and it's funny how you latch onto the one thing i got wrong, when you've been stating wrong things all thread. but, you do you.
CIF State FB Playoffs Changes for 2023
- Thread starter bulldogmgc
- Start date
Always? Well, how do you explain Grant? All of their Division 1 Championships have come with an enrollment of less than 1400 students.
Maybe because this thread is focused on the SJS football playoffs? Could really care less about girls basketball or Lincoln gifting away a game. Last I recall coaches are part of the team and if a coach makes a mistake it’s no different than a player making a mystake, but maybe bigger consequence … teams win/lose not just from successful plays but by taking advantage of mistakes from their opponent, and not just the last few plays … all 4 quarters! You sound like the fan/parent that also blames the umpire/refs instead of accepting the poor performance of your team. Btw, the Rams have a history in scoring with less than a minute left on the clock. You want to discount the Rams and their performance in that game and their overall portfolio and that disrespect is obvious. Yes, I’m a homer. But, you’re a hater! Not mad, just entertained and appreciate the opportunity to call you out, like others I have done in the past. You aren’t Pasty … right? Lol 😂
well.. they beat St. Marys in D2
then the year they won the open, were they D1? I don't know, probably, huh?
according to maxpreps, they were in the D2 bracket in 2010, and flipped btwn D1 and D2 for a while.
my guess is that Grant was on the enrollment bubble of D1/D2. I do remember that. Grant has gotten smaller, and lots of schools have gotten bigger. I imagine grant was much bigger 15 years ago. It actually surprised me Grant was D3 last year.
all i said is that lincoln gave that game away. and they did. you said it yourself 2 years ago.
but geez... you read way too much into that comment.
and the bigger point, that makes it relevant to this thread... SM would've been in the D2 playoffs if they lost that game. they've been a D2 school ever since that format was started. They weren't D1 playoffs because of 'excellence' or 'competitive equity'. They were a D2 school (really a D4/5 enrollment, but being in a D1 league they can only be as low as D2) that won their D1 league. So when they lock SM into D2 in this new format, it's consistent with how the section has handled SM
St Mary’s, Central Catholic, Jesuit, Capital Christian……heck all the privates should be in D1. They all play by the same rules, can pull kids from any public. Some are more successful than others, but should never play in a lower level against public schools. If a public school wants to challenge themselves, play in the pre season.
After watching CC Modesto obliterate lower level divisions for years and CN & MC do the same in the NCS, they should all be D1.
After watching CC Modesto obliterate lower level divisions for years and CN & MC do the same in the NCS, they should all be D1.
Grant won the Open as a D2 participant.
Grant teetered around 1300 students in the '90s to early 2000s yet remained a D1 participant. During this era, they won 4 D1 section championships and were in the hunt for several more. They got bumped down to D2 while they were still considered a powerhouse.
The issue that many are having is the inconsistencies within the SJS governance. Are they chasing the $$$? Are they out to produce more state champions? Are they trying to give certain teams an opportunity to win section titles?
Last year, it was crazy for Grant to be in D3. The decision to put them in D3 seemed like an attempt to make amends for placing them in the SFL, which was made during a period of notable decline in the program.
I see MT's issue with their league. I see St. Mary's issue with divisional changes. I see Grant's issue with D3 placement.
By all means, Christian Brothers should have won a D3 Section title last season!
Grant should have competed for a D2 title... (They were more than capable of competing against the D2 participants.)
There is an alternative resolution if the SJS-Open is not an option. They could start a new football only league with:
Folsom (1)
Oak Ridge (1)
Monterey Trails (1)
St. Mary's (1)
Central Catholic (1)
Del Oro (2)
Granite Bay (2)
Rocklin (2)
Manteca (2)
Grant (2)
This league would not only provide an undisputed Champion but the teams could then go and compete in their respective SJS Divisions.
Folsom (1)
Oak Ridge (1)
Monterey Trails (1)
St. Mary's (1)
Central Catholic (1)
Del Oro (2)
Granite Bay (2)
Rocklin (2)
Manteca (2)
Grant (2)
This league would not only provide an undisputed Champion but the teams could then go and compete in their respective SJS Divisions.
Last edited:
All I am hoping for is a fair shake for this year’s St. Mary’s team to have an opportunity to compete with the big boys (Folsom, Oak Ridge), to redeem itself after last year’s upset loss to Turlock, and if the Rams are as good as advertised, even a shot at the big boys outside of the section. Dropping to D2 may in fact happen and it is what it is. Likewise, future seasons and they will confidently work their way back to D1. Heck, if the Rams don’t win vs Manteca tomorrow, then I’ll eat some humble pie and agree they should drop to D2, and instead, seek revenge in the D2 playoffs vs Manteca. I’m pretty sure Central Catholic would love another shot at St. Mary’s in D1 playoffs after their huge transfer lineman can play. D2 playoffs will indeed be competitive, even more parity than D1 due to this basis and focus on enrollment size vs quality of the team. But, it is what it is. Wherever the Rams play (D1 or D2) confident they will do better than last year. Everyone has their opinion and reasoning, and really none of it really matters. The SJS governance board will make their decisions/ruling following their bylaws and even breaking them as they have done in the past. They are the most unpredictable group of folks I have witnessed and I think many here will agree. I’m confident the Rams are not worrying about this and will be prepared to play in whichever division they are assigned. Right now, focus is on tomorrow’s game, period! GO RAMS!
it's enrollment. if you look at this years enrollments, under last year's method, grant would be D2/D3 bubble. Last year would've been similar. And by the way, they are at 2044 kids this year. Last year would've been similar. 7 years ago, 2044 might have been big enough to be a D1 lock. It changes from year to year.
But also, when you think about the enrollment order of size.. .the last 10 years, with sustained success and the league division requirement... a lot of schools that would've been D3 have been pushed up into D2, and D2 schools smaller than Grant pushed up into D1 (SM, CC)... so that pushes bubble teams lower in division. So while Grant was a D1/D2 school years ago, all of these factors put them in D3 the last 2 years. It changes from year to year.
For the people in the back: It's the enrollment.
It's happening. It's a done deal... For christ sakes, you started the thread posting the article that says it's a done deal.
Grant has been bumped down to D3 by enrollment because so many smaller schools (like SFL and Delta teams) are locked into D2 due to being in D1 leagues. Grant would be a mid-column D2 school if the whole enrollment format was re-aligned.
Obviously, Grant can compete on the D2 and D1 level. They are the highest ranked team in D3 and are top-10 in the entire Section.
that's definitely not happening. I doubt any of the schools would even want that... it's more than about just football.
The best hope for a reasonable system is in 4 years, in the next realignment cycle.... they explore a conference model with a relegation system. This was discussed extensively in the realignment thread a few months back. The realignment committee I believe has recommended that be studied for the next cycle.
Therein lies the problem. The SFL is not a true Division 1 league. Del Oro and Granite Bay both have smaller enrollments than Grant. And Rocklin only has a slightly higher enrollment.
The SFL is mixed together just like the Metro. With the exception of Folsom and Oak Ridge, the SFL is comprised of Division 2 teams. The Metro actually has more Division 1 teams: Monterey Trails, McClatchy, River City... (Kennedy just missed the cut-off for being D1)
Last edited:
CIF SJS Football
f. Divisional Placement
1. Divisions. The teams will be placed in divisions in order of enrollment size. Schools may not play more than one division above or below their league placement in realignment. If a school’s enrollment places them in a division that is two or more divisions above or below its league placement in realignment, that school will be moved up or down at least one division within its league classification for playoffs.
2. Section Champion From Previous Year. If a school wins a Section championship at a particular level, that school must play at or above that level the following year.
3. Three in a Row. Schools that win three championships in a row will be moved up one division. If that school wins again the following year at its new level, it will be moved again to the next higher level. Otherwise, the school will remain in that division until it wins three more in a row (moved up one more division).
4. Continued Success. If a school has maintained continued success over several years but has not won three straight Section titles, the Section Commissioner (in consultation with the Executive 146 Committee) may recommend to the board that a school be moved to a higher division. Continued success may include, but not be limited to, the following:
* Section semifinalist or finalist for four or more years in a row with at least one Section title; or
* Four Section titles in a span of six years.
i. After a school has been moved to a level above its enrollment because of the three in a row rule or the continued success rule, that school may be moved down one level if the following occurs:
(a) The school misses the playoffs in any year; or
(b) The school fails to reach the semifinals in two consecutive years.
5. A school is not allowed to play in a division lower than its enrollment.
If we are talking about the span from 2015 - 2018, then okay. I'm not certain when these particular rules were put in place. If so, then the enrollment sheet provided by the section should have them listed as D1 no matter what, like Central Catholic is (Enrollment). The fact that the SJS did not distinguish St. Mary's as D1 in any of the years from at least 2019 through today would indicate either the span from 2015-2018 does not apply *or* the SJS Section office has continuously made a mistake and no one has corrected them. If 2015-2018 did apply, then St. Mary's would have been mandated before each season to be D1 from 2019 until now, regardless of league finish.
2022- No Semifinals
2021- Semifinals
2020- (No Playoffs/Moot)
2019- No Semifinals
2018- Semifinals
2017- Finals
2016- Section Champions
2015- Semifinals
(All of the above in D1)
2014- Finals of D2
2013- No Semifinals D2
2012- No Semifinals D2
- f.1 Explains why St. Mary's, being in a D1 league can be no lower than D2 for playoffs (previous years, not this year. Although I couldn't find anything on the SJS website to state the changes in the OP article from calhighsports).
- f.2 Would mandate St. Mary's must be in D1 for 2017 only, if these rules were in place then. (I searched for the enrollment published by the section from 2017 but came up short. It would be interesting to see how the section office had them listed for this year).
- f.3 Does not apply
- f.4 Would apply if these rules were in place for the 2015 season, for the span of 2015-2018.
***The one part of this section of rules that allow for St. Mary's to be included for "continued success" is the portion of f.4 that states "...Continued success may include, but not be limited to, the following:". But this has not happened for St. Mary's.
All of that is the "rules" aspect. St. Mary's, in my opinion, have earned the distinction of what most people would believe to mean "continued success." It is also my opinion that the "...Continued success may include, but not be limited to, the following:" section of the rules should be utilized to designate St. Mary's as D1. They do one heck of a job year in and year out. While they do not technically fit the criteria of "continued success" for the SJS as outlined, anyone with one or more functioning neurons knows St. Mary's football to be the epitome of continued success. Again, it is of my opinion, that St. Mary's deserves the honor and respect to be designated/mandated D1 for playoffs.
f. Divisional Placement
1. Divisions. The teams will be placed in divisions in order of enrollment size. Schools may not play more than one division above or below their league placement in realignment. If a school’s enrollment places them in a division that is two or more divisions above or below its league placement in realignment, that school will be moved up or down at least one division within its league classification for playoffs.
2. Section Champion From Previous Year. If a school wins a Section championship at a particular level, that school must play at or above that level the following year.
3. Three in a Row. Schools that win three championships in a row will be moved up one division. If that school wins again the following year at its new level, it will be moved again to the next higher level. Otherwise, the school will remain in that division until it wins three more in a row (moved up one more division).
4. Continued Success. If a school has maintained continued success over several years but has not won three straight Section titles, the Section Commissioner (in consultation with the Executive 146 Committee) may recommend to the board that a school be moved to a higher division. Continued success may include, but not be limited to, the following:
* Section semifinalist or finalist for four or more years in a row with at least one Section title; or
* Four Section titles in a span of six years.
i. After a school has been moved to a level above its enrollment because of the three in a row rule or the continued success rule, that school may be moved down one level if the following occurs:
(a) The school misses the playoffs in any year; or
(b) The school fails to reach the semifinals in two consecutive years.
5. A school is not allowed to play in a division lower than its enrollment.
If we are talking about the span from 2015 - 2018, then okay. I'm not certain when these particular rules were put in place. If so, then the enrollment sheet provided by the section should have them listed as D1 no matter what, like Central Catholic is (Enrollment). The fact that the SJS did not distinguish St. Mary's as D1 in any of the years from at least 2019 through today would indicate either the span from 2015-2018 does not apply *or* the SJS Section office has continuously made a mistake and no one has corrected them. If 2015-2018 did apply, then St. Mary's would have been mandated before each season to be D1 from 2019 until now, regardless of league finish.
2022- No Semifinals
2021- Semifinals
2020- (No Playoffs/Moot)
2019- No Semifinals
2018- Semifinals
2017- Finals
2016- Section Champions
2015- Semifinals
(All of the above in D1)
2014- Finals of D2
2013- No Semifinals D2
2012- No Semifinals D2
- f.1 Explains why St. Mary's, being in a D1 league can be no lower than D2 for playoffs (previous years, not this year. Although I couldn't find anything on the SJS website to state the changes in the OP article from calhighsports).
- f.2 Would mandate St. Mary's must be in D1 for 2017 only, if these rules were in place then. (I searched for the enrollment published by the section from 2017 but came up short. It would be interesting to see how the section office had them listed for this year).
- f.3 Does not apply
- f.4 Would apply if these rules were in place for the 2015 season, for the span of 2015-2018.
***The one part of this section of rules that allow for St. Mary's to be included for "continued success" is the portion of f.4 that states "...Continued success may include, but not be limited to, the following:". But this has not happened for St. Mary's.
All of that is the "rules" aspect. St. Mary's, in my opinion, have earned the distinction of what most people would believe to mean "continued success." It is also my opinion that the "...Continued success may include, but not be limited to, the following:" section of the rules should be utilized to designate St. Mary's as D1. They do one heck of a job year in and year out. While they do not technically fit the criteria of "continued success" for the SJS as outlined, anyone with one or more functioning neurons knows St. Mary's football to be the epitome of continued success. Again, it is of my opinion, that St. Mary's deserves the honor and respect to be designated/mandated D1 for playoffs.
There was some talk that a conference model with relegation could get going at mid-cycle (two years). Personally, I don't think the Section likes to move that fast. There's a chance, but I'm in wait-and-see mode on that one.
Maybe it’s a done deal “today”. Where did I say it’s a done deal? If you read further, I was seeking thoughts from others and questioning that “if” this article is true, could there be an exception. Maybe it gets overturned during the time after the regular season has been completed and teams are designated to each division. CC and MT are designated for certain to be in D1, yet I question why the asterisk for MT (for D1). MT competed in D2 for playoffs in 2021 season (not D1). Sure they have a large enrollment, but why lock them into D1? Where is the Continued Success in D1 if they played in D2 in 2021? Not saying that MT doesn’t have the enrollment. Just questioning the asterisk. Maybe that asterisk was meant for St. Mary’s? Maybe there have been agreements with the schools that may have petitioned early to be in D1, like was the case with Central Catholic and Manteca last year? How much continued success has Central Catholic had in D1 when last year was the first year in D1? I guess they don’t drop down to D2 until they fail to make 2 semifinals in a row or fail to make the playoffs 2 years in a row. Hmm? Sounds kind of similar to why St. Mary’s shouldn’t be dropping down to D2. Maybe St. Mary’s indeed requested D2 (if that’s the case it’s a done deal)? From my perspective, it appears it’s just another case of the SJS not following their own bylaws once again.
Stranger things have happened. Hence, if you read my original post completely, I was seeking other’s opinions and seeking an exception. There is indeed a case for an exception based on the bylaws and the Rams performance from 2015 until current, that justifies “Continued Success” clause that will be up for review by the Section Commissioner (in consultation with the Executive Committee). Do you know for certain that this review/decision has been made? Are you on this committee? If not, then your “it’s a done deal” is simply your opinion (not fact). Likewise, CalHiSports article may be just a view from their perspective. I wish this article came out sooner, so I knew about it. I was on the field with Mark Tennis during the Clovis West game. I could have asked what his basis was for the story, but I didn’t recognize that was him (thinking I knew his face but couldn’t place it) until after the game. Nm, I just commented to him within his article. Let’s see what response I get.
@MTsince2004, do you know why MT was designated the asterisk to not be placed in a division lower than D1, when in fact they played in D2 in 2021? Yes, their enrollment is D1 or bordering it. But, why the asterisk? Did they make some arrangements with the section to be locked into D1? Your thoughts please.
i agree with you, except the rule is: it's not mandated. .. it's up to the discretion of the section.
So basically if they feel like it.
my point has been... it makes sense that they should, but for whatever reason, it wasn't. so the rules are being followed, whether people think it's right or not.
I do not know the exact details of the conversation, but I understood it to be that since we are usually a larger school and had been to four section D1 championships in 11 years, it made sense. I think there might have been a little bit of an issue that we started slowly that year (0-5), but then went on a playoff run because we got to drop to D2. That probably just didn't sit right with some people.
Honestly, I was more surprised that Central Catholic was locked into D1. I think there is a lot of sentiment in the Modesto area that CC plays by their own rules and should have to play at the top. Just a hunch.
smh. no one said you said it's a done deal. I said it's a done deal.
looking further, the only source is indeed, calhi sports. I think I saw a tweet from sac maxpreps as well.
they haven't updated the website with the new format... it's still the 2022 info. So, there is that sliver of hope for you that it's not done. But per reporting, it's done.
this is the tweet I saw ☝️... the thing is, the bottom of that page doesn't refer to staying in the column. It just says
so this reads like there could be movement.
But, a team like st. marys, there will be no movement cuz their enrollment is too small.
and it doesn't say anything about winning league.... which would be the only way st marys could move up.
etc.
so this reads like there could be movement.
But, a team like st. marys, there will be no movement cuz their enrollment is too small.
and it doesn't say anything about winning league.... which would be the only way st marys could move up.
btw... i don't think anyone is making arrangements, or asking to be in a certain division.
I think the section says, then it is. and every school deals with it.... (way better than people on here do
)UPDATE:
Response from …
Mark Tennis
St. Mary’s is D2 according to the Sac-Joaquin Section itself. It was talked about during media day with Will DeBoard. I believe SM is D2 because it lost in the quarterfinals last year to Turlock. Also lost in the first round in 2019 to Monterey Trail. Central Catholic, for example, won D2 in 2021 so it was moved up to D1. You can ask the section office but those divisions are locked in.
——
Bummer! It is what it is. I’m not going to stir the pot in contacting the SJS section office. Heck, I might get kicked off the chain gang for meddling. Lol. Besides I don’t want to jinx the Rams and their game tomorrow vs Manteca.
Response from …
Mark Tennis
St. Mary’s is D2 according to the Sac-Joaquin Section itself. It was talked about during media day with Will DeBoard. I believe SM is D2 because it lost in the quarterfinals last year to Turlock. Also lost in the first round in 2019 to Monterey Trail. Central Catholic, for example, won D2 in 2021 so it was moved up to D1. You can ask the section office but those divisions are locked in.
——
Bummer! It is what it is. I’m not going to stir the pot in contacting the SJS section office. Heck, I might get kicked off the chain gang for meddling. Lol. Besides I don’t want to jinx the Rams and their game tomorrow vs Manteca.
This new CCS system is so without thought.
The NCS setup from the start is an entirely different situation. The 7 and 8 seeds truly aren't especially good team (just big schools), so it doesn't particularly matter in the grand scheme of things if they are knocked out in the first round.
The CCS 7 and 8 seeds in D-I, in theory, earned their place in that division by having a better season than the 1 and 2 seeds in D-II. Eliminating these teams could very much matter. For a section that tends to overthink how playoff teams are determined, this change demonstrates a stark lack of comprehension of context. What the section should have adopted is a SDS-style Open system, only making it truly an 'Open' division where anyone can be selected, not just a predetermined D-I group.
The NCS setup from the start is an entirely different situation. The 7 and 8 seeds truly aren't especially good team (just big schools), so it doesn't particularly matter in the grand scheme of things if they are knocked out in the first round.
The CCS 7 and 8 seeds in D-I, in theory, earned their place in that division by having a better season than the 1 and 2 seeds in D-II. Eliminating these teams could very much matter. For a section that tends to overthink how playoff teams are determined, this change demonstrates a stark lack of comprehension of context. What the section should have adopted is a SDS-style Open system, only making it truly an 'Open' division where anyone can be selected, not just a predetermined D-I group.
Similar threads
