HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Has anyone looked back historically to see how different section seedings would have been had QRF rankings been used instead of the seeding meeting at Tobies?

No. 3 1 Elk River/Zimmerman
No. 17 2 Duluth East
No. 27 3 C-E-C
No. 14 4 Grand Rapids
No. 39 5 Andover (84.0)
No. 41 6 Duluth Marshall
No. 55 7 St. Francis (63.2)
No. 54 8 Forest Lake (64.9)
No. 56 9 Cambridge-Isanti

last year Rapids would have been #2
St Francis would have been 8 and Forest Lake would have been 7

East and Rapids would have met in the semi finals, assuming they want the QF

No. 9 1 Grand Rapids
No. 16 2 Duluth East
No. 11 3 Elk River/Zimmerman
No. 40 4 C-E-C (85.
No. 44 5 Duluth Marshall
No. 36 6 Forest Lake
No. 49 7 Andover
No. 56 8 St. Francis
No. 58 9 Cambridge-Isanti

Two years ago East would have been 3 and ER #2.

Forest Lake would have been 5 and DM #6.

No. 7 1 Elk River/Zimmerman
No. 25 2 Grand Rapids
No. 15 3 Duluth East
No. 16 4 St. Michael-Albertville
No. 31 5 C-E-C
No. 38 6 Andover
No. 46 7 Forest Lake
No. 60 8 St. Francis
No. 58 9 Cambridge-Isanti

3 years ago

Nice analysis! On a related note, does anyone know whether using QRF is the new seeding process indefinitely? Or did they agree to use it this season and reassess afterward?

What led to using QRF? Which coached didn't like the normal process?

BP wrote:What led to using QRF? Which coached didn't like the normal process?

Allegedly, all were in support except for East and Marshall.

Lee

I do know ER and Rapids were not happy about last years seeding. Cloquet a possible suspect. The perceived East bias, real or not is now eliminared and no one can try and sway opinions. It may work out to be a detriment to ER but am still favor of it. East has owned the section on the ice but should not own it on the administration side of it.

alcloseshaver wrote:I do know ER and Rapids were not happy about last years seeding.

Bingo. CEC was 15-8-2 going into sections last year, while Rapids was 17-7-1 against a stronger schedule. The two teams split during the regular season, with GR taking the first meeting 7-1, and CEC winning 4-1 late in the season. Rapids struggled late in the year, but everyone knew their potential, and seeding them fourth behind CEC felt like Elk River was being set up for a semifinal loss, or at least a much more difficult matchup. Likewise, I’m sure that GR felt that they deserved the three seed based on overall body of work.

As pointed out above, there have been several seeding controversies in 7AA over the years, but last year seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

This is great insight on why the change was made. Does anyone know whether this is a change just for this year with an agreement to reassess for the future? Or, will there be a meeting after this season where they decide whether to continue using QRF or to go back to a seeding meeting?

Stang5280 wrote:

alcloseshaver wrote:I do know ER and Rapids were not happy about last years seeding.

Bingo. CEC was 15-8-2 going into sections last year, while Rapids was 17-7-1 against a stronger schedule. The two teams split during the regular season, with GR taking the first meeting 7-1, and CEC winning 4-1 late in the season. Rapids struggled late in the year, but everyone knew their potential, and seeding them fourth behind CEC felt like Elk River was being set up for a semifinal loss, or at least a much more difficult matchup. Likewise, I’m sure that GR felt that they deserved the three seed based on overall body of work.

As pointed out above, there have been several seeding controversies in 7AA over the years, but last year seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I think the 4-1 loss to Cloquet late in the season catepulled Rapids into the stratosphere. It won’t then up, pissed them off, and acted as glue would to paper. It would not have mattered where they were seated IMO. CEC almost took down East is the semi loosing a close game 1-0.

kniven wrote:

Stang5280 wrote:

alcloseshaver wrote:I do know ER and Rapids were not happy about last years seeding.

Bingo. CEC was 15-8-2 going into sections last year, while Rapids was 17-7-1 against a stronger schedule. The two teams split during the regular season, with GR taking the first meeting 7-1, and CEC winning 4-1 late in the season. Rapids struggled late in the year, but everyone knew their potential, and seeding them fourth behind CEC felt like Elk River was being set up for a semifinal loss, or at least a much more difficult matchup. Likewise, I’m sure that GR felt that they deserved the three seed based on overall body of work.

As pointed out above, there have been several seeding controversies in 7AA over the years, but last year seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I think the 4-1 loss to Cloquet late in the season catepulled Rapids into the stratosphere. It won’t then up, pissed them off, and acted as glue would to paper. It would not have mattered where they were seated IMO. CEC almost took down East is the semi loosing a close game 1-0.

Knivvsy, You need to slow down when your typing.

Nice work compiling the last few years of QRF Elliott, thanks.

QRF seems kinda squirrelly to me. But I like that it uses "stats" instead of coaches trying to set up favorable matchs.

What does QRF use to determine ranking or score? Win/loss obviously but does it use margin of loss or victory? Strength of schedule/opponent? If a poor team loses against a really good team does it affect the score more or less compared to if the loss came against an equal opponent, where one would expect a closer game?

north_bear wrote:QRF seems kinda squirrelly to me. But I like that it uses "stats" instead of coaches trying to set up favorable matchs.

What does QRF use to determine ranking or score? Win/loss obviously but does it use margin of loss or victory? Strength of schedule/opponent? If a poor team loses against a really good team does it affect the score more or less compared to if the loss came against an equal opponent, where one would expect a closer game?

Here is the most detailed explanation I could find. Still not sure I understand it fully.

http://minnesota-scores.blogspot.com/20 ... etail.html

sanryam wrote:

north_bear wrote:QRF seems kinda squirrelly to me. But I like that it uses "stats" instead of coaches trying to set up favorable matchs.

What does QRF use to determine ranking or score? Win/loss obviously but does it use margin of loss or victory? Strength of schedule/opponent? If a poor team loses against a really good team does it affect the score more or less compared to if the loss came against an equal opponent, where one would expect a closer game?

Here is the most detailed explanation I could find. Still not sure I understand it fully.

http://minnesota-scores.blogspot.com/20 ... etail.html

Thanks for the link to the explanation. However, that explanation seems to be missing a lot. It only refers to opponent wins divided by games played. No mention of record, wins, losses, or ties. Maybe it ignores all of that and a team’s results do not matter. If that is true, this appears to be a strength of schedule measure, and not a true ranking.

This FAQ appears to have some additional detail including how results affect QRF.

http://minnesota-scores.net/faq.php

I guess in my mind the real question is, at least for hockey , why each year are there extreme outliers in the rankings, that do not make intuitive sense vs either coaches or pundit rankings

The idea of keeping the method a secret so coaches don't manipulate results around the ranking is a noble thought. I understand the sentiment, but it results in a much less effective list than PS2, MyHockeyRankings, or Sagarin.

O-townClown wrote:The idea of keeping the method a secret so coaches don't manipulate results around the ranking is a noble thought. I understand the sentiment, but it results in a much less effective list than PS2, MyHockeyRankings, or Sagarin.

There isn’t a perfect method I’m thinking. It’s what the majority wants ....is usually what’s chosen. The coaches meeting in Hinckley was just really cool and just added drama and lots of great posts on the forum about the results.

Cept the majority doesn’t believe Rosemount is the # 5 team in the state?

kniven wrote:

O-townClown wrote:The idea of keeping the method a secret so coaches don't manipulate results around the ranking is a noble thought. I understand the sentiment, but it results in a much less effective list than PS2, MyHockeyRankings, or Sagarin.

There isn’t a perfect method I’m thinking. It’s what the majority wants ....is usually what’s chosen. The coaches meeting in Hinckley was just really cool and just added drama and lots of great posts on the forum about the results.

so does cloquet move ahead of marshall

QRF is sanctioned by the MSHSL and is the only option for use if sections in any sport chose to use it. Generally works well in football.

There was a QRF calculation done Wednesday AM and Cloquet did not move past Marshall but they are close enough to be in the tie breaker margin where it comes down to head to head.

alcloseshaver wrote:QRF is sanctioned by the MSHSL and is the only option for use if sections in any sport chose to use it. Generally works well in football.

Also works well in volleyball. However, I’ll miss all the board chatter about the “Randolph” effect.