North Dakota Preps

NorthDakota-Scores

Rankings: October 7, 2017
1 Cavalier (8-0) 39.4
2 New Salem/Glen Ullin (8-0) 38.9
3 Wyndmere/Lidgerwood (8-0) 37.4
4 Shiloh Christian (7-1) 35.2
5 North Prairie (8-1) 34.7
6 Napoleon/Gackle-Streeter (8-0) 34.3
T-7 Mohall-Lansford-Sherwood (7-1) 32.3
T-7 Thompson (6-2) 32.3
9 Linton/HMB (7-1) 28.6
T-10 St. John (6-2) 28.1
T-10 Beach (6-2) 28.1
12 Divide County (6-1) 27.4
13 Nelson County (6-2) 25.9
14 TGU (6-3) 23.9
15 Hankinson (5-3) 23.5
16 New Rockford-Sheyenne (5-3) 22.8
17 Kidder County (5-3) 22.0
18 Mott-Regent/New England (5-3) 21.5
19 Oakes (4-4) 20.7
20 Ray/Powers Lake (5-3) 19.8
21 Hatton/Northwood (3-5) 18.8
22 North Border (4-4) 17.7
23 May-Port-C-G (3-4) 17.4
24 Richland (3-5) 15.5
T-25 Benson County (3-5) 15.0
T-25 Grant County/Flasher (3-5) 15.0
27 North Star (3-5) 14.9
28 Surrey (4-4) 14.7
29 Central McLean (3-5) 13.3
T-30 Lamoure-LM (2-6) 12.7
T-30 Strasburg/Zeeland (2-6) 12.7
32 Larimore (2-6) 11.5
33 Parshall/White Shield (3-5) 11.1
T-34 Dunseith (3-6) 9.5
T-34 Finley-Sharon/Hope-Page (1-7) 9.5
36 Richardton-Taylor/Hebron (1-7) 9.2
37 Tioga (1-6) 8.1
38 Midway/Minto (1-6) 7.8
39 Hettinger/Scranton (1-7) 6.5
40 South Border (0-7) 5.6
T-41 Four Winds (0-7) 5.3
T-41 Drake-Anamoose (0-8) 5.3
43 Trenton/Trinity Christian (0-7) 4.5

Since we're using the QRF to determine the host for like seeded teams, how far away from seeding the playoff teams based on the QRF like SD does?

The Schwab wrote:Since we're using the QRF to determine the host for like seeded teams, how far away from seeding the playoff teams based on the QRF like SD does?

My only problem with using the QRF is that there are some obvious flaws in the formula. Not that it's earth shaking, but if it is to determine host seeds, it should be fairly accurate. Being a Region 4 person, I will use Benson County and North Star as an example. BC is ranked at a tie for 25th. NS is at 27. All their scores, etc. during the year are very similar. Their records the same. However, NS beat BC @ BC by 22 points. That should be enough in the formula to certainly rank NS ahead of BC. Once again, not a big thing but the formula should weigh heavier on head-to-head in close situations.

Bison-Vikes #1 wrote:

The Schwab wrote:Since we're using the QRF to determine the host for like seeded teams, how far away from seeding the playoff teams based on the QRF like SD does?

My only problem with using the QRF is that there are some obvious flaws in the formula. Not that it's earth shaking, but if it is to determine host seeds, it should be fairly accurate. Being a Region 4 person, I will use Benson County and North Star as an example. BC is ranked at a tie for 25th. NS is at 27. All their scores, etc. during the year are very similar. Their records the same. However, NS beat BC @ BC by 22 points. That should be enough in the formula to certainly rank NS ahead of BC. Once again, not a big thing but the formula should weigh heavier on head-to-head in close situations.

If the state ever used it for more than just like seeds...then I'm sure the tiebreak margin would be used like it is in MN...but since it's just to rank like seeds then it's not worth being used for more! D-A and all those forfeits hurt R4 as well

I think highest rated 2 seeds out of 1,2, and 3 and 4,5, and 6 should get byes.

Flip wrote:I think highest rated 2 seeds out of 1,2, and 3 and 4,5, and 6 should get byes.

Why?

why not give the bye to the best team instead of randomly selecting who gets it? Thompson is easily a better choice for a bye than Nelson County.

The system isn’t perfect. No matter what, someone will always feel like they’ve been shortchanged. Having a bye in the first round of playoffs usually doesn’t mean that much, as does home field. The biggest risk of playing an extra game is the chance of injury to a key player. Historically, there have been very few upsets in the first round of 9-man playoffs.

Flip wrote:why not give the bye to the best team instead of randomly selecting who gets it? Thompson is easily a better choice for a bye than Nelson County.

I do agree that, in the case of 2-seed that gets a bye, should be chosen from the QRF as the highest 2-seed (from each side of the state). Could also be cool if they were seeded (like Class A is this year) and the opportunity for cross-bracketing is there; throw the geography out of east vs. west out the window, Best vs. Best!

Just my take

Run4Fun2009 wrote:

Flip wrote:why not give the bye to the best team instead of randomly selecting who gets it? Thompson is easily a better choice for a bye than Nelson County.

I do agree that, in the case of 2-seed that gets a bye, should be chosen from the QRF as the highest 2-seed (from each side of the state). Could also be cool if they were seeded (like Class A is this year) and the opportunity for cross-bracketing is there; throw the geography out of east vs. west out the window, Best vs. Best!

Just my take

QRF a side, I like the fact that even though Region 2 and Region 1 shifted around a bit, there was still cross-region play with some teams.... possibly because of what I just stated....Thom picks up a match with a Region 4 team (NP) ...Cav plays a Region 4 team (ST. J) and a region 1 team (Thom) who was Region 2 in the past ....point being, in all reality, QRF changed things up a bit vs a lot because there isn't 100 teams like MN (guess) so it ends up still relative to the past......a fan loves to focus on advantage 1 and advantage 2 but a player and coach just plays the game.....

Run4Fun2009 wrote:I do agree that, in the case of 2-seed that gets a bye, should be chosen from the QRF as the highest 2-seed (from each side of the state). Could also be cool if they were seeded (like Class A is this year) and the opportunity for cross-bracketing is there; throw the geography out of east vs. west out the window, Best vs. Best!

Just my take

Cross-Bracketing can't happen until the semi's correct?

I think take the regions 1,2,3 and give the region winners the top 3 seeds and a bye (seed by QRF). Give the highest QRF region runner-up the 4 seed. This is just an idea I like better than the current plan.

I'm not sure how you could seed 1-6 or 1-8 and then sort out the rest, unless you just don't care about travel, then it's easy.

I think the playoffs should be seeded by using the QRF. I know I use South Dakota for a lot of my examples, but I think they have a good setup down there. They take the top 4 out of each region based on QRF from their 4 regions. The first round of playoffs is "inter-region" meaning the 1 seed plays the 4 seed and 2 plays 3 in each region. That cuts down on travel. After the first round of playoffs they seed the 8 remaining teams based on QRF and it's cross state brackets. I think then you have a better chance of having the best 4 teams play in the semi finals.

Nobody can tell me Cavalier and Thompson aren't 2 of the 4 best teams in the state and they are playing in the round of 16. I know if you want to be champion, you have to beat everyone regardless of round. Alot of teams travel alot anyway. A true QRF would have fixed this. 11-man A will probably have Langdon and EEK playing really early in the playoffs also.

steel wrote:Nobody can tell me Cavalier and Thompson aren't 2 of the 4 best teams in the state and they are playing in the round of 16. I know if you want to be champion, you have to beat everyone regardless of round. Alot of teams travel alot anyway. A true QRF would have fixed this. 11-man A will probably have Langdon and EEK playing really early in the playoffs also.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you blaming the QRF for some of the early matchups you mentioned?

Flip wrote:

steel wrote:Nobody can tell me Cavalier and Thompson aren't 2 of the 4 best teams in the state and they are playing in the round of 16. I know if you want to be champion, you have to beat everyone regardless of round. Alot of teams travel alot anyway. A true QRF would have fixed this. 11-man A will probably have Langdon and EEK playing really early in the playoffs also.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you blaming the QRF for some of the early matchups you mentioned?

EEK playing Langdon in Round of 8 is on them losing; once they lost to HCV they were always going to be in Langdon's quadrant. If they were to disregard travel...this could be avoided but they would still get matched up with a quality team in the Round of 8...welcome to the postseason!

Run4Fun2009 wrote:

Flip wrote:

steel wrote:Nobody can tell me Cavalier and Thompson aren't 2 of the 4 best teams in the state and they are playing in the round of 16. I know if you want to be champion, you have to beat everyone regardless of round. Alot of teams travel alot anyway. A true QRF would have fixed this. 11-man A will probably have Langdon and EEK playing really early in the playoffs also.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you blaming the QRF for some of the early matchups you mentioned?

EEK playing Langdon in Round of 8 is on them losing; once they lost to HCV they were always going to be in Langdon's quadrant. If they were to disregard travel...this could be avoided but they would still get matched up with a quality team in the Round of 8...welcome to the postseason!

I say Langdon Wins it all....
some great teams in 1A 11-Man but Langdon area is a wide swath combined now and the tools are there....JMHO

I realize this is a 9-Man thread but it got off-kilter