Competitive equity: Does it make sense for football?
- Thread starter ClayK
- Start date
Thanks ... it's not a simple issue. Keeping teams in divisions by enrollment is an issue; in football especially, school size is an issue.
Not simple at all,I would hate to be responsible for it!
As if the coaches don't already have enough to do to prepare for the upcoming season. Filling holes in the schedule are often tough. And now to figure a schedule that keeps your team in the playoffs/championship within your assigned size division piles on another dimension to coaching duties.
Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.You play to the best of your ability and let the chips fall where they may.
^^^^^This^^^^^
To many "state champs" in my opinion. Much better when it was only 5 and even that may have been to many.
Good article, I think the CIF is striving for competitive balance which is all you can ask for. If I read the article correct, the only change made to this upcoming year would effect the State Bowl matchups?
Everyone wants a fair shot at a State Title, and when you think you're the best in your weight class you want to compete with the best in your weight class. The argument isnt really an argument, Private schools have an advantage, for obvious reasons. So when when public teams get bumped by privates it sounds like sour grapes, but its been an issue that has been around forever across the nation. Some of the coaches interviewed seemed mad but I dont know that the CIF has much power to do anything but tweak and tweak the playoff format and rankings/match-ups.
Do you have any personal suggestions on how CIF should regulate the private v public path to state?
Thanks for the read.
Good article that shows both side of the issue. Really difficult to find a right answer for some schools. Because this is a football forum, that is what I am talking about. For other sports I think it is a bit easier, but because a successful football program requires so much depth it becomes a little more of a difficult discussion.
Private schools like Palma, Modesto Christian and SHP have shown, that despite limited enrollment numbers, they can and will compete with the "big boys". Their administrations have made it a priority. Public schools like Salinas, Milpitas, and Folsom, have the enrollments and programs in place to also compete at an elite "big boys' level. The question is what to do with the schools that do not prioritize football but are also competitive, or that dominate a weak league but can not compete at that elite level?
Schools like Cal, Alverez, Antioch, Camel and Half Moon Bay. All these schools vary in size and tradition, but they have not and probably will not compete with the elite of their section on a annual basis. Some years they may be very good and be placed in a upper division despite not being able to compete.
I do agree that the CIF is on a money grab, but I also believe that most coaches and AD's have the best interest of the player and want to make sure that they face reasonable competition week in and week out.
Right now I think CCS does it best, with 3 Open divisions based on League affiliation (A, B, or C level), enrollment,and power points to represent their 5 Norcal Reps. Yes I know 2 losing teams get to go into the Bowl system, but as a whole I thinks it provides the best opportunities for all the schools to be competitive on an annual basis.
Private schools like Palma, Modesto Christian and SHP have shown, that despite limited enrollment numbers, they can and will compete with the "big boys". Their administrations have made it a priority. Public schools like Salinas, Milpitas, and Folsom, have the enrollments and programs in place to also compete at an elite "big boys' level. The question is what to do with the schools that do not prioritize football but are also competitive, or that dominate a weak league but can not compete at that elite level?
Schools like Cal, Alverez, Antioch, Camel and Half Moon Bay. All these schools vary in size and tradition, but they have not and probably will not compete with the elite of their section on a annual basis. Some years they may be very good and be placed in a upper division despite not being able to compete.
I do agree that the CIF is on a money grab, but I also believe that most coaches and AD's have the best interest of the player and want to make sure that they face reasonable competition week in and week out.
Right now I think CCS does it best, with 3 Open divisions based on League affiliation (A, B, or C level), enrollment,and power points to represent their 5 Norcal Reps. Yes I know 2 losing teams get to go into the Bowl system, but as a whole I thinks it provides the best opportunities for all the schools to be competitive on an annual basis.
I'm not sure why you included Cal in that group. They have consistently been one of the top 5 teams in the NCS over the past 10-12 years. They have played DLS as well as anyone in NCS or NorCal and have played very competitively with everyone else in the section.
That was my point, Strong program, but cant get over the "hump". No state bowl games (that I remember), they cant get past DLS (Nobody else can either). So what do you do with them with equity divisions?
They, in theory, could be the 2nd or 3rd best NCS team and not even get close to a State bowl game if in the same bracket as DLS. CAL Grizzlies:great program, great tradition, how do you reward them, and or rank them?
I can not think of a perfect system. I am not trying to "poke the bear" (pun intended)
They, in theory, could be the 2nd or 3rd best NCS team and not even get close to a State bowl game if in the same bracket as DLS. CAL Grizzlies:great program, great tradition, how do you reward them, and or rank them?
I can not think of a perfect system. I am not trying to "poke the bear" (pun intended)
Amen. Winning a state title in CA used to be more prestigious- even without a true playoff. Too many champs and now we have the lovely addition of losers in the playoffs advancing.
Now CA is no better than Fla (over 8 champs for aprox 560 teams) or Texas (14 champs for over 1,000 team)
They give them out like candy and it cheapens the accomplishment.
New Jersey voted to have public and private school playoffs.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...cle_f33e3926-9d12-11e5-983b-6f399930b26c.html
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...cle_f33e3926-9d12-11e5-983b-6f399930b26c.html
I'm much more familiar with basketball (I do the national rankings for MaxPreps), and the pattern nationwide is to keep public and privates together. Most states that have split them at one point or another have put them back together -- usually due to pressure from public schools. (The reason is that the one year out of four or however many that a public school has what it considers to be a better team than the privates, even if it wins a state public school title, it's considered not as good as the private school champ. Even if it's actually better.)
I like the California system, and I think the nation will move in this direction, but football is very difficult because of the impact of enrollment and depth. As Ryan Reynolds said in the article, I think the committee has to dig deeper and really understand the programs that it's moving up in classification. Depth and size of the players are crucial aspects in football, and not so much in other sports so I think they really need to account for that.
I'd also like to see more transparency from the committee. Why not open meetings when they discuss the seedings? Why make the process a black box? If you're not willing to say something in public, then I'm not sure it's a legitimate reason to justify a decision.
I like the California system, and I think the nation will move in this direction, but football is very difficult because of the impact of enrollment and depth. As Ryan Reynolds said in the article, I think the committee has to dig deeper and really understand the programs that it's moving up in classification. Depth and size of the players are crucial aspects in football, and not so much in other sports so I think they really need to account for that.
I'd also like to see more transparency from the committee. Why not open meetings when they discuss the seedings? Why make the process a black box? If you're not willing to say something in public, then I'm not sure it's a legitimate reason to justify a decision.
They are no different than Pitt, MV, SRV, or Foothill (& Logan in most years) in that respect. But no one is calling for these strong programs to be reclassified to a lower equity division to face D2 or D3 schools (as CVC had been rumored to have done). Freedom broke through that glass ceiling last year winning the NCS public school championship (runner up to the only D1 private) with a fantastic season in what some have referred to as loser plays on.
I don't think they need to do anything beyond that recent development for these other NCS D1 programs to have a chance to show what they can do vs. other stong programs in the playoffs in years they do not happen to be better than DLS. Moving a Cal or Pitt to D2 would not be equitable to anyone.
13 state champions for over 1100 teams is roughly 1 for every 90 don't think that's to many.Before state there were 50 section champions that could claim best in state
I don't mind the number of divisions. Wether they have 13 divisions, 7, or 2, there still isn't a "true" champ, so what difference does it really make?
Especially in football, there's really no way to have a "true" champion. One thing I didn't get into in the story is that some teams now play 15 games -- which is more than most colleges and just one shy of the NFL grind.
Back in the day, the high school season was nine or ten games long, with one postseason game for the top teams.
Even with the expanded (and to my mind, injury-promoting) schedule, there's still no way to run any kind of playoff system. Even if you could narrow the field to 16 Open teams, you'd still be looking at a four-week playoff on top of the Section playoffs.
Basketball is also pushing the envelope, with teens playing 35+ high school games after a packed summer schedule that often includes lots of travel.
Back in the day, the high school season was nine or ten games long, with one postseason game for the top teams.
Even with the expanded (and to my mind, injury-promoting) schedule, there's still no way to run any kind of playoff system. Even if you could narrow the field to 16 Open teams, you'd still be looking at a four-week playoff on top of the Section playoffs.
Basketball is also pushing the envelope, with teens playing 35+ high school games after a packed summer schedule that often includes lots of travel.
It's not a "true champ" with the "Folsom Rule". A true playoff with all the best teams playing elimination games would result in a true champ. Picking the NorCal and SoCal Open participants without a playoff is like the NCAA two team championship game based on polls. 4 teams is a step in the right direction but not a true champ like the NFL produces. The problem with a true champ is a lot of excellent teams would not get trophies or be able to say they played in one of the 13 state championship games.
The NFL is not a good comparison since there is one set of rules that everyone abides by.
In college, there is no true champion since there is a FBS and FCS. You may assume that the FBS team would win every time. But we will never know for sure. There are differences in scholarships, coaches, funding, etc. that create a different level of competitiveness.
We have the exact same thing in high school football. There is a different set of rules between private and public schools. It is completely unfair to the public schools to be compared to schools that recruit, provide scholarships and are not part of the overall public school system (i.e. teachers being unionized and subject to pay scale, or coaches being paid differently than their public counterparts, or student retention/eligibility policies).
The change in the rules that took effect for the 2014 season that created the 'Open' division recognized this fact. Set aside that Folsom would have beaten the University of De La Salle in 2014. The state 'playoffs' are about MONEY, not competition. And keeping the top public schools out of the Open where they would have to compete with the recruiting high schools only results in better games. And a potentially bigger gate.
If there is to be a single champion, they could create a system like the FBS/FCS where the publics and privates play in different playoff brackets. But even if they did that, is it fair to the small school teams? I think they will continue to tweak the flawed systm that they have and they will continue to address the private school issue by managing the matchups and divisions.
Why not do it like Texas? Public and private schools are separated. You have a 8 game season than start your 16 team playoff bracket? The teams that don't make the bracket per division call each other up see if they want to play each other for a 9th game, then do the same thing with another team so you get your 10 games. Or before the season starts let every team know what respected division they'll be competing in for that season. It's not that hard it just takes a little bit of work. You should go into every season knowing who you will possibly see in the state playoffs and not leave it up to a commitee that has no idea about schools that are not powerhouses. Example: how many teams in socal would have heard of Antioch last year if Najee Harris wasn't on the team?
I think it's a bit naive to assume that top public schools don't recruit. I remember back in the day when every Miramonte running back was from Richmond.
Recruiting is part and parcel of high school sports, public or private, girls or boys, football or basketball. And part of the recruiting is driven by the families, who seek out successful programs.
And the flip side is that not all private schools recruit. In fact, most don't, and putting all private schools in the same category -- even if divided by enrollment -- won't really work either, at least in terms of competitive equity.
Recruiting is part and parcel of high school sports, public or private, girls or boys, football or basketball. And part of the recruiting is driven by the families, who seek out successful programs.
And the flip side is that not all private schools recruit. In fact, most don't, and putting all private schools in the same category -- even if divided by enrollment -- won't really work either, at least in terms of competitive equity.
Clay, so you are saying that cheating is "part and parcel of high school sports"!
You do realize that it is against CIF rules for any high school to recruit or have undue influence on a kid for athletic purposes.
And I completely agree that families seek out successful programs, that is NOT recruiting. Having a school that has better academics, better coaches, better facilities, better athletic culture will lure families to want their kids to go there, but that is NOT recruiting.
Recruiting is specifically BANNED for public high schools. They must use athletes that are in their attendance area and show up on campus.
Recruiting is allowed for private schools and many take advantage of this fact. They can pursue and enroll athletes without regard to the student's residence. Private schools are routinely better academically than their public counterparts since they are not subject to the same rules.
The point is that expecting competitive equity between schools that have fundamentally different rules is not intellectually honest. There is no better example than the U of DLS. They have had the most talented team on the field for virtually every game that they have played for decades. And they are very adept at recruiting and cultivating that talent.
Recruiting is allowed for private schools and many take advantage of this fact. They can pursue and enroll athletes without regard to the student's residence. Private schools are routinely better academically than their public counterparts since they are not subject to the same rules.
The point is that expecting competitive equity between schools that have fundamentally different rules is not intellectually honest. There is no better example than the U of DLS. They have had the most talented team on the field for virtually every game that they have played for decades. And they are very adept at recruiting and cultivating that talent.
Recruiting is banned for Public High Schools - TRUE
Recruiting is allowed for Private High Schools - FALSE (same rules for both. No recruiting and No Undue Influence allowed in CIF)
They (Public) must use athletes that are in their attendance area - FALSE (new rule in CIF allows for athletically motivated moves/transfers as of this season)
They (Private) can pursue and enroll athletes without regard to the student's residence - FALSE (You cannot pursue athletes - that is recruiting)
"There is no better example than the U of DLS. They have had the most talented team on the field for virtually every game that they have played for decades. And they are very adept at recruiting and cultivating that talent." - FALSE
Private schools do not need to recruit athletes. Athletes want to go there because of better academics, better facilities, better coaching, better competition, better chance to get into college, etc... With all the anti-private sentiment by public schools, do you not find it odd that you cannot find any of these football programs to get caught recruiting? Dont you think that they would do everything they could to expose it for the last several decades? I absolutely agree that Privates generally have significant advantages over Public schools, but it is not coming from cheating(recruiting).
So then your saying there was no athletically movtivated reason for CVHS to change to CVCHS? They state the reason for the switch was because of class sizes and the private schools are better in academics then public, did they fire their entire teaching staff when they made this change? Highly doubtful....
Also knowing an EX player and parent of a highly regarded private HS and athletic program, answer this for me. Why does it cost some parents 15 to 20 thousand to send their not athlete child to school, where the football or volleyball players parents are paying 1 quarter of that? Why are these programs taking the risk on giving these kids parents breaks on tuition if they haven't scouted and recruited them?
Also knowing an EX player and parent of a highly regarded private HS and athletic program, answer this for me. Why does it cost some parents 15 to 20 thousand to send their not athlete child to school, where the football or volleyball players parents are paying 1 quarter of that? Why are these programs taking the risk on giving these kids parents breaks on tuition if they haven't scouted and recruited them?
I'm unclear on your CVH/CVCHS question - maybe addressing a different post?
As for why it costs some parents more money than others to go to same school? I cant answer for everyone, but the Catholic schools in the WCAL offer a significant percentage of their students financial aid. Most (maybe all) of them use either FACTS or TADS to determine what sort of aid they would get. These organizations are not affiliated with the school and are not aware of any athletic skills of applicants. It is strictly needs based assessment, managed by an outside non-profit firm. When you say why players on Football and Volleyball teams paying less - the reality is that if 25% of all students are on financial aid, it would be reasonable to expect 25% of athletes are also on financial aid. If you suspect that the ratio of financial aid to athletes are greater than to general population, it would be extremely easy to find out for the school and anyone that would investigate it. Keep in mind that the admissions process is blind from the financial aid process. They are managed by different departments and do not overlap in anyway. If you search these forums there are posts on the details of the admissions process and how the athletic departments are not involved in the admission process.
Here is a link to the CIF website rules. Look up Rule 510 "UNDUE INFLUENCE, PRE-ENROLLMENT CONTACT, DISCLOSING PRE-ENROLLMENT CONTACT, ATHLETICALLY MOTIVATED TRANSFERS"
http://www.cifstate.org/governance/constitution/500_Series.pdf
Why is it only NorCal feels it's ok to allow a team that has lost to move on? I'm not aware of any section in southern Cal with this policy. Life isn't fair, you don't always get what you think or feel you have earned. These are lessons kids should learn. Pissing and moaning about fairness, losses, excuses, they have this or that advantage, etc, isn't real life. Sports are great tools for teaching life's lessons, and simply put life's not fair or equal, if it was we all would dunk a basketball, throw 95, hit 500ft. bombs, it's just not the case.
Last edited:
i think it is too many. Same in FL and TX = watered down
just because it is better than having the playoffs end at the section level doesnt mean having 13 champs isnt too many- that is a straw man argument.
5 is about right. CA needs to take the next step and go to a real playoff.
I'm all for giving all levels of schools a chance to play for section/NorCal/state titles, but we've gone too far in this endeavor. In college football, you have all of the bowl games, but the winner of the Pinstripes Bowl doesn't say they are one of the national champions. And that is ok.
DLS recruits? Maybe you'll be the first guy ever to actually provide proof
Round up the usual suspects!
Seriously, recruiting is BANNED much the same way that providing improper benefits to college recruits is BANNED. And yet the NCAA is chock full of examples of this happening. If you believe that there's no recruiting in high school, then you should also expect a fat man in a red suit to be coming down your chimney in December...
Similar threads
