I asked this in the thread I started "Midget 16U A Districts" but I think it got lost in the sauce and I really wanted some feedback.

Do you think it is right to have a format whereby a team can go 3-0 and be eliminated? Don't you think District and National Championships should be decided on the ice? Should there have been some kind of playoff round?

Before I get more "sour grapes" and "you knew that going in", the answer is, it's not and we did but I want to ask your opinion if it's "right" in the interest of competition.

Technically it was decided on the ice.
goals for, goals against, etc...

I do get what your saying but in order to have a set schedule they need some way to make a determination. I'm guessing your with the OYR team. The schedule had the last 16a game on Sunday morning - so your thought is they should have an "if necessary" game scheduled Sunday morning and then play the final later Sunday?
Or change the format completely?

I think 3 or 4 years ago I was reffing a 16 something game on Saturday night(in districts) and with about a minute to go in a TIE game I stopped play to call a too many players on the ice penalty. It was then pointed out to me that the offending team had pulled their goalie.
"In a tie game?? Why???"
They needed to make up a goal differential
oopppss

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Zambonihugger,

quote:

Originally posted by Zambonihugger:
Technically it was decided on the ice.
goals for, goals against, etc...

I know what you're saying but by that standard the NY Yankees won the 1960 World Series because they vastly out-scored the Pirates - but the Pirates won 4 of the 7 games.

That doesn't count - baseball isn't really a sport.

but they're record wasn't equal, and it wasn't a round robin style tournament sooo, what's your point your trying to make?

I think their records were equal

OYR 3 wins 0 losses 16gf 9ga
Qua 3 wins 0 losses 15gf 2ga
Kings 3 wins 0 losses 12gf 2ga

Quakers and Kings advanced

The problem with the format is that these 3 teams never played each other until the final.

I was talking about his World Series analogy.

quote:

Originally posted by Pondhockey11:
I was talking about his World Series analogy.

Um.... That's the point.

It's a fallacy that goal differential makes one team better than another - the game needs to be played.

For instance, in the regular season the Kings scored the most goals, the Quakers gave up the fewest goals and the Raiders finished with the most wins and were Champs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Friar00,

Yes but in your analogy the pirates had the most wins. If it had been a six game series I'm sure it would have gone by run differential or something to that nature.

On another note, what would happen if there was some sort of playoff between the three teams and all the teams ended up 1-1? What then, keep playing till it works itself out?

quote:

Originally posted by Pondhockey11:
On another note, what would happen if there was some sort of playoff between the three teams and all the teams ended up 1-1? What then, keep playing till it works itself out?

To point 1, that world series shows that a higher scoring differential was at odds with the actual winner of the games, so - it's not a good way to determine winners.

On you point 2, all the teams don't need to play the playoff, you could use goal differential to say Team 2 has to play Team 3 in a playoff, with the winner going to the finals against Team 1.

The real crux of the matter is that an undefeated team was sent home in a major championship.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Friar00,

Also ask yourself, if the tie-breaker had been goals for, instead of goal differential, would you be on here whining how it's not fair?

quote:

Originally posted by Pondhockey11:
Also ask yourself, if the tie-breaker had been goals for, instead of goal differential, would you be on here whining how it's not fair?

Absolutely I would - if another undefeated team was arbitrarily sent home. As I said it's too late for our team - I am not whinng, I am asking for opinions. Do you have one?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Friar00,

Honestly, I don't mind the structure the way it is. And I've been on the losing end of it. You know goal differential will count before heading into the playoff when it comes to a tie breaker. Is it fair? Maybe not, but neither is life. Would it be fair for the 2nd and 3rd tied teams to play an extra game right before the final? I wouldn't think so. It would put that 2nd or 3rd tied teams at a disadvantage. Also how is the atlantic district to know they'll need an extra game? Should they pay for an ice slot they won't use, during a busy time of year for all club and high school hockey?

They get a certain amount of slots and they have to decide at the end regardless of how many teams tied who will go to the final. Some teams get the short end of the stick, that sucks, but somebody has to.