Data Shows Need for CCS to Realign A Leagues - Change Play-off Format

[PALbooster]

The CCS needs to address the issue of competitive balance. While the intent of equity leagues is positive, they just aren’t working at the A league level. They are working fairly well for the B& C leagues. There aren’t enough strong high school programs within the super league structures with the right combination of demographics, commitment to football, good coaching/programs, adequate roster sizes, and school size to make local equity A leagues competitive.

The data shows generally how consistent these Proposed A teams are in both finishing in the top half of their leagues and among the sections top 15 ranked teams over the past nine years.

DeAnza League - Milpitas, Wilcox, Palo Alto and Los Gatos have been finished as the top four teams every year except 2011 where Mountain View came in third, Homestead tied for fourth and Wilcox finished in sixth place and in 2014 where Saratoga finished fourth and Palo Alto slid to fifth place.

Since 2010 League Section Rank
Top 4 Champion Top 15 Top 10 Avg. since 2010
Los Gatos 9 2 7 5 11.0
Milpitas 9 4 5 5 13.8
Wilcox 8 2 6 2 14.2
Palo Alto 8 3 5 4 17.4
All Other 3 0 0 0
This Year: Top 4 vs Bottom 3 record 12-0 Average Score: 44-5
Score difference under 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
# of games 0 2 6 2 2

Gabilan – Palma, Salinas and San Benito have finished no worse than 4th in this league and with the addition of Aptos in the last two years they are rarely challenged by the other four teams in the league. Monterey had a run from 2012 to 2014 where they finished second or third for three straight years and Monte Vista Christian finished second and third in 2015 and 2016. Gilroy and Christopher cracked the top 15 rankings in the section in 2017 competing as B league teams.

Since 2010 League Section Rank
Top 4 Champion Top 15 Top 10 Average Rank
Palma 9 7 7 6 10.7
Salinas 9 3 3 2 19.2
San Benito 9 1 4 0 17.6
Aptos* 2 0 6 3 17.3
Other (top 3 TCAL) 5 0 3 1
Monterey ranked 14th in 2014; MVC ranked 14th in section in 2015; Christopher 15thin 2017 and Gilroy 8th in 2017. * Aptos only in league two years.
This Year: Top 4 vs Bottom 4 record 16-0 Average Score: 45-8.5
Score difference: under 10 10-20 20-29 30-39 40-49
# of games 1 0 3 6 6

PAL-Bay
This league has had a little more success with its equity format. Aragon, Half Moon Bay and Burlingame have been able to put two to three years together where they were very competitive with Burlingame winning a co-championship, HMB winning league last year and Aragon generating three second place finishes. However only Menlo-Atherton, Sacred Heart Prep and Terra Nova have been in the A division all 9 years. In this six team league MA and Terra Nova have never finished worse than 4th and SHP had one year in 5th place finish this decade.

Since 2010 League Section Rank
Top 3 Champion Top 15 Top 10 Avg. Rank
Menlo-Atherton 7 3 5 3 17.8
Sacred Heart Prep 7 3 6 4 12.9
Terra Nova 6 4 6 2 16.8
Other 7 2 6 2
Burlingame has a second place finish and co-championship and ranked 15thin section in 2014
HMB has a second place finish and championship and ranked 13 thin 2016 and 5th in 2017
Aragon has three second place finishes and was ranked 7th in the section in 2017
Menlo School ranked 13th in the section in 2012 and 15th in the section in 2016
This Year: Top 3 vs Bottom 3 record 9-0 Average Score: 42-11
Score difference: under 10 10-20 20-29 30-39 40-49
# of games 0 2 2 3 2

In the three leagues where there is a proposed shift (Deanza/Gabilan/Bay)
Top league vs bottom league record 37-0 Average Score: 44.8 to 8. Only 3 games out of 37 were within 20 points.
Score difference: under 10 10-20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
# of games 1 2 7 15 10 2

The issue isn’t the record, it is the fact that there are so few competitive games. Leagues where these games are significant blow-outs with running clocks aren’t good for anyone. There is a perception that football mismatches often create safety issues. I don’t know if injuries are significantly higher in these games or not, but it is often true that a mismatch is due to the play of one team physically dominating the other based on their superior size, talent, and/or depth.

The proposal is to reduce the number of A leagues in the CCS section from five to three and the number of A teams from the current 37 to somewhere between 18 and 21.

1.You would have seven or eight team WCAL

2.The Gabilan which should be a four to six team league (possible addition of Oak Grove and/or Carmel to Aptos, Palma, Salinas, and San Benito)

3. A 7 or 8 team San Mateo/Santa Clara county A league of the top four DeAnza teams (Los Gatos, Milpitas, Palo Alto, and Wilcox) and top three PAL teams (Menlo-Atherton, Terra Nova and Sacred Heart Prep) and maybe Oak Grove in this northern league. Inclusion and placement of Oak Grove is an open issue due to their geography and recent down trending. All these teams have had a few up and down years but have sustained themselves as A league teams for a decade or more.

Mount Hamilton
The league has been dominated by Oak Grove and only Oak Grove has made a dent in the section rankings this decade although they have been trending down over the past two years. Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Pioneer, and Santa Teresa have stayed in the A league all nine years but a number of different teams have finished in the top half of the league. The proposal would be to either leave this whole league as a B league or only move Oak Grove into the Gabilan or in the northern A league. No other team has been in the Section top 15 more than once this decade.

Since 2010 League Section Rank
Top 4 Champion Top 15 Top 10 Avg. Rank
Oak Grove 9 7 5 3 16.0
Piedmont Hills 7 2 1 1 31.1
Pioneer 5 1 0 0 34.0
Santa Teresa 2 0 0 0 45.4
Others 15 1 3 1
In 2010 Willow Glen ranked #9 in Section from the B league; in 2011 Leland was #14 and in 2018 Independence is #15 in 2018 from the B league
Bottom 3 vs top 5 in 2018 record: 0-15 Average score 38 – 14
Score difference: under 10 10-20 20-29 30-39 40-49
# of games 2 2 7 3 1

WCAL
As mentioned frequently in the WCAL thread the five southern teams have dominated this league. SI and Riordan have each only cracked the top division once in this decade and SHC has done it twice. SI and SHC have much more respectable section rankings. SI has been in the top 20 all 9 years and has an average section ranking of 12.3 (better than all other non-WCAL schools except Palma and Los Gatos) and SHC has been in the top 20 six of nine years with an average ranking of 18.2. Riordan has been outside the top 20 in 8 of the 9 years and has an average ranking of 29.7 .
Since 2010 League Section Rank
Top 4 Champion Top 15 Top 10 Avg. Rank
Serra 9 4 9 9 3.2
Valley Christian 8 3 9 9 4.0
St. Francis 8 3 9 9 4.9
Mitty 7 0 9 8 6.2
Bellarmine 7 3 8 7 6.4
Saint Ignatius 1 0 5 2 12.3
Sacred Heart Cathedral 1 0 3 0 18.2
Riordan 1 0 1 1 29.7
This Year: Top 4 vs Bottom 4 record 15-1 Average Score: 37-7
Score difference: Won under 10 10-20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
# of games 1 0 2 4 4 4 1

Other:
Carmel is the only other team in the section not listed above to be ranked in the top 15 and this year will mark their third time in the past 9 years that they will crack top 15 rankings finishing 12th in 2011, 15th in 2013, and so far 9th in 2018. However, their average ranking for this period is 22.6. They potentially could compete in the Gabilan especially if it only a five team league, but are a pretty small public school usually with a small roster that would probably have trouble competing week in and week out in an A league year in and year out. Similar call on Burlingame who has a similar profile for the PAL/North A League.

 

[PALbooster]

Can't make the formatting work so apologize that the above is hard to read. Here is how the play-offs would work with the above proposal.

With just having 18-21 teams in the A league I would propose that you could have three four team brackets for play-offs with the winners advancing to regionals.

For the remaining 70 to 73 teams in the section you could have 9-12 B and C leagues. You could have the top 16 in two 8 team brackets and have the two winners advance to regionals.

I know that you wouldn't end up with the sections top 5 teams going to regionals but CIF is making the point that the intent of the regionals is to allow broader participation in basically state bowl games (mistake to call them championships) so a broader diversity of team can participate in regionals. In the South they don't pretend they are sending the best teams from the section. The DI southern section 16 team play-off often contains 10 of the state's top 20 teams and only one advances.

Didn't fit above - but here is the average section ranking for the top 30 CCS teams since 2010

Nine year average CCS section ranking:

1.Serra -3.2
2.Valley Christian - 4.0
3.St. Francis – 4.9
4.Mitty - 6.2
5.Bellarmine – 6.4
6.Palma – 10.7
7.Los Gatos – 11.0
8.St. Ignatius - 12.3
9.Sacred Heart Prep -12.9
10.Milpitas – 13.9
11.Wilcox - 14.2
12.Oak Grove - 16.0
13.Terra Nova - 16.8
14. Aptos – 17.3
15.Palo Alto – 17.4
16.San Benito – 17.6
17.Menlo-Atherton – 17.8
18.Sacred Heart Cathedral – 18.2
19.Salinas – 19.2
20.Carmel – 22.6
21.Burlingame -23.0
22.Menlo School – 25.3
23.Aragon – 26.3
24.Riordan – 29.7
25.Half Moon Bay – 29.9
26.Piedmont Hills – 31.1
27.Monte Vista Christian -33.6
28.Leland -33.8
29.Pioneer – 34.0
30.Monterey -35.2

 

[carmelkyd]

Posted this on another board in September:

The Gabilan Division should NOT be an 8 team league. Being a 7 team league means one fewer Seaside, Gilroy or Alvarez would be thrown to the wolves every year. And what is wrong with a 6 team league? The PAL Bay League is a 6 team league. Put Seaside and Gilroy in the Mission Division and move the "lowest" Mission team down to the Cypress Division. Gabilan has 6...Mission 8...Cypress 8. Right there you begin to make things more "equitable".

Over the past 8 years the team at the bottom of the Gabilan/TriCounty league has ended the season with an 0 fer league record. And during the same period, the next to last place team in the Gabilan/TriCounty league has won just 1 league game each year. Wouldn't those two teams have loved to be in a B league?

Starting in 2012, teams have been moved in and out of the Gabilan league. And there have been notable successes. In 2012, Monterey joined the Gabilan and went 5 - 1 in league play. Same for MVC in 2015. But of the 11 teams moved into the Gabilan since 2012, those are the only two teams with winning records. Three teams were moved up to the Gabilan and then went 0 - 6 in league play. Take out Monterey and MVC and the remaining 9 teams had an overall record of just 14 wins and 41 losses. As an 8 team league, teams moved up (or should I say forced up) generally fare miserably.

In addition, set a school size requirement to play in the Gabilan. Must have at least 1,450 students...plus private schools or smaller public schools can petition to be in the Gabilan Division each year. Here is why this is important? We all agree Seaside shouldn't be in the Gabilan...they simply don't have the depth to compete. And over the future years I think most generally agree that declining student interest in playing football is going to make it harder for the small schools to compete. Now this does "force" schools like Gilroy or Alvarez to play in the A league (unless a small school or multiple private schools opt up) but given the size of their schools they should be able to field teams with enough players to make it through a Gabilan league season. Whether they compete successfully is another thing and would make a good topic as to why there are small schools who can and do compete with the big schools. (As part of this thought, eliminate the opportunity for B league teams to opt up for the play-offs. That way if a small school wants to try for a regional play-in game they have to compete in an A league for a full season.)

So as logical as this might be, the question is why won't the Gabilan become a 6 team league? Does it have to do with the number of automatic qualifiers they have...and might lose if they went to a 6 team league? Or how about the thought that scheduling non-league games can be hard to do, and the Gabilan coaches would have to schedule 2 additional non-league games if they go from 8 teams to 6. Whatever the reason, I continue to believe a 6 team Gabilan Division would do a lot to make the Pacific Coast Athletic League more equitable.

 

[PALbooster]

Posted this on another board in September:

The Gabilan Division should NOT be an 8 team league. Being a 7 team league means one fewer Seaside, Gilroy or Alvarez would be thrown to the wolves every year. And what is wrong with a 6 team league? The PAL Bay League is a 6 team league. Put Seaside and Gilroy in the Mission Division and move the "lowest" Mission team down to the Cypress Division. Gabilan has 6...Mission 8...Cypress 8. Right there you begin to make things more "equitable".

Over the past 8 years the team at the bottom of the Gabilan/TriCounty league has ended the season with an 0 fer league record. And during the same period, the next to last place team in the Gabilan/TriCounty league has won just 1 league game each year. Wouldn't those two teams have loved to be in a B league?

Starting in 2012, teams have been moved in and out of the Gabilan league. And there have been notable successes. In 2012, Monterey joined the Gabilan and went 5 - 1 in league play. Same for MVC in 2015. But of the 11 teams moved into the Gabilan since 2012, those are the only two teams with winning records. Three teams were moved up to the Gabilan and then went 0 - 6 in league play. Take out Monterey and MVC and the remaining 9 teams had an overall record of just 14 wins and 41 losses. As an 8 team league, teams moved up (or should I say forced up) generally fare miserably.

In addition, set a school size requirement to play in the Gabilan. Must have at least 1,450 students...plus private schools or smaller public schools can petition to be in the Gabilan Division each year. Here is why this is important? We all agree Seaside shouldn't be in the Gabilan...they simply don't have the depth to compete. And over the future years I think most generally agree that declining student interest in playing football is going to make it harder for the small schools to compete. Now this does "force" schools like Gilroy or Alvarez to play in the A league (unless a small school or multiple private schools opt up) but given the size of their schools they should be able to field teams with enough players to make it through a Gabilan league season. Whether they compete successfully is another thing and would make a good topic as to why there are small schools who can and do compete with the big schools. (As part of this thought, eliminate the opportunity for B league teams to opt up for the play-offs. That way if a small school wants to try for a regional play-in game they have to compete in an A league for a full season.)

So as logical as this might be, the question is why won't the Gabilan become a 6 team league? Does it have to do with the number of automatic qualifiers they have...and might lose if they went to a 6 team league? Or how about the thought that scheduling non-league games can be hard to do, and the Gabilan coaches would have to schedule 2 additional non-league games if they go from 8 teams to 6. Whatever the reason, I continue to believe a 6 team Gabilan Division would do a lot to make the Pacific Coast Athletic League more equitable.

I think you should be able to have 4 or 5 team leagues if it makes sense. It wouldn't surprise me to see MVC make a big push to have a consistently competitive program that could be comfortable in the Gabilan year in and year out.

But outside of MVC I don't see anyone creating a consistent A level team over the next few years. A few of the large public Salinas schools might have potential with the right school and community commitment.

 

[joebl]

I know that you wouldn't end up with the sections top 5 teams going to regionals but CIF is making the point that the intent of the regionals is to allow broader participation in basically state bowl games (mistake to call them championships) so a broader diversity of team can participate in regionals.

PALbooster, can you provide link to article that talks about CIF intent on regionals? I'm curious if they stated this or if you are speculating?

 

[PALbooster]

PALbooster, can you provide link to article that talks about CIF intent on regionals? I'm curious if they stated this or if you are speculating?

This comes from a variety of conversations over the past couple of years with coaches and administrators and not from a single press article.

As you mentioned above - people have taken this with different intent. When there was movement to do state tournaments for lots of sports the concept was to provide a vehicle for best of your size enrollment. With all the issues that have been well articulated between private and publics or just smaller schools with more commitment to a sport it has moved toward same more vague notion of competitive equity which is not well defined.

I don't think the intent was ever to send the 5 best teams from each section, but CIF hasn't defined it and left it to the sections to define. Not surprisingly they have interpreted it in various ways. The CIF, instead of defining it, keeps refining it for the sections, like this modification of having to be a section champion. This will revamp sections that allowed losers in Open divisions to recast their play-offs or leave several top teams at home or some mix in between.

In general the Southern section with their weight drives CIF politics and they would like to see other sections play more by their rules. The Southern section puts the large bulk of their best teams in the top division with only one advancing, leaving lots of opportunities for smaller or less competitive schools to advance to regionals in lower divisions.

 

[SpeedCity51]

I think you should be able to have 4 or 5 team leagues if it makes sense. It wouldn't surprise me to see MVC make a big push to have a consistently competitive program that could be comfortable in the Gabilan year in and year out.

But outside of MVC I don't see anyone creating a consistent A level team over the next few years. A few of the large public Salinas schools might have potential with the right school and community commitment.

I think Monterey can compete at that level with a good coach. The program fell of a cliff after Newton left, which was following the 2014 season. Lusk May be able to get them back to that level as they have definitely taken a big step forward in year one under him, but they will have to improve some more to compete with the big 4 in the Gabilan. We will see.

But anyways, I wholeheartedly agree with your general point that they need to reduce the number of A league teams in the CCS. There are a whopping 38 right now, and that is about double what the number should be. On what planet are Serra and St Francis in the same category as Gilroy, Westmont, and Fremont? That’s just silly.

 

[Chief Iceman]

The CCS has these wonderful things called "Conferences" (North, Central, South). You proposal is good outside the box thinking, but you cant just move schools from one league to another in another conference without going through the realignment process, which occurs every 2 years.

 

[SpeedCity51]

The CCS has these wonderful things called "Conferences" (North, Central, South). You proposal is good outside the box thinking, but you cant just move schools from one league to another in another conference without going through the realignment process, which occurs every 2 years.

Well the playoff format is changing next year. If the CCS feels it is in their best interest to realign this year as opposed to next, they will.

 

[Cal Husker]

Be careful what you ask for. The current system in the CCS is a good one. Look at the diversity of teams that won sections titles last year.
Salinas
Serra
HMB
Christopher
Gilroy
The current system has gotten us closer to isolating the WCAL teams than we ever have. Stinks for the non-WCAL teams in D2 but good for everyone else. Serra, SF, MItty and VC in one division. That is a good thing. Everyone will be complaining again because if we change the system we will get WCAL dominance in all divisions. We will never have a perfect system but this is as close as we have had

 

[joebl]

Be careful what you ask for. The current system in the CCS is a good one. Look at the diversity of teams that won sections titles last year.
Salinas
Serra
HMB
Christopher
Gilroy
The current system has gotten us closer to isolating the WCAL teams than we ever have. Stinks for the non-WCAL teams in D2 but good for everyone else. Serra, SF, MItty and VC in one division. That is a good thing. Everyone will be complaining again because if we change the system we will get WCAL dominance in all divisions. We will never have a perfect system but this is as close as we have had

The current system was set up in such a way that the runner-ups can be chosen to go to Bowl games. With the alleged new rules coming out next year that prevents that, CCS has to revise again. I dont think this 3 Open Playoffs are bad, just think the Point System needs to more accurately reflect strength. Maybe if you drop off some of the weaker A league teams into B, it solves itself.

 

[Chief Iceman]

Well the playoff format is changing next year. If the CCS feels it is in their best interest to realign this year as opposed to next, they will.

Have fun reading this (CCS can't just realign at will)...http://www.cifccs.org/governance/pd...2019/18_Article_IV_Realignment_Print_Copy.pdf

Alignments cycle is already over for 2018. Next one is in 2020 that would take effect in 2022...

A faster change would take Executive Committee establishing new bylaws (process for that as well), which could happen sooner than next cycle.

 

[SpeedCity51]

Have fun reading this (CCS can't just realign at will)...http://www.cifccs.org/governance/pd...2019/18_Article_IV_Realignment_Print_Copy.pdf

Alignments cycle is already over for 2018. Next one is in 2020 that would take effect in 2022...

A faster change would take Executive Committee establishing new bylaws (process for that as well), which could happen sooner than next cycle.

If they want to, they could.

 

[joebl]

Have fun reading this (CCS can't just realign at will)...http://www.cifccs.org/governance/pd...2019/18_Article_IV_Realignment_Print_Copy.pdf

Alignments cycle is already over for 2018. Next one is in 2020 that would take effect in 2022...

A faster change would take Executive Committee establishing new bylaws (process for that as well), which could happen sooner than next cycle.

Conference and League Alignments are not the same thing as how Playoffs or point systems will be handled. So we could still get significant changes to next year post-season. A MN article had already referenced that they were meeting to make changes to address the CIF rule change of not allowing runner-ups.