CCS Coaches Pass 4 Recommendations to Change CCS Point and Play-Off Rules

[PALbooster]

The CCS has its annual football coaches meeting this Wednesday November 29th to put forward proposals for any rules or play-off changes for future seasons.

I think the CCS should congratulate itself on coming up with a very good play-off format that has done a great job of addressing concerns from previous years. The CCS is now sending its two top teams to the top regional state bowl games and four winners of competitive equity based divisions. The CCS has largely eliminated mismatches and blow outs in its play-off format through competitive equity that has also largely put the private schools with a significant sports focus into play-off brackets with a. few of the public schools that still run high level programs.

The result this year was that 40% of the CCS playoff games were decided by one score or less and 54% by two scores or less and only 6% (the two Serra games) ended up with results of 36+ points. This compares to the SJS and NCS that both had 21% of their game within one score (NCS had 29% within two scores and SJS had 35% within two scores) and had 28% and 31% of their respective play-off games decided by 36+ points. Also 9 of the 11 section finalsts in the CCS were public schools and four of the six section champions..

I don't think the CCS should make any changes to its current play-off formatting (except forfeit rules discussed below) but there are a few things that have been floated on this board that are worthy of note. None would have a dramatic effect on the play-off system

1. Simplify the qualification criteria and use Cal Preps exclusively for at-large berths and seeding. This would have had a modest impact on the field (only one team would have been different (Aptos in and North Salinas out) and not that many seeds would have changed. It would make it much simpler for teams to know where they stand vs figuring out the complex CCS point system. It would also smooth out the vast differences that exist between various A leagues, playing league champions, etc. that can be slightly gamed int he current system.

2, Several have suggested eliminating A teams from DV and maybe DIV and/or not having B or C teams in Divisoins II and/or III. I don't think this is necessary. The A teams that are put in these divisions are at the same level of. the B and C teams in the field. I also think that to support the individual leagues in their competitive equity efforts in "forcing" schools up to make their leagues more competitive, it allows these teams that re forced up in the regular season to play at a more competitive level in the play-offs and removes any incentives for a team to stay in a lower division based on benefiting from playing in a less competitive division come play-off time. I think if a B or C team has shown themselves worthy based other season results they should be in the division that would be most appropriate from a competitive standpoint.

I do think the one issue that needs to be addressed and clarified is how forfeits are managed. I see three type of forfeits occurring.

I think if a team cancels a game they should be ineligible for the play-offs that year.

1. The first is something that various programs have struggled with recently where they find themselves with lower numbers and struggle to field a team for the year. Santa Cruz forfeited 4 of their more challenging games so they could have enough players to play the other 6. Mills and a few other teams also had forfeits of similar nature. The penalty listed above would not matter to these teams as they are only seeking to get as many games in during the season as possible and not aspiring to the play-offs.

2. There were a couple of odd cases this year where Kings Academy cancelled a game vs Wilcox and Live Oak cancelled a scheduled game vs Los Gatos. Wilcox and then scheduled a games vs Edison of Huntington Beach and Los Gatos played Grant. The CCS should have a clear rule on what happens here. In the case of Kings Academy they claimed to not have enough players due to suspensions form a fight the prior week. If that is the case the CCS should stagger suspensions over 2-3 games (with the players selected on a random basis for each game that are suspended) so the team can honor their schedule. If a team cancels because of a perceived mismatch (my understanding of the Live Oak situation) they should not be able to play in the play-offs. The CCS should also clarify how this situation should be handled for both the forfeiting team nd the team rescheduling a game vis-a-vis the point system if the CCS is going to keep its current section point system in place,

3. Teams have past results forfeited for having an ineligible player. This has occurred frequently over the years and happened to Palma this year. In this case I think the forfeits of results are appropriate and should be counted as such to determine if a team qualifies for the play-offs or not. However if a team does qualify, I think their seeding should be based on the results on the field and any forfeited wins counted toward their seeding only. This would prevent a team like Palma going down a division and playing lesser opponents based on having an ineligible player.. They would play at the level dictated by their on field results.

Always interesting to see what comes out of the meetings and proposed changes for next year. I think a lot of great thought has gone into this process and the results have been a much more equitable and fairer play-off system.

 

[FBAddict]

The CCS has its annual football coaches meeting this Wednesday November 29th to put forward proposals for any rules or play-off changes for future seasons.

I think the CCS should congratulate itself on coming up with a very good play-off format that has done a great job of addressing concerns from previous years. The CCS is now sending its two top teams to the top regional state bowl games and four winners of competitive equity based divisions. The CCS has largely eliminated mismatches and blow outs in its play-off format through competitive equity that has also largely put the private schools with a significant sports focus into play-off brackets with a. few of the public schools that still run high level programs.

The result this year was that 40% of the CCS playoff games were decided by one score or less and 54% by two scores or less and only 6% (the two Serra games) ended up with results of 36+ points. This compares to the SJS and NCS that both had 21% of their game within one score (NCS had 29% within two scores and SJS had 35% within two scores) and had 28% and 31% of their respective play-off games decided by 36+ points. Also 9 of the 11 section finalsts in the CCS were public schools and four of the six section champions..


I do think the one issue that needs to be addressed and clarified is how forfeits are managed. I see three type of forfeits occurring.



3. Teams have past results forfeited for having an ineligible player. This has occurred frequently over the years and happened to Palma this year. In this case I think the forfeits of results are appropriate and should be counted as such to determine if a team qualifies for the play-offs or not. However if a team does qualify, I think their seeding should be based on the results on the field and any forfeited wins counted toward their seeding only. This would prevent a team like Palma going down a division and playing lesser opponents based on having an ineligible player.. They would play at the level dictated by their on field results.

Great write up and summary of some of the board discussion. I especially like your solution for forfeits due to an ineligible player as you describe in #3.

 

[kiddman32]

Those make a ton of sense. They also sound like a great framework for hoops.

Going back a few years (and, in hoops), Chino Hills during Lonzo's junior year had a bunch of forfeits (I think 7 wins and a loss or two) due to self-reporting they'd had an ineligible player, but those forfeits counted as losses rather than non-games, and they barely made the playoffs at all before they ran all the way thru D1 until they lost to SRV in that classic at Cal.

With this rule idea, they would have been in Open, almost certainly. Would have changed Cali hoops history, bigtime.

 

[carmelkyd]

So is anyone else affronted by the fact that teams with a losing record make the play-offs? I'd like to see a rule that any team (in any A, B or C league) with a losing record is not play-off eligible. Yes, a 3 and 7 A league team may well be competitive with B or C league teams, but I think it is an embarrassment that teams with a losing record are welcomed into the play-offs. And may go 3 and 7 in the regular season yet win a CCS title.

By the way, PALbooster not only is all the work you do leading up to the play-offs amazing, but your thoughtful and insightful analysis and comments are outstanding reading.

 

[PALbooster]

So is anyone else affronted by the fact that teams with a losing record make the play-offs? I'd like to see a rule that any team (in any A, B or C league) with a losing record is not play-off eligible. Yes, a 3 and 7 A league team may well be competitive with B or C league teams, but I think it is an embarrassment that teams with a losing record are welcomed into the play-offs. And may go 3 and 7 in the regular season yet win a CCS title.

By the way, PALbooster not only is all the work you do leading up to the play-offs amazing, but your thoughtful and insightful analysis and comments are outstanding reading.

Carmel YKD,

I appreciate the complement, but am always up for a good discussion. I don't understand why you are bothered that an A team with a losing record might win an equity based play-off division. Let's pick two teams from this year.

Are you really offended that Hollister which went 4-6 with a 25 point win over Monterey and a win over Aptos with a one point loss to Palma, (DIII champs), a 4 point loss to Sqouel (DII champs) and was competitive with two DI play off teams losing by 9 to Salinas and 10 to Wilcox and finished 5th in the Gabilan was selected to the play-offs as an at-large team over Pacific Grove who went 7-3 on the season beating 4 C league teams in their non-league games and lost by 44 points to North Salinas, 28 points to Alisal and 21 points to Carmel and finishing 4th in the B league Mission South? Are you saying that Pacific Grove is inherently more deserving just because they had a winning record. If Hollister elected to play 4 B league teams in preseason I am pretty sure they could have ended the year 6-4 instead of 4-6. I say kudos to Hollister for challenging themselves and they should not be penalized for doing so. I do think strength of schedule has to factor into the equation somewhere which is what the CCS point system and Calprep rankings do take into account.

I also think there is another issue at play within the CCS. I think most leagues are trying to set up equity leagues to help football thrive by placing schools in competitive league divisions. In my opinion Carmel should be in the Gabilan next year (probably should have been this year as well) and if they end up 4-6 and in 5th or 6th place after a tough Gabilan league schedule they should be considered for the play-offs. I think teams should be incentivized to play in a higher equity league if they are capable and not worry about being 9-1 or 10-0 in a B league instead. I don't think a team finishing 5th or 6th in a good A league is less deserving regardless of record than a team finishing finishing 3rd or 4th in a B league. Once teams are in the play-offs everyone deserves what they earn on the field in my opinion regardless of record.

 

[MC415]

So is anyone else affronted by the fact that teams with a losing record make the play-offs? I'd like to see a rule that any team (in any A, B or C league) with a losing record is not play-off eligible. Yes, a 3 and 7 A league team may well be competitive with B or C league teams, but I think it is an embarrassment that teams with a losing record are welcomed into the play-offs. And may go 3 and 7 in the regular season yet win a CCS title.

By the way, PALbooster not only is all the work you do leading up to the play-offs amazing, but your thoughtful and insightful analysis and comments are outstanding reading.

Why would you want teams to Schedule soft if you make that the main criteria? Sounds awful for competitive football, not sure why you punish teams for scheduling ambitiously

 

[Cal 14]

The CCS has its annual football coaches meeting this Wednesday November 29th to put forward proposals for any rules or play-off changes for future seasons.

I think the CCS should congratulate itself on coming up with a very good play-off format that has done a great job of addressing concerns from previous years. The CCS is now sending its two top teams to the top regional state bowl games and four winners of competitive equity based divisions. The CCS has largely eliminated mismatches and blow outs in its play-off format through competitive equity that has also largely put the private schools with a significant sports focus into play-off brackets with a. few of the public schools that still run high level programs.

The result this year was that 40% of the CCS playoff games were decided by one score or less and 54% by two scores or less and only 6% (the two Serra games) ended up with results of 36+ points. This compares to the SJS and NCS that both had 21% of their game within one score (NCS had 29% within two scores and SJS had 35% within two scores) and had 28% and 31% of their respective play-off games decided by 36+ points. Also 9 of the 11 section finalsts in the CCS were public schools and four of the six section champions..

I don't think the CCS should make any changes to its current play-off formatting (except forfeit rules discussed below) but there are a few things that have been floated on this board that are worthy of note. None would have a dramatic effect on the play-off system

1. Simplify the qualification criteria and use Cal Preps exclusively for at-large berths and seeding. This would have had a modest impact on the field (only one team would have been different (Aptos in and North Salinas out) and not that many seeds would have changed. It would make it much simpler for teams to know where they stand vs figuring out the complex CCS point system. It would also smooth out the vast differences that exist between various A leagues, playing league champions, etc. that can be slightly gamed int he current system.

2, Several have suggested eliminating A teams from DV and maybe DIV and/or not having B or C teams in Divisoins II and/or III. I don't think this is necessary. The A teams that are put in these divisions are at the same level of. the B and C teams in the field. I also think that to support the individual leagues in their competitive equity efforts in "forcing" schools up to make their leagues more competitive, it allows these teams that re forced up in the regular season to play at a more competitive level in the play-offs and removes any incentives for a team to stay in a lower division based on benefiting from playing in a less competitive division come play-off time. I think if a B or C team has shown themselves worthy based other season results they should be in the division that would be most appropriate from a competitive standpoint.

I do think the one issue that needs to be addressed and clarified is how forfeits are managed. I see three type of forfeits occurring.

I think if a team cancels a game they should be ineligible for the play-offs that year.

1. The first is something that various programs have struggled with recently where they find themselves with lower numbers and struggle to field a team for the year. Santa Cruz forfeited 4 of their more challenging games so they could have enough players to play the other 6. Mills and a few other teams also had forfeits of similar nature. The penalty listed above would not matter to these teams as they are only seeking to get as many games in during the season as possible and not aspiring to the play-offs.

2. There were a couple of odd cases this year where Kings Academy cancelled a game vs Wilcox and Live Oak cancelled a scheduled game vs Los Gatos. Wilcox and then scheduled a games vs Edison of Huntington Beach and Los Gatos played Grant. The CCS should have a clear rule on what happens here. In the case of Kings Academy they claimed to not have enough players due to suspensions form a fight the prior week. If that is the case the CCS should stagger suspensions over 2-3 games (with the players selected on a random basis for each game that are suspended) so the team can honor their schedule. If a team cancels because of a perceived mismatch (my understanding of the Live Oak situation) they should not be able to play in the play-offs. The CCS should also clarify how this situation should be handled for both the forfeiting team nd the team rescheduling a game vis-a-vis the point system if the CCS is going to keep its current section point system in place,

3. Teams have past results forfeited for having an ineligible player. This has occurred frequently over the years and happened to Palma this year. In this case I think the forfeits of results are appropriate and should be counted as such to determine if a team qualifies for the play-offs or not. However if a team does qualify, I think their seeding should be based on the results on the field and any forfeited wins counted toward their seeding only. This would prevent a team like Palma going down a division and playing lesser opponents based on having an ineligible player.. They would play at the level dictated by their on field results.

Always interesting to see what comes out of the meetings and proposed changes for next year. I think a lot of great thought has gone into this process and the results have been a much more equitable and fairer play-off system.

Using Calpreps exclusively takes care of #3 in your forfeits section. I think this is the most prudent move.

I'm still baffled at the Live Oak thing. This was literally an A-league champion running away from another A-league champion. If this isn't proof that the MHAL isn't a real A-league, I don't know what is.

Did the Acorns coach just realize that the Wildcats are pretty good? Has this been a mystery?

 

[Cal 14]

Why would you want teams to Schedule soft if you make that the main criteria? Sounds awful for competitive football, not sure why you punish teams for scheduling ambitiously

It's his annual "I'm just a poor boy from a poor family" shtick.

 

[aztecpadre]

So is anyone else affronted by the fact that teams with a losing record make the play-offs? I'd like to see a rule that any team (in any A, B or C league) with a losing record is not play-off eligible. Yes, a 3 and 7 A league team may well be competitive with B or C league teams, but I think it is an embarrassment that teams with a losing record are welcomed into the play-offs. And may go 3 and 7 in the regular season yet win a CCS title.

By the way, PALbooster not only is all the work you do leading up to the play-offs amazing, but your thoughtful and insightful analysis and comments are outstanding reading.

Agree 100% I'm not even saying a winning record, but at least 500 for gosh sakes.

 

[carmelkyd]

PALBooster…Can’t argue with your logic using your Hollister example. Except Hollister’s 4 wins were over Oak Grove (2 and 3 in the Mt Hamilton league…a league many on this board deride as something less than an A league), Santa Cruz (a forfeit win), Monterey (in the middle of Monterey’s 3 game slump) and Aptos (who went 2 and 8 with one of their wins being against a B league team and their other win against Alvarez). And as for MC415’s comment about scheduling ambitiously, in Hollister’s case they scheduled aggressively when agreeing to play Wilcox, but Oak Grove had been 5 and 14 over the past two seasons, Santa Cruz was 2 and 8 in 2022, and Valley Christian was 1 and 9 in the same year.

Is Hollister better than Pacific Grove…you bet they are. But Hollister earns enough points to make the play-offs simply because they play in an A league and get that extra ½ point (more than B league teams get) for each game against teams in their own league.

Having said that, my concern really just involves the optics of teams with losing records making the play-offs. Yes, six times in the HISTORY of the NFL a team with a losing record has made the play-offs. But 6 in history is an anomaly. CCS has teams with losing records in the play-offs every year.

Don’t get me wrong, I am strongly in support of equity leagues. And I think it is up to each coach to decide how ambitiously they want to schedule. I know from experience that players have a lot more fun and create longer memories with hard-earned wins than they do from loses. Put a C league team in an A league there won’t be a lot of fun. Sure, they learn valuable lessons from loses, but if I were a coach I’d like to think I was scheduling for the kids (and their parents) than for some near-mythical chance to play in a state play-off game.

As for Carmel in the Gabilan next year, it is inevitable and correct. Outstanding record this year plus a bunch of good returning players. However, I’d dispute they should have been in the Gabilan this past year as you said. 3 and 5 in 2021 and 5 and 5 in 2022 are hardly records that would have suggested they be in the Gabilan in 2023.

But it is interesting that we think that placement in a particular equity league happens in the coaches’ meeting prior to next year’s season. Much of the equity placement actually happens in the play-offs for this year. Carmel in D2 this year, they must be in the Gabilan next year.

As a small town team we might get a true D1 college prospect every 10 to 20 years while some of the schools in our area get one every few years. And this undoubtedly colors my thinking so that I put thoughts out there about letting the A teams play against each other in the play-offs, keeping teams with a losing record out of the play-offs, changing the CCS points system, etc. I’d like to keep the same equity that started the season be continued in the play-offs. A league teams against A league teams. B league teams in D4 and B/C teams in D5.

A broken record, I know, but it takes a small tugboat making an extended effort to get a big ship turn. Besides, I want to see what song lyrics Cal14 uses next to insult me.

 

[Cal 14]

PALBooster…Can’t argue with your logic using your Hollister example. Except Hollister’s 4 wins were over Oak Grove (2 and 3 in the Mt Hamilton league…a league many on this board deride as something less than an A league), Santa Cruz (a forfeit win), Monterey (in the middle of Monterey’s 3 game slump) and Aptos (who went 2 and 8 with one of their wins being against a B league team and their other win against Alvarez). And as for MC415’s comment about scheduling ambitiously, in Hollister’s case they scheduled aggressively when agreeing to play Wilcox, but Oak Grove had been 5 and 14 over the past two seasons, Santa Cruz was 2 and 8 in 2022, and Valley Christian was 1 and 9 in the same year.

Is Hollister better than Pacific Grove…you bet they are. But Hollister earns enough points to make the play-offs simply because they play in an A league and get that extra ½ point (more than B league teams get) for each game against teams in their own league.

You cite Hollister's non-league schedule (incidentally, the VC game was the 2nd of a home-and-home series) while completely ignoring the fact that the 'Balers had to face Salinas, Soquel, and Palma in league play while PG faced King City, Soledad, and Rancho San Juan.

Oak Grove? Um, ok. Let's pit the Eagles against Marina, Gonzales, and Pajaro Valley, shall we? Still want to go down this path?

Did they get an extra 0.5 points for playing in the Gab? Damn right they did and they completely deserved it.

This is why what you do is a shtick/spin and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Here are more lyrics for you: "(carmelkyd) spin(s) (us) right 'round, baby, right 'round, like a record baby, right 'round, 'round, 'round"

 

[gr8ball]

What's really the bigger problem here?
A 4-6 Hollister team who played a tough schedule in D3? Or, a 3-7 (3 forfeit losses) Palma team with a strong senior class, purposely scheduled 2 B league teams to because of the playoff point system, actually winning D3?

If you are going to have league classifications... Why not have separate playoffs for each division? Use the same point system, and Calpreps... Top 16 team bracket playoff in each A, B, & C League. Top 4 from each bracket are eligible to move on. We get the best 4 teams going to state in each division, playing against equal competition. More games and more football. Eliminates the A vs B league conversation. Losing A teams still make the playoffs, but have to play higher seeds against better teams.

 

[Cal 14]

What's really the bigger problem here?
A 4-6 Hollister team who played a tough schedule in D3? Or, a 3-7 (3 forfeit losses) Palma team with a strong senior class, purposely scheduled 2 B league teams to because of the playoff point system, actually winning D3?

If you are going to have league classifications... Why not have separate playoffs for each division? Use the same point system, and Calpreps... Top 16 team bracket playoff in each A, B, & C League. Top 4 from each bracket are eligible to move on. We get the best 4 teams going to state in each division, playing against equal competition. More games and more football. Eliminates the A vs B league conversation. Losing A teams still make the playoffs, but have to play higher seeds against better teams.

The reason why this doesn't happen is the same as the reason that the B and C leagues exist in the first place. The super leagues are giving the weaker programs a reprieve from having to face the top programs in the region. The idea is to eventually promote these teams into higher divisions or drop those from higher to lower. These teams are not locked into place.

The section has repeatedly voted not to simply reward those teams in the weaker leagues/divisions for being weak, nor does it wish to punish the teams being forced into tougher schedules.

 

[carmelkyd]

Cal14 your near hatred for Carmel (and me?) is getting in the way of your usually clear thinking. I don’t know how many times I have said that A teams beat B teams 95% (or more) of the time yet you bring up PG’s schedule. Not sure what point you are trying to prove. And it is the very fact that A teams beat B teams 95% of the time why I advocate for A teams to play in D 1 through 3 in the play-offs.

Then you talk about Oak Grove and you pit them against C league teams? What path are you going down?

I have no idea what the Hollister coaches were thinking when they put together their 2023 schedule. But the reality is that it ended up being a weak (for an A league team) pre-season schedule. (Which does NOT imply that their league schedule was weak.) Oak Grove lost to Alvarez (last place team in the Gabilan), they lost to Piedmont Hills (5th place team in a 6 team B league) and they were the 4th place team in the Mt Hamilton league (a league with a calpreps Average Rating of -4.6 compared to the Gabilan’s 16). Hollister was supposed to play Santa Cruz, a B league team coming off a 2 and 8 season in 2022, VC (who you point out was in the 2nd year of a 2-year contract) but who was 1 and 9 on 2022, and yes, Wilcox. The Hollister coaches probably didn’t try to schedule soft for their pre-season, but the reality is it happened. By the way, I wrote this paragraph because PALbooster gave Hollister kudos for “challenging themselves” and I don’t think their pre-season schedule should have been too much of a challenge. Their 4 and 6 record wasn’t that impressive and nobody should be surprised that they lost in the first round, just like nobody should be surprised that a 10 – 0 B league team lost in the first round. Clearly Hollister’s challenge this year was finding themselves in the 3rd toughest league in CCS.

Do teams deserve an extra ½ point for playing against A league opponents. Yes and no. I’d advocate that you get those points only in pre-season contests. If you schedule and A league team in pre-season you get 1 point for that game. Schedule a B league team in pre-season and you get ½ a point. Schedule a C league team in pre-season and you get 0 points. There you have a reason for scheduling competitively. (Yes, we’d have to figure out a way to create formula for those teams playing a 4-team pre-season and those playing a 3-team pre-season.)

But why give the points during league play? Yes, playing in an A league is more difficult than playing in a B league but there is a reason your team is in an A league. Equity. When you give out points for league play, A league teams (in a 7 team A league) automatically get 6 points while B league teams (also in a 7 team B league) get 3 points. So, we are really not talking about equity in the play-offs, what we are talking about is getting as many A league teams in the play-offs as we can. Which is fine if your goal is to find the teams who might go to the state games, but not so fine for the B and C league teams that make up the majority of the teams in CCS and who would love to have a play-off system designed for them to compete against their peers.

In any case, clearly I am tilting at windmills. I work in a job where “seniority” rules and in CCS, the A leagues are “senior” so I know I won’t win.

 

[PALbooster]

In their post season meeting, CCS coaches passed four resolutions (two others failed) to make changes to the CCS point system and play-off structure for the 2024-25 season. These resolutions will now be reviewed by the athletic directors, league commissioners and section staff before being fully ratified.

The four recommended changes that were approved:

1. If you forfeit a game for any reason the forfeiting team does not get any CCS power points for scheduling, playing a league champion or playing a CALprep ranked team. They get a loss and 0 points.

2. At the seeding meeting after ranking the 40 teams selected for the field at least 2/3 of the 14 league representatives (10 of 14) agree that a significant misplacement has been made in seeding any team then they can agree on a subjective change in placement. This can only be applied in a case where a forfeiture created changes in the objective criteria

3. Division 1 and 2 can only compose of A league teams. All C league teams will be in Division 5 and no A league teams can be in Division 5.

4. When a Superleague has two or more divisions of the same classification (A,B or C) it can choose to allocate its automatic qualifying spots between those leagues as it chooses as long as it is clearly stated in their By-laws before the season and at a minimum the league champion from each division is an automatic qualifier.

The two resolutions that were rejected were

1. Any varsity team who forfeits a game is not eligible for the playoffs.

2. To have the open championship game be between the two highest remaining seeds after the first round of the Division 1 play-off.

I agree with the intent of the mis-seeding resolution, but I think that there is a much better solution to the issue of a team that is "mis-seeded" due to forfeits. I can see a problem emerging from the current proposal where 2/3 agree that a team is seeded too low, but then disagree on where to reseed the team. What happens then? I don't like making this subjective as I think self interest and politics will reign. I think a better solution is to either add the forfeit wins back for seeding purposes so the reseeding is objective, not subjective or place them in the seed dictated by their Calprep ranking.

While I disagree with the changes of no B teams in Division 1 or 2 and all C teams in Division 5 and no A teams in Division 5, I don't have a huge issue with this either. The only real negative consequence I see is that a pretty strong team that was placed (lobbied) in a B or C league that should have been placed in higher league could win their division with a series of blow-outs that work against the competitive equity principals that get enforced through he current point/seeding system. The impact of this on the 2023 play-offs would have been restricted to the following:

Carmel would have moved from Division 2 to Division 3
Palma (based on forfeit rule changes) or Menlo-Atherton who was the #1 seed in Division 3 would have moved from Division 3 to Division 2
Greenfield and Seaside would have moved from Division 4 to Division 5 and Santa Teresa and Leland would have moved from Division 5 to Division 4.

 

[Macallan]

So is anyone else affronted by the fact that teams with a losing record make the play-offs? I'd like to see a rule that any team (in any A, B or C league) with a losing record is not play-off eligible. Yes, a 3 and 7 A league team may well be competitive with B or C league teams, but I think it is an embarrassment that teams with a losing record are welcomed into the play-offs. And may go 3 and 7 in the regular season yet win a CCS title.

By the way, PALbooster not only is all the work you do leading up to the play-offs amazing, but your thoughtful and insightful analysis and comments are outstanding reading.

I may be in the minority, but I think too many teams make the playoffs to begin with...and the 3-7 making the playoffs is a byproduct of said issue of mine. Fix how many teams make the playoffs and the 3-7 team never makes the playoffs, IMO.

 

[Cal 14]

I may be in the minority, but I think too many teams make the playoffs to begin with...and the 3-7 making the playoffs is a byproduct of said issue of mine. Fix how many teams make the playoffs and the 3-7 team never makes the playoffs, IMO.

In California overall, I agree that too many teams make the playoffs. In the CCS, specifically, I do disagree quite a bit.

The section has 94 teams. 4 divisions of 32 teams is too few. 5 divisions of 40 teams is only 42.6%. Compare that to the SDS where, out of 85 total teams, only 19 fail to make the playoffs. 77.6% of those teams advance. In the LACS, a whopping 78.9% of teams advance. The CCS is the toughest playoff ticket in the state, by a good amount.

 

[carmelkyd]

Cal14 is correct. CCS play-offs are one of the toughest tickets in town. Only 42.6% of CCS teams make the play-offs. But drill down a bit. 72.7% of A league teams make the CCS play-offs. Of 33 A league teams only 9 fail to advance. While just 34% of B league teams in CCS make the play-offs and only 13% of C league teams. Not so tough a ticket for A league teams. Too tough a ticket for most B league and C league teams. Why? I'd guess one reason has to do with the points awarded to teams simply for showing up to play against their league opponents.

Wonder what the the 2023 play-off seedings would have looked like if you did not give points for playing games against your league opponents? Only points given for your non-league schedule. (Assume that the maximum number of points you can receive for a team's non-league schedule is 3. If a team plays 4 or 5 non-league opponents just give them a maximum of 3 points for their non-league games...eliminating the game(s) against the lowest league opponent. Pretend Carmel played 4 non-league games this year. One against an A league and 3 against B league teams. One point for playing an A league team and 1/2 point for each of the 2 B league teams. Two points total. No points for that third B league team game.)

Of course (as I stand up again on my soapbox), if you want to fix this, D 1 through 3 for A league teams. A leagues still get 72.7% of their teams in the play-offs. Then to open opportunities for more teams, D 4 through 6 are for B and C league teams. 5 more B teams in the play-offs and you have nearly 50% of the B teams making the play-offs. 3 more C league teams in the play-offs and 30% of C league teams are making the play-offs. 8 more teams gives you D6. And still CCS only has 51% of the teams making the play-offs.

And for those concerned about how many CCS teams get invited to the state games, a 10 and 0 B league team winning D 4 is more likely to advance than a 5 and 5 A league team winning that Division. As for competitive equity 5 of the 10 "blow-outs" (winning by more than 21) in this years play-offs were when A teams beat B teams or B teams beat C teams. 6 of the 10 blow-outs occurred in D 4 or 5 and 3 of those were where an A team beat a B team.

I yield my soapbox.

 

[thehookup55]

The league protections for divisions is a bit overboard.
Low level A league teams are fine in Div III. The problem this year was the forfeits put a mid tier A league team in Palma in Div III.
If a B league team has enough power points to qualify for the top 2 divisions, they likely beat some pretty good teams (or atleast A league teams) to get there. I would argue that if they rank in the top 16 in power points in CCS they probably shouldn't have been in a B league to begin with. Who would have beaten Carmel in Div III? Alisal played them tough in the regular season but I would take Carmel in a rematch no problem. You get rid of MA and Palma and thats a mediocre Div III.
I think C league teams would be fine in DIV, but I suppose the goal is to protect them from low tier A league teams and high tier B league teams. Seems it would have made more sense to have A league excluded from IV and V.

My complaint is we are allowing these teams to advance to regional games. These protections will lower the quality of teams CCS is advancing through.

 

[Cal 14]

Cal14 is correct. CCS play-offs are one of the toughest tickets in town. Only 42.6% of CCS teams make the play-offs. But drill down a bit. 72.7% of A league teams make the CCS play-offs. Of 33 A league teams only 9 fail to advance. While just 34% of B league teams in CCS make the play-offs and only 13% of C league teams. Not so tough a ticket for A league teams. Too tough a ticket for most B league and C league teams. Why? I'd guess one reason has to do with the points awarded to teams simply for showing up to play against their league opponents.

Wonder what the the 2023 play-off seedings would have looked like if you did not give points for playing games against your league opponents? Only points given for your non-league schedule. (Assume that the maximum number of points you can receive for a team's non-league schedule is 3. If a team plays 4 or 5 non-league opponents just give them a maximum of 3 points for their non-league games...eliminating the game(s) against the lowest league opponent. Pretend Carmel played 4 non-league games this year. One against an A league and 3 against B league teams. One point for playing an A league team and 1/2 point for each of the 2 B league teams. Two points total. No points for that third B league team game.)

Of course (as I stand up again on my soapbox), if you want to fix this, D 1 through 3 for A league teams. A leagues still get 72.7% of their teams in the play-offs. Then to open opportunities for more teams, D 4 through 6 are for B and C league teams. 5 more B teams in the play-offs and you have nearly 50% of the B teams making the play-offs. 3 more C league teams in the play-offs and 30% of C league teams are making the play-offs. 8 more teams gives you D6. And still CCS only has 51% of the teams making the play-offs.

And for those concerned about how many CCS teams get invited to the state games, a 10 and 0 B league team winning D 4 is more likely to advance than a 5 and 5 A league team winning that Division. As for competitive equity 5 of the 10 "blow-outs" (winning by more than 21) in this years play-offs were when A teams beat B teams or B teams beat C teams. 6 of the 10 blow-outs occurred in D 4 or 5 and 3 of those were where an A team beat a B team.

I yield my soapbox.

Ok, since you don't want to consider the leagues as being a factor, let's just place everyone geographically.

For southern Monterey County, we can have King City, Greenfield, Soledad, Gonzales, Alisal, and Salinas. On the western side, we could do Carmel, Pacific Grove, Robert Louis Stevenson, Monterey, Seaside, Marina, and Palma. Next, Monte Vista Christian, Watsonville, St. Francis (Watsonville), North Monterey County, North Salinas, Everett Alvarez, and Rancho San Juan. Finally, it would be Santa Cruz, Harbor, Soquel, Aptos, San Lorenzo Valley, Scotts Valley, and Hollister.

How'd that be?

Oh, the traditional C teams would no longer see the light of day during the playoffs? Ooooh, that's too bad. But at least it would be fair, since who you see in league play shouldn't matter.

Right?

Did I get that right?

 

[carmelkyd]

Cal. Where in anything I have written have I given any indication that “I don’t want to consider leagues as being a factor”? I want B and C league teams to get more representation in the play offs. And I’d like to see A league teams competing against A league teams.

If somehow you think my suggestion that we only give "show up points" for non-league games means I don't like the idea of leagues, you are wrong. I see no reason for giving teams "show up points" for playing against teams within their league for two reasons. One teams are required to schedule and play teams within their league...obvious right? So why give them points for something they are required to do. And two, why should "show up points" be different because of the league level? After all, teams within any league are playing against their peers. A game between 2 B league teams is just as difficult for either team as games where 2 A league teams within the same league are playing against each other. That's equity. Points should be given for doing something above and beyond what is required. Points for being a league champion = good. Points for pre-season scheduling = Good. Points for wins = Good. Points for playing against top calpreps team = Good. Points for being a top calpreps team = Good. But why give points for playing your league's league champion when everyone in the league has to play the league champion. (Unless you play a team in your pre-season that becomes a league champion in their league.) And why give points to teams for playing against their league opponents? They are required to play against the teams in their league and the teams within their league are peers.

At least that's my thinking. It has nothing to do with getting rid of leagues. Only getting rid of show up points in league play.

 

[Macallan]

In California overall, I agree that too many teams make the playoffs. In the CCS, specifically, I do disagree quite a bit.

The section has 94 teams. 4 divisions of 32 teams is too few. 5 divisions of 40 teams is only 42.6%. Compare that to the SDS where, out of 85 total teams, only 19 fail to make the playoffs. 77.6% of those teams advance. In the LACS, a whopping 78.9% of teams advance. The CCS is the toughest playoff ticket in the state, by a good amount.

Comparatively speaking, one must agree that it is more difficult for CCS teams to make it to the dance than other sections.

However, my opinion may be radical in that 40% is still to high. All sections, again, IMO, should be around 25% to 33% (at the absolute highest) of teams that make playoffs.

But the percentage thing is interesting as well. It makes sense when comparing maybe the SDS, to the SJS to the ____ section. But definitely doesn't pull weight when comparing any of the eight "normal" sections to the OS or SFS, with one league each of six teams and seven teams, respectively.