Questioning the CIF...

[bjbatory]

Hi all... new to the boards and still fairly new to the area, so please excuse any faulty assumptions driven by my inexperience with NorCal high school basketball. But as a newbie I'd like to ask the seasoned vets on this board to walk me through the value-add of the CIF and of competitive equity.

The "pro" argument seems to be "avoiding blowouts"...which supports better attendance...which generates higher CIF revenues.

Here are several questions and counter-arguments to that:

1) Why is “point differential” the most important component of what the CIF is looking to improve? Does “point differential” actually equate to better attendance, or is this just an assumption? One might argue that choice of venue or choice of date or “distance lower seed must travel” might correlate a lot more…

2) Does Competitive Equity unfairly impact either boys or girls...or big schools or small schools? The points differential improvement (according to a recent Mercury News article) seems to be much lesser for the boys and is also lesser for higher levels. In some cases it’s just a basket or two difference. Does a basket or two at those levels justify such a massive change to the entire tournament protocol? Maybe a specific tweak to the lower levels or the girls tournament might have improved outcomes for all?

3) Why is “driving revenue” part of the conversation at all? Is the CIF “for-profit” and, if so, why? One might argue that cost-cutting (does the CIF really need 2-3 henchmen at each high school door at each venue? and 2-3 more to make sure no one walks on the floor at halftime?) could achieve the desired result…

4) Where does the CIF money actually go? We know it pays for lots and lots of door-checkers and ticket-takers…but as a coaching participant I have also noted the increased CIF charge per game doesn’t get teams things like water buckets…or a dedicated CIF trainer...or anything else “neutral for both teams and appropriate for a State Tournament.” So what does the $$ go to, exactly?

5) Do the ends of Competitive Equity even justify the means by which it is achieved? Is the possibility of slight higher CIF revenues worth it at the cost of diluting the value of a State Title* at levels below Div 1? Note the asterisk, which will be probably necessary going forward. As in, * well, we actually lost our league this year…and got bumped down 2 divisions…and aren’t the best team of a similar enrollment within a 10 mile radius…but we did get hot and see some favorable match-ups…and we did win this tournament thingy, whatever it’s supposed to be. So are we really "State Champs?") As a former player and now coach, I would much rather lose big in my bracket proudly vs. win big at a lower level. Hell, in a competitive equity model, Angola never plays the Dream Team in ’92 and finds out just where they stood. And look at the leaps that international basketball has made since 1992. Sometimes losing is a good thing!!

6) Flip-side to the argument above…Is the possibility of slightly higher CIF revenue worth it at the cost of pre-maturely ending a solid team’s season and deflating their achievements? As in, “well…we had a great season guys and got bumped up a couple divisions as a low seed and had to go on the road and had a tough draw and damn…actually we really have nothing much to show for a really, really good year because I would have loved to have seen us against similar enrollment schools. Thanks CIF!”

7) Before making a massive change to the State Tournament in California, did the CIF analyze what works in other states? (I am from NY, where the tournament seems to work very well…it’s by enrollment then by classification. So, for each level of enrollment – AA is the largest and B or C is the smallest – there is a State Title Winner each for Public, Private, and Independent schools. Then those 3 winners also have a final play-off to crown the "NYS Federation Champion." And note that the Federation Title is actually secondary for most teams…the biggest achievement is winning the New York State Title in your school grouping of AA, A, B, or C.)

8) Before making this massive change, did the CIF consider other easily-achievable alternatives to attempt to increase revenues/attendance? Rather than a tough draw and a road game for #16 seeds, how about 3-4 neutral venues throughout Northern California that have 6 games each and cost $50 for the full day?? Maybe the “neutral site closer to home” increases the #16 seed’s chances and allows more of their fans to attend and the point differential is achieved that way?

9) Did anyone in the CIF ever actually play basketball? If the CIF really cared about the kids and the experience, why put title games in a massive empty arenas with terrible depth-perception that probably correlates to very poor shooting? Why not target smaller venues and absolutely pack them? Maples? Fresno? Pacific? The JuCo gyms? Additionally, why does the CIF force the use of slick, brand-new basketballs for these play-off games? Who wants to play with a slick new basketball at season's end? Why does this happen? How does either of those things - the ball and the arena - allow kids to put their absolute best foot forward and create the maximum opportunity to shine in one of the most important moments of their high school careers?

Anyway – that’s enough for now…will let you folks agree/disagree as you see fit and hope I can learn a little bit more as a result. Although as the newbie, I swear there is a “What does the CIF actually do and who is behind it?” newspaper story or documentary to be had somehow. I just don’t get it. Feels like the tail is wagging the dog…


Thanks,

Ben Batory

(Long-time assistant coach & former player)

 

[aveli]

Some good points. Why have divisions for NCS, only to be reclassified for Nor Cals and State??
Why not have a Private School division? Private vs Public argument.

 

[ankleassassin]

Some good points. Why have divisions for NCS, only to be reclassified for Nor Cals and State??
Why not have a Private School division? Private vs Public argument.

all privates are not equal... athenian, college prep, redwood christian and bently arent o dowd or salesian and never will be... at least in basketball terms so why stick them in the playoffs together?

 

[da real]

all privates are not equal... athenian, college prep, redwood christian and bently arent o dowd or salesian

And? Those schools would need to get better. No school is entitled to win a state title.

 

[FLAGRANT]

all privates are not equal... athenian, college prep, redwood christian and bently arent o dowd or salesian and never will be... at least in basketball terms so why stick them in the playoffs together?

Yes, but Mater Dei, Sierra canyon, Mitty, Modesto Christian, Bishop Mont., Capital Christian(most years), De La Salle, Bells, Salesian, o’dowd. Are all fairly close. It is very easy to have a PRIVATE and PUBLIC state title games. Which would generate MORE money no doubt.

 

[Marcskit]

Yes, but Mater Dei, Sierra canyon, Mitty, Modesto Christian, Bishop Mont., Capital Christian(most years), De La Salle, Bells, Salesian, o’dowd. Are all fairly close. It is very easy to have a PRIVATE and PUBLIC state title games. Which would generate MORE money no doubt.

While it would be realistic to think private leagues would prosper in basketball, they would have to do the same for football. Just think about the logistics for football. DLS would have to join the WCAL. I don't believe the privates would want to face the prospect.

Here's wishing you great hoops

 

[H.E.A.T.]

While it would be realistic to think private leagues would prosper in basketball, they would have to do the same for football. Just think about the logistics for football. DLS would have to join the WCAL. I don't believe the privates would want to face the prospect.

Here's wishing you great hoops

No one said anything about leagues. They are talking about playoffs. DLS wouldn’t have to join the WCAL only play them in the end

 

[cougar15]

Well, on the boys side this year, one DV semifinal is a school of 2,046 vs. a school with an enrollment of 1,911. The schools that they've beaten (enrollments of 131, 287, 397, and 498) probably aren't big fans of "competitive equity."

 

[hustlinal]

Well, on the boys side this year, one DV semifinal is a school of 2,046 vs. a school with an enrollment of 1,911. The schools that they've beaten (enrollments of 131, 287, 397, and 498) probably aren't big fans of "competitive equity."

CIF failed

 

[SF_Mikey]

Well, on the boys side this year, one DV semifinal is a school of 2,046 vs. a school with an enrollment of 1,911. The schools that they've beaten (enrollments of 131, 287, 397, and 498) probably aren't big fans of "competitive equity."

This is the part of competitive equity that I just don't understand - i.e., letting large public schools receiving high seeds in lower divisions and a scenario like last year with putting a small private basketball power like Stuart Hall in D4. The road to a NorCal / State title is more about the seeding process than anything else. Last year's Pleasant Valley DIII title is a perfect example as they should have been in DII or even DI IMHO! I don't think that team had any business in DIII.

 

[damim]

Well, on the boys side this year, one DV semifinal is a school of 2,046 vs. a school with an enrollment of 1,911. The schools that they've beaten (enrollments of 131, 287, 397, and 498) probably aren't big fans of "competitive equity."

That's truth right there! Lincoln and Dinuba, 2 public schools battling for a DV title with 2k enrollment! LOL!

 

[Streak One]

The whole discussion is about what your end goal is:

If it is to have more competitive games, Competitive equity is good

If it is to give other teams a chance at titles, competitive equity has proven better than the old system but still not great.

If it is to have a true state tournament, I think it falls way short.

For me, it is to have a true state tournament, but I don't begrudge people who want to see more competitive games.

 

[ankleassassin]

And? Those schools would need to get better. No school is entitled to win a state title.

i agree... i am a public school kid in a low income gang ridden city... we got better to get out... completely agree

 

[observer22]

The whole discussion is about what your end goal is:

If it is to have more competitive games, Competitive equity is good

If it is to give other teams a chance at titles, competitive equity has proven better than the old system but still not great.

If it is to have a true state tournament, I think it falls way short.

For me, it is to have a true state tournament, but I don't begrudge people who want to see more competitive games.

Streak, what do you mean by true state tournament? To me, it means finding out who the best team is by having the best play the best, which is exactly what the Open division accomplishes.

Once you get past the best teams, I guess it depends on how finding out the best of the rest should be arranged, whether by enrollment, ability, or some other method. Is the NCAA tournament a true tournament? The NIT?

 

[Streak One]

Streak, what do you mean by true state tournament? To me, it means finding out who the best team is by having the best play the best, which is exactly what the Open division accomplishes.

Once you get past the best teams, I guess it depends on how finding out the best of the rest should be arranged, whether by enrollment, ability, or some other method. Is the NCAA tournament a true tournament? The NIT?

Yes, I should have explained it better. The Open accomplishes this well and I wouldn't mind having a second division to accommodate the quality of teams.

My issue is the inconsistent way teams are placed in other divisions and those divisions still getting state title treatment.

To me, it cheapens those titles. That is just my opinion and not one I feel needs to be forced on others

 

[observer22]

Yes, I should have explained it better. The Open accomplishes this well and I wouldn't mind having a second division to accommodate the quality of teams.

My issue is the inconsistent way teams are placed in other divisions and those divisions still getting state title treatment.

To me, it cheapens those titles. That is just my opinion and not one I feel needs to be forced on others

I completely agree.

 

[damim]

As a small public school coach I don't mind challenging our guys against bigger schools or private schools. It only makes us better. The odds are just stacked against these guys and that's ok. They all know they'll probably never win a state title or even a section title. You adjust your team goals accordingly. League titles, Section wins, Norcal qualifying and maybe a win. That's just reality. Like others have said, not everybody gets a trophy. Take Mt Shasta, Fortuna, Argonaut and Clear Lake for example this year. Mt Shasta is in the state semi's. That's an incredible accomplishment. Fortuna had an incredible season. Argo and CL both had extremely successful regular seasons, had success in sections and won games in Norcals before being beaten by schools 4 times larger than them. Shoot, Argo was in the state title game last year! I don't think anybody at those 4 schools will complain about their seasons.

 

[ankleassassin]

That's truth right there! Lincoln and Dinuba, 2 public schools battling for a DV title with 2k enrollment! LOL!

dinuba 2k is far different from lincoln sf 2k.... WAY DIFFERENT

 

[cougar15]

Winning a norcal/state title in the lower divisions now is mostly random and doesn't have any significance at all beyond the fact that you won a 16/32 tournament against a group of teams that some people decided were "similar" in some way. At least in the old system you could say that you were the best of the teams that were similar in size to you. There was some relevance and commonality.

 

[da real]

My issue is the inconsistent way teams are placed in other divisions and those divisions still getting state title treatment.

I agree. I do not understand the point of having 6 "state title" winners besides the financial aspect.

 

[cougar15]

As a small public school coach I don't mind challenging our guys against bigger schools or private schools. It only makes us better. The odds are just stacked against these guys and that's ok. They all know they'll probably never win a state title or even a section title. You adjust your team goals accordingly. League titles, Section wins, Norcal qualifying and maybe a win. That's just reality. Like others have said, not everybody gets a trophy. Take Mt Shasta, Fortuna, Argonaut and Clear Lake for example this year. Mt Shasta is in the state semi's. That's an incredible accomplishment. Fortuna had an incredible season. Argo and CL both had extremely successful regular seasons, had success in sections and won games in Norcals before being beaten by schools 4 times larger than them. Shoot, Argo was in the state title game last year! I don't think anybody at those 4 schools will complain about their seasons.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

If I was Mt. Shasta's coach though, and I lost in the finals to a school of 2,000, I would have a different view of things than you. I wouldn't be happy about the system...at all. If I was Argo or CL and lost to a school 4 times bigger than me, I wouldn't see the same silver lining you do. I would thing it's a rigged system. Just to be clear, you could still be proud of a good season. Having pride and realizing the system is flawed are not mutually exclusive.

 

[damim]

I guess that's one way to look at it.

If I was Mt. Shasta's coach though, and I lost in the finals to a school of 2,000, I would have a different view of things than you. I wouldn't be happy about the system...at all. If I was Argo or CL and lost to a school 4 times bigger than me, I wouldn't see the same silver lining you do. I would thing it's a rigged system. Just to be clear, you could still be proud of a good season. Having pride and realizing the system is flawed are not mutually exclusive.

I think we actually agree with each other. The system is what it is and you can only play the teams the CIF puts in front of you. I'm sure Clear Lake and Argonaut are irritated this morning because they lost to 2000 enrollment schools, but at the same time I bet they're also extremely satisfied with their seasons. Mt Shasta isn't out yet so we'll see what happens!

If you go back to enrollment only then they both lose to Stuart Hall, University, etc. anyway. There is no perfect system. I know a lot of other states separate private's and public's, but I'm pretty sure that will never happen in CA for some reason....

 

[ayalar09]

The truth is there is really no perfect solution to this problem. I'm curious if @Streak One idea is more like the NCAA tournament where you take the top 64 teams maybe 32 from NorCal and 32 from Socal and do something like that? I think the games between the 1 vs. 16 would be far less competitive, but would truly reward those teams who have earned it.

A piece of me likes having 6 division Championships, because if gives 12 teams the opportunity to play at the Golden One Center or maybe Chase Center in the future. But at the same time I agree it does cheapen the Championships a little bit, as the true State Champions will come out of the Open and/or D1 divisions.

California basketball is some of the most competitive in the Country and we are also one of the largest states. So this maybe the reason why they have so many divisions. Not 100% sure, but I venture to guess Texas has an even larger Championship system for their high school sports!

 

[cougar15]

JMO, the number of divisions isn't a problem at all. There just needs to be some rhyme or reason to the divisions. They are now about as random as you can get. Go back to enrollment based (probably never going to happen) and add a couple private school divisions (the disparity between a private school of 500 and public school of 500 is often similar to the disparity between a public school of 500 vs. a public school of 2500). Let the open remain open to both public and private schools. Maybe even make open top 8 public and top 8 private schools.

 

[da real]

I also have an issue with the schedule this year. The travel on SCHOOL nights for some teams is insane.

Also, high school students should not be playing 3 playoff games a week and 4 games in 8 days.

This system is broken.

 

[Streak One]

The truth is there is really no perfect solution to this problem. I'm curious if @Streak One idea is more like the NCAA tournament where you take the top 64 teams maybe 32 from NorCal and 32 from Socal and do something like that? I think the games between the 1 vs. 16 would be far less competitive, but would truly reward those teams who have earned it.

A piece of me likes having 6 division Championships, because if gives 12 teams the opportunity to play at the Golden One Center or maybe Chase Center in the future. But at the same time I agree it does cheapen the Championships a little bit, as the true State Champions will come out of the Open and/or D1 divisions.

California basketball is some of the most competitive in the Country and we are also one of the largest states. So this maybe the reason why they have so many divisions. Not 100% sure, but I venture to guess Texas has an even larger Championship system for their high school sports!

If I was deciding, I would do three brackets of 16 each with weight to section champions. I would also like to have all sections operating off the same framework so you are ideally sending similar groups of teams onto state. (for example, the 12 from the SJS and the 12 from the NCS are pretty comparable).

I also would like a house in Hawaii, but won't hold my breath on either

 

[kiddman32]

I also have an issue with the schedule this year. The travel on SCHOOL nights for some teams is insane.

Also, high school students should not be playing 3 playoff games a week and 4 games in 8 days.

This system is broken.

Yup... And I'll bet they find that overall attendance is down, just the opposite of what they were looking for.

 

[pines6969]

The answer to all of this competitive equity bitching and moaning seems pretty clear to me. Opt in/Opt Out!!!

Let the individual schools either opt in or opt out of Competitive Equity. If a D4 school doesn't want to be moved up, then let them stay D4. Or if a D1 team wants to move down, then let them.

But at least this opt in/opt out system would give some of the smaller schools a better chance of playing for a state title, and might prevent some of the injustices of a D1 school being moved down to D3, etc. I feel the most you should be allowed to move down is one division.

-Pines

 

[Cranky29er]

The old style tournament like in Hoosiers is the best. Win your League and you move to Section...the Region...then NorCal. Maybe you have 1 and 2 from each but that’s it. As was said some of those first few matchups would be lopsided but it is the most real.

The system is set up so everyone is a winner and in reality everyone is not a winner and that’s life. If you finish 14-10 in 3rd you had a nice season. Now go play baseball or run track and start on time. The handfighting on who is best while entertaining has no answer. Just play one big tourney and you get your answer. Just think how tense those leagues games get when they actually mean your season ends. Now everyone knows they keep playing. The fun of high school is the local and regional rivalry or it was 35 years ago. Put more emphasis on that aspect.

 

[BadBucks]

In theory, throughout the State, there are 16 Open Division teams and 32 in each of the 5 other Divisions. So that means that Division 5, has teams ranked 145 through 176. Should teams that are the 145th and 146th best teams be playing for a State Championship while 134 better teams are not? That's rewarding mediocrity! On the flip side, the games have, for the most part, been quite competitive and more importantly to the CIF, because of the home sites hosting, more revenue is being generated. Still hate this subjective process and especially not having multiple NorCal Final games at a few neutral sites!

 

[ballinplayin365]

The old style tournament like in Hoosiers is the best. Win your League and you move to Section...the Region...then NorCal. Maybe you have 1 and 2 from each but that’s it. As was said some of those first few matchups would be lopsided but it is the most real.

The system is set up so everyone is a winner and in reality everyone is not a winner and that’s life. If you finish 14-10 in 3rd you had a nice season. Now go play baseball or run track and start on time. The handfighting on who is best while entertaining has no answer. Just play one big tourney and you get your answer. Just think how tense those leagues games get when they actually mean your season ends. Now everyone knows they keep playing. The fun of high school is the local and regional rivalry or it was 35 years ago. Put more emphasis on that aspect.

How does "everyone win a trophy" when literally only 6 teams will be crowned a state champion. With more than 1500 high schools in CA those 6 represent roughly .4% of the total high schools in the state.

You can't compare 1984 Indiana to 2019 California. A search shows Indiana has 406 high schools right now. California has over 1000 more high schools than Indiana as it stands now. Not to mention California(163,696 sq mi) is a much larger state than Indiana(36,418 sq mi). The logistics of a statewide tournament would be awful.

The best part about man made systems like this is that it will change when someone else in charge thinks they have a better idea.

Remember, the only people handwringing about who's the best are fans of the teams and adults who watch hs basketball.

 

[damim]

I’m good with competitive equity however I think dropping down no more than 1 division should be a rule. D1 schools plauing in D5 is just stupid.

 

[observer22]

It can be kind of a crapshoot. Teams like Campo and Serra are heading to the D2 championship game, but either or both could have just as easily been placed in the D1 bracket and sitting at home by now. Campo beat Open finalist Modesto Christian this year and Serra had beaten several D1 teams. Both came from very competitive leagues which prepared them well for their NorCal runs.

 

[da real]

Besides money, what's the purpose of having 6 "champions " when teams are being ranked? While not everyone is literally getting a title, for the non open winners what are you a champion of ? Why should the 7th best team in North California be considered a champion of anything?

The quality of the teams in division 3 thru 5 is poor.

The pre open enrollment based division state championships weren't perfect but at least most of those teams were objectively talented. And hypothetically could say they could compete with the bigger division champions.

 

[ayalar09]

Let’s just do an ncaa tournament system and crown one champion maybe two!

 

[laidbackcoach]

Personally, I would prefer the following:
1. Open Division with 4 teams from nor Cal and So Cal - Best 4 teams in Nor Cal and So Cal regardless of size or anything else. This is a separate 8 team tournament. Call It Tournament of Champions if you really want to go old school.
2. Playoffs for Divisions 1-5/6 based strictly on size of school and completely split between public and private school until you get a public and private school champion in each division in Nor Cal and So Cal
3. Public school champions in Nor Cal and So Cal per division plays corresponding private school champion in their division for Nor Cal and So Cal Overall Champion.
4. Nor Cal Overall Champ then Plays So Cal Overall Champ for By Division for State Champion By Division

 

[ankleassassin]

I also have an issue with the schedule this year. The travel on SCHOOL nights for some teams is insane.

Also, high school students should not be playing 3 playoff games a week and 4 games in 8 days.

This system is broken.

when ball is life... missing a day of school means nothing... some these kids will never play another meaningful minute of basketball... there is nothing more important to them or their parents at this time

 

[En4cr]

Personally, I would prefer the following:
1. Open Division with 4 teams from nor Cal and So Cal - Best 4 teams in Nor Cal and So Cal regardless of size or anything else. This is a separate 8 team tournament. Call It Tournament of Champions if you really want to go old school.
2. Playoffs for Divisions 1-5/6 based strictly on size of school and completely split between public and private school until you get a public and private school champion in each division in Nor Cal and So Cal
3. Public school champions in Nor Cal and So Cal per division plays corresponding private school champion in their division for Nor Cal and So Cal Overall Champion.
4. Nor Cal Overall Champ then Plays So Cal Overall Champ for By Division for State Champion By Division

This would never work. The privates in LA are predominately D3-6. The Crossroads and Harvard Westlakes, etc would eat up 98% of Nor Cal small school privates. This concept has proven to be true the last 40 years with just a handful of publics making it to the big dance and winning.

 

[norcalbasketball]

That's truth right there! Lincoln and Dinuba, 2 public schools battling for a DV title with 2k enrollment! LOL!

This is a joke. Competitive equity on the surface makes sense but it should not be as extreme. No problem with those schools playing in D3 but D5 what a joke

 

[norcalbasketball]

I’m good with competitive equity however I think dropping down no more than 1 division should be a rule. D1 schools plauing in D5 is just stupid.

I have been saying this! You're a small school D4 you can move up to D3. Another great year (but not open, recruiting quality, you go to D2) Have an average year you can drop down to D3. The process now is completely broken.