Divisions Without "Competitive Equity"

[Mr. Direct]

I was thinking what would each division look like this year without the "competitive equity" seeding?

Top 8 teams in each Division:

D1 = Heritage, CVC, Palo Alto, Dublin, Central, Jesuit, Los Gatos, Berkeley
D2= Las Lomas, Alameda, St. Francis, St. Mary's Stockton, Moreau, Mitty, Grant, Serra
D3=Pleasant Valley, St. Ignatius, Campolindo, Riordan, Foothill, Placer, Sanger, Mission
D4= Menlo, Central Catholic, SPSV, St. Joe's, Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz, St. Mary's, Stuart Hall
D5= University, Branson.

The teams in Bold got moved up at least one division. St. Ignatius, SPSV, St. Joe's, University and Branson moved up two Divisions. Los Gatos moved down a division. Branson lost to a D2 team. University lost to a D3 team. SI lost to a D1 team. SPSV lost to a D3 team, St. Joe's lost to a D1 team (Woodcreek) who dropped down 3 Divisions.

IMO the "competitive equity" helped the D1 bracket with depth and really hurt the other divisions. We would've had great matchups in those divisions without this change. I'd rather see Menlo represent D4 and have a real shot at a state title. This is the best team that school has had in ages. Just let them play in their division. Ditto for D5 where this should've been a year for Branson or University to get a state championship. In D3 SI, Campolindo and Riordan shouldv'e been given a shot in their division just like Pleasant Valley was given. If you are not an "Open" caliber team, play in your division. Just my two cents.

 

[ayalar09]

This is a very interesting topic. So the school I root for has had a nice place in D4 for most of the year. If they can win a State Championship, and return their entire starting 5, shouldn't that team have the ability to challenge itself even further? Maybe D3 next year or D2?

I'm sure teams that were D5 or D4 weren't upset being put in D3. Why want something easy, when you can make it a challenge. Kids learn more lessons from that.

I will say this, I don't like teams from D1 or D2 being moved backwards. It's not horrible, but I think they should only allow a team to move up, not down.

Beat the best competition put in front of you. That's really all a team can possibly do. Personally I feel with many lower seeds pulling upsets, this new format seems to give more teams a chance, as opposed to before where there would be one juggernaut destroying all the teams by 20+ points.

 

[Streak One]

I think enrollment based divisions are fine but then adjust for program success. I think that gives a pretty true breakdown of teams especially if all sections follow the same format (this is a big issue plaguing the game now)

 

[superle]

I am for school enrollment divisions. At the beginning of the year though. They need to ask coaches. Give them the option to play up. Once you say you want to go from a Division 3 to 2. You have to stay there for that season...having said that competitive equity has worked out better then I thought it would...in future years though. I think some programs will schedule a bunch of cupcakes in preseason to try and position themselves later in the year for that run...

 

[CoachRandal]

As a high school coach my teams are directly affected by this system. I have been an outspoken critic of this “competitive equity” system before and during the season. I remain a critic at the end of the season. At risk of angering the people at CIF and being called a sore loser, i will reiterate my problems with it.

First, it cruelly punishes success and rewards failure. The best teams who in most cases worked the hardest and cared the most were all bunched in the top divisions. Half of them lost in the first round and then had to watch lesser teams play on. Similar outcome in 2nd round on. Fair or cruel?

Second, it similarly creates incentives to lose in the section playoffs. Too many examples to cite but a few include:

- SPSV and SJND make finals of NCS D4 and are placed in D2 where they lose in first round whereas St. Mary’s and SH lose in Semis and Qtrs and are placed in D4 and play in NorCal Finals.
- HMB wins in ccs D4 and gets placed in D3 while Santa Cruz loses and is the 1 seed in D4.
- Urban girls win NCS D5 and are rewarded with 13 seed in D3 and lose in first round while uhs loses in semis and is 1 seed in D5.
- etc.

Third, Politics in the placement? I think the system was primarily designed to make it easier for teams from weaker sections to win in NorCals but should this carry over to seeding? Notably Pleasant Valley Boys which has a great team (I know first hand) won the D3 Northern Section easily. They are actually a D2 enrollment school with 1800 students but have to play D3 in the North since there are not any other D2 schools in the North. Based on computer ranking they should have been placed in D1 and considered for open but instead were left in D3 and romped to the State finals winning all games by big margins. Wasn’t the system designed to avoid scenarios like this?

- Moving teams down too far? - no team has control of where they are placed and are to be commended for their efforts. That being said it is hard to not comment on the Lowell girls who are a 2,700 enrollment school playing in the D5 state championship game after beating weak to mediocre teams from schools with less than 400 students. Note good small enrollment schools like Eastside, Urban and of course Pinewood were moved up. Are “Championships” at the lowest levels worthwhile accomplishments when there is this much disparity in enrollment?

- Socialism in sports? This system takes the opportunity to win a State Championship from the best teams and gives it to the weaker teams and calls it “Equity”. Is this “fair” or socialism? America has always thrived on free enterprise, competition and property rights. What are we teaching with this system? To me it is un-American.

In conclusion there are still winners and losers with this new system but the primary determinant is the rules and seeding placement. I prefer a system where the best teams win the championships and it is determined by the players. I prefer a straight enrollment based system. If you lose to a better team that is a lot easier to accept and respect in stead of losing due to rule makers making rules and implementing rules. For the record I also think the competitive equity rules within NCS are wrong but do not want to address that now. I am ok with an Open Division as long as it is voluntary.

From what I hear the CIF is committed to this new system and we will have to live with it. Regardless my teams will always work their hardest to do their best.

Good luck to all the Northern Region teams in the State Finals!

 

[colhenrylives]

The new system is flawed. The old system was flawed. However, one not-so-hidden agenda item in the switch to "competitive equity" is to squeeze as many private/parochial programs into the higher brackets to compensate for the fact that they operate with extremely loose, not to say zero, enrollment restrictions. Public schools, on the other hand, have to live with strict enrollment rules.

 

[ayalar09]

- SPSV and SJND make finals of NCS D4 and are placed in D2 where they lose in first round whereas St. Mary’s and SH lose in Semis and Qtrs and are placed in D4 and play in NorCal Finals.
- HMB wins in ccs D4 and gets placed in D3 while Santa Cruz loses and is the 1 seed in D4.
- Urban girls win NCS D5 and are rewarded with 13 seed in D3 and lose in first round while uhs loses in semis and is 1 seed in D5.
- etc.

So i'll only come from the perspective of a SHHS fan. I think if you asked the Coaches of SPSV and SJND, if they were upset they got put in Division 2, I think neither would be. SJND is a historical program, who has been in the Open Division before. So one could argue Division 2 is a step down for them, even though they had a fantastic year. SPSV beat Las Lomas. I think SPSV lost to an improving Riordan team, that mind you Stuart Hall nearly beat earlier this year pre-conference.

I could see your point with a school like Lowell going from D1 to D5, but I think your argument about the boys division is a little bit flawed. Personally, my Stuart Hall Knights are playing in the D4 Championship tomorrow with a team that has no seniors in the starting lineup. They were placed a little bit low as a 9 seed if you ask me, but that is neither here nor there. This team has battled for the last four games and overcome tons of adversity.

My conclusion would be I think teams should be able to move up from D4 to D3 or D2 or even the Open if good enough. But I don't think teams should move back I.E a D1 team moving to D3 or D4. Would that work for everyone?

 

[MadHatter11]

So i'll only come from the perspective of a SHHS fan. I think if you asked the Coaches of SPSV and SJND, if they were upset they got put in Division 2, I think neither would be. SJND is a historical program, who has been in the Open Division before. So one could argue Division 2 is a step down for them, even though they had a fantastic year. SPSV beat Las Lomas. I think SPSV lost to an improving Riordan team, that mind you Stuart Hall nearly beat earlier this year pre-conference.

I could see your point with a school like Lowell going from D1 to D5, but I think your argument about the boys division is a little bit flawed. Personally, my Stuart Hall Knights are playing in the D4 Championship tomorrow with a team that has no seniors in the starting lineup. They were placed a little bit low as a 9 seed if you ask me, but that is neither here nor there. This team has battled for the last four games and overcome tons of adversity.

My conclusion would be I think teams should be able to move up from D4 to D3 or D2 or even the Open if good enough. But I don't think teams should move back I.E a D1 team moving to D3 or D4. Would that work for everyone?

Only question I have is with not allowing teams to move down, now with the competitive component it ranks teams placing them in their divisions (if I am getting this correctly).

For example, Lowell boys are D1 and lost their section championship, if they are not able to move down, they take away as spot from a team that should be in D1. I just feel that wherever the committee places teams deal with it, play your games, make a run. One thing that I think MAY start occurring, are team softening up their pre-season schedule or other things have a chance to be placed higher in a lower division then placed lower in a higher division. The HMB and Santa Cruz example, where Santa Cruz lost their section but was seeded higher in a lower division then HMB. Or Lincoln (SF) and Lowell girls.

Maybe if a team makes their section championship you stay in your enrollment division for NorCals. Unless there is a team that makes a run into the section championship game but cannot compete in their enrollment division for NorCal. Maybe then you allow that team to move down divisions. You could allow the section semifinalist to stay in their enrollment division but then you allow the at-large teams as the only teams that can move up and down divisions for NorCal. I think the competitive equity is good for the upper divisions, but waters down the lower divisions.

Possibly, just rank the top 24 teams and place them in Open and D1, then have D2-D5 by enrollment having the D1 schools who do not make the Open or D1 dropping to D2. At least you have the D1 schools just dropping down a division to D2, but then you could possibly overcrowd the D2 bracket, then some D2's will have to move down to D3 and etc. Just trying to come up with other solutions.

 

[von60118]

Everybody always seem to make an argument when the seeding doent go their way or they lose early. Sheldon is the only public school that has been put in the open every year except for the witch hunt year when they didnt make the playoffs. They beat the Pg team 3 times in 2013 and they won the D1 state title that year. You cant have it both ways if your team is good you should have to beat the best to be considered the best. You think Pinewood girls ,Modesto Christian and Capital would not mind playing in the lower divisions.

 

[damim]

Lower divisions are meant for smaller schools with limited enrollment to compete against each other. Sometimes lightning strikes and these smaller schools have dominant teams and they'll move up to be challenged. Moving Branson and University up is fine with me. They may be D5 due to enrollment, but we all know they have advantages the Colfax's and Argonaut's of the world don't being private schools. This isn't about the "everybody gets a trophy" idea which I'm completely against, but it's about leveling the playing field in the state tournament in each division. If you want to really eliminate the competitive equity thing then go to a 1 division state tournament for everybody and one champion. Just my 2 cents...

 

[Fentons Cream]

Ive been watching the CIF try to throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks for the last decade. Every few years its something new, and when the schools, coaches and players get use to the new system, they create another one. It tough because of the uncertainty of divisions, opponents, scheduling and league issues.

For example Moreau has the enrollment of a D4 school. In 2014 after they defeated Salesian to go to the D4 state championship the next year they were pulled in D3. They lost to O'Dowd the next year in the D3 Championship game and were still pulled in the Open Division. The following year they won D3 title and again were pulled in the Open Division. The year following that they were put in D2. They won the D2 regional championship and lost in their second state title game. This year they were D2 again and fell to Las Lomas. Next year if they have success (12 of 15 returning) they will be D1 or possible Open Division? This was because of the point system and moving teams up a division based on recent success. They still have the enrollment of a D4. If you are them how do you plan your preseason schedule? Who to you play? How will you qualify for playoffs? They have played in D4, D3, D2, and the Open in the past 5 years. I think this is crazy.

How can your boys program be in a different division than your girls? This is unbelievable to me. If I have a son and daughter who play at Miramonte, I could be going to games for my daughter on Friday night (open), on Wednesday night for my son (D3), and then championships could be played on different days in different counties. Open (Santa Clara), D3 at host schools as far up as Eureka. I know girls and boys programs are completely different but logistically from a admin supervision and student attendance stand point this just makes absolutely no sense at all.

The one thing that was learned form this years competitive equity experiment is that you need to play really good in November and December, forget about your league, try to win league playoffs (if you have them), and loose before the finals or in finals of your division. That will get you a good seed in one of the divisions. But if you are a good team all November and December, win your league, win your league playoff if applicable, and win your section championship. If your are not in the Open, you will be a 5-9 seed in Division 1. Congratulations..... for all your hard work during the season your reward is to travel to Heritage or Palo Alto, or Jesuit round 1.

Just go ahead and do what this whole thing is designed to do anyway: Put the Privates in their own separate divisions, put the publics in their own separate divisions, and put the small schools (that are not private) in their own divisions and get it over with.

Im sure the privates will be happy they are up against other privates and will build rivalries like WCAL and CAL.

The publics will be happy because they will have opportunities to win consistently at the divisional level.

The CIF will be happy because their are more games which means more revenue.

 

[raiderjohn]

There are a couple options. Go back to the old 80s-90s method, with some changes. The CIF will rank all schools by enrollment, on a 4 year cycle. Schools will then have the chance to apply up to Division 1. If approved the school for all sports will be considered a Division 1 school for the 4 year cycle.
Another option is to go with 5 divisions + a private school division. Those in the 5 division public school classification can apply to move up to Division 1 for all sports.

 

[SF_Mikey]

There are no perfect systems but after getting an initial taste of what competitive equity is - I'm not a huge fan. Any NorCal or State Championship banners post-2017 other than D1 or Open need to have an asterisk next to it with the asterisk getting progressively BIGGER as we slide down the scale to D3 / D4 / D5 since they are so watered down....

As Coach Randy pointed out (great post BTW!)- it makes zero sense for Pleasant Valley to remain in D3 and Stuart Hall was rewarded for losing to St Mary's in NCS.

My preference would be to go back to enrollment based divisions with a twist that private schools play up a division or two in NorCals. That would help level the playing field a bit.

 

[Marcskit]

As a high school coach my teams are directly affected by this system. I have been an outspoken critic of this “competitive equity” system before and during the season. I remain a critic at the end of the season. At risk of angering the people at CIF and being called a sore loser, i will reiterate my problems with it.

First, it cruelly punishes success and rewards failure. The best teams who in most cases worked the hardest and cared the most were all bunched in the top divisions. Half of them lost in the first round and then had to watch lesser teams play on. Similar outcome in 2nd round on. Fair or cruel?

Second, it similarly creates incentives to lose in the section playoffs. Too many examples to cite but a few include:

- SPSV and SJND make finals of NCS D4 and are placed in D2 where they lose in first round whereas St. Mary’s and SH lose in Semis and Qtrs and are placed in D4 and play in NorCal Finals.
- HMB wins in ccs D4 and gets placed in D3 while Santa Cruz loses and is the 1 seed in D4.
- Urban girls win NCS D5 and are rewarded with 13 seed in D3 and lose in first round while uhs loses in semis and is 1 seed in D5.
- etc.

Third, Politics in the placement? I think the system was primarily designed to make it easier for teams from weaker sections to win in NorCals but should this carry over to seeding? Notably Pleasant Valley Boys which has a great team (I know first hand) won the D3 Northern Section easily. They are actually a D2 enrollment school with 1800 students but have to play D3 in the North since there are not any other D2 schools in the North. Based on computer ranking they should have been placed in D1 and considered for open but instead were left in D3 and romped to the State finals winning all games by big margins. Wasn’t the system designed to avoid scenarios like this?

- Moving teams down too far? - no team has control of where they are placed and are to be commended for their efforts. That being said it is hard to not comment on the Lowell girls who are a 2,700 enrollment school playing in the D5 state championship game after beating weak to mediocre teams from schools with less than 400 students. Note good small enrollment schools like Eastside, Urban and of course Pinewood were moved up. Are “Championships” at the lowest levels worthwhile accomplishments when there is this much disparity in enrollment?

- Socialism in sports? This system takes the opportunity to win a State Championship from the best teams and gives it to the weaker teams and calls it “Equity”. Is this “fair” or socialism? America has always thrived on free enterprise, competition and property rights. What are we teaching with this system? To me it is un-American.

In conclusion there are still winners and losers with this new system but the primary determinant is the rules and seeding placement. I prefer a system where the best teams win the championships and it is determined by the players. I prefer a straight enrollment based system. If you lose to a better team that is a lot easier to accept and respect in stead of losing due to rule makers making rules and implementing rules. For the record I also think the competitive equity rules within NCS are wrong but do not want to address that now. I am ok with an Open Division as long as it is voluntary.

From what I hear the CIF is committed to this new system and we will have to live with it. Regardless my teams will always work their hardest to do their best.

Good luck to all the Northern Region teams in the State Finals!

As a high school coach my teams are directly affected by this system. I have been an outspoken critic of this “competitive equity” system before and during the season. I remain a critic at the end of the season. At risk of angering the people at CIF and being called a sore loser, i will reiterate my problems with it.

First, it cruelly punishes success and rewards failure. The best teams who in most cases worked the hardest and cared the most were all bunched in the top divisions. Half of them lost in the first round and then had to watch lesser teams play on. Similar outcome in 2nd round on. Fair or cruel?

Second, it similarly creates incentives to lose in the section playoffs. Too many examples to cite but a few include:

- SPSV and SJND make finals of NCS D4 and are placed in D2 where they lose in first round whereas St. Mary’s and SH lose in Semis and Qtrs and are placed in D4 and play in NorCal Finals.
- HMB wins in ccs D4 and gets placed in D3 while Santa Cruz loses and is the 1 seed in D4.
- Urban girls win NCS D5 and are rewarded with 13 seed in D3 and lose in first round while uhs loses in semis and is 1 seed in D5.
- etc.

Third, Politics in the placement? I think the system was primarily designed to make it easier for teams from weaker sections to win in NorCals but should this carry over to seeding? Notably Pleasant Valley Boys which has a great team (I know first hand) won the D3 Northern Section easily. They are actually a D2 enrollment school with 1800 students but have to play D3 in the North since there are not any other D2 schools in the North. Based on computer ranking they should have been placed in D1 and considered for open but instead were left in D3 and romped to the State finals winning all games by big margins. Wasn’t the system designed to avoid scenarios like this?

- Moving teams down too far? - no team has control of where they are placed and are to be commended for their efforts. That being said it is hard to not comment on the Lowell girls who are a 2,700 enrollment school playing in the D5 state championship game after beating weak to mediocre teams from schools with less than 400 students. Note good small enrollment schools like Eastside, Urban and of course Pinewood were moved up. Are “Championships” at the lowest levels worthwhile accomplishments when there is this much disparity in enrollment?

- Socialism in sports? This system takes the opportunity to win a State Championship from the best teams and gives it to the weaker teams and calls it “Equity”. Is this “fair” or socialism? America has always thrived on free enterprise, competition and property rights. What are we teaching with this system? To me it is un-American.

In conclusion there are still winners and losers with this new system but the primary determinant is the rules and seeding placement. I prefer a system where the best teams win the championships and it is determined by the players. I prefer a straight enrollment based system. If you lose to a better team that is a lot easier to accept and respect in stead of losing due to rule makers making rules and implementing rules. For the record I also think the competitive equity rules within NCS are wrong but do not want to address that now. I am ok with an Open Division as long as it is voluntary.

From what I hear the CIF is committed to this new system and we will have to live with it. Regardless my teams will always work their hardest to do their best.

Good luck to all the Northern Region teams in the State Finals!

Coach Randal- You know the difference between Capitalism and Socialism?
In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Socialism, it's the other way around.

Here's wishing you great hoops

 

[youseechief]

The CIF doesn't care what any of us think. The reality is that the lower division games aren't heavily attended and no one cares if it's not heavily attended by st joes fans or pleasant valley fans. They simply want new faces in the "state championship." From their perspective, they got competitive games and new teams in the final. The CIF would see it as a win. They don't care if the perennial powers beat each other up. They are fully aware that there is only 1 state champion and 5 teams who will simply end their season with a win. The same number of people will attend and this thread will continue.

 

[coach41]

So the SF Section / AAA basically does a form of competitive equity in their league. The 14 or so varsity teams in both boys and girls basketball are split into Division 1 and Division 2. Division 1 gets more playoff spots (top 6) and Division 2 gets the other spots (top 2). The Divisions DO NOT CROSS OVER.

The AAA used to do a round robin between all schools in the league. The downside is the small schools in the AAA (which is more a small school league than a big school league these days) would get smashed.

So the restructuring helped the smaller schools remain competitive. Downside is the 2 division don't play each other and when you get into the playoffs, that could be a competitive disadvantage.

For the boys, KIPP emerged as the top boys team from Division 2 and upset Division 1's Lincoln. But there weren't too many surprises in the boys side since Mission was the top team.

For the girls, there were actually some competitive playoff games across the divisions unlike years past. The AAA has usually been Lowell, Washington and Lincoln. But Mission and Leadership girls have had solid teams the past few seasons though it will be seen if they can sustain.

The downside to this setup on both sides? The lower tier plays in Divisions get in with some ugly records. In fact, I believe (not 100% sure) that ICA in girls (at -10 in league) did not get included in the playoffs though I think originally all teams in Division 1 would get in.

The AAA would then move the top 2 playoff teams from Division 2 to Division 1 and drop the bottom 2 teams in Division 1 to Division 2.

This is hard (especially in the AAA) when talent can come and go very suddenly. You could be a stud team one year, lose all your players to graduation and you're going to get beat up next season. Or you could suck one season, get bumped to Division 2 and pick up a few studs and dominate.

Could the CIF do something like this? For example, Lowell girls cruised to the D5 State Basketball Final. Would that be taken into consideration next season that they don't go back to D5 and instead get pushed to D4 (at minimum). Lowell could be better next season or they could be worse. But that keeps teams moving up and down the ladder with some logic rather than taking it season by season and making a educated guess?

Just a thought.

 

[Streak One]

I think the model will continue to evolve so teams don't move down (past success) but there will always be issues. This will NEVER happen, but I wonder if having three state titles (Open, D1, D2) and have the rest of the divisions play to just NorCal like D6 does. Would incentive scheduling tough and winning.

 

[Straight8]

Great season for Las lomas but this whole competitive equity mess will just kill
norcal in these state final games.I don' think Las lomas would have had a problem
being crowned d2 state champs had they been placed in there enrollment division.

What if there weren’t any changes this year and the old system was in place who would play where in Sacramento this weekend?

D1 Palo Alto
D2 Las Lomas
D3 Pleasant Valley, Chino
D4 Central Catholic, Modesto
D5 University, San Francisco

 

[ayalar09]

@Straight8 The only division I think a team out of that group would have done better in, is University in the Division 5 division. Stuart Hall there too as the Norcal Champion Argonaut, they beat by 40+ points.

Palo Alto would have gotten smoked by Chino, Las Lomas would have gotten smoked by Crossroads, not sure about divisions 3 or 4, but I bet not much of a difference either.

Also remember at one point Sierra Canyon was a D5 school. Playing in the D5 championship all the time. And then eventually got moved up. If you want to see a mismatch watch D5 Sierra Canyon a couple years back just beating on teams.

I'll conclude by saying I will stick with my original argument. Teams should only be allowed to move up a Divison (i.e 4 to 3) and not down a Division (i.e 3 to 4).

 

[Streak One]

I don't think Las Lomas would get smoked by Crossroads. They have a stud in O'Neal, but overall the team wasn't really special. If Alameda makes free throws at an average clip, they probably win the game

 

[SF_Mikey]

I don't think Las Lomas would get smoked by Crossroads. They have a stud in O'Neal, but overall the team wasn't really special. If Alameda makes free throws at an average clip, they probably win the game

I talked to some parents of Alameda players after the game and they weren't overly impressed with Crossroads and thought they had played better teams this year.

 

[Mr. Direct]

@Straight8 The only division I think a team out of that group would have done better in, is University in the Division 5 division. Stuart Hall there too as the Norcal Champion Argonaut, they beat by 40+ points.

Palo Alto would have gotten smoked by Chino, Las Lomas would have gotten smoked by Crossroads, not sure about divisions 3 or 4, but I bet not much of a difference either.

Also remember at one point Sierra Canyon was a D5 school. Playing in the D5 championship all the time. And then eventually got moved up. If you want to see a mismatch watch D5 Sierra Canyon a couple years back just beating on teams.

I'll conclude by saying I will stick with my original argument. Teams should only be allowed to move up a Divison (i.e 4 to 3) and not down a Division (i.e 3 to 4).

Menlo or St. Pats likely would’ve won that D4 game. Las Lomas would’ve won that D2 game. And Sierra Canyon is in OPEN. To simplify this entire process, If you aren’t an OPEN caliber team just play your enrollment division.

 

[relittleton]

So many new teams in playoffs. I think the picture is starting to become a little clearer...

First the rule change to allow players to transfer to other high school for athletic reasons. The Norcal commish voted against this.

So how do you slow down the rate of players transferring out of school?

Show them that their school has a chance to make playoffs.

I can’t help to think it could be personal. I maybe reaching but there’s gotta be a better reason.

Just a thought...