This morning as I surveyed the major collapse in the WCAL playoff team success, I also noticed a number of upsets in other divisions in the CCS playoff field. This led me to explore all the sections and their upset factor, if you will, according to Calpreps predictions. What i can see suggests to a strong CCS parity and also a very weak NS section parity. The alternative option of thinking is that certain sections had strange anomalies from other sections.
The supposition I am using is that the more parity a section uses in its seeding teams and divisions for playoffs, the more likely one will see upset games. I am calling an upset where Calpreps predicted a win and the opposing team won instead. Here what I see so far, starting with the SJS section first since they started their playoff rounds last week.
SJS had 28 games in their first round with 4 games going opposite to CP prediction - 14% upset factor.
SJS had 25 games in their second round with 3 games going opposite to CP prediction - 12% upset factor.
NS had 12 games in their first round with 0 games going opposite to CP prediction - 0% upset factor.
NCS had 22 games in their first round with 3 games going opposite to CP prediction - 14% upset factor. One more game is scheduled for today.
CCS had 18 games in their first round with 9 games going opposite to CP prediction - 50% upset factor.
This likely suggests a very strong parity for the CCS seeding process and an extremely non-parity seeding for the NS section.
The NS section moved away from a Calpreps seeding model to a strict enrollment criteria for divisions and a win'loss quotient for seeding. This process created the least parity among teams.
The CCS section is the far end of the spectrum from the seeding process used in NS section.
The SJS and the NCS sections are somewhere in the middle leaning toward the very predictable NS section model. We know both of these sections use enrollment as a major criteria for division placement along with varying criteria for strength factors. So I wonder if we want very predictable playoffs or playoffs where the winner is in question.
Or maybe CCS is simply an anomaly this year?
The supposition I am using is that the more parity a section uses in its seeding teams and divisions for playoffs, the more likely one will see upset games. I am calling an upset where Calpreps predicted a win and the opposing team won instead. Here what I see so far, starting with the SJS section first since they started their playoff rounds last week.
SJS had 28 games in their first round with 4 games going opposite to CP prediction - 14% upset factor.
SJS had 25 games in their second round with 3 games going opposite to CP prediction - 12% upset factor.
NS had 12 games in their first round with 0 games going opposite to CP prediction - 0% upset factor.
NCS had 22 games in their first round with 3 games going opposite to CP prediction - 14% upset factor. One more game is scheduled for today.
CCS had 18 games in their first round with 9 games going opposite to CP prediction - 50% upset factor.
This likely suggests a very strong parity for the CCS seeding process and an extremely non-parity seeding for the NS section.
The NS section moved away from a Calpreps seeding model to a strict enrollment criteria for divisions and a win'loss quotient for seeding. This process created the least parity among teams.
The CCS section is the far end of the spectrum from the seeding process used in NS section.
The SJS and the NCS sections are somewhere in the middle leaning toward the very predictable NS section model. We know both of these sections use enrollment as a major criteria for division placement along with varying criteria for strength factors. So I wonder if we want very predictable playoffs or playoffs where the winner is in question.
Or maybe CCS is simply an anomaly this year?
Last edited: