ADVERTISEMENT

TOP TEAMS....NEXT YEAR

I think it makes sense for NorCal to have fewer teams in the Open and maybe Division I. Even if the Central Section is moved north, there are still many more schools in Southern California than in Northern California. By bumping a couple teams down from each division, it gives the NorCal teams a fairer shake.

The other way to do it would be to take half the schools in the state and pick a Regional bracket from that half, and another one from the other half. But then we'd have a SLO team driving to Yreka for a first-round game ...
 
My suggestion is to allow teams to declare for the open at the beginning of the season. Then if they qualify for the playoffs they are in the open. Like many years ago when teams could move up divisions but not down to lower divisions.

This would show which coaches want to play the “best”. I recall MItty used to declare for division 1 before the new system. Also SHC asked to be in the open when allowed.
 
observer22 said:
No hate here. Just thought their best player was a senior. Don’t know their roster at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, mistaken you for someone else on here. Everyone coming back except Talo. Great guards returing and if Lampkin continues to improve she should be able to hold down the post. Summer development will determine a lot for them
 
The only problem with declaring for the Open is that it's unlikely many teams would do so. What would be the advantage? What if your best player gets hurt? What if your team isn't as good as you thought?

Now if you said the only state champion was the Open champion, and all the rest were divisional, say, maybe you'd get some takers, but still ... and of course, the TV contract would be blown up as well because Spectrum only wants to broadcast state title games.
 
I wish that I could say you are wrong but I can’t because you’re not.

Everyone just wants to win a trophy. Without a 80%(my random guess) chance that they’ll win they want a weaker bracket.
 
WOW Freddy said:
Sequoia and Palo Alto will have very good teams on the public school side. Both teams return 4 starters. They played in the CCS D1 Championship Game this year, with Sequoia winning. I see the same thing happening next year. They look to be the top two public schools in the section. Both teams had young starters last year
Click to expand...
 
The San Francisco Chronicle came out with their final Girls top 20 basketball teams. Sequoia is number 15. Like I said before Cherokee return 4 starters for next year. They will ne one of the top teams again in the Bay Area Rankings for next year.
 
I thought the SF Chronicle whiffed on some of its rankings....how did Oakland(#8) and CN(#9) get put ahead of St Joes(#10)? Oakland at #8?...and CN lost to SJ in the sections....a watered down D3 championship is not even close to being in the same league as an OPEN berth.... Mitch Stephens should have switched Oakland and St Joes in the rankings.

And at what point do the "rankings" people actually hold Mitty accountable for their playoff loses?
They lose and keep getting put at the top of the rankings....

strange
 
  • Like
Reactions: observer22
Norcal_Fan said:
Logic would say that Pinewood beat Mitty in the Norcal finals and thus, should be ranked ahead of them. Again, WCAL bias in full effect!
Click to expand...
Of course we both know they didn't play in the NorCal final. Mitty lost to Salesian in the semifinal, the same Salesian team that beat Pinewood earlier in the season. But when Mitty and Pinewood did play, it was a pretty convincing win for Mitty. And as Clay likes to say, scoreboard! So remember, we're talking about rankings here. It's undisputed that Pinewood is the NorCal Open Champion, and most sincere congratulations to them. But the top ranked team and the playoff champion don't have to be the same team. Otherwise why have rankings? And I'm sure Mitty would much rather be the champions and ranked second.
 
I would rank Pinewood first, despite that head-to-head loss ... but Mitty makes sense as well.

It's usually unclear, so this is not news. Ideally a team goes unbeaten, and knocks off the other teams in the top five along the way, so there's nothing to think about. But generally, there's a case to be made for at least two teams, and sometimes more than that.

Like the playoffs, there's no perfect system.
 
ClayK said:
I would rank Pinewood first, despite that head-to-head loss ... but Mitty makes sense as well.

It's usually unclear, so this is not news. Ideally a team goes unbeaten, and knocks off the other teams in the top five along the way, so there's nothing to think about. But generally, there's a case to be made for at least two teams, and sometimes more than that.

Like the playoffs, there's no perfect system.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you have reversed your typical analysis in this case Clay. Mitty was 4 - 1 against the other NorCal Open teams this year, while Pinewood was 3 - 3. Mitty crushed Pinewood head-to-head. Seems like you've gone with your gut on this one, which you always say rankings shouldn't do.
 
As Edward Everett Dirksen once said, I have not for long let the clammy hand of consistency rest upon my shoulder ...

For me, there is more weight on the end of the season than on the rest, and Mitty, simply, didn't get it done in NorCals. I just can't get past that, really, and since Pinewood had a good record, had beaten Salesian two out of three, and was obviously a very good team, I went in that direction.

But again, if you said you thought Mitty deserved to be No. 1, I wouldn't argue very hard.
 
So lets use this as an example. Notre Dame (who is number 1) beats UConn (number 2) in January in a non-league contest. Both teams make the final 4. South Carolina Beats ND and Uconn beats Oklahoma to advance to the final 4. UConn beats South Carolina, advances to the finals to lose to Oregon (wishful thinking). is this how you think the rankings could look?


Oregon
ND
UConn
South Carolina
Oklahoma

Man, I don't think they would..but I could be wrong...
 
Last edited:
Almost always the No. 1 team in the final poll is the tournament winner, regardless of record or previous results. I disagree with doing that automatically, but usually the team that wins it all has a very good record overall so it makes sense.
 
ClayK said:
Almost always the No. 1 team in the final poll is the tournament winner, regardless of record or previous results. I disagree with doing that automatically, but usually the team that wins it all has a very good record overall so it makes sense.
Click to expand...

This is especially true when it comes to women's hoops. That's because there is so little parity/depth throughout the nation. On the male side, it's much different. A relative outlier with a dicey record (perhaps 8-10 losses) can win the male Division I tourney. Not so much on the female side of the ledger. That's been the province of just a handful of teams. The idea of the nation's No.16 women's team somehow capturing, or even playing for, the Division I crown is pretty much out of the question. Bracket-busting among the female teams isn't anything close to the men's version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Common Sense1 and ClayK
SouthBayHoopFan said:
Let's hear your logic for who should have been ranked higher.
Click to expand...



I for one am happy that we actually PLAY THE GAMES and let it be decided on the court and NOT by the rankings.

How different the state North OPEN representative for the OPEN championship would have been over the last 4 yrs if the committee had gone by the "perceived" best team theory....

2106 SMS...rankings would have robbed us of maybe the greatest upset in the history of Calif girls HS basketball.... PW win vs SMS.....and don't forget it allowed MM the potential backdooring of the national championship if they had beaten Chaminade.
2017 MITTY
2018 MITTY...PW upset
2019 MITTY...Salesian Upset


so in 3 of the last 4yrs the HEAVY favorite did not make it.

so my logic is simple...last team standing gets the #1 ranking....

OTHERWISE WHY EVEN PLAY THE GAMES????????



 
  • Like
Reactions: observer22 and 6kids
It's not an easy decision most of the time ...

Devil's advocate here: What if a team with nine losses (some of them to weak teams) wins NorCal? And what if they lost to a one-loss team by 25, but that one-loss team got upset in the Open semis?

I think winning the postseason playoffs is a snapshot of a long season, and there is something to be said for a body of work. If you've gone 25-0, say, and beaten every good team around and won the Nike TOC, or some other major tournament, and then lose by one in triple overtime in the Open semis, should you be ranked behind a team that lost eight times but is playing really well at the end?

No easy answer, I don't think ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: straightline50 and colhenrylives
northbaybbguru said:
I for one am happy that we actually PLAY THE GAMES and let it be decided on the court and NOT by the rankings.

How different the state North OPEN representative for the OPEN championship would have been over the last 4 yrs if the committee had gone by the "perceived" best team theory....

2106 SMS...rankings would have robbed us of maybe the greatest upset in the history of Calif girls HS basketball.... PW win vs SMS.....and don't forget it allowed MM the potential backdooring of the national championship if they had beaten Chaminade.
2017 MITTY
2018 MITTY...PW upset
2019 MITTY...Salesian Upset


so in 3 of the last 4yrs the HEAVY favorite did not make it.

so my logic is simple...last team standing gets the #1 ranking....

OTHERWISE WHY EVEN PLAY THE GAMES????????
Click to expand...

I pose this not having the answer.

Should NorCal rankings be paused after the section playoffs and then reset after the state playoffs? Then should the final rankings be a list of the playoff result?
 
Streak One said:
I pose this not having the answer.

Should NorCal rankings be paused after the section playoffs and then reset after the state playoffs? Then should the final rankings be a list of the playoff result?
Click to expand...

Other than the Open Division, the new state tourney equity factor makes ratings at the end of sectional play more valid. One good example occurred in CCS. In Division I, Sequoia routed Palo Alto in the final. It was one-sided and clear-cut. And the game was on Paly's home floor. Then in NorCal Division II, Sequoia, without its starting point guard who was too sick to play at that point, lost its opener. Palo won its first game. Ranking Paly above Sequoia at the end of the season would be a mistake. But that's precisely what Prep2Prep did. It made no sense at all. That's just one example. There are others.
 
You can't be #1 if you don't win it all. Makes no sense. The Chiefs can't claim to be #1 because they had a better regular season record even though the Patriots won the Super Bowl. If Duke men don't win the NCAA tournament, they can't be #1. I think you could rank a team higher that had a better overall season than a team that maybe went one round further, but you can't rank anyone ahead of the team that won it all. Whoever wins last game of the tournament is #1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: observer22
But what if the winner of the last game has 10 losses? Including two losses to the team it beat in the semis by 20 points each?

In general, I agree with you, but I'm not sure it should be a hard-and-fast rule ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtalk
Arizona 25-9 beat number 1 ranked Kentucky 35-5. Should Arizona have been ranked number one or Kentucky that finished runner up?
Villinova 25-10 beat number 1 Georgetown 35-3. Should Georgetown been ranked ahead?
NFL Patriots lost to Giants after going 14-2 during the regular season while the giants went 9-7 and won the Super Bowl. Should the Patriots been the Super Bowl champs because of what they did in the regular season? they lost to a team with 7 losses!

Of course I'm not suggesting any of the above. If you win, or you're the last person standing, you're on top of that hill by yourself. No matter if you dethroned or someone else did and you beat that team, you're number 1. Now how Mitty won the national championship last year was totally justifiable.
 
Norcal_Fan said:
Arizona 25-9 beat number 1 ranked Kentucky 35-5. Should Arizona have been ranked number one or Kentucky that finished runner up?
Villinova 25-10 beat number 1 Georgetown 35-3. Should Georgetown been ranked ahead?
NFL Patriots lost to Giants after going 14-2 during the regular season while the giants went 9-7 and won the Super Bowl. Should the Patriots been the Super Bowl champs because of what they did in the regular season? they lost to a team with 7 losses!

Of course I'm not suggesting any of the above. If you win, or you're the last person standing, you're on top of that hill by yourself. No matter if you dethroned or someone else did and you beat that team, you're number 1. Now how Mitty won the national championship last year was totally justifiable.
Click to expand...

Those are very good examples. But that's just one tournament, men's NCAA Division1. The CIF has six concurrent tournaments, five of which are based on so-called "equity." Menlo's girls won the CIF Division2 tourney. SI beat Menlo twice but got beaten right out of the gate in CIF Division1. Based on a title-centric rating system, Menlo would be ranked higher than SI. Makes no sense to this tattered twit hiding in his Fruit of the Looms behind a food-flecked keyboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norcal_Fan
ClayK said:
It's not an easy decision most of the time ...

Devil's advocate here: What if a team with nine losses (some of them to weak teams) wins NorCal? And what if they lost to a one-loss team by 25, but that one-loss team got upset in the Open semis?

I think winning the postseason playoffs is a snapshot of a long season, and there is something to be said for a body of work. If you've gone 25-0, say, and beaten every good team around and won the Nike TOC, or some other major tournament, and then lose by one in triple overtime in the Open semis, should you be ranked behind a team that lost eight times but is playing really well at the end?

No easy answer, I don't think ...
Click to expand...
This is exactly what happened on the boys side
 
SmoothJay said:
This is exactly what happened on the boys side
Click to expand...

Sheldon still won NorCal, and it’s not like they were a weak team. They should be ahead of Salesian in the final rankings. NorCal wins should count much more than some preseason tourney games.
 
I think there's a difference between winning the postseason tournament and being the best team over the course of the whole season. Which team you think is better is the one that should be at the top of the rankings.

That said, just as the default MVP is the best player on the best team, so the default No. 1 should be the postseason tourney champion -- but I don't think it should be automatic.
 
In Basketball the best team does not always win. There are just to many variables involved. Timing - Match ups etc. Although it seldom happens, i believe that it would not be out of line for a voter or poll to name a team that did not win the National or state Championship. They are two different things. All any specific tournament really decides is who is the best team at that point in time. Generally the better team wins the championship, but not always.
 
ClayK said:
It's not an easy decision most of the time ...

Devil's advocate here: What if a team with nine losses (some of them to weak teams) wins NorCal? And what if they lost to a one-loss team by 25, but that one-loss team got upset in the Open semis?

I think winning the postseason playoffs is a snapshot of a long season, and there is something to be said for a body of work. If you've gone 25-0, say, and beaten every good team around and won the Nike TOC, or some other major tournament, and then lose by one in triple overtime in the Open semis, should you be ranked behind a team that lost eight times but is playing really well at the end?

No easy answer, I don't think ...
Click to expand...
Yes. It is an easy answer
 
A difficult aspect when dealing with national high school rankings is a lot of the bigger games are played early in the year. You also get national relevant games in the playoffs if you are in certain states, but it isn't always the case.

I believe the top team should be the Open champion as it is currently set up. 2-20 or 50 or whatever the list finishes up with is debatable depending more so on the body of work
 
  • Like
Reactions: CW Golden Eagles and observer22
Streak One said:
A difficult aspect when dealing with national high school rankings is a lot of the bigger games are played early in the year. You also get national relevant games in the playoffs if you are in certain states, but it isn't always the case.

I believe the top team should be the Open champion as it is currently set up. 2-20 or 50 or whatever the list finishes up with is debatable depending more so on the body of work
Click to expand...

Preseason rankings and rankings in general is a crap shoot. The problem with preseason rankings, along with seasonal, is that it doesn't take into account the non-tangible factors like a team getting hot at the end of the season and making a great run. Also, maybe you have teams that beat a lot of teams during the year and fizzle out by the time playoffs start. Basketball is the longest season in high school and to get to a state championship takes a lot of stamina-mentally and physically.

Whether you beat the Number 1 team or beat that team that knocks them out of the playoffs, I think you always have the advantage over those teams.
 
colhenrylives said:
Those are very good examples. But that's just one tournament, men's NCAA Division1. The CIF has six concurrent tournaments, five of which are based on so-called "equity." Menlo's girls won the CIF Division2 tourney. SI beat Menlo twice but got beaten right out of the gate in CIF Division1. Based on a title-centric rating system, Menlo would be ranked higher than SI. Makes no sense to this tattered twit hiding in his Fruit of the Looms behind a food-flecked keyboard.
Click to expand...


2 separate tournaments...Menlo was #1 in D2 while SI was D1... THATS completely different. I would say EVERY team in D1 norcals should be ranked ahead of Menlo in the final standings.

Bottom line you want to be ranked higher at end of the season? Then compete at the higher levels during the season. You cant compete at 2nd level all year and then get gifted into a sweetheart seed(in D2) and then expect to be ranked with the big girls that get seeded tougher and have to play in D1 and the OPEN.
 
northbaybbguru said:
2 separate tournaments...Menlo was #1 in D2 while SI was D1... THATS completely different. I would say EVERY team in D1 norcals should be ranked ahead of Menlo in the final standings.

Bottom line you want to be ranked higher at end of the season? Then compete at the higher levels during the season. You cant compete at 2nd level all year and then get gifted into a sweetheart seed(in D2) and then expect to be ranked with the big girls that get seeded tougher and have to play in D1 and the OPEN.
Click to expand...



now if Menlo got put in D1 and won it? Then they should be ranked ahead of every other team in D1 and lower...despite whatever happened in regular season
 
northbaybbguru said:
now if Menlo got put in D1 and won it? Then they should be ranked ahead of every other team in D1 and lower...despite whatever happened in regular season
Click to expand...

I generally agree with the divider that Open teams are ranked higher than D1 and D1 higher than D2 and so on. However, I think there are cases where teams in lower brackets have better resumes and shouldn’t be punished because of a poor seed.
 
Would Folsom be ranked higher than Menlo? Folsom competed in D1 of playoffs when eliminated. So Folsom gets ranked higher than Menlo and every team competing in D2 or lower?

People were talking very highly of Folsom before their upset.
 
northbaybbguru said:
2 separate tournaments...Menlo was #1 in D2 while SI was D1... THATS completely different. I would say EVERY team in D1 norcals should be ranked ahead of Menlo in the final standings.

Bottom line you want to be ranked higher at end of the season? Then compete at the higher levels during the season. You cant compete at 2nd level all year and then get gifted into a sweetheart seed(in D2) and then expect to be ranked with the big girls that get seeded tougher and have to play in D1 and the OPEN.
Click to expand...

Then this is easy! ALL open teams get rankings 1-8. D1: 9-24 and so on and so on. Seems pretty simple to me...
 
  • Like
Reactions: northbaybbguru
keepitreal.32 said:
Would Folsom be ranked higher than Menlo? Folsom competed in D1 of playoffs when eliminated. So Folsom gets ranked higher than Menlo and every team competing in D2 or lower?

People were talking very highly of Folsom before their upset.
Click to expand...

Folsom lost in the SJS D1 playoffs and didn't make NorCals so that wouldn't be an issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jordan24

Way Too Early 2024-25 Top NorCal Teams

Replies
58
Views
4K
Boys Basketball
larry legend33
L
C

Etiwanda's clandestine classic

Replies
56
Views
3K
Girls Basketball
colhenrylives
C
Streak One

NorCal Playoff Predictons

Replies
1
Views
711
Girls Basketball
TheHillZ
T
M

Announcing The 70th Annual Gridley Invitational

Replies
2
Views
910
Boys Basketball
inazone1
I
V

Sacramento all city teams

Replies
15
Views
683
Boys Basketball
vukovich
V
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back