"Division 5" No longer has the same meaning. It means these teams are best of the worst teams to make the CIF state tournaments.
Questioning the CIF...
- Thread starter bjbatory
- Start date
"Division 5" No longer has the same meaning. It means these teams are best of the worst teams to make the CIF state tournaments.
Yes i know. But it is still labeled D5 for monetary purposes by the CIF so I was just sticking with that title
hmmm...did my original post hit a little too close to home??
CIF State Executive Director Roger Blake Set to Retire
http://www.prep2prep.com/feature.aspx?ArticleID=26968
CIF State Executive Director Roger Blake Set to Retire
http://www.prep2prep.com/feature.aspx?ArticleID=26968
The way I look at it... No matter what method is tried, someone's not gonna like it.
I think the current competitive equity thing will work reasonably well given a few seasons to iron out the kinks, get some teams/leagues placed where they should be, etc.
I do agree that D5 and maybe D4 should be truly limited by school size so we don't see really large schools playing down there...
Another thought: This season (and as far as I can see, upcoming seasons also), the playoff season was for some reason shortened by two weeks. I do think the old schedule was a bit overly spread out, but... How 'bout one week? The games now, with all the travel involved for some teams, are jammed wayyyy too close together.
Also, there should not be any round where all six divisions play on the same night.
Then again, I liked the old non-Open enrollment-based setup best... with a couple tweaks...
1) Even with no Open division, probably should be six divisions... for some 1800 schools, six champs seems about right. Believe it or not, Florida has NINE divisions! Now THAT is too many for 726 schools! Oregon has six divisions and 278 schools, WAY too many also... So in this respect, I think we have it about right already... Roughly one champ per 250 schools...
2) Schools were allowed to elect to "play up" stating their Division choice at the start of the season, which I think is great, BUT... Some schools would go up and down to wherever they thought they fit EVERY year. Seems to me an easy fix would be: If a school elects to "play up", it's a multi-year agreement... Three years, maybe even four or five. That way they have to think twice before jumping around...
I think the current competitive equity thing will work reasonably well given a few seasons to iron out the kinks, get some teams/leagues placed where they should be, etc.
I do agree that D5 and maybe D4 should be truly limited by school size so we don't see really large schools playing down there...
Another thought: This season (and as far as I can see, upcoming seasons also), the playoff season was for some reason shortened by two weeks. I do think the old schedule was a bit overly spread out, but... How 'bout one week? The games now, with all the travel involved for some teams, are jammed wayyyy too close together.
Also, there should not be any round where all six divisions play on the same night.
Then again, I liked the old non-Open enrollment-based setup best... with a couple tweaks...
1) Even with no Open division, probably should be six divisions... for some 1800 schools, six champs seems about right. Believe it or not, Florida has NINE divisions! Now THAT is too many for 726 schools! Oregon has six divisions and 278 schools, WAY too many also... So in this respect, I think we have it about right already... Roughly one champ per 250 schools...
2) Schools were allowed to elect to "play up" stating their Division choice at the start of the season, which I think is great, BUT... Some schools would go up and down to wherever they thought they fit EVERY year. Seems to me an easy fix would be: If a school elects to "play up", it's a multi-year agreement... Three years, maybe even four or five. That way they have to think twice before jumping around...
Last edited:
Roger Blake@rblakecif Mar 6
The season started with over 88,000 girls & boys playing CIF Basketball in California. This weekend 340 Girls & Boys live their dreams of a State Championship. How many times did you shoot the winning shot in your driveway growing up?
LOL. so I don't have a Twitter account...but I think the answer to this question is: "ummm...exactly ZERO times has any player imagined hitting that shot with a slick, new crappy ball in an empty giant arena. we'd probably all prefer the driveway!"
The season started with over 88,000 girls & boys playing CIF Basketball in California. This weekend 340 Girls & Boys live their dreams of a State Championship. How many times did you shoot the winning shot in your driveway growing up?
LOL. so I don't have a Twitter account...but I think the answer to this question is: "ummm...exactly ZERO times has any player imagined hitting that shot with a slick, new crappy ball in an empty giant arena. we'd probably all prefer the driveway!"
I hear you and I agree. Of course it's a cool experience. I am not knocking the experience of playing in States. I am knocking the organization that makes choices that don't always seem to align with the Kool-Aid it's selling.
When thinking about States, the operative question is "should it, or could it, be better?"
It's a well-known coaching cliche that we seek to maximize players' potential...and seek to maximize a team's potential. So applying the same ethos: Does the current CA State Basketball system maximize its potential? Is it the best that it can be? If so, cool...glad I asked some tough questions, no harm/no foul, happy to stand down.
But if not - if there are still unnecessary bureaucracies grabbing low-hanging $$'s vs maximizing the kid's experience, then it's good to speak up, right?
Wasn't it also Ben Franklin or JFK that said "the first duty of every citizen is to question authority?"
When thinking about States, the operative question is "should it, or could it, be better?"
It's a well-known coaching cliche that we seek to maximize players' potential...and seek to maximize a team's potential. So applying the same ethos: Does the current CA State Basketball system maximize its potential? Is it the best that it can be? If so, cool...glad I asked some tough questions, no harm/no foul, happy to stand down.
But if not - if there are still unnecessary bureaucracies grabbing low-hanging $$'s vs maximizing the kid's experience, then it's good to speak up, right?
Wasn't it also Ben Franklin or JFK that said "the first duty of every citizen is to question authority?"
btw @Streak One I realized I'm probably distracting you from the games...enjoy! and feel free to remove my comments if necessary. all good. not a big deal whatsoever.
Streak One is entirely correct. And in fact, Mr. Batory's team had a great season. There is no question that there should be some tweaks to the new system. But, Mr. Batory's ideas are so wrongheaded, it's rather amusing.
And, in watching the two games this morning, I have seen ZERO problems related to the new balls.
Turnovers, free throws, losing balls out of your hands, problems with rebounds....none, none, none, none.
And, in watching the two games this morning, I have seen ZERO problems related to the new balls.
Turnovers, free throws, losing balls out of your hands, problems with rebounds....none, none, none, none.
Last edited:
By the way, Coach Batory, you won at Kezar, a venue with terrible lighting and a difficult perspective on the baskets. While I love games at Kezar, if you don't play there regularly it is not an easy place to play. Games at Golden 1 are not more difficult to play than at Kezar or many other woeful facilities.
Ummm, sorry - I think you have me confused with someone else...I'm no longer at Paly 
But yes, re: Kezar... Rodney and this year's Palo Alto squad certainly beat expectations and certainly maximized their potential and that's a real credit to him and to last year's "Green Team" stand-outs Jackson, Wes, Matt, and Marvin. Along with graduated player Nick Zhou, they brought it every day against the "White Team" starters and reserves last season. The foundation for success was set with last year's hard work and humility from that crew. Congrats to those guys.
And on the ball...both teams have to deal with it equally so it's a wash. But I probably coached in 6-7 CCS/CIF games alongside Diep at Paly and I'd say 2-3 players (usually the shooters) complained about the new ball each game. So there's that.
And I always felt bad...always wanted those "feel" or "touch" guys to be their best selves possible...
But yes, re: Kezar... Rodney and this year's Palo Alto squad certainly beat expectations and certainly maximized their potential and that's a real credit to him and to last year's "Green Team" stand-outs Jackson, Wes, Matt, and Marvin. Along with graduated player Nick Zhou, they brought it every day against the "White Team" starters and reserves last season. The foundation for success was set with last year's hard work and humility from that crew. Congrats to those guys.
And on the ball...both teams have to deal with it equally so it's a wash. But I probably coached in 6-7 CCS/CIF games alongside Diep at Paly and I'd say 2-3 players (usually the shooters) complained about the new ball each game. So there's that.
And I always felt bad...always wanted those "feel" or "touch" guys to be their best selves possible...
Last edited:
