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.
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.
Last edited: