Competitive equity???

[CoachDViks]

Redondo Union just won the D2 State Championship. Congrats BUT if Norcal used “Competitive equity” and ranked teams 1-Whatever I’m puzzled as to understand how RU was ranked 8 overall in the State of CA But was placed all the way into D2.

SERRA #6 in State of CA. (Won D1 state playoffs)
Redondo Union #8 in CA. ( Won D2 state playoffs)

Why weren’t these teams placed into the open?

Seems the best teams are being placed in their original brackets while norcal crammed everyone into the D1?

Well of course besides west campus and we saw that result

 

[LBJ6]

I don't understand how a top 5 team in southern calidornia is playing in D2. The competitve equity formula has some shady business going on inside of it

 

[personalogic]

Shuffling teams in and out of their natural, student population based divisions has never made a lick of sense. It started with bumping teams up based on past performance. Why? Isn't the idea to see who can do the best with similar resources (i.e., student bodies)? So why make a school with a thousand kids compete against a school with two thousand kids? To prove what? To punish them for doing a good job? Even in the context of a bad idea, it was bad execution of the bad idea. This year's team may not compare at all to last year's team. And the higher division may not actually be better - the real power in a section might be concentrated in D3 but under the rules the best D3 team might be bumped up into a weaker D2 division.

Now the whole thing has de-evolved into a random mess where an anonymous committee uses undisclosed standards to sprinkle teams across "divisions" that are not defined except by the list of teams that somehow wind up in them. As things stand we have a number of so-called state champions, but state champions of what? Lucky lottery winners? Even the Open division winners can't claim too much because in all likelihood some of the teams that could have really challenged them pulled softer berths in the numbered divisions.

Who knows to what extent any hanky panky was involved in all this. There's been a fair amount of mud slinging on that point popping up on this board. All we can say is that the way the whole thing is being handled you couldn't create a better scenario for shenanigans. Just the words "competitive equity" tell you somebody is getting hosed.

Scrap the whole thing and go back to population based divisions. Period. And while you are at it, scrap the whole CIF management team as well.

 

[ClayK]

>Isn't the idea to see who can do the best with similar resources (i.e., student bodies)?

If schools with similar student bodies had similar resources, that would make sense -- but enrollment has almost no connection with resources.

The question would be, what factors can be equated with a school's available resources, but no one knows how many scholarships private schools give, or how easy it is to get into magnet schools, or what induces certain eighth graders to attend certain charter schools, and so on down the line.

The fact that Pinewood, with just over 200 students, is nationally ranked and played in the Open final against a school with 600 students should make it pretty clear that enrollment is not the way to determine divisions.

So, again, if not enrollment, then what?

 

[personalogic]

>Isn't the idea to see who can do the best with similar resources (i.e., student bodies)?

If schools with similar student bodies had similar resources, that would make sense -- but enrollment has almost no connection with resources.

The question would be, what factors can be equated with a school's available resources, but no one knows how many scholarships private schools give, or how easy it is to get into magnet schools, or what induces certain eighth graders to attend certain charter schools, and so on down the line.

The fact that Pinewood, with just over 200 students, is nationally ranked and played in the Open final against a school with 600 students should make it pretty clear that enrollment is not the way to determine divisions.

So, again, if not enrollment, then what?

I think where we fail to have a meeting of the minds is that we are looking at different ends of the process. What the Pinewood scenario shows is that if you raise the money, spend it, hire the best possible coach, and commit to a top shelf basketball program over a number of years, you can take your starting "resources" (student body) and create competitive teams. From your point of view, you see everything that has been pulled together over a number of years as the starting "resources".

Let's say everything was precisely and mathematically equal on day one. Then Team A practices and conditions several hours every day for a year, reaching their full potential. Team B waits six months, holds a couple of open gyms, and then goes out for pizza. Do you bump Team A up a couple of divisions so that they can't effectively compete for a title? Do you drop Team B down a couple of divisions so that they can win a basement division championship?

Student population is at least objective. All the other factors you reference as resources can either be overcome if you do the work, or are of nominal significance. For example, the boundary rules are so watered down at this point, and so easily avoided by sophisticated parents, that I think they hardly factor in at all anymore.

In regard to a system using something other than student population, I could live with an NCAA type format. Seed 64 teams and let them play it down to a single champion. Nothing's perfect, but that's about as pure a competitive format as you can get.

 

[ClayK]

Interesting point ... I would take our "starting resources" as where every school stands today. Over time, obviously, adjustments would be made as schools choose to emphasize or de-emphasize basketball and athletics. Now if all schools were starting at zero in terms of coaching, facilities, investment, etc., then enrollment might be a good way to begin.

And enrollment does have the advantage of being objective, but enrollment limited by school boundaries is much different, objectively, than enrollment that can come from an entire school district (Sacramento High, for example, or charter schools, and different still from enrollment that can be drawn from a wide geographic area (private schools). And as you point out, state law requires that schools accept any student if there is room in the school and the student's original district agrees to the transfer, so there are holes aplenty.

No system, in California or elsewhere, will ever work even close to perfectly. There are simply too many variables (we haven't talked socioeconomic or ethnic) to level the playing field. The choices then are to simply ignore the differences and variables and go by geography (objective and contains cost) or enrollment, to name two, or to try and work the level of play of the schools involved when the seedings are done.

 

[coach41]

Enrollment seemingly is the easiest way to start off but just in SF (and presumably all other cities around California and around the country) have different enrollment criteria.

For example, Lowell is a public school but it's a magnet school that just accepts "all students". Lowell is almost like an Ivy League college with their academic criteria for students to get admitted.

My alma mater Wallenberg in SF is a LOTTERY school where kids get picked somewhat randomly (though I hear it weighted toward some neighborhoods that are economically disadvantaged).

We all know this. I was talking to someone about the competitive equity model and the complaints. In his opinion, if people didn't like it, they should just go back to the old Indiana "WINNER" take all model.

In actuality, I think that would be cool. Yes, there would only be ONE state winner and it would probably be a logistical nightmare. But that would end all complaints who was the best team in the state.

 

[ClayK]

The one-division state playoff glows in memory because of "Hoosiers," in part, but the small schools hated it, and it was abandoned in Indiana, and everywhere else, because what was the fun (and we're talking high school sports here) of getting blitzed by 50 by some private school from the big city in the first round? The postseason experience is a very valuable one, as there's so much physical and mental pressure to push through, and it's great for kids to focus on achievable goals and see what has to be done to reach them. Ask the players and coaches in Division VI how they felt about the postseason, and then tell them they can't have it any more ...

Also, the notion that any single-elimination tournament can definitively prove which is the "best team" is, of course, misguided. There's way too much luck involved, from injuries to officiating to one of those nights (ask the Virginia men), and though the winner is always a very good team, it's not always the best.

 

[straightline50]

Is the goal to be in the highest division or to win a state championship? IMO until they completely abandoned the enrollment based model the competitive equity model will be flawed.

The enrollment based model is still used at the section level so any notion by the CIF that it is antiquated is inconsistent with their overall postseason format. While us posters make think that WC played down and won a joke of a state tournament they get to claim a state a title a level up from their enrollment based section division. They are a D4 school that won a D3 state championship. On the surface that sounds real impressive and for the school that is what I would be claiming.

Back to the original question. If the goal is to win a state championship for the team or school then the CIF model is designed to reward teams for losses with the layering of teams from top to bottom. Until the goal is to play in the highest division that will not change.

 

[mkbgdns]

in my mind, the point isn't to "win" any championship, since the vast majority of teams in any tournament, regardless of format, will leave leave the competition with a loss. I like the equity format because it allows 96 Norcal teams to have a postseason playing teams that are at their level of play. obviously lots of kinks to be worked out with the seeding process. postseason becomes a piece of cake, the frosting on top only going to 7 Norcal teams. the state championship has nothing to do with seeding, and norcal and socal tournaments are seeded separately. call the state championship the cherry on top of the frosting. kids who did well during the season get to play on...until they lose.

even MM, their placement carefully engineered by the Orinda Illuminati the past two years, finished their Norcal season with a loss.

 

[Streak One]

I think enrollment based divisions still work well with the exceptions (Pinewood and Eastide Prep) being moved up based on past success. There are only a few of these programs especially when you take out the Open Division teams first.

 

[coach41]

sAlso, the notion that any single-elimination tournament can definitively prove which is the "best team" is, of course, misguided. There's way too much luck involved, from injuries to officiating to one of those nights (ask the Virginia men), and though the winner is always a very good team, it's not always the best.

Of course, I agree with you on that point. I was going to post that Mitty (or other top teams) may not make it as far as they did because in a "one division playoff", there's probably going to be a ton of games leading up to the "state final". Fatigue and other factors you mentioned will play a role.

Heck, look at college basketball. We all focus on the NCAA Division 1 Tournament but there's Division 2 / Division 3 / NAIA and other levels of college ball out there. Heck, there's the NIT, CBI and other tournaments too.

The only different between high school and college is that the high schools haven't figured out how to segmentt the schools (used to be by enrollment, now it's wide open).