CCS Play-off Rules Meeting 12-04 - some suggested changes

[PALbooster]

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:

• 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.

The second problem is scheduling points being awarded by league classification. Weak A league teams are unjustly given more schedule points for league play. This remedy is much simpler. Stop awarding points for what league a team is in. Just award them based on their final regular season rating just like is done for non-CCS opponents.

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.

 

[colhenrylives]

Good stuff. Again.

 

[TripleOptionFB19]

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:

• 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.

The second problem is scheduling points being awarded by league classification. Weak A league teams are unjustly given more schedule points for league play. This remedy is much simpler. Stop awarding points for what league a team is in. Just award them based on their final regular season rating just like is done for non-CCS opponents.

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.

 

[carmelkyd]

Not sure what is wrong with this idea. Welcome someone to point out what’s wrong with
It. Other than the risk that CalPreps goes out of business.

Start with this. WCAL gets maximum 6 teams...A leagues get maximum of 4 ...B leagues get 2...and C leagues get one. That's 37 teams. We will make the 38 through 40 teams adjustment at the end. Next we will place teams in the play-off ONLY based on their CalPreps rating. No points calculations based on wins/losses, playing league champions or the rest of the calculations. Just the CalPreps algorithm.

 

[Macallan]

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:

• 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.

The second problem is scheduling points being awarded by league classification. Weak A league teams are unjustly given more schedule points for league play. This remedy is much simpler. Stop awarding points for what league a team is in. Just award them based on their final regular season rating just like is done for non-CCS opponents.

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.

Is your last name Schefter? Always enjoy reading your posts.

 

[PALbooster]

Not sure what is wrong with this idea. Welcome someone to point out what’s wrong with
It. Other than the risk that CalPreps goes out of business.

Start with this. WCAL gets maximum 6 teams...A leagues get maximum of 4 ...B leagues get 2...and C leagues get one. That's 37 teams. We will make the 38 through 40 teams adjustment at the end. Next we will place teams in the play-off ONLY based on their CalPreps rating. No points calculations based on wins/losses, playing league champions or the rest of the calculations. Just the CalPreps algorithm.

The problem I have with making two A leagues out of the PCAlL's top 12 teams is that you are starting to work against the idea of competitive equity to game the system to gain more play-off spots. Under this proposal the PCAL would go from 9 spots to 11 spots. You have a valid point in my opinion if the section continues to allow the PAL- DeAnza and Mt. Hamilton to be A leagues. My primary point is that the PAL-DeAnza and Mt. Hamilton are no longer worthy of A league status and should be demoted and the CCS should only have 3 A leagues (WCAL, PAL-Bay and PCAL- Gabilan with the PAL and PCAL committed to putting their top teams into their top leagues.

The proposal to take the 7 team PCAL - Gabilan which had an 11.6 league rating (would have been 15.6 if Carmel was placed in Gabilan instead of Alvarez) and create to relatively equal 6 team A leagues of the PCAL's top twelve teams where they would have league ratings or 4.6 and 4.9 each if you split the leagues as equally as possible would create more league blow-outs and uneven leagues. The idea of competitive equity is as best as possible you group your most equally rated teams together in each league and each play-off bracket.

If you want to play this game, the PAL could create 3 A leagues by equally distributing its top 18 teams and would come up with 3 leagues with ratings of 2.2, 2 and 2 and then get 15 play-off spots instead of 13. each would be rated significantly higher than the Mt. Hamilton league and the section could have 7 A leagues.

 

[831footballblitz]

The PCAL pushing teams up to an A league status is about as self serving as it gets. Hmm now which AD is leading the push? Way too much self serving. The thought of MVC or Alisal being an A league team is not what equity leagues are designed to do. PCAL lacks any serious leadership when it comes to how they go about their business.

I think a big step in the right direction would be starting the year with a designated classification. Ideally 3 A divisions, 2 B Divisions, and a C Division (I know adding a 6th division is a bigger task). I personally would love to see similar schools facing off against similar schools. SHP won Division IV this year but are they the best small A league team in CCS? Our current system does a disservice to the likes of Soquel, Menlo, etc

 

[831footballblitz]

The proposal to take the 7 team PCAL - Gabilan which had an 11.6 league rating (would have been 15.6 if Carmel was placed in Gabilan instead of Alvarez) and create to relatively equal 6 team A leagues of the PCAL's top twelve teams where they would have league ratings or 4.6 and 4.9 each if you split the leagues as equally as possible would create more league blow-outs and uneven leagues. The idea of competitive equity is as best as possible you group your most equally rated teams together in each league and each play-off bracket.

But then Hollister would keep finishing 1-5 in league

 

[thehookup55]

PCAL can't even get the right choices for the 6 Gab teams they have. I mentioned this in another thread but if you take out Carmel who should have been in the Gab, the B league teams went 2-10 against the Gab this year. The 2 wins were against Alvarez who should not have been in the Gab to start. This is pure greed for more playoff spots despite not performing in the playoffs with the teams they have.

 

[FBAddict]

PCAL can't even get the right choices for the 6 Gab teams they have. I mentioned this in another thread but if you take out Carmel who should have been in the Gab, the B league teams went 2-10 against the Gab this year. The 2 wins were against Alvarez who should not have been in the Gab to start. This is pure greed for more playoff spots despite not performing in the playoffs with the teams they have.

This is exactly the point - and Camel (or maybe it is only Camelkyd) seems to want to wrap the league assignments around itself instead of living in the spirit of the league levels. I am for teams doing everything they can to win games and playoff games. But sometimes it seems backward when certain schools want to get their wins by creating the structure around themselves to obtain championship status.

 

[Cal 14]

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:

• 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.

The second problem is scheduling points being awarded by league classification. Weak A league teams are unjustly given more schedule points for league play. This remedy is much simpler. Stop awarding points for what league a team is in. Just award them based on their final regular season rating just like is done for non-CCS opponents.

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.

All great stuff, as usual.

Completely agree that the CCS point system is antiquated. The use of playoff success creates a logic circle when it's used to determine the number of playoff teams.

Everyone has seen me rail on the MHAL for not being a real A league, but this year only one team escaped the first round of the playoffs even with the benefit of not having a single team in D-I/Open... and that was in D-IV!

I agree that the notion of a second A league out of the PCAL is ridiculous.

 

[carmelkyd]

This is exactly the point - and Camel (or maybe it is only Camelkyd) seems to want to wrap the league assignments around itself instead of living in the spirit of the league levels. I am for teams doing everything they can to win games and playoff games. But sometimes it seems backward when certain schools want to get their wins by creating the structure around themselves to obtain championship status.

If you read my post and an earlier one in another thread you would see that my suggestion of placing and seeding teams in the playoffs ONLY on the basis of CalPreps rating would have put Carmel in D2. So I don’t know what you are saying.

Should Carmel have been in the Gabilan this year? Yes. But I stand by my long held philosophy that a B league team doesn’t play in D2 or D1 as long as CCS deals with a “points for this, points for that” playoff system.

However if they want to decide who plays in what division and where they are seeded strictly on the CalPreps algorithm then I say let the chips fall where they may.

And I’ll say it now. Carmel does not belong in an A league next year. 18 seniors. An Alabama-bound lineman, maybe the best receiver corps they have ever had, a top tier QB, and a stellar running back are all seniors. And the JV teams results were average at best. The only reason Carmel will end up in the Gabilan next year is if PCAL wants to punish them for having such a good season this year.