Equity League?

[carmelkyd]

The PCAL equity league structure started as 3 divisions in 2012, and was revised in 2017 to 4 divisions when the SCCAL joined the PCAL. Since 2012, 14 teams have been moved from the A division down to the B division. Clearly the moves have been subjective...decided by committee without an apparent rule set. The cumulative LEAGUE record of those A division teams that went down to a B division was 12 and 77. The following year, in the B division their cumulative league record was 53 and 32. Only 4 of the 14 teams had a losing league record in the B division in the year following their year in the A division. And 3 teams that went down from an A division, won (or tied for the title) the B division title their following year. Furthermore, 4 times a team was elevated in one year and moved back down the following year, while 5 teams went up and then down 2 years later.

Looking at the other side, there have been 15 teams moved from the B division to the A division. They did really well in the B division so they were bumped up. Their league record in their "last" year in the B division was 80 and 10. But were they really ready to compete with A division teams? Or simply cannon fodder? In their year following their elevation their league record was 29 and 70. Only 1 team (MVC) that was bumped from the B division to the A had a winning league record in their first year up in the A division, 2 teams went 3 and 3 in league play while 12 had losing records including 4 teams that went 0 fer in the A division.

So what does this tell us? First I think it suggests that we need rules, not committee decisions. Rules that look at prior season record, mix of seniors and underclassmen on prior season, prior season JV record and perhaps a written statement from affected coaches arguing why a move does or doesn't make sense. And let the league realignment be decided by the league commissioner and not a committee. Second I think the A division should be team limited. Why have 8 or 9 teams in the A division when 4 teams are historically fighting among themselves and feasting on the other 4 or 5 teams in the league. I don't remember what CCS or CIF rules say about the minimum number of teams in any division, but in the PCAL, the number of teams in the A division should be set at the minimum. Nobody wins when a team goes into the season hoping they can get 1 or 2 league wins. Third I do think that school size should be an element of the rules set. Intuitively it should be much easier to re-load when your school has 1,800 students than when your school has 800 students. (If only Alvarez and Alisal had more success in the past, this argument would be easier to make.)

I am NOT against equity leagues. I'm just convinced that things can be changed to make them more equitable.

 

[Cal 14]

The PCAL equity league structure started as 3 divisions in 2012, and was revised in 2017 to 4 divisions when the SCCAL joined the PCAL. Since 2012, 14 teams have been moved from the A division down to the B division. Clearly the moves have been subjective...decided by committee without an apparent rule set. The cumulative LEAGUE record of those A division teams that went down to a B division was 12 and 77. The following year, in the B division their cumulative league record was 53 and 32. Only 4 of the 14 teams had a losing league record in the B division in the year following their year in the A division. And 3 teams that went down from an A division, won (or tied for the title) the B division title their following year. Furthermore, 4 times a team was elevated in one year and moved back down the following year, while 5 teams went up and then down 2 years later.

Looking at the other side, there have been 15 teams moved from the B division to the A division. They did really well in the B division so they were bumped up. Their league record in their "last" year in the B division was 80 and 10. But were they really ready to compete with A division teams? Or simply cannon fodder? In their year following their elevation their league record was 29 and 70. Only 1 team (MVC) that was bumped from the B division to the A had a winning league record in their first year up in the A division, 2 teams went 3 and 3 in league play while 12 had losing records including 4 teams that went 0 fer in the A division.

So what does this tell us? First I think it suggests that we need rules, not committee decisions. Rules that look at prior season record, mix of seniors and underclassmen on prior season, prior season JV record and perhaps a written statement from affected coaches arguing why a move does or doesn't make sense. And let the league realignment be decided by the league commissioner and not a committee. Second I think the A division should be team limited. Why have 8 or 9 teams in the A division when 4 teams are historically fighting among themselves and feasting on the other 4 or 5 teams in the league. I don't remember what CCS or CIF rules say about the minimum number of teams in any division, but in the PCAL, the number of teams in the A division should be set at the minimum. Nobody wins when a team goes into the season hoping they can get 1 or 2 league wins. Third I do think that school size should be an element of the rules set. Intuitively it should be much easier to re-load when your school has 1,800 students than when your school has 800 students. (If only Alvarez and Alisal had more success in the past, this argument would be easier to make.)

I am NOT against equity leagues. I'm just convinced that things can be changed to make them more equitable.

The CCS rule is that a league/division must have at least 6 teams to advance anyone to the playoffs.

That said, any more than 6 in the Gab Division is ridiculous. 8 teams is absurd, but someone has to fill out the division. I don’t know what the solution is.

It does appear that now twice, the overall league has coalesced to the strange idea that it’s difficult to find non-league games for the big 4. That is also a ridiculous notion as there are a lot of leagues with good competition that only have 6 members or that have non-league games into week 5. The rest of the members should not let that argument stand again.

 

[NorCalSportsFan]

The CCS rule is that a league/division must have at least 6 teams to advance anyone to the playoffs.

That said, any more than 6 in the Gab Division is ridiculous. 8 teams is absurd, but someone has to fill out the division. I don’t know what the solution is.

It does appear that now twice, the overall league has coalesced to the strange idea that it’s difficult to find non-league games for the big 4. That is also a ridiculous notion as there are a lot of leagues with good competition that only have 6 members or that have non-league games into week 5. The rest of the members should not let that argument stand again.

Agree 6 teams in that division is probably what it should be (maybe 7 worst case). The usual top 4 (Salinas, Aptos, Hollister and Palma) have high enough profile programs to gather interest from leagues in San Jose and neighboring sections and typically play 1 or 2 higher profile games anyways. Scheduling 5 may be more difficult but it seems the bottom of the division probably can mostly fill their games with other PCAL divisions and the top 4 at least one game in other PCAL divisions. Might also help with the competitiveness of the top 4 for layoffs by improving the strength of schedule instead of each having 5 laugher running clock games and gaining nothing from the experience.

 

[carmelkyd]

Agree 6 teams in that division is probably what it should be (maybe 7 worst case). The usual top 4 (Salinas, Aptos, Hollister and Palma) have high enough profile programs to gather interest from leagues in San Jose and neighboring sections and typically play 1 or 2 higher profile games anyways. Scheduling 5 may be more difficult but it seems the bottom of the division probably can mostly fill their games with other PCAL divisions and the top 4 at least one game in other PCAL divisions. Might also help with the competitiveness of the top 4 for layoffs by improving the strength of schedule instead of each having 5 laugher running clock games and gaining nothing from the experience.

To me 6 is the worst case. There is no reason to go to 7. Sure the big 4 might have to travel further for away non league games but the offset is playing "4 laugher running clock games" and the only ones who benefit from that are the coaches of the big 4 who basically have 4 semi-bye "games" against league opponents. The big 4 in the Gabilan division played 15 games against the bottom 4 teams in that division in 2021. The cumulative score was 678 to 146...or an average score of 45 to 10. Available information shows most of the bottom 4 team's points were scored in the third or fourth quarter.

Here is my six team league. Palma, Salinas, Hollister, Aptos, the winner of the previous season from the B+ league, and Alvarez or Alisal or North Salinas...big enrollment schools (either "best" of them from the prior season or on a rotating basis)...or MVC (small private that has shown the potential to play in an A league but will require greater commitment from the administration to become a football/sports "power"...and I'm not sure they want to do that). Does one of the big enrollment schools get thrown to the wolves...I suppose so but for the life of me I don't understand why they are not better.

 

[Prepwisdom]

Carmelkyd- I think one of the reasons why Alvarez, Alisal and N. Salinas haven't been better is a lack of continuity in the coaching staffs. They seem to be riddled with turnover. The" Big Four" all have entrenched, veteran staffs with an identity and culture well established.

 

[Cal 14]

Carmelkyd- I think one of the reasons why Alvarez, Alisal and N. Salinas haven't been better is a lack of continuity in the coaching staffs. They seem to be riddled with turnover. The" Big Four" all have entrenched, veteran staffs with an identity and culture well established.

That definitely has something to do with it, but how much of the turnover at the other schools have been due to the lack of success?

 

[carmelkyd]

Interestingly, Alisal has had the same HC since 2016, North Salinas since 2018 while Alvarez has had 3 HC's in the past six (including COVID season) years. I don't doubt that HC's have a LOT to do with success or non-success...either in terms of turnover or simply coaching staff ability...I think much has to do with demographics. Alisal has a championship caliber soccer program. Do their best athletes play soccer? When you get down to it, surely long-term success is built up over many years and therefore the football culture becomes well established.