW why would you toss names like East,BJ,Edina,Roseau,Hill,AHA and Put Wayzata in?

who_b_dat · Post by **who_b_dat** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:09 pm

Once one comes to the realization that the State tourney is a geographic based system and not one designed to put the best teams in the state into the mix, its easier to understand.

I'm just glad I live in the metro and get to see the 2AA and 6AA sections. Theres some fine hockey played there and no doubt the teams sent home could have competed/dominated the certain other section winners.

No complaints from me now that I view it as a geographic playoff system.

pipersniper12 · Post by **pipersniper12** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:24 am

there will always be yeas and neas about who get to the tourney.
Only team i wanted to see that wasn't there is Titonka but hey thats how it goes.

TooManyEagles · Post by **TooManyEagles** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:31 am

AHA and Wayzata were both down this year, and shouldn't have been in. East, maybe. They blew it to Cloquet, no real excuse for that.

DubCHAGuy · Post by **DubCHAGuy** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:34 am

parrish4president wrote:just wondering what you all think......

I find that sections 1AA and 4AA are really weak, while 2AA and 6AA are waaaay overloaded

maybe its just me, but I like to see a good mix of powers in the tourney....I like to have a Edina, AHA/Hill, Jefferson, Wayzata, Roseau, Duluth East, etc....

this is just my opinion so what do you guys think?

No sections didn't hurt the tourney, seeding it did. MSHSL got what they wanted, a boring Thursday.

4AA is weak? Hill squeaked into the tourney on a 3rd period goal against WBL, and Roseville had a good year as well. Now Hill is playing for the championship.

You could have theoretically moved Burnsville to 1AA, but how good is Burnsville really going to be next year? Or the past 5 years overall? That would have been a 1 year solution. Neighbors like Tonka, Edina, EP, and Jefferson are going to have to play each other go get to state, thats just how it is, and how it should be.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:26 am

DubCHAGuy wrote: No sections didn't hurt the tourney, seeding it did. MSHSL got what they wanted, a boring Thursday.

I never thought of it that way. I don't like the seeding, I'd rather have it randomly drawn or predetermined like it was in the past.

Yeah, it does eliminate the probability of a marquee matchup on opening day. It does, however, leave the door open to a big upset, like last year when three of four seeded AA teams lost in the first round.

Cabela10 · Post by **Cabela10** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:54 am

Seed the top 2 and let the 6 others fall into place by picking them random.

bender08 · Post by **bender08** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:48 pm

just throwing this out there but what if they went from a 8 section format to a 4 section format. every section sends 2 teams to state. this way you could put the best teams on opposite ends of the bracket and completly eliminate weak sections. you also will have 2 teams from the north, south, east, and west.

Hillhockey000 · Post by **Hillhockey000** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:56 pm

Some other person simulated something like that, it's a good idea. There could be two brackets for each section. The 1, 4, 5, etc seeds would get into one bracket while 2, 3, etc would get in the other... I like that idea a lot.

CityHockey11 · Post by **CityHockey11** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:59 pm

Just wondering how common is it for teams to switch section assignments? Who is "in charge" of that, so to speak?

marchmadness · Post by **marchmadness** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:03 pm

4 sections with 2 teams coming out in separate brackets sounds a lot like 8 sections with 1 bracket. please elaborate on your idea. am i correct in saying the only difference is you seed two sections together then split them up more evenly compared on how good the teams are?

koho snipe · Post by **koho snipe** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:06 pm

yes sections hurt the tourney. a couple of good teams got screwed

DubCHAGuy · Post by **DubCHAGuy** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:11 pm

bender08 wrote:just throwing this out there but what if they went from a 8 section format to a 4 section format. every section sends 2 teams to state. this way you could put the best teams on opposite ends of the bracket and completly eliminate weak sections. you also will have 2 teams from the north, south, east, and west.

I don't like it. You shouldnt be able to lose your way into state. Adjust sections all you want, but you should have to win a section to make it to St. Paul.

Also someone asked in another thread what the "random" quarterfinal matchups would have looked like this year (Same section assignments as 2001, on a 7 year rotation):

4) Hill-Murray vs. 5) Blaine

2) Edina vs. 1) Lakeville South

Roseau vs. 3) Woodbury

6) Benilde vs. 7) Cloquet

bender08 · Post by **bender08** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:34 pm

marchmadness wrote:4 sections with 2 teams coming out in separate brackets sounds a lot like 8 sections with 1 bracket. please elaborate on your idea. am i correct in saying the only difference is you seed two sections together then split them up more evenly compared on how good the teams are?

basically i would be seeding two sections together. for example... i would have combined sections 1AA and 2AA turning them into the south bracket or section or whatever it would be called this years bracket would have looked like this

1 edina
16 kennedy/dodge county winner

8 lakeville north
9 shakopee

5 lakeville south
12 prior lake

4 AHA
13 farmington

6 chaska
11 mayo

3 jefferson
14 winona

7 owatonna
10 century

2 burnsville
15 rochester JM

parrish4president · Post by **parrish4president** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:30 pm

bender08 wrote:
marchmadness wrote:4 sections with 2 teams coming out in separate brackets sounds a lot like 8 sections with 1 bracket. please elaborate on your idea. am i correct in saying the only difference is you seed two sections together then split them up more evenly compared on how good the teams are?
basically i would be seeding two sections together. for example... i would have combined sections 1AA and 2AA turning them into the south bracket or section or whatever it would be called this years bracket would have looked like this

1 edina
16 kennedy/dodge county winner

8 lakeville north
9 shakopee

5 lakeville south
12 prior lake

4 AHA
13 farmington

6 chaska
11 mayo

3 jefferson
14 winona

7 owatonna
10 century

2 burnsville
15 rochester JM

I really like the way you set this up. To me this makes much more sense.

fan2007 · Post by **fan2007** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:35 pm

As far as sections go, they should propose to STA that if they move up to AA, then they will be put into 1AA. That way they get out of class A and for all of those who complain about 1AA being so weak, STA would provide a top team in the section. It would be fun to see a Roch. Mayo knock out STA in the 1AA finals next year.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

did sections hurt the tourney?

did sections hurt the tourney?

Re: did sections hurt the tourney?

Re: did sections hurt the tourney?

Re: did sections hurt the tourney?