Slapshot03 wrote:No,Yes,No,No,No,No,
MinotBison wrote:Slapshot03 wrote:No,Yes,No,No,No,No,
This is getting ridiculous.
What to do about the West's inability to win AT ALL in the first round? Since they went to this 4 from the West and 4 from the East format, the West's record in the first round is something like 4 wins and all the rest losses. That's crazy.
The scores are reasonably close, so it's not that they can't compete. It's just that year in and year out, for some reason, when it comes to the state tournament, they don't compete, and I hate saying that.
I have some thoughts on the subject, but do any of you fans of Western hockey teams have any ideas?
MinotBison wrote:Slapshot03 wrote:No,Yes,No,No,No,No,
This is getting ridiculous.
What to do about the West's inability to win AT ALL in the first round? Since they went to this 4 from the West and 4 from the East format, the West's record in the first round is something like 4 wins and all the rest losses. That's crazy.
The scores are reasonably close, so it's not that they can't compete. It's just that year in and year out, for some reason, when it comes to the state tournament, they don't compete, and I hate saying that.
I have some thoughts on the subject, but do any of you fans of Western hockey teams have any ideas?
I think possibly scheduling more regular season games between west and east teams might be one idea.
1337 wrote:I agree that in order to beat the best, you have to play the best. However, I do feel it is going to be tough to schedule additional games, and yet I don't see them wanting to drop other games in favor of east/west games. There has to be a way to work it all out.
MinotBison wrote:1337 wrote:I agree that in order to beat the best, you have to play the best. However, I do feel it is going to be tough to schedule additional games, and yet I don't see them wanting to drop other games in favor of east/west games. There has to be a way to work it all out.
Even though I know it would go over like poop in a punchbowl, I was also going to suggest dividing hockey into a form of Class A and Class B, much like most of the other sports do. Here's what I would do:
1. Take the teams that are in the state tournament this year, and call them, let's say, Division I. All the other teams would be Division II.
2. Next season, the teams would play teams in their own division twice, for a total of 14 games. That would still leave room for 5-6 (or however many) other games.
3. Conduct two separate state tournaments next year, one for each division. At the end of those tournaments, the two teams that were the first to be eliminated in Div. I would drop to Div. II, and the two teams that finished at the top of Div. II would be promoted to Div. I, much like soccer leagues do the world over.
I know pigs will fly before anything like that might happen, but it's just my two cents worth. If it can generate some good discussion, then all the better.
It again gets back to the idea that if a team wants to get better, it will have to play better teams.
puck71 wrote:I've thought of the North/South split also, since this is how youth hockey is split. This is how the regions would go if they followed the Bantam regions:
North:
GRAFTON
GF CENTRAL
GF RED RIVER
MINOT
HAZEN/BEULAH
WILLISTON
DEVILS LAKE
South:
BISMARCK HIGH
BISMARCK CENTURY
MANDAN
WEST FARGO
FARGO NORTH
FARGO NORTH
DICKINSON
JAMESTOWN
ndfan wrote:Whats wrong with the EDC and WDA that it needs to be changed? And there isnt enough teams to make up two divisions or classes. I dont like that idea at all. If small town Grafton can compete with the souths, RR, and centrals every year then the Minot, Dickinsons, bismarcks and Willistons should beable too.
puck71 wrote:Sorry, I forgot some teams that are in high school because they don't have Bantam A programs. I think it would be a mistake to separate Fargo and West Fargo, so I'd take your list and swap West Fargo and Dickinson. Dickinson isn't any farther north than West Fargo (they're both right on I-94) but I think they'd fit in better in that division than West Fargo would.
ndfan wrote:I think it should be left just the way it is. The problem here is scheduling, Williston didn't play a East team all year, Dickinson only played Wahpeton the worst team in the EDC. Hazen played Wahpeton and Shanley (losing to Shanley). The West needs to start scheduling more games with the East. Another thing the East has an advantage in is the state right next to them, MINNESOTA. With the likes of Warroad, Roseau, Moorhead, etc... Who does the West have? Montana and South Dakota neither has hockey that compares to ND and Minnesota if they even have hockey.
If you switch to a north south division there is a better chance that teams from the West right now would probably not even make state. If they were to make state they would be low seed and be playing for consaltion anyway.
Another thing they could do is get more East vs. West tourneys. Make it round robin so the West plays all East teams.
Just my opinion, take it for what its worth (probably nothing)
I largely agree with what you have said. The West does indeed need to schedule more games against the East. The problem, however, is that there is no incentive for the East teams to play the West, precisely because of having Minnesota (almost literally) right next door. That's why I had said earlier that the schedule needs to be expanded by 2-4 games, with the provision that those games be played against teams from the other half of the state.
I know that ever since this 4 West and 4 East format was adopted, the Eastern teams have complained that it wasn't fair to them. And you know what? They are absolutely right. I would therefore propose that in return for the Eastern teams playing the West more often during the regular season (via the method mentioned earlier), we go back to the way they used to qualify for state. That is, a one game format where 1E vs. 8W, 2E vs. 7W, etc. Just my thoughts for the day.
MinotBison wrote:ndfan wrote:I think it should be left just the way it is. The problem here is scheduling, Williston didn't play a East team all year, Dickinson only played Wahpeton the worst team in the EDC. Hazen played Wahpeton and Shanley (losing to Shanley). The West needs to start scheduling more games with the East. Another thing the East has an advantage in is the state right next to them, MINNESOTA. With the likes of Warroad, Roseau, Moorhead, etc... Who does the West have? Montana and South Dakota neither has hockey that compares to ND and Minnesota if they even have hockey.
If you switch to a north south division there is a better chance that teams from the West right now would probably not even make state. If they were to make state they would be low seed and be playing for consaltion anyway.
Another thing they could do is get more East vs. West tourneys. Make it round robin so the West plays all East teams.
Just my opinion, take it for what its worth (probably nothing)I largely agree with what you have said. The West does indeed need to schedule more games against the East. The problem, however, is that there is no incentive for the East teams to play the West, precisely because of having Minnesota (almost literally) right next door. That's why I had said earlier that the schedule needs to be expanded by 2-4 games, with the provision that those games be played against teams from the other half of the state.I know that ever since this 4 West and 4 East format was adopted, the Eastern teams have complained that it wasn't fair to them. And you know what? They are absolutely right. I would therefore propose that in return for the Eastern teams playing the West more often during the regular season (via the method mentioned earlier), we go back to the way they used to qualify for state. That is, a one game format where 1E vs. 8W, 2E vs. 7W, etc. Just my thoughts for the day.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest