Results from CCS Meeting to Change Play-off Rules

[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.

 

[PALbooster]

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.

I like and agree with your suggestion of seeding teams in play-offs based on CalPrep rankings. I also agree that Carmel's placement for next year should not be predicated exclusively on their performance this year. While no system or league is perfect, I do like the fact that the PAL has laid out a system to evaluate their teams each year for league placement.

They look at:
1. Varsity 1st team all-league and MVP players from varsity, Frosh-soph and freshman players that are returning.

2. Number of returning varsity players from year end roster

3. Varsity league standings for current season with weighting for A Leagues.

4. JV league standings with weighting for A Leagues.

5. Overall program size on all levels

6. Calprep rankings from prior year

After this they rank all teams from 1-32. They allow for information and data from coaches and programs to appeal this ranking and look back at 3-5 years of Calprep rankings and if 2/3rds agree they will override the initial ranking in moving a team up or down.

My sense is the programs actually really do listen to each other and take the best interest of the sport and kids to heart in making their decisions. There seems to be a lot of mutual respect and I wouldn't be naive to suggest there is never politics or self-interest at play but it does seem muted and minimized. It is not perfect but judging from the results of the past few years they have done a good job.

I am curious if you have any insight in what was at play in not elevating Carmel this past year. given all the things you said the program had going for them that won't be present next year. From the outside it seems like there is an awful lot of self interested politics that goes into the PCAL process. It defies logic why they weren't elevated if the PCAL goal and the goal of everyone in the room was to have their top seven teams in the Gabilan League. I do wish Carmel the best of luck in their 5AA bracket.

 

[831footballblitz]

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.

Carmel is an A league team without question. If we are going to have true equity leagues then based on record, history, coaching, resources.. they're an A league team. But really it should just go off of last years results. That is what is done for everyone else correct? Not sure why JV record matters, especially when there are 9 sophomores on varsity. Whenever they've been up they have managed to compete. Just this year they were 3-0 against the Gab. Is there really that much different from Carmel's 800 kids and Soquel's 1100? Aptos? Look at the Menlo School for instance and at under 600 kids they are pretty consistently placed with MA, Wilcox, Los Gatos. It is what it is. Let whatever happens happen and I am sure they will be consistently in Div 2 of 3 come playoff time.

Soquel, Salinas, Carmel, Hollister, Aptos, Palma, Monterey truly would be a great looking Gabilan Division

 

[FBAddict]

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.

I stand corrected - I went back to read a post you did about this time of year last year and I misread or didn't remember the post correctly. It were clear you thought Carmel should be moved into Gabilan for 2024 but I misread that you thought they didn't belong there. Combined by an article reporting Golden Anderson's argument for not moving, I thought you were totally in that same camp. I stand corrected!

 

[thehookup55]

I like and agree with your suggestion of seeding teams in play-offs based on CalPrep rankings. I also agree that Carmel's placement for next year should not be predicated exclusively on their performance this year. While no system or league is perfect, I do like the fact that the PAL has laid out a system to evaluate their teams each year for league placement.

They look at:
1. Varsity 1st team all-league and MVP players from varsity, Frosh-soph and freshman players that are returning.

2. Number of returning varsity players from year end roster

3. Varsity league standings for current season with weighting for A Leagues.

4. JV league standings with weighting for A Leagues.

5. Overall program size on all levels

6. Calprep rankings from prior year

After this they rank all teams from 1-32. They allow for information and data from coaches and programs to appeal this ranking and look back at 3-5 years of Calprep rankings and if 2/3rds agree they will override the initial ranking in moving a team up or down.

My sense is the programs actually really do listen to each other and take the best interest of the sport and kids to heart in making their decisions. There seems to be a lot of mutual respect and I wouldn't be naive to suggest there is never politics or self-interest at play but it does seem muted and minimized. It is not perfect but judging from the results of the past few years they have done a good job.

I am curious if you have any insight in what was at play in not elevating Carmel this past year. given all the things you said the program had going for them that won't be present next year. From the outside it seems like there is an awful lot of self interested politics that goes into the PCAL process. It defies logic why they weren't elevated if the PCAL goal and the goal of everyone in the room was to have their top seven teams in the Gabilan League. I do wish Carmel the best of luck in their 5AA bracket.

The only arguement I could see Carmel making to stay in a B league was that they don't have the numbers or talent below their senior class to make it through a season in the Gab. They were a couple hurt players away from being an above average team. Maybe that presented the case of not punishing future classes due to the exceptional senior class they had by putting them in the Gab. I really don't know. I'm not sure what else it could have been though. They punished the other teams in PCAL by allowing 1 team to stay safe. I can't imagine Alvarez, NMC, Alisal, North High, etc liked put below Carmels preferences.

 

[carmelkyd]

I like and agree with your suggestion of seeding teams in play-offs based on CalPrep rankings. I also agree that Carmel's placement for next year should not be predicated exclusively on their performance this year. While no system or league is perfect, I do like the fact that the PAL has laid out a system to evaluate their teams each year for league placement.

They look at:
1. Varsity 1st team all-league and MVP players from varsity, Frosh-soph and freshman players that are returning.

2. Number of returning varsity players from year end roster

3. Varsity league standings for current season with weighting for A Leagues.

4. JV league standings with weighting for A Leagues.

5. Overall program size on all levels

6. Calprep rankings from prior year

After this they rank all teams from 1-32. They allow for information and data from coaches and programs to appeal this ranking and look back at 3-5 years of Calprep rankings and if 2/3rds agree they will override the initial ranking in moving a team up or down.

My sense is the programs actually really do listen to each other and take the best interest of the sport and kids to heart in making their decisions. There seems to be a lot of mutual respect and I wouldn't be naive to suggest there is never politics or self-interest at play but it does seem muted and minimized. It is not perfect but judging from the results of the past few years they have done a good job.

I am curious if you have any insight in what was at play in not elevating Carmel this past year. given all the things you said the program had going for them that won't be present next year. From the outside it seems like there is an awful lot of self interested politics that goes into the PCAL process. It defies logic why they weren't elevated if the PCAL goal and the goal of everyone in the room was to have their top seven teams in the Gabilan League. I do wish Carmel the best of luck in their 5AA bracket.

I do not have any first hand insight as to why Carmel stayed in the B league. I do recall in prior years that (for whatever reason) Alvarez has been reluctant to be moved down. If that were the case, and none of the teams from 2023 wanted to be relegated down, then there was no reason or way to move Carmel up. “Blame” it on Carmel for being in a B league but they might have been there because none of the teams in the Gabilan wanted to be moved down.

 

[PALbooster]

I realize that Carmel is losing a lot but by roster size, returning players, and historical results they compare really favorably to other Gabilan teams. Their overall roster size should continue to be in the low 40's which is pretty healthy for these days. I don't see how and why they wouldn't be elevated to the Gabilan and an elevation doesn't appear based on the data to be punitive. I realize quality counts as much as quantity as Carmel had no trouble taking care of Monterey, Hollister and Aptos in 2024 and is bringing a lot of kids back from an undefeated team (at least through sections).

2024 Roster size Returning varsity players

Carmel 43 25 Carmel also shows a JV roster with 44 players
Monterey 31 14
Alvarez 43 12
Soquel 43 26
Aptos 47 25
Palma 50 30
Hollister 64 32
Salinas 65 34

 

[Cal 14]

The only arguement I could see Carmel making to stay in a B league was that they don't have the numbers or talent below their senior class to make it through a season in the Gab. They were a couple hurt players away from being an above average team. Maybe that presented the case of not punishing future classes due to the exceptional senior class they had by putting them in the Gab. I really don't know. I'm not sure what else it could have been though. They punished the other teams in PCAL by allowing 1 team to stay safe. I can't imagine Alvarez, NMC, Alisal, North High, etc liked put below Carmels preferences.

All teams deal with injuries. Even if Carmel suffered some, they still would not likely have taken last in the division.

 

[thehookup55]

All teams deal with injuries. Even if Carmel suffered some, they still would not likely have taken last in the division.

I agree. Monterey, Salinas, and Palma all saw their starting QBs miss games (Palma's JT Harreld was the likely starter before he got hurt before the 1st week and missed the whole season). Carmelkyd brought up a fair point about Alvarez potentially not wanting to go down to the B league. It shouldn't be up to the schools though. There should be some criteria put in place to determine who goes up or down. It's clear there isn't anything in place after allowing Carmel to stay in a B league.

 

[carmelkyd]

One argument is...small school versus big school. The talent pool in small schools is smaller than in big schools...except in some years when luck would have it that a bunch of highly talented kids are in the same class. In 2021, Carmel went 3 and 5..the next year 5 and 5. Then the kids who are currently seniors got to Varsity and they went 10 and 1 and this year 13 and 0. Simple fact is that the odds of a bigger school having more/better athletes than a small school is a fact.

But that's not my only argument why Carmel should remain a B league team in 2025. Historically since the Gabilan was formed in 2012, there have been 3 teams who have been in the Gabilan for each of the past 12 seasons and one team (Alvarez) that has been in the Gabilan for 11 years.

There have been 11 teams who have been elevated then relegated between a B league and an A league. Aptos has been the most successful team to have been brought up staying in the Gabilan since they moved up in 2017. Monterey came up in 2012 and went back to a B league in 2016. Plus Christopher and MVC both came up for a 3 year stretch. The remaining teams lasted either only 2 years and in 8 cases teams were one and done.

Alisal was 6 - 0 in B league play then 0 - 6 in the Gabilan
Gilroy went 5 - 1 in B league play then 0 - 6 in the Gabilan
Christopher had a year where they went 5 - 1 in B league play then 2 - 4 in the Gabilan
MVC went 4 - 2 in B league play and 1 - 5 in the Gabilan
MVC went 5 - 1 in a B league then 0 - 8 in the Gabilan
Seaside was 5 -1 in B league play then 2 - 6 in the Gabilan
Carmel went 6 - 0 in the B league and 3 - 4 in the Gabilan
Santa Cruz was 6 - 0 in the B league and 1 - 5 the next year in the Gabilan.

So my argument is that the small school (Carmel) may have a good number of people on the roster, but the drop off between first team and second team is much bigger than at larger schools with a greater talent pool depth. This season Carmel has an extraordinary group of athletes who are seniors. Seniors who for the most part have been playing both offense and defense since at least The Shoe Game.

Granted Carmel's roster size is good...something the Carmel coaches should be proud of. The number of expected returning players is also positive...although very few are of the skill level of those graduating. And the historical results (in B leagues) of the Golden Anderson years have been outstanding except for a few years when the well was dry. The Sacramento River Cats might be the San Francisco Giants once and awhile, but that doesn't mean they should become an MLB team.

 

[PALbooster]

By that logic then are you saying Soquel should not have been moved up. They only have a student body that is 1096 - the next smallest public is Aptos with 1296 and Monterey with 1378. I think Soquel is doing fine and will be staying in the Gabilan as long as they continue to be a well coached program.

I know Carmel is only 820 students, but they have a solid program that should be competitive year in and year out at that level as long as they continue to have good coaching. Carmel has gone 137-37 (79%) under coach Anderson since 2009. I don't think the size of the school has changed that much during his tenure. Year in year out they have one of the top 5 programs on that side of the hill.

 

[831footballblitz]

I agree. Monterey, Salinas, and Palma all saw their starting QBs miss games (Palma's JT Harreld was the likely starter before he got hurt before the 1st week and missed the whole season). Carmelkyd brought up a fair point about Alvarez potentially not wanting to go down to the B league. It shouldn't be up to the schools though. There should be some criteria put in place to determine who goes up or down. It's clear there isn't anything in place after allowing Carmel to stay in a B league.

From my understanding the last two years Alvarez has been adamant about wanting to go down. In the past, who knows with that school.

This goes hand in hand with school sizes.. Schools should be paired up with similar schools. For Alvarez I believe that is with North Salinas, Alisal and Rancho San Juan. Why would Alvarez be any different in terms of league placement?

For Carmel I think that is Aptos, Soquel, and Monterey more than it is PG, RLS or MVC at this point

 

[carmelkyd]

By that logic then are you saying Soquel should not have been moved up. They only have a student body that is 1096 - the next smallest public is Aptos with 1296 and Monterey with 1378. I think Soquel is doing fine and will be staying in the Gabilan as long as they continue to be a well coached program.

I know Carmel is only 820 students, but they have a solid program that should be competitive year in and year out at that level as long as they continue to have good coaching. Carmel has gone 137-37 (79%) under coach Anderson since 2009. I don't think the size of the school has changed that much during his tenure. Year in year out they have one of the top 5 programs on that side of the hill.

By that logic then are you saying Soquel should not have been moved up. They only have a student body that is 1096 - the next smallest public is Aptos with 1296 and Monterey with 1378. I think Soquel is doing fine and will be staying in the Gabilan as long as they continue to be a well coached program.

I know Carmel is only 820 students, but they have a solid program that should be competitive year in and year out at that level as long as they continue to have good coaching. Carmel has gone 137-37 (79%) under coach Anderson since 2009. I don't think the size of the school has changed that much during his tenure. Year in year out they have one of the top 5 programs on that side of the hill.

Let's see. The three schools you mentioned (Soquel, Aptos and Monterey) are all at least 34% larger than Carmel. That is not an insignificant number. In addition, the three programs each have a Freshman team as well as a JV team. Carmel does not have a Freshman team.

So the question if you are a Carmel coach or fan, do you want to be one of the top 3 teams in a B league or most likely a bottom 3 team when you go up against schools like Salinas or Palma. In Carmel's best years they are likely to end up 4 and 6 overall and maybe 2 and 4 in the Gabilan. Perhaps 1 or 2 years out of 15 they end up with a winning record in the Gabilan.

As for Soquel, Coach Lowrey has put together a terrific program. He essentially recruited kids from the area (why Santa Cruz fell so quickly) and has a Santa Cruz County All Star team. As long as Coach Lowrey is there I expect they will compete near the top of the Gabilan league.

If I am the head coach what I want is to give the kids the best chance to win. A win against PG or King City is more satisfying than a loss to Aptos or Monterey. At the end of any game, the kids that win they celebrate the win. They don't let a thought of "but it was just against (team X)" diminish their celebration. For a kid, a win feels great...a loss not so much so. If poster want to criticize me for not going up against "the best" then so be it. 8 and 2 in a B league is a lot more fun than 2 and 8 against A league schools. At least that is what kids will remember when they are 5, 10 or 50 years out of high school.

 

[thehookup55]

If I am the head coach what I want is to give the kids the best chance to win. A win against PG or King City is more satisfying than a loss to Aptos or Monterey. At the end of any game, the kids that win they celebrate the win. They don't let a thought of "but it was just against (team X)" diminish their celebration. For a kid, a win feels great...a loss not so much so. If poster want to criticize me for not going up against "the best" then so be it. 8 and 2 in a B league is a lot more fun than 2 and 8 against A league schools. At least that is what kids will remember when they are 5, 10 or 50 years out of high school.

What do the kids from Alvarez, Alisal, North Salinas, PG, etc. get to remember? Losing to a Carmel team that shouldn't have been in the B league to begin with. Not getting a chance to make playoffs because Carmel dominates the league? Carmel is without a doubt a top 6 program in the PCAL. Sure, they will have down years here and there that could force them back down to the B league. They will also have special classes here and there like this year where they can compete to be a top 3 team. The PCAL is supposed to be an equity league. How can they say that when a top 3 team that everyone knew was going to have a top 3 team was left in a B league?

This isn't a shot at Carmel. Why would they want to go up to the Gab? They got a cupcake schedule, avoided DII maybe even DI/Open, and now get to host a Norcal Regional game. Good for them. The issue is the PCAL. Now they want to add a second A league? Clearly the people in charge are a bit delusional.

 

[RLS13]

Love it when PCAL football takes over a thread! I am really enjoying the pros and cons as to why certain programs (Carmel) need to be moved up and down. Yes Carmel should of been moved up the Gabilan this year and it is a shame they were not. As I understand here were the reasons. (in no particular order)

• Carmel does not consider itself a football school. These kids are encouraged to play multiple sports year round and this senior class's has multiple all -leaguers in other sports. A lot of the Gabilan programs prefer their football players to only concentrate on football.
• The Carmel JV team is made up of mostly Freshman learning to play football and some sophomores. It can not compete week in and week out vs other JV teams made up of Sophomores and Juniors who have been playing football for multiple years.
• There is no youth tackle football program close buy. Kids have to go to Monterey/Seaside or to Salinas to play tackle football before high school. The Carmel program shut down 6(?) years ago.
• In 2019 when Carmel was in the Gabilan, its JV team forfeited 3 games and played 3 others against Freshmen programs (lost all of them) as they could/would/should not competed with the big programs. Only 8 total sophomores played that year 4 on varsity and 4 on JV. This set the program back about 2 years.

I am not saying I agree with these reasons, just passing along what I understand. Carmel will probably be pushed up (if there is only 1 A League) due to their success this year and the prior year. That would be unfortunate in my opinion, because they will be taking a huge step back next year and will simply become cannon fodder for the rest of the Gabilan. If everything stays the same I would have them finishing 3rd or 4th in the Mission South next year behind NS, KC and maybe (gulp!) PG. They would be 7th in the Gabilan.

And no the PCAL should not have 2 watered down "A" leagues.

 

[PALbooster]

Good conversation on Carmel - but the main point was that the Mt. Hamilton league and the PAL DeAnza league (both were ranked below the PAL Ocean this year) and have league ratings below 0 for the last two years (three years for Mt. Hamilton). and should no longer be classified as A leagues.

If you agree the question is what to do about it. I say classify them as a B leagues and reduce the automatic berths they are awarded and add berths to the at-large pool. This would give the BVAL and PAL three B leagues and they could elect to make them even and give two berths to each league or make a stronger B league and give it more spots and divide their six spots 3-2-1 or 4-1-1.

 

[RLS13]

PAL Booster I would agree with what you are proposing. The CCS needs to consolidate A leagues not expand them.

 

[Cal 14]

What do the kids from Alvarez, Alisal, North Salinas, PG, etc. get to remember? Losing to a Carmel team that shouldn't have been in the B league to begin with. Not getting a chance to make playoffs because Carmel dominates the league? Carmel is without a doubt a top 6 program in the PCAL. Sure, they will have down years here and there that could force them back down to the B league. They will also have special classes here and there like this year where they can compete to be a top 3 team. The PCAL is supposed to be an equity league. How can they say that when a top 3 team that everyone knew was going to have a top 3 team was left in a B league?

This isn't a shot at Carmel. Why would they want to go up to the Gab? They got a cupcake schedule, avoided DII maybe even DI/Open, and now get to host a Norcal Regional game. Good for them. The issue is the PCAL. Now they want to add a second A league? Clearly the people in charge are a bit delusional.

The powerful feeding on the hapless always favor the status quo.

 

[Cal 14]

• Carmel does not consider itself a football school. These kids are encouraged to play multiple sports year round and this senior class's has multiple all -leaguers in other sports. A lot of the Gabilan programs prefer their football players to only concentrate on football.

I don't agree with this at all. A number of football players also star in basketball, track, and baseball through the rest of the year. I know Coach Zenk at Salinas has long been a proponent of this. I remember reading weekly about Nyziah Hunter getting X amount of rebounds in basketball.

 

[carmelkyd]

How about these changes?

Start with using PALbooster's suggestion above about the PAL League and how they attempt to create equity each year when teams are assigned to leagues.

Next do NOT assign A, B or C to those leagues at the start of the year. Only at the end of the regular season, based on Cal14's (I believe) suggestion that leagues be assigned A, B or C based on the league's CalPreps rating.

Next, give each league based on their CalPreps' ranking a certain number of automatic qualifiers. Probably 4 for A leagues, 2 for B leagues and 1 for C leagues. (Yes, WCAL only gets 4 auto qualifiers but probably puts more of their teams in the play-offs when at-large selections are made.)

Finally, fill each auto qualifier ONLY based on CalPreps rating.

No points calculations based on wins/losses, playing league champions or the rest of the calculations. Just the CalPreps algorithm.

That would have put Carmel in D2, in spite of them being in a B league.

Then we have to come up with at-large teams. So back to the CalPreps rating for teams. Take the best (highest rating) teams that did not make the play-offs because they did not qualify to be an auto qualifier. Yes, the maximum number of teams for each league requirement would be violated. We might even in some years see all WCAL teams making the play-offs. But they deserve to be in the play-offs as long as their CalPresp rating puts them in the top 40 teams in CCS.

Bottom line...use CalPreps ONLY to identify the play-off teams and their seeding. With an initial maximum number of teams per league requirement that is "over-looked" in filling out the play-off brackets with at-large teams. No more playing a league champion points. In fact no more points. Just the CalPreps rating.

 

[Cal 14]

How about these changes?

Start with using PALbooster's suggestion above about the PAL League and how they attempt to create equity each year when teams are assigned to leagues.

Next do NOT assign A, B or C to those leagues at the start of the year. Only at the end of the regular season, based on Cal14's (I believe) suggestion that leagues be assigned A, B or C based on the league's CalPreps rating.

Next, give each league based on their CalPreps' ranking a certain number of automatic qualifiers. Probably 4 for A leagues, 2 for B leagues and 1 for C leagues. (Yes, WCAL only gets 4 auto qualifiers but probably puts more of their teams in the play-offs when at-large selections are made.)

Finally, fill each auto qualifier ONLY based on CalPreps rating.

No points calculations based on wins/losses, playing league champions or the rest of the calculations. Just the CalPreps algorithm.

That would have put Carmel in D2, in spite of them being in a B league.

Then we have to come up with at-large teams. So back to the CalPreps rating for teams. Take the best (highest rating) teams that did not make the play-offs because they did not qualify to be an auto qualifier. Yes, the maximum number of teams for each league requirement would be violated. We might even in some years see all WCAL teams making the play-offs. But they deserve to be in the play-offs as long as their CalPresp rating puts them in the top 40 teams in CCS.

Bottom line...use CalPreps ONLY to identify the play-off teams and their seeding. With an initial maximum number of teams per league requirement that is "over-looked" in filling out the play-off brackets with at-large teams. No more playing a league champion points. In fact no more points. Just the CalPreps rating.

All of this "league champ", "quality opponent", "wins", and "losses" are already incorporated into the Calpreps system.

For whatever reason, the CCS leaders don't want to get rid of their antiquated system. I really wish they would.

 

[thehookup55]

I don't agree with this at all. A number of football players also star in basketball, track, and baseball through the rest of the year. I know Coach Zenk at Salinas has long been a proponent of this. I remember reading weekly about Nyziah Hunter getting X amount of rebounds in basketball.

I don't know of a single coach or program in the Monterey area that encourages their student athletes to only play football. I have only heard encouragement to play multi sports. Another false narrative from the Carmel faithful.

 

[831footballblitz]

And no the PCAL should not have 2 watered down "A" leagues.

Sounds like proper wisdom prevailed, but what is plan B?

 

[PALbooster]

The CCS had their meeting last night and there were three proposed changes.

1. The first was that the classification system for out of section games be changed. The current system designates opponents as an A team if they are rated 8 or above by Calpreps at season's end. B teams were those rated between -20 and 7.99 and C teams were rated less than -20.

The approved change was that any out of section opponent with a Calprep rating above 0.0 at year end is an A team, Teams with a rating less than 0 but equal or better than -28 are B teams and teams worse than -28 are C teams. This passed and will be in effect for next season.

2. The PCAL proposed they be Awarded 2 A leagues and an additional two automatic play-off berths. This required a 2.3 majority to pass and the vote was 7-6 (I believe in favor) It would have taken 10 votes for this to pass so this motion failed.

3. The CCS agreed that it needs to look at reforming or altering its league classification index (LCI). There was a motion to form an Ad Hoc committee to come up with recommended changes and report those back to the committee - I presume for a vote. This passed. Not clear on when this proposal will be presented.

The CCS's LCI system is highly flawed with circular logic that makes it almost impossible for a league to change status.

Here is the current LCI classifications and league rnakings

2023 LCI. 2024 LCI. AVG Class Cal Prep 2023 Cal Prep 2024 AVG

PAL BAY 3.62 3.993 3.802 A 18.1 19.4 18.7.5
WCAL 3.529 3.650 3.590 A 29.8 29.7 29.75
PCAL- Gabilan 3.4 3.559 3.480 A 19.3 11.8 15.55
BVAL - MHAL 3.176 2.908 3.042. A -5.5. -9.4 -7.45
PAL - DeAnza 3 2.854 2.927 A -3.2 -8.4 -5.8
PCAL - Mission S. 2.708 2.68 2.694. B -8.8 -13.3 -11.05
PAL- Ocean 2.468 2.7 2.584 B -6.4 -8.1 -7.25
BVAL- Valley 2.484 2.57 2.527 B -17.2 -20.1 -18.65
PCAL Mission N 2.452 2.341 2.397. B -20.9 -20.4 -20.65
BVAL- Foothill. 2.311 2.381 2.346. B -22 -25.2 -23.65
PAL- El Camino 2.3 2.228 2.264 B -23.5 -25.2 -24.35
PAL - Lake 2.048 1.918 1.983 C -46 -56.8 -51.4
PCAL- Santa Lucia 1.898. 1.8 1.849. C -31.7 -36.8 -34.25
BVAL - West Valley 1.557 1.517 1.537 C -61 -60.3 -60.65

I think the simplest solution is to just use the Calprep league ratings and then have 3 A leagues (WCAL, Bay, Gabilan), 4 B leagues (DeAnza, Ht. Hamilton, Ocean, Mission South) 4 C leagues (Mission North, Foothill, Valley and El Camino) and 3 D leagues (Lake, Santa Lucia, and West Valley). For those of you that like play-off purity - divisions determined before the season, - You could have all C league and D league champions with 1 at-large in one playoff division. The top two teams from each B league in another play-off division and then the top 16 teams from the A leagues in two divisions (or keep. the OPEN DI for the top 8 teams as it is now) based on their Calprep rankings.

 

[RLS13]

Great info as always @PALbooster, thank you for the update.

I don’t know if what you propose is the simplest solution, but I do like it and I could get behind it.

 

[carmelkyd]

It is simply beyond me how 6 (or 7) could have voted for the PCAL to have two A leagues. Incredible. Political??? As shown on this Board it is virtually impossible to find 12 teams in the PCAL that could be considered A league caliber. Not sure but seems like the mighty Mt. Hamilton league would no longer be the the lowest rated A league in the PCAL if the PCAL was granted a second A league.

 

[FormerD1Backer]

I don't know of a single coach or program in the Monterey area that encourages their student athletes to only play football. I have only heard encouragement to play multi sports. Another false narrative from the Carmel faithful.

I don’t think it’s a false narrative. I think it’s a matter of perspective and the fact that schools with larger populations tend to have fewer multi-sport athletes. In my experience larger schools have so many more kids vying for so few spots on teams that more kids tend to pick a favorite sport or two where they have a chance to make the team and play. In smaller schools whoever tries out often ends up on the roster and the better athletes can play a different sport year round. My last 2 years of High School I played football, basketball and both ran track and played baseball in the Spring season, sometimes having events and games on the same afternoon!

I agree that there aren’t coaches that mandate a kid only play their sport year- round. The best athletes can still play three sports throughout the year and often do at large schools. It’s just not as common at Salinas as it is at Carmel or King City.

 

[Macallan]

The CCS had their meeting last night and there were three proposed changes.

1. The first was that the classification system for out of section games be changed. The current system designates opponents as an A team if they are rated 8 or above by Calpreps at season's end. B teams were those rated between -20 and 7.99 and C teams were rated less than -20.

The approved change was that any out of section opponent with a Calprep rating above 0.0 at year end is an A team, Teams with a rating less than 0 but equal or better than -28 are B teams and teams worse than -28 are C teams. This passed and will be in effect for next season.

That's too bad. Calpreps rating of 8 doesn't help, IMO. If that number isn't 18 or better, it doesn't help WCALs' traditional scheduling of ducking outside the league competition.

 

[thehookup55]

I don’t think it’s a false narrative. I think it’s a matter of perspective and the fact that schools with larger populations tend to have fewer multi-sport athletes. In my experience larger schools have so many more kids vying for so few spots on teams that more kids tend to pick a favorite sport or two where they have a chance to make the team and play. In smaller schools whoever tries out often ends up on the roster and the better athletes can play a different sport year round. My last 2 years of High School I played football, basketball and both ran track and played baseball in the Spring season, sometimes having events and games on the same afternoon!

I agree that there aren’t coaches that mandate a kid only play their sport year- round. The best athletes can still play three sports throughout the year and often do at large schools. It’s just not as common at Salinas as it is at Carmel or King City.

The false narrative is that Gab coaches prefer their kids to NOT play multiple sports so they can form a powerhouse football program while a school like Carmel suffers in developing a football program because kids are forced to play multiple sports.