The CCS has their annual meeting to determine the play-off rules for the next season this Wednesday December 4th. I think the CCS has on the whole done an outstanding job in seeking to adapt and improve their play-off system as the landscape has changed in high school football and has vastly improved it’s play-off system over the years.
When you look at the current system, I think there is one glaring issue that needs to be addressed. For almost two decades the section has operated with 5 A leagues (WCAL, Bay, DeAnza, Gabilan, and Mount Hamilton). The WCAL has always been a level above the other leagues and in recent years the CCS has appropriately recognized that by applying bonus points for top 100 and top 150 Cal prep rankings.
However at this point, the CCS clearly does not have 5 A Leagues.
Cal Prep CCS League Ratings
2024 2023 2022*
WCAL 29.5 29.8 31
PAL-BAY 19.2 18.1 10.4*
PCAL – Gabilan 11.6 19.3 5.7
PAL- Ocean (8.1) (6.4) (15.2)*
PAL – DeAnza (8.5) (3.2) 3.1*
BVAL – Mt. Hamilton (9.5) (5.5) (0.6)
PCAL-Mission South (13.4) (8.8) (14.5)
BVAL – Valley (20.2) (17.2) (30.6)
PCAL–Mission North (20.5) (20.9) (22.7)
PAL – El Camino (25.2) (23.5) (23)*
BVAL – Foothill (25.3) (22) (21.3)
PCAL – Santa Lucia (36) (31.7) (43.5)
PAL – Lake (56.8) (46) (42.1)*
BVAL – West Valley (60.4) (61) (57.2)
*Pal merged Bay and Deanza in 2023 to create a superleague..
This creates two issues that need to be addressed. The first is automatic play-off berths are based on league ratings. A leagues get 4 berths, B leagues get two spots and C leagues just get their league champion. Leagues (who vote on proposals) don’t want to give up play-off spots. A couple of possible proposals here:
I would propose 1 point for each opponent with a rating 0.0 or above (this year you got an extra point for a team with a final ranking of 21.3-29.7 and an extra1.5 points for a team over 29.7. I think at the end of the regular season there were 22 teams ranked at this level with 2 ranked 101-150 and 7 ranked in the top 100.
0.5 point for each opponent with a rating of less than 0.0 to (20.0) – at the end of the year there were 32 teams ranked at this level.
0 points for each opponent with a rating less than (20) – there were 41 teams ranked at this level.
I think these are the two major issues that need to be addressed. There will be some other proposals that are likely on the agenda.
I think the rumored PCAL proposal to create two PCAL A league (and probably two more automatic spots) is ridiculous as there are not enough strong teams to create to two 6 team A leagues out of the PCAL.
Another item that the CCS might want to look at (minor issue) is the CCS requires a league have 6 teams. CCS teams get a point for playing an out of section league champion and currently there is no minimum requirement on number of teams in non-ccs leagues to get an extra point. This year there were cases of 3 and 4 team league champions where CCS got points. In general I would be in favor of getting rid of the league championship point all together.
Finally in reviewing the rules of no B teams in Division 1 or 2 and no A league teams in D5 the section may want to consider an ability to override this for an individual team if they feel a league has not show adequate judgement in assigning teams to appropriate leagues. Carmel would have been an intestine test of this for this season. In the preseason almost everyone saw them as one of the top 3 teams in the PCAL yet they were placed in a B league. Their results affirmed the preseason consensus as they beat the Mt. Hamilton champion and beat their three Gabilan opponents by 13, 19 and 27 points. Their natural placement would have been D2 and would have been a top 4 seed.
When you look at the current system, I think there is one glaring issue that needs to be addressed. For almost two decades the section has operated with 5 A leagues (WCAL, Bay, DeAnza, Gabilan, and Mount Hamilton). The WCAL has always been a level above the other leagues and in recent years the CCS has appropriately recognized that by applying bonus points for top 100 and top 150 Cal prep rankings.
However at this point, the CCS clearly does not have 5 A Leagues.
Cal Prep CCS League Ratings
2024 2023 2022*
WCAL 29.5 29.8 31
PAL-BAY 19.2 18.1 10.4*
PCAL – Gabilan 11.6 19.3 5.7
PAL- Ocean (8.1) (6.4) (15.2)*
PAL – DeAnza (8.5) (3.2) 3.1*
BVAL – Mt. Hamilton (9.5) (5.5) (0.6)
PCAL-Mission South (13.4) (8.8) (14.5)
BVAL – Valley (20.2) (17.2) (30.6)
PCAL–Mission North (20.5) (20.9) (22.7)
PAL – El Camino (25.2) (23.5) (23)*
BVAL – Foothill (25.3) (22) (21.3)
PCAL – Santa Lucia (36) (31.7) (43.5)
PAL – Lake (56.8) (46) (42.1)*
BVAL – West Valley (60.4) (61) (57.2)
*Pal merged Bay and Deanza in 2023 to create a superleague..
This creates two issues that need to be addressed. The first is automatic play-off berths are based on league ratings. A leagues get 4 berths, B leagues get two spots and C leagues just get their league champion. Leagues (who vote on proposals) don’t want to give up play-off spots. A couple of possible proposals here:
- Have the top three leagues at the end of the year get 4 spots, the next three leagues 3 spots and the next six leagues 2 spots and the last three leagues one spot. Allow the three super leagues (PAL, PCAL, BVAL) to divide them as they wish with each league having to have at least one spot. This would leave four at-large berths (by math almost two always go to the WCAL).
- Give all A leagues 2 spots and all B and C leagues one spot for 18 total berths and vastly increase the at-large pool (this proposal would create 22 at-large spots). There are several variations that could be done and then the number of teams per league would sort itself out based on the current point system.
I would propose 1 point for each opponent with a rating 0.0 or above (this year you got an extra point for a team with a final ranking of 21.3-29.7 and an extra1.5 points for a team over 29.7. I think at the end of the regular season there were 22 teams ranked at this level with 2 ranked 101-150 and 7 ranked in the top 100.
0.5 point for each opponent with a rating of less than 0.0 to (20.0) – at the end of the year there were 32 teams ranked at this level.
0 points for each opponent with a rating less than (20) – there were 41 teams ranked at this level.
I think these are the two major issues that need to be addressed. There will be some other proposals that are likely on the agenda.
I think the rumored PCAL proposal to create two PCAL A league (and probably two more automatic spots) is ridiculous as there are not enough strong teams to create to two 6 team A leagues out of the PCAL.
Another item that the CCS might want to look at (minor issue) is the CCS requires a league have 6 teams. CCS teams get a point for playing an out of section league champion and currently there is no minimum requirement on number of teams in non-ccs leagues to get an extra point. This year there were cases of 3 and 4 team league champions where CCS got points. In general I would be in favor of getting rid of the league championship point all together.
Finally in reviewing the rules of no B teams in Division 1 or 2 and no A league teams in D5 the section may want to consider an ability to override this for an individual team if they feel a league has not show adequate judgement in assigning teams to appropriate leagues. Carmel would have been an intestine test of this for this season. In the preseason almost everyone saw them as one of the top 3 teams in the PCAL yet they were placed in a B league. Their results affirmed the preseason consensus as they beat the Mt. Hamilton champion and beat their three Gabilan opponents by 13, 19 and 27 points. Their natural placement would have been D2 and would have been a top 4 seed.
