CIF State Basketball Seeding for the 2017-2018 season?

[coach41]

Our of curiosity, anyone know if the CIF is going to adopt what they do in football and volleyball?

For example, the AAA / San Francisco Section football champs in the past two seasons were put down in Division 6 or some lower division. Not surprisingly, they were beaten soundly.

However, it looks women's volleyball has taken on the same seeding style as football. There's an open division and Divisions 1 to 5. Lowell High of SF is usually a Division 1 school by enrollment but they are in Division 2 (8th seed). Lincoln High of SF is usually also in Division 1 but they were in Division 3 (#4 seed). Both Lincoln and Lowell advanced in their respective divisions on Wednesday. I don't think that has happened in years (if ever). The open division has helped the other schools in the other divisions to compete better. Sucks that many great teams in the open division may not win a state title but it's a trade off.

It would be interesting to see if they do this for basketball. The Lincoln High of SF women's coach told me he thought this might happen. It didn't happen last year but maybe this year? Would give the SF public schools a shot against for equitable competition.

 

[CoachRandal]

Yes the same system will be used for Basketball. I have talked to other coaches who are unaware of this change which was not publicized much by the CIF. Our Volleyball coach had no idea this change was coming until the week before the seeding. If you go to the CIF website there is no explanation of the seeding process and I heard the seeding meeting was a learning experience for the committee.

What is clear is that there are real winners and losers with this new system in terms of opportunity to win a State Championship. Large enrollment schools that have historically underachieved or teams who are upset in the Section semis are rewarded. Another example in Volleyball is San Marin (D2 enrollment) who ended up the #1 seed in Division 5. The losers in this system are the overachieving small schools and teams who win their sectionals. For example, my school University (D5) won NCS D5 and was “rewarded”with the #9 seed in D2 and lost their first game. Lick (D4) overachieved and won NCS D4. Their reward was the #5 seed in D1 and they lost their first game. In the old system these two schools would have been favorites to win State Championships in their enrollment divisions.

Schools may like or hate this new system based on whether it helps or hurts their school but it has some real issues.

Championships should be won by the best teams. The key determinant now will be the luck of the seeding.

Successful and over achieving teams are punished while underachieving teams are rewarded. What lesson is this teaching?

The system could provide an incentive to lose games.

The system cheapens the value of a State Championship at the lower levels and destroys the history of State Champions. How do we compare Champions in the past to current Champions.

Perhaps it is good that some big public schools now have a chance to win a State Championship but how satisfying will it be for a school with 2,000 students to win D5. What Mission did last year winning D3 was inspiring and great because it was hard not because it was easy.

Everybody will have their opinion but I do not Like this new system or any of the “competitive equity” rules that have been implemented. I would rather see State Championships based strictly on enrollment which is an objective measure. You could Give schools a chance to petition up and if there is an open make it by voluntary application. I dislike the CIF forcing schools to move divisions when it is not in their interest to do so.

Champions should be the best teams which should be determined by how they play on the court not by rules made by administrators and seeding committees. In 2015 we lost to Sierra Canyon in D5 and some said it was not a fair match up. I never had a problem with it. If you want to be the best you need to beat the best and even doing our best and losing was a great experience for our players.

 

[coach41]

Thanks for your take coach. I was officiating some games today and talked to a varsity boys coach (i'll leave him unnamed since I don't want to be speaking on his behalf). The particular coach confirmed this new system was in place as well and thought exactly the same as you. However, this coach's team have tended to be underdogs so in a way, he favored the new system. Give's his team a chance to advance.

I don't know if any system would make "everyone" happy. I'd have to take a pretty deep look at things, but were all volleyball section champions put into either Division I or Division II? Lowell was put in Division II and advanced (over University unfortunately).

It's funny that Lincoln (which lost the AAA volleyball championship) was slotted in Division III and as a #4 seed. Most of the time, runner ups are seeded low and travel. Instead, Lincoln (which was undefeated in the regular season) got the same benefit as Lowell with a home game.

Highly unusual processes this year. Be curious how basketball breaks down.

One interesting thing may occur. St. Ignatius boys returns most / all of their players from last season. Mission lost quite a few players but should still run through the AAA. It would have been interesting to see SI / Mission Round 2 in the Norcals. BUT with the new seeing system, this may not happen. That would be disappointing.

 

[coach41]

I think some of the SF Section / AAA women's volleyball teams may not complain about the new seeding process. I went to check the results from tonight. SFS champion Lowell battled #1 seed Carlmont to a 5th game before falling. Tough loss but I think Lowell is happy to play in competitive matches versus getting swept like in years past.

SFS runner up Lincoln swept #13 seed Christian Brothers 3-0 and advanced to the NorCal Semi-Final against the #1 seed Santa Catalina (Monterey).

Looking at the roster of Santa Catalina, the players are relatively small and Lincoln could hang with them. Lincoln doesn't have to contend with a bunch of 6 footers.

I seem to recall that the CIF stated that certain sections could only have one team per division if the section was a certain size (I think the AAA fits). It seemed odd to me that Lincoln was played in Division III and got the #4 seed after losing a title game. Lincoln isn't complaining now. They are one win away from making the NorCal title game.

 

[da real]

One State. One Champion.

Calling the winner of the divisions 2,3,4, 5 tournament a state "champion" is laughable under the current format. It further waters down the division "state champions" after the open.

 

[coach41]

The SF Section / AAA Lincoln Mustangs volleyball team upset #1 seeded Santa Catalina 3-1 to advanced to NorCal Division 3 Finals.

Santa Catalina was the CCS Division V champion versus Lincoln which is Division 1 by enrollment.

SF Waldorf's run was ended by Presentation (San Jose - WCAL / CCS) in Division 4. Presentation was seeded #1 but was 18-21 overall and 0-10 in the WCAL? WOW.

I know the WCAL garners a lot of respect but that is weird.

In any case, let's see how the basketball seedings break down in a few months.