Gotta Love Competitive Equity

[ClayK]

Coaches have biases and also haven't necessarily seen a lot of teams. They see who they play and usually that's it, and so asking them to compare two teams they haven't seen or paid any attention to does little good.

But information is always valuable, if it can be properly applied.

 

[CoachRandal]

Competitive Equity is a terrible system for several reasons:

- punishes success and rewards mediocrity. This conflicts with the lessons coaches are trying to teach.
- makes the lower divisions meaningless and have no historical significance. Nobody cares who wins the NIT. CBIT or weedeater Bowl. Note attendance is way down as a result.
- unfair to small schools who are moved up. We did research that shows schools moved up 2 or more divisions only win 18% of the time in first game. A fair fight would be 50%.
- It is leading to the strong teams getting stronger and the weak teams getting weaker. Transfers are moving from weak schools to strong schools because they don’t want to play in schools that compete in weak divisions.

The old enrollment based system was better than the current one. With that system all the state championship games had great teams with great players and were meaningful games that fans wanted to attend. That is no longer the case at all.

The best system is what the CCS does, which is to pull the power teams up to an Open and everyone else compete in their enrollment division. This system has been in place for 9 years and has worked great and been appreciated by all schools and coaches. They solved the early round blowout problem by using staggered brackets. A much better solution than competitive equity which causes all the problems discussed above.

It would be easy to use the “CCS Model” in other sections and for the state playoffs.

 

[ClayK]

The private school advantage in enrollment divisions is enormous -- especially if those private schools manipulate their enrollment numbers to stay in lower divisions.

And there have always been dominant powers and mismatches, no matter what the system. Pinewood always seemed to have plenty of kids coming in when they were D5. Bishop O'Dowd never struggled to get talent in D3. Cardinal Newman always did well in D4.

And enrollment-based divisions would also reward losing, because a strong D4 team, say, would do its best to lose enough to stay in D4 rather than get pulled up to the Open. If that team did get pulled up, a lesser team would then win D4.

Finally, attendance dropped when the title games all were played in large arenas, distant from schools. If you want fans, play the state games near the higher seed, in a small gym where 2,000 people seems like a big crowd. Put 2,000 people in Golden1 and it looks empty.

There will always be a team that gets hosed by the system, and there will always be a team that gets rewarded through luck.

 

[bella123]

It's also hard to know the CCS quality of public school teams. The geographic distance & disparity from Gilroy to Salinas to Monterey to Santa Cruz, all along the peninsula coastline to San Francisco (WCAL) down to Los Altos Hills to Milpitas thru Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, Saratoga + Los Gatos to Mitty on Lawrence Expy to south San Jose (Valley Christian). I've left out Fremont, several schools in the Santa Cruz Mountains like Scotts Valley, San Lorenzo Valley, etc. Ten-fifteen years ago I heard that there were 211 high schools in the CCS. Since then many small private schools have emerged like Pinewood, Woodside Priory, East Palo Alto, Notre Dame-Belmont, etc. Take 101 from San Jose to SF and there are high schools all the way up on both sides of the freeway.

This reads like the Californians on SNL.😂


View: https://youtu.be/zid6S7yAHqA?feature=shared

 

[CalvinCambridge]

Make two separate tournaments, one for public schools and one for private schools. There would be public state champions and private state champions. Winning the D1 public state championship would be just as prestigious as winning the D1 private state championship. Divisions in the public school tournament would be decided by enrollment. Divisions in the private school tournament would be trickier but necessary for competitive equity.

 

[TheHillZ]

Make two separate tournaments, one for public schools and one for private schools. There would be public state champions and private state champions. Winning the D1 public state championship would be just as prestigious as winning the D1 private state championship. Divisions in the public school tournament would be decided by enrollment. Divisions in the private school tournament would be trickier but necessary for competitive equity.

In this scenario (which isn't far from how NY runs its tourneys) you could have a final game pitting the top public against the top private in each division and/or a North South matchup.

 

[ClayK]

Almost every state that has done that has shifted back. But let's consider the consequences.

So first, you have to have divisions for the private schools. Head-Royce and Bishop O'Dowd are not in the same category. You would need at least three and probably four private school divisions. You now would have at least nine divisions in California, which waters down the divisional titles even more -- an issue for some, I know.

Aside from that, you have a numbers' issue. Some sections might only have a few elite private schools, or only a few in the middle brackets. How do you place the privates in statewide divisions that make sense?

The idea of a public-private playoff seems like a good one, but both New York and New Jersey have abandoned those in recent years, which is unsatisfactory, it seems to me.

Another issue is league formation. Do all private schools then play only in private school leagues? If so, who's in Cardinal Newman's league? And how do you form a league in Oakland with Salesian and O'Dowd? Does Head-Royce get tossed in it as well so you have six schools?

And finally, there's more to high school sports than basketball and football. In most sports, the privates and publics co-exist very well. What happens to those leagues?

 

[ankleassassin]

and where do the charter schools go?

 

[CalvinCambridge]

In the past decade there have been 3 public school champions across the Open Division and Division 1. Same with the boys. Are we okay with that? Of course all of these private school coaches and fans want to keep the system the same because they like beating up on public schools. Football is even worse with no public schools ever having a chance of taking down private schools with dozens of D1 players.

 

[ClayK]

The issue, sadly, is only a few private schools. The bulk of privates and charters compete on equal terms with public schools. They play in the same local leagues, cutting travel costs and encouraging local competition, and they do so in all sports, not just a few.

Those private schools that view athletics as part of their brand, as part of their marketing, are always going to have a different agenda and more resources to spend than the vast majority of private, charter and public schools.

It is administrative will, even in public and charter schools, that drives long-term athletic success, not enrollment or classification or the amount of local talent.

 

[CalvinCambridge]

"It is administrative will, even in public and charter schools, that drives long-term athletic success, not enrollment or classification or the amount of local talent."

I would love to see De La Salle/Carondelet switch rosters with a public EBAL school like Livermore High and we will see how many wins they get with that "administrative will".

 

[bb-hoops]

The seedings would immediately improved if they would cut the number of qualifying teams in both the sections and norcals. The example below would work for both sections and norcals.
Open Div. Best 6 teams
Platinum Division - Next 16 teams
Gold Division - Next 16 teams
Silver Division - Next 8 teams
Bronze - Next 8 team
5 different brackets
Total number of teams 54 versus 102 currently.
Get rid of the divisions so that the size of the student body is no longer a factor, sit down in a room and rank 1 through 54, and follow the above example for brackets.
Why doesn't cutting the number of qualifying teams ever discussed? If the answer is money that would be disappointing.

 

[ClayK]

Though I like the plan, the thing is that players, coaches and parents enjoy the postseason. It's fun for all, so why limit the fun?

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Almost every state that has done that has shifted back. But let's consider the consequences.

So first, you have to have divisions for the private schools. Head-Royce and Bishop O'Dowd are not in the same category. You would need at least three and probably four private school divisions. You now would have at least nine divisions in California, which waters down the divisional titles even more -- an issue for some, I know.

Aside from that, you have a numbers' issue. Some sections might only have a few elite private schools, or only a few in the middle brackets. How do you place the privates in statewide divisions that make sense?

The idea of a public-private playoff seems like a good one, but both New York and New Jersey have abandoned those in recent years, which is unsatisfactory, it seems to me.

Another issue is league formation. Do all private schools then play only in private school leagues? If so, who's in Cardinal Newman's league? And how do you form a league in Oakland with Salesian and O'Dowd? Does Head-Royce get tossed in it as well so you have six schools?

And finally, there's more to high school sports than basketball and football. In most sports, the privates and publics co-exist very well. What happens to those leagues?

As for the private vs. public school league, WCAL is the prime example of how it should be. C-Let, Salesian, BOD, Moreau, and SJND should all be in one league. I don't want to hear about traffic/travel times because SHC has to travel all the way down to San Jose to play VC and that's no walk in the park. BCL has it right as they're all similar size schools with the same competitive sports in all programs. The catholic schools are the only private schools in the east bay that's not in a private school league. CCS has 2-3 private school leagues too. I do agree that Cardinal Newman would be the odd one out with maybe Justin Sienna, MC, St. Pats, St. Vincent, and CN all being in the same league...althought St. Vincent would be way out of their league.

 

[ClayK]

SJND? Can't compete at all. 9-16, state ranking 861.

A four-team league? Salesian would struggle in some sports, simply due to school size. So now you're down to three.

And just because the WCAL schools are willing to miss the class time and pay for transportation (for all sports) doesn't mean other schools are. Most administrations will not be willing to miss so much class time to travel to daylight sports when there are schools nearby at the same competitive level.

BCL-East girls' basketball has two teams that are 35-14, each 9-1 in league. The bottom three are 9-38 overall, with five wins total, all obviously against each other. There was a time it was better, but three of the schools' administrations have zero interest in sports (many more application s than spots to fill) so it's completely unbalanced.

Now you could put BOD in the EBAL, maybe, but still -- that's a long haul to Livermore or Concord.

 

[observer22]

As for the private vs. public school league, WCAL is the prime example of how it should be. C-Let, Salesian, BOD, Moreau, and SJND should all be in one league. I don't want to hear about traffic/travel times because SHC has to travel all the way down to San Jose to play VC and that's no walk in the park. BCL has it right as they're all similar size schools with the same competitive sports in all programs. The catholic schools are the only private schools in the east bay that's not in a private school league. CCS has 2-3 private school leagues too. I do agree that Cardinal Newman would be the odd one out with maybe Justin Sienna, MC, St. Pats, St. Vincent, and CN all being in the same league...althought St. Vincent would be way out of their league.

Prior to the creation of the CCS in about 1968, most of the WCAL schools were part of the old CAL (Catholic Athletic League). The CAL included SJND, Moreau, BOD, Salesian & DLS boys teams, among others. For some reason, the NCS decided to break up the CAL at some point in the 80s, about the same time DLS football started their impressive domination. The CAL has never come close to being resurrected.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

SJND? Can't compete at all. 9-16, state ranking 861.

A four-team league? Salesian would struggle in some sports, simply due to school size. So now you're down to three.

And just because the WCAL schools are willing to miss class time and pay for transportation (for all sports) doesn't mean other schools are. Most administrations will not be willing to miss so much class time to travel to daylight sports when there are schools nearby at the same competitive level.

BCL-East girls' basketball has two teams that are 35-14, each 9-1 in league. The bottom three are 9-38 overall, with five wins total, all obviously against each other. There was a time it was better, but three of the schools' administrations have zero interest in sports (many more application s than spots to fill) so it's completely unbalanced.

Now you could put BOD in the EBAL, maybe, but still -- that's a long haul to Livermore or Concord.

I find it comical when people talk about missing school. If you look at C-Let, BOD, Salesian, and Moreau's schedule and they're traveling all over the USA to play in tournaments and games. I do agree that SJND would be way out of their league so maybe keep them in the BCL. the BCL East was competitive once. HR, VC, Bentley (when you were there), and Athenian all were formidable teams. For whatever reason, they're not anymore.

Here's a thought, it takes SHC 1:30 to get from SF to San Jose for games. It would take Cardinal Newman almost the same amount of time to get to Moreau (furthest south). Add Moreau and MC to the already mentioned and another catholic school league. I just think it would be much better for the NCS as a whole to have a league set up like this. They already have it for small schools, why not make it bigger?

 

[colhenrylives]

As we have suggested before, add teams to the WCAL and split it in half:

North: Newman, MC, SI, Riordan, SHC, Menlo

South: Serra, SF, Mitty, Bells, VC, SHP

A coed Palma is probably too far away to be part of an expanded WCAL.

There are arguments for and against these moves. Talk among yourselves.

 

[ClayK]

There are too many sports, too much travel and too much missed class. The WCAL is a dinosaur.

Now if you want to create a different league for each sport, it might work.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

There are too many sports, too much travel and too much missed class. The WCAL is a dinosaur.

Now if you want to create a different league for each sport, it might work.

Yes it's a dinosaur but it's arguably one of the best leauges (in all sports) top to bottom in CA and at least in Norcal.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Think about this. I just looked at the brackets for shits and giggles, and you know what? D3, D4, D5 had NO section champs in the brackets. They were either runner-ups or section semifinalists. It seems that Open, D1, and D2 are legit brackets, and the D3-5 is where everyone gets a medal. really takes the fun out of it when you start to think about it. Teams who won sections and getting moved up 2-3 divisions ONLY to get bounced in the first round. What's the point of being "successful" when you get penalized in the end?

 

[northbaybbguru]

Think about this. I just looked at the brackets for shits and giggles, and you know what? D3, D4, D5 had NO section champs in the brackets. They were either runner-ups or section semifinalists. It seems that Open, D1, and D2 are legit brackets, and the D3-5 is where everyone gets a medal. really takes the fun out of it when you start to think about it. Teams who won sections and getting moved up 2-3 divisions ONLY to get bounced in the first round. What's the point of being "successful" when you get penalized in the end?

D3,4,5 are a joke...UNLESS you are a small school from the hills that has 150 or so kids then it's the proper seeding. But of course if you are any good and happen to win your D4 or D5 section you'll probably get put in D2 anyhow because of CE. So yea...3,4and 5 remain for the underacheivers cause as we all know...everyone deserves a trophy.

 

[northbaybbguru]

D3 is notorious for that 1 team that we all know is talented but for whatever reason completely under achieves during the regular season (or who quite frankly just get mis-seeded) who sneaks into Norcals and then cruises to the State title game.

And it's always the same quote by their coach...

"We don't pay attention to seeding, we'll play whoever they put in front of us"

Yea...I bet you will 🙄

 

[ClayK]

Everyone does not get a trophy.

I don't care what bracket it is, winning a state title is hard. Extremely hard. The culmination of months, if not years, of hard, difficult, grinding work, by players and coaches.

No one is given a trophy. Perhaps there is an easy game, or maybe two, in the section playoffs. There might even be one in the regionals. But there many games that must be won against good teams, talented teams, that have also worked hard, that are also well-coached, that are also skilled and determined.

Winning these games, in whatever division, is not easy. The pressure is intense, the mental and physical fatigue after a long season is impossible to make up for with a good night's sleep.

This whole theme of "everyone gets a trophy" ignores the reality of the postseason. Sure, you can say "Caruthers isn't any good, Mitty would beat them by 50." Fine. How many teams are left at this point of the season? If you do the math, out of 1,400 or so California high schools, there are 28 girls' teams playing basketball.

Is that everyone? Is all the work they did, and all the games they won, and all the adversity they've overcome to get where they are, to survive where others haven't, just smoke and mirrors? Do their effort, their desire, their dedication count for nothing because they would lose to some school with international recruits and a county-wide feeder system?

From inside postseason, whether it's Division I or Division V, it's an incredibly difficult and draining journey to get to this point, as anyone who's been involved with a team that gets this far would know.

"Everyone gets a trophy." Please ... there are 1,400 schools. Six girls' teams will get trophies. And unless you've been part of the grind, you have no idea what's involved in getting there.

How about maybe giving credit to the athletes and coaches who are still playing? How about acknowledging that there's more to the story than the number of future college players on the roster? How about realizing that everyone does not get a trophy, and that standing on the court at Golden1 after winning a D5 state title with a medal around your neck is the reward for years of effort and dedication?

Everyone gets a trophy ... please.

 

[colhenrylives]

Well done. Well presented. Well crafted. A key stat that always bears repeating: Our state has 1,400+ high schools. California is really a separate nation unto itself. (The gigantic Southern Section with more than one-third of those schools is in that same category.) A statewide prep playoff system in any sport is going to have oddities and glitches, almost by definition. That's one reason there was such a long hiatus between the early days of the CIF playoffs nearly a century ago and the 1980s when a new setup was implemented.

 

[Streak One]

This debate centers on your perspective and how you interact with the NorCal/State playoffs.

As someone who follows it closely, the state championship weekend has less of a big event feel because of what was said earlier that after D2 (and maybe D1) the oveall talent drops way off. It used to be (whether it was fair overall or not) that there were standout teams/players in each game.

Now, no matter what division you are in, Clay is right that it is still hard to win a state title. You usually have some travel outside of our normal routes, have to win four games over eight days (excluding Open) against teams that are better than most HS teams. And a playoff run is something these players and coaches wil remember for a long time.

So you have a multiple people all feel good about their opinions while being in disagreement with each other

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Everyone does not get a trophy.

I don't care what bracket it is, winning a state title is hard. Extremely hard. The culmination of months, if not years, of hard, difficult, grinding work, by players and coaches.

No one is given a trophy. Perhaps there is an easy game, or maybe two, in the section playoffs. There might even be one in the regionals. But there many games that must be won against good teams, talented teams, that have also worked hard, that are also well-coached, that are also skilled and determined.

Winning these games, in whatever division, is not easy. The pressure is intense, the mental and physical fatigue after a long season is impossible to make up for with a good night's sleep.

This whole theme of "everyone gets a trophy" ignores the reality of the postseason. Sure, you can say "Caruthers isn't any good, Mitty would beat them by 50." Fine. How many teams are left at this point of the season? If you do the math, out of 1,400 or so California high schools, there are 28 girls' teams playing basketball.

Is that everyone? Is all the work they did, and all the games they won, and all the adversity they've overcome to get where they are, to survive where others haven't, just smoke and mirrors? Do their effort, their desire, their dedication count for nothing because they would lose to some school with international recruits and a county-wide feeder system?

From inside postseason, whether it's Division I or Division V, it's an incredibly difficult and draining journey to get to this point, as anyone who's been involved with a team that gets this far would know.

"Everyone gets a trophy." Please ... there are 1,400 schools. Six girls' teams will get trophies. And unless you've been part of the grind, you have no idea what's involved in getting there.

How about maybe giving credit to the athletes and coaches who are still playing? How about acknowledging that there's more to the story than the number of future college players on the roster? How about realizing that everyone does not get a trophy, and that standing on the court at Golden1 after winning a D5 state title with a medal around your neck is the reward for years of effort and dedication?

Everyone gets a trophy ... please.

Im not taking anything away from the teams that are still in it, at any division. Yes, they had a long journey to get to the NorCal finals this week and that's a great accomplishment...

What I am saying is that CE isn't equitable as I can say with almost 100$% certainty, none of the finalists in D3-5 would not be here in ANY normal Norcal playoff year. The everyone gets a trophy comment is more geared to the administrators that made the Norcals a joke when they took the best divisional winners and bumped them up 1-3 divisions out of their division (4-6 lost BTW) and took a chance at a state championship, just to give runner ups a chance for whatever reason. It just seems ass backwards and I'll never get it.

 

[CAPTAIN MORGAN]

Coach Randall said it right on a post on the boys side

Competitive Equity is a terrible system for several reasons:

- punishes success and rewards mediocrity. This conflicts with the lessons coaches are trying to teach.
- makes the lower divisions meaningless and have no historical significance. Nobody cares who wins the NIT. CBIT or weedeater Bowl. Note attendance is way down as a result.
- unfair to small schools who are moved up. We did research that shows schools moved up 2 or more divisions only win 18% of the time in first game. A fair fight would be 50%.
- It is leading to the strong teams getting stronger and the weak teams getting weaker. Transfers are moving from weak schools to strong schools because they don’t want to play in schools that compete in weak divisions.

The old enrollment based system was better than the current one. With that system all the state championship games had great teams with great players and were meaningful games that fans wanted to attend. That is no longer the case at all.

The best system is what the CCS does, which is to pull the power teams up to an Open and everyone else compete in their enrollment division. This system has been in place for 9 years and has worked great and been appreciated by all schools and coaches. They solved the early round blowout problem by using staggered brackets. A much better solution than competitive equity which causes all the problems discussed above.

It would be easy to use the “CCS Model” in other sections and for the state playoffs.

 

[ClayK]

>The old enrollment based system was better than the current one. With that system all the state championship games had great teams with great players and were meaningful games that fans wanted to attend. That is no longer the case at all.

I covered all the state championship games for many years and the games weren't necessarily good. Pinewood girls in D5? Please. Price brought up a boys' team one year in D5 that made a mockery of things.

And Mater Dei was a D2 by enrollment one year. That boys' game was not a good game.

Selective memory works both ways.

And by the way, very few people want to see the D4 or D5 title games whether they're enrollment-based or not. That's friends and family only, regardless of who's playing.

Enrollment based may reward winning, but it also rewards private schools that recruit and leaves public schools with zero chance to compete if private schools are serious about basketball.

 

[ankleassassin]

Coach Randall said it right on a post on the boys side

Competitive Equity is a terrible system for several reasons:

- punishes success and rewards mediocrity. This conflicts with the lessons coaches are trying to teach.
- makes the lower divisions meaningless and have no historical significance. Nobody cares who wins the NIT. CBIT or weedeater Bowl. Note attendance is way down as a result.
- unfair to small schools who are moved up. We did research that shows schools moved up 2 or more divisions only win 18% of the time in first game. A fair fight would be 50%.
- It is leading to the strong teams getting stronger and the weak teams getting weaker. Transfers are moving from weak schools to strong schools because they don’t want to play in schools that compete in weak divisions.

The old enrollment based system was better than the current one. With that system all the state championship games had great teams with great players and were meaningful games that fans wanted to attend. That is no longer the case at all.

The best system is what the CCS does, which is to pull the power teams up to an Open and everyone else compete in their enrollment division. This system has been in place for 9 years and has worked great and been appreciated by all schools and coaches. They solved the early round blowout problem by using staggered brackets. A much better solution than competitive equity which causes all the problems discussed above.

It would be easy to use the “CCS Model” in other sections and for the state playoffs.

man thats rough saying nobody cares about them D4 or D5 teams.

 

[northbaybbguru]

Your naive if you don't think public schools recruit Klay.

 

[ClayK]

>Your naive if you don't think public schools recruit Klay.

Of course they do, but recruiting is much, much easier at private schools with supportive administrations. No attendance boundaries and the advantages of a private school at a bargain rate.

 

[northbaybbguru]

>Your naive if you don't think public schools recruit Klay.

Of course they do, but recruiting is much, much easier at private schools with supportive administrations. No attendance boundaries and the advantages of a private school at a bargain rate.

Private schools with supportive administrations?

It seems to me that supportive administration works both ways..big advantage whether its public or private. So that argument doesn't really hold water IMO.

But the no tuition argument is a HUGE advantage for the publics.

And not every private school gives out scholarships (that's simply not true) as I'm sure you're more than aware of at CLET.

 

[Mo Green]

>The old enrollment based system was better than the current one. With that system all the state championship games had great teams with great players and were meaningful games that fans wanted to attend. That is no longer the case at all.

I covered all the state championship games for many years and the games weren't necessarily good. Pinewood girls in D5? Please. Price brought up a boys' team one year in D5 that made a mockery of things.

And Mater Dei was a D2 by enrollment one year. That boys' game was not a good game.

Selective memory works both ways.

And by the way, very few people want to see the D4 or D5 title games whether they're enrollment-based or not. That's friends and family only, regardless of who's playing.

Enrollment based may reward winning, but it also rewards private schools that recruit and leaves public schools with zero chance to compete if private schools are serious about basketball.

Just one year for MD in D2? I clearly remember them losing in D2. Must have been another year.

 

[northbaybbguru]

Just want to point out an example of the "everyone deserves a trophy " CE bullshi*

Oakland high school

1579 students

D2 norcals for the boys

D5 norcals for the girls (#13 seed)

D5???? Complete BS and I'm shocked that they are playing to go to the CE D5 state championship🙄...(actually im not)

There is no rhyme or reason for Oakland to EVER BE PUT IN D5.

If they aren't good enough to be in D3 or higher then they shouldn't be in...


Making it to the NorCals actually used to mean something.

 

[Marcskit]

>The old enrollment based system was better than the current one. With that system all the state championship games had great teams with great players and were meaningful games that fans wanted to attend. That is no longer the case at all.

I covered all the state championship games for many years and the games weren't necessarily good. Pinewood girls in D5? Please. Price brought up a boys' team one year in D5 that made a mockery of things.

And Mater Dei was a D2 by enrollment one year. That boys' game was not a good game.

Selective memory works both ways.

And by the way, very few people want to see the D4 or D5 title games whether they're enrollment-based or not. That's friends and family only, regardless of who's playing.

Enrollment based may reward winning, but it also rewards private schools that recruit and leaves public schools with zero chance to compete if private schools are serious about basketball.

Price won 5 out of Six state titles. They were a school with 20 to 40 students to start. A basketball factory.

Here's wishing you great hoops

 

[salgovernaleisaturtle]

1. i don't see how people are advocating for the outdated system of small school powerhouses winning state titles with ease in lower divisions. it's so much better now you force the best to play the best in the open and D1, suspect seedings aside.

2. again... you solve all of these problems people here are complaining about: 'nor cals used to mean something' 'everyone gets a trophy'. 'norcals are a joke'. if you just rebrand the tournament:

one state champion, the open champion.

then division champs.

But only one school gets to claim state champion. only 1 school gets to hang a state banner.

Every other division champs gets a division championship banner.

That eliminates the perception that anything other than the open championship is a true state champ. There is no mistaking that anything else will have the prestige of being called a state champ.

And you can't use the words 'state champion' on any banners, media, or rings. You say, we are Division 2 champions. You could even say, California Division 2 champions. But no use of the word 'state' when describing your title.

you'll still have seeding arguments, division placement gripes... but also, you'll have more schools fighting to get in the open for a chance to be state champion, and you'll have a Division 5 tourney, that is just that... a tourney for them. and you get a Division 5 champion out of it. And it is what it is. No joke.

 

[ankleassassin]

Just want to point out an example of the "everyone deserves a trophy " CE bullshi*

Oakland high school

1579 students

D2 norcals for the boys

D5 norcals for the girls (#13 seed)

D5???? Complete BS and I'm shocked that they are playing to go to the CE D5 state championship🙄...(actually im not)

There is no rhyme or reason for Oakland to EVER BE PUT IN D5.

If they aren't good enough to be in D3 or higher then they shouldn't be in...


Making it to the NorCals actually used to mean something.

they are only D2 for boys because they won the title last year. if they hadnt, they would surely be lower.

 

[ankleassassin]

1. i don't see how people are advocating for the outdated system of small school powerhouses winning state titles with ease in lower divisions. it's so much better now you force the best to play the best in the open and D1, suspect seedings aside.

2. again... you solve all of these problems people here are complaining about: 'nor cals used to mean something' 'everyone gets a trophy'. 'norcals are a joke'. if you just rebrand the tournament:

one state champion, the open champion.

then division champs.

But only one school gets to claim state champion. only 1 school gets to hang a state banner.

Every other division champs gets a division championship banner.

That eliminates the perception that anything other than the open championship is a true state champ. There is no mistaking that anything else will have the prestige of being called a state champ.

And you can't use the words 'state champion' on any banners, media, or rings. You say, we are Division 2 champions. You could even say, California Division 2 champions. But no use of the word 'state' when describing your title.

you'll still have seeding arguments, division placement gripes... but also, you'll have more schools fighting to get in the open for a chance to be state champion, and you'll have a Division 5 tourney, that is just that... a tourney for them. and you get a Division 5 champion out of it. And it is what it is. No joke.

do other states care about this as much as the northern califas?

 

[northbaybbguru]

Let's just have a TRUE CIF state championship tourney.

EVERYONE in the same tourny...

Top 96

Top 32 1st round bye...

Next 64 play in round 1.

And then we play out the 64 team bracket.

And the South does the same...

Then there is no sand bagging or bullshi*

Maybe one day California can have its own "Hoosiers moment"