HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Seed the teams 1 thru 8 in this years case:

1 - Breck
2 - Mahtomedi
3 - Hermantown
4 - Warroad
5 - Virginia
6 - Rochester Lourdes
7 - Alexandria
8 - New Ulm

Then instead of matching them up 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5, do it the way they seeded the Jr Gold playoffs:

1 vs 5
4 vs 8

2 vs 6
3 vs 7

This would make for closer first round games while still giving the top seeds an advantage and might prevent games like we just saw in Breck vs New Ulm

This years games would have been matched like this then:

Breck vs Virginia
Warroad vs New Ulm
Mahtomedi vs Rochester Lourdes
Hermantown vs Alexandria

Just an idea...what are your thoughts??

Why is Virginia 5? Since Lourdes is playing the 4th seed they would be 5th.

nothing personal but i just dont really like it, the 1 seed should get to play the lowest seed. a way to solve this is to get better teams in section 3A

Why should the top seed be rewarded for being top seed by facing a tougher opponent than who the fourth seed faces???

Lee

HappyHockeyFan wrote:Seed the teams 1 thru 8 in this years case:

1 - Breck
2 - Mahtomedi
3 - Hermantown
4 - Warroad
5 - Virginia
6 - Rochester Lourdes
7 - Alexandria
8 - New Ulm

Then instead of matching them up 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5, do it the way they seeded the Jr Gold playoffs:

1 vs 5
4 vs 8

2 vs 6
3 vs 7

This would make for closer first round games while still giving the top seeds an advantage and might prevent games like we just saw in Breck vs New Ulm

This years games would have been matched like this then:

Breck vs Virginia
Warroad vs New Ulm
Mahtomedi vs Rochester Lourdes
Hermantown vs Alexandria

Just an idea...what are your thoughts??

There's no reward for being the No. 1 seed, you get the toughest first round opponent of the four top seeds.

Lee... Great minds think alike......

R1nk Rat 174 wrote:nothing personal but i just dont really like it, the 1 seed should get to play the lowest seed. a way to solve this is to get better teams in section 3A

Lourdes is a random pick, I would have seeded them below Virginia, but either way would work..as for section 3, nothing you can really do about that, this idea for seeding could potentially happen if the mshsl wanted to do it.

hockeydad wrote:Lee... Great minds think alike......

Seemed fairly obvious to at least the both of us, didn't it?

Lee

So you're going to penalize the the best team in the state each year so the weak sections don't get blown out? There must be a better way to go about this.

Might make 1st rd games more competive, but really not fair to the highest seeds. As ugly as tonights game was, the 1st seed should get the lowest seeded team. Number 4 should not get 8 and number 5 shouldn't have to play the number 1. If you are going to seed, the highest rank teams should have the advantage. The reason they changed was to make sure the semi-finals and finals were the most competive.

mulefarm wrote:Might make 1st rd games more competive, but really not fair to the highest seeds. As ugly as tonights game was, the 1st seed should get the lowest seeded team. Number 4 should not get 8 and number 5 shouldn't have to play the number 1. If you are going to seed, the highest rank teams should have the advantage. The reason they changed was to make sure the semi-finals and finals were the most competive.

It would make for better entertaining games in the first round and still give the top seeds an advantage...you would still the majority of the top seeds advance, but not so much by scores of 7 - 1 and 11 -1, I dont find that very entertaining.

HappyHockeyFan wrote:

R1nk Rat 174 wrote:nothing personal but i just dont really like it, the 1 seed should get to play the lowest seed. a way to solve this is to get better teams in section 3A

Lourdes is a random pick, I would have seeded them below Virginia, but either way would work..as for section 3, nothing you can really do about that, this idea for seeding could potentially happen if the mshsl wanted to do it.

Don't they have a random pick now????

I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

hockeydad wrote:I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

I could live with that too

east hockey wrote:

hockeydad wrote:Lee... Great minds think alike......

Seemed fairly obvious to at least the both of us, didn't it?

Lee

Explains why I was lost from the point HHF said in the first post, "What are your thoughts?"

hockeydad wrote:I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

I never minded the rotation...

hockeydad wrote:I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

I'm also in the minority. Takes the potential political problems out of the equation.

If the rotation still existed, here is what we'd have for quarterfinal matchups:

Class A

Rochester Lourdes vs. Alexandria
Hermantown vs. Warroad
Mahtomedi vs. Virginia
Breck vs. New Ulm

(well, we'd still have one major beatdown in the quarterfinals, but the other three would be entertaining)

Class AA

Blaine vs. Roseau
Hill-Murray vs. East
Minnetonka vs. Lakeville North
Edina vs. Apple Valley

Exchange Blaine for Edina and it's the same matchups as scheduled using the seeding system.

As for how the teams used to be bracketed, I'm not sure how that happened. Even though the same sections were paired every seven years, how they were bracketed changed.

So, the old way of doing things wasn't so bad after all.

Lee

defense wrote:

hockeydad wrote:I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

I never minded the rotation...

Agreed

east hockey wrote:

hockeydad wrote:I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

I'm also in the minority. Takes the potential political problems out of the equation.

If the rotation still existed, here is what we'd have for quarterfinal matchups:

Class A

Rochester Lourdes vs. Alexandria
Hermantown vs. Warroad
Mahtomedi vs. Virginia
Breck vs. New Ulm

(well, we'd still have one major beatdown in the quarterfinals, but the other three would be entertaining)

Class AA

Blaine vs. Roseau
Hill-Murray vs. East
Minnetonka vs. Lakeville North
Edina vs. Apple Valley

Exchange Blaine for Edina and it's the same matchups as scheduled using the seeding system.

As for how the teams used to be bracketed, I'm not sure how that happened. Even though the same sections were paired every seven years, how they were bracketed changed.

So, the old way of doing things wasn't so bad after all.

Lee

That's for sure.

hockeydad wrote:I might be among the minority, but I would still prefer the predetermined rotation for pairings that were used for many years. Class A and AA still use them for basketball. I liked the fact that the first round was just as likely to see two great teams as a blowout. I think coaches liked it too, since they could scout who their first round opponents would be.

One big issue imo:
They give out more than one trophy in all sports.
Even football gives a runner up trophy. If you don't seed and all you give is one trophy, the state champ, there is no issue.

There are other minor issues, but that's the main one. Unseeded tournaments should either be double elim, or have one trophy. Period.