Equity move is working
- Thread starter colhenrylives
- Start date
Colonel Henry, sir. Did you happen to watch the D2 girls "Championship" between Bonita Vista High (Chula Vista) and Central (Fresno)?
For either of these schools to claim a 'CHAMPIONSHIP' of anything is well, pathetic. Two horrible teams with absolute no talent, no coaching, no nothing. The only thing this competitive equity do is ensure that schools with absolute no business playing for any titles get to do so.
I'm sorry. The system is horrendous and ensures that not only mediocrity rules, but rather than a school of whatever size it happens to be can win the Championship of schools ranked between 141 and 172. Do the math for yourself.
For either of these schools to claim a 'CHAMPIONSHIP' of anything is well, pathetic. Two horrible teams with absolute no talent, no coaching, no nothing. The only thing this competitive equity do is ensure that schools with absolute no business playing for any titles get to do so.
I'm sorry. The system is horrendous and ensures that not only mediocrity rules, but rather than a school of whatever size it happens to be can win the Championship of schools ranked between 141 and 172. Do the math for yourself.
The Bay Area Basketball Coaches Association was concerned that the NCS was considering going to a straight competitive equity model. We were given a couple minutes for public comment at the start of the NCS SAC meeting today. I have included below an email we circulated to our members with our position on this issue.
PERFECT LETTER. As I have personally coached in the CCS system, I absolutely agree that it works very well. At Burlingame, we were the #2 seed in Open Division and although we failed to win our opening game, it was a great experience. I am in full agreement that going to the CE system for NCS would be a complete disaster.
There is no great solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I too am a proponent of public schools but really the "problem" that you are getting at is that the private schools bring in the best players, depriving public schools of talent. That isn't ever gonna change and is only becoming more prevalent it seems. Public schools have two options, coach up the players they got (and maybe set up a youth development program) and compete at the highest level they can, or whine that the private schools are stealing their players and give up and not be good at anything. But yeah, if I am watching a game between a private school and a public school I am pulling for public 100 % of the time
I am mostly against CE in the NCS for the reason that we should want to send our best teams to NorCals and our lower division teams would get smashed if we went full CE. But i have to disagree with the statement that teams will automatically fail when moved up levels and think their would be a lot of value to being challenged in the short term, but I think long term is where the issue comes in because if a team has a long period of success and then changes coaches or goes through a little rough patch, it could be a few relegations before that team is able to find success again.
Could it be:
1) They like other sports?
2) The kids in that area with hoops game ending up at privates?
Your guess is as good as mine, but those two are likely choices...
This is a tough topic to really type up on a message board. My thoughts are that kids don’t get taught the beauty of basketball when they are young and by the time they get to high school it’s tough to catch up. Why? There’s so much pressing and fast breaking that really only the most athletic/aggressive kids are going to thrive.
Especially on the girls side. I’ve seen some freshmen high school teams comprised of a few girls that can play but many that are out there because the team needed players. When the game starts the opponent presses gets the turnovers and just like that it’s 18-3 at the end of one. But hey they are a press & fast break team so they will keep it up. If the weaker team doesn’t like it they can get in the gym the next day and work on their game. Or they can think it sucks to play basketball and never bother to move on to jv.
Don’t get me wrong it’s fun to watch the fast break but do games really need to end up 60+ to 11 and the starters firing three pointers and playing well into the 4th quarter?
Especially on the girls side. I’ve seen some freshmen high school teams comprised of a few girls that can play but many that are out there because the team needed players. When the game starts the opponent presses gets the turnovers and just like that it’s 18-3 at the end of one. But hey they are a press & fast break team so they will keep it up. If the weaker team doesn’t like it they can get in the gym the next day and work on their game. Or they can think it sucks to play basketball and never bother to move on to jv.
Don’t get me wrong it’s fun to watch the fast break but do games really need to end up 60+ to 11 and the starters firing three pointers and playing well into the 4th quarter?
many varsity teams end up that way as well. all you need is 2 girls that can dribble and 1 girl who can shoot. then press press press... doesnt need great coaching
I think you are confusing a healthy debate on whether or not Equity is working with being upset. Just because people are weighing in on whether or not it is working doesn’t mean they are upset or complaining.
I got called an a$$hat elitist for this in another thread, but I agree with this sentiment. And if you just have ONE state champion, everyone, even the school with a once in a lifetime season, would welcome the challenge of the open.
Call everything else 'division championships'.... but only crown one state champion. That would change the mindset.
Actually, I don't think it would have that much impact. As a coach, you have to look out for your players and your program, and getting blasted by Mitty in the first round just to be "challenged" does nothing for you.
The reality is that only a very few schools, out of 1,400, have any chance to compete with the top five or six teams in the state. Even if you're in the third tier, say, 20 to 35 in the state, your only chance of beating Sierra Canyon is if they get lost on the way to the game. Talent rules ...
So do I want to take my team -- players and parents -- and play at the highest level and lose? Maybe by a lot? And end the season with a 25-point loss?
Or do I want to reward my team with a chance to finish off a good season with some competitive games that might result in a trip to GoldenOne and a chance to play on the same court Steph Curry does?
And what is better for the school and the program?
Now sure, if I have an elite team with multiple D-1 kids -- at least one a P5 -- put me in the Open. But if I have a nice high school team, with a low D1, a couple D2s and a couple good athletes, the reality is I can't compete with Etiwanda, no matter what my enrollment.
The reality is that only a very few schools, out of 1,400, have any chance to compete with the top five or six teams in the state. Even if you're in the third tier, say, 20 to 35 in the state, your only chance of beating Sierra Canyon is if they get lost on the way to the game. Talent rules ...
So do I want to take my team -- players and parents -- and play at the highest level and lose? Maybe by a lot? And end the season with a 25-point loss?
Or do I want to reward my team with a chance to finish off a good season with some competitive games that might result in a trip to GoldenOne and a chance to play on the same court Steph Curry does?
And what is better for the school and the program?
Now sure, if I have an elite team with multiple D-1 kids -- at least one a P5 -- put me in the Open. But if I have a nice high school team, with a low D1, a couple D2s and a couple good athletes, the reality is I can't compete with Etiwanda, no matter what my enrollment.
Small schools SHOULD typically dominate the lower divisions; that’s why they are there, and why they are called the LOWER divisions.
Put it this way: Should an MLB team with no recent winning record and a small budget, such as the A’s, be allowed to play for the Midwest League and take the title just because they are small-budget?
Put it this way: Should an MLB team with no recent winning record and a small budget, such as the A’s, be allowed to play for the Midwest League and take the title just because they are small-budget?
Of course, part of the difficulty in this, is the fact sections don’t play by the same rules in the first place.
For example, if a section nominates no small schools for the Regionals, the “worst” larger school they nominated gets placed in D5, no matter what division they mave have played in at the section tournament.
Maybe this is where the CIF needs to work at it…. Get all the sections to play by the same rules, or at least close to it…
For example, if a section nominates no small schools for the Regionals, the “worst” larger school they nominated gets placed in D5, no matter what division they mave have played in at the section tournament.
Maybe this is where the CIF needs to work at it…. Get all the sections to play by the same rules, or at least close to it…
The CIF can't even get the sections to agree on a start date for practice. The Southern Section, among others, can start practicing in mid-August. One year I looked, and Troy High School had had 38 practices before NCS teams were even allowed to have their first.
And as mentioned, the enrollment dividing lines are drawn to equalize the number of teams in each division in each section. So with all those big schools in SoCal, the D-1 line might be 2,400, while in NCS, the D-1 line might be 2,000. And not to mention that schools will manipulate their enrollment numbers to stay in a lower division.
And as mentioned, the enrollment dividing lines are drawn to equalize the number of teams in each division in each section. So with all those big schools in SoCal, the D-1 line might be 2,400, while in NCS, the D-1 line might be 2,000. And not to mention that schools will manipulate their enrollment numbers to stay in a lower division.
On reviewing NCS proposal from yesterday I actually liked the idea of basically just ranking teams by their RPI for NCS playoffs. With that plan though I would get rid of the open division and just call the top division platinum, the next one gold, the next silver, and lastly a bronze. Then keep another division open for the really really low enrollment schools who choose not to participate in that system.
Not totally sure how to choose NorCal teams out of that but don't think it would be too complicated to come up with a system that is some combination of winning your division and RPI and your base division.
I get the whole argument of the 16 seed in platinum being one and done and potentially losing by a lot whereas the 1 seed in gold plays on but I am sure a losers bracket could be created and somehow used to choose which teams go to NorCals.
Its an interesting debate and one that will live on forever I am sure since someone will always be unhappy
Not totally sure how to choose NorCal teams out of that but don't think it would be too complicated to come up with a system that is some combination of winning your division and RPI and your base division.
I get the whole argument of the 16 seed in platinum being one and done and potentially losing by a lot whereas the 1 seed in gold plays on but I am sure a losers bracket could be created and somehow used to choose which teams go to NorCals.
Its an interesting debate and one that will live on forever I am sure since someone will always be unhappy
I don't care what system they go with , I just wish it was objective and transparent. I hate that it's a secret committee that answers to no one. If the CIF wants to back to enrollment based divisions, then at least you know what you're dealing with. If you're going to remain with subjective, power Equity seeding, then create a formula and publish it. Ex.: 20% SOS, 15% MaxPrpes rankings, 20% section finishes, 10% size of school, etc. While not perfect, at least you'd know how the placement in divisions were decided.
they're actually called lower divisions because they were traditionally lower enrollment size vs. their larger D1 counterparts, not causer they are lower caliber.
For 98% of schools 1 low D1, 2 D2s and a couple of athletes to fill out a roster would be an unbelievable HS team and most likely 1 of the best teams in that schools history but throw that team vs an EVERY year Mitty team and it gets running clocked.
I thought the entire point of the OPEN was to pull the Mittys, Sierra Canyons , SMS, Etiwandas etc of the world out and put them in their own separate bracket of big girl ball.
So i dont understand why it needed to be taken further and CE for the rest of the state to be put into play. I mean this is sports/competition and there are going to be winners and losers...its the nature of the beast.
Go back to enrollment divisions.
8 team OPEN for SJS and NCS
Pulling the 8 best out should be enough to level the playing field in rest of the divisions.
Last edited:
Totally agree. Look at university Hs on the boys side. Absolutely screwed by CE.
The gigantic Southern Section is a huge state within a state. They are the outsized tail that wags the dog.
2 reasons. He still plays on that court as a visitor, and he’s the defending champion! 💍 💍 💍 💍
Similar threads
