Sunday's CIF seeding exercise is going to be a sterling example of educated (or uneducated) guesswork and speculation. Here's one idea: Pack as many of the private/parochials in the upper divisions and leave the lower echelons, for the most part, to the publics. That would go at least part of the way to solving the blatant apples-and-oranges issue that plagues girls' basketball in California today. The state's prep honchos will never separate these two very different creatures into their own tournaments. But a radical seeding plan would go some distance toward that goal on its own.
A CIF seeding solution
- Thread starter colhenrylives
- Start date
While the facts say you are absolutely correct and the privates dominate, there are plenty of private programs that aren't powerhouses and some public ones that are. And many of the traditional public powers have open enrollment criteria that make it possible to take kids from outside their district through some kind of magnet, open enrollment policy, connected alternative school, etc.
If they just ranked the school by quality it should create pretty much what you're thinking of naturally. In the open right now it looks like 6 or 7 privates (depending if Maramonte is in or out) and the other division would pretty much follow the same way.without having to consciously stack privated into the upper division.
If they just ranked the school by quality it should create pretty much what you're thinking of naturally. In the open right now it looks like 6 or 7 privates (depending if Maramonte is in or out) and the other division would pretty much follow the same way.without having to consciously stack privated into the upper division.
I think CCS has something here. Have an open division for sections where teams must petition to go into. Every three year they can renew. All of the teams would be anomaly's and could schedule games as they see fit-maybe other open teams. If you're one of the 8 or 12 in the open division, you get automatic berth to Norcals and placed depending on strength.
The competitive equity divisions are going to be a nightmare for NorCal. We will compete for one title at the finals. But a bunch of schools that would otherwise be one-and-done will win a game or two in watered down brackets. Congrats?
private-Public isn't a problem in SoCal and splitting the two will create more embarrassing losses for NorCal at the state level while forcing the strong publics from down south to play in your version of the NIT.
You and your ilk with your everyone gets a trophy mentality will surely then campaign for your version of the CBI.
What could possibly go wrong? I mean look what happened to the Catholics when we quarantined them in their own league. Who knew the top talent would clock to the most competitive group league in the region?
private-Public isn't a problem in SoCal and splitting the two will create more embarrassing losses for NorCal at the state level while forcing the strong publics from down south to play in your version of the NIT.
You and your ilk with your everyone gets a trophy mentality will surely then campaign for your version of the CBI.
What could possibly go wrong? I mean look what happened to the Catholics when we quarantined them in their own league. Who knew the top talent would clock to the most competitive group league in the region?
I don't think the brackets will be watered down in the sense that almost every game will be challenging. I don't think we'll see running-clock outcomes as we sometimes did in the past.
The survivor of the D3 bracket, for example, will have had to win three very competitive games, and maybe four. They will earn whatever they get ...
The survivor of the D3 bracket, for example, will have had to win three very competitive games, and maybe four. They will earn whatever they get ...
