Fixing the system

[ClayK]

Like the weather, everyone complains about California's playoff system, but no one does anything about it.

Coaches, however, can start the reform process at their league meetings. Put together a proposal, have the coaches vote yes, and push it on to the ADs. Then you have to agitate a little bit to make sure that the ADs hand it off to the section office, and from there something can actually get done.

But without that first step at a coach's meeting, nothing will change.

 

[Chsmatt33]

I know during covid, a coaches organization formed that I wouldn't go as far to call it a union, but it was uniting coaches to help guide them through and how to deal with the restrictions put in place for covid protocols. If that can be revitalized in some form to help coaches unite behind some sort of proposal to reform the state and sections playoff systems I think would definitely be beneficial.

 

[carsonjrt]

You must be referring to BABCA, and I agree, the work they did to get the athletes back on the court during and post COVID was pivotal for student athletes. They probably do have the clout to push for change....here's to hoping.

 

[ClayK]

Actually I wasn't. Each league has the power to introduce proposals to their section. but they have to go through the bureaucratic often frustrating process.

It took a group of us about 2 and a half years to get the Open into NCS.

 

[northbaybbguru]

Actually I wasn't. Each league has the power to introduce proposals to their section. but they have to go through the bureaucratic often frustrating process.

It took a group of us about 2 and a half years to get the Open into NCS.

Let's get the NCS Open to 8 teams Clay! Pool play...same as the CCS.

 

[ClayK]

The key to that is more NorCal bids, which is up to CIF.

 

[northbaybbguru]

The key to that is more NorCal bids, which is up to CIF.

D6 with 10 teams gets 4 bids..dumb

Pull 2 from D6 and give to Open.

One could argue (successfully I'd imagine) in the meetings that 8 open would make the D1 and D2 sections more competitive and thus get the votes to make the change.

 

[ClayK]

So how will you get the D5 and D6 principals to vote for cutting their own entries to NorCals?

And why are Open and D1 teams more deserving of postseason experience than D5 and D6? It could be argued that the top girls get plenty of opportunity to play in big events, but the girls who play in D5 and D6 very seldom do.

 

[northbaybbguru]

So how will you get the D5 and D6 principals to vote for cutting their own entries to NorCals?

And why are Open and D1 teams more deserving of postseason experience than D5 and D6? It could be argued that the top girls get plenty of opportunity to play in big events, but the girls who play in D5 and D6 very seldom do.

I'm not saying the D6 participants would vote for it. I'm saying there'd be enough teams in D1-4 that would be behind the idea to get it passed.

 

[ClayK]

But again, why are players from big schools more deserving of the experience?

And also, there are a lot of D5 and D6 schools, and many principals aren't that fond of athletic powerhouses.

 

[northbaybbguru]

But again, why are players from big schools more deserving of the experience? And also, there are a lot of D5 and D6 schools, and many principals aren't that fond of athletic powerhouses.

But again, why are players from big schools more deserving of the experience?

And also, there are a lot of D5 and D6 schools, and many principals aren't that fond of athletic powerhouses.

There are TWENTY FOUR teams in D6 in the NCS! Why in the world are we giving them FOUR bids to the norcals???

They can't even fill out the D6 bracket? 10 teams in the bracket!

AND there is no D6 state championships game.

Yes...there are more deserving teams in the higher divisions.

This seems like an " everybody deserves a trophy" mentality at its core.

 

[smmustanggirlhoops]

There are TWENTY FOUR teams in D6 in the NCS! Why in the world are we giving them FOUR bids to the norcals???

They can't even fill out the D6 bracket? 10 teams in the bracket!

AND there is no D6 state championships game.

Yes...there are more deserving teams in the higher divisions.

This seems like an " everybody deserves a trophy" mentality at its core.

Ferndale didn’t have to play a game. Bye, Forfeit, NorCal. Lol

 

[northbaybbguru]

Ferndale didn’t have to play a game. Bye, Forfeit, NorCal. Lol

Ferndale didn’t have to play a game. Bye, Forfeit, NorCal. Lol

There u go! Ferndale didn't have to even play a game.

9 teams in D6..4 go.

What a absolute joke. Still think its fair Clay? Are they still "deserving"?

 

[northbaybbguru]

There u go! Ferndale didn't have to even play a game.

9 teams in D6..4 go.

What a absolute joke. Still think its fair Clay? Are they still "deserving"?

A team who's resume is good enought to be placed in an 8 team Open and get an automatic bid to NorCals is the VERY DEFINITION of a team earning their way there and "deserving ".

 

[ClayK]

You have convinced me on Division 6. Just two.

So here’s a thought…

There are two kinds of high school teams: First, those that, shall we say, are committed to athletic success. (I can’t say “recruiting” because that’s slander, according to some.)

The second group is everyone else.

It used to be pretty fair to say that the first group was comprised solely of private and parochial schools. But we have seen some public schools get into the “committed to athletic success group”, which is great. If you want to compete, why not?

So really, the best way to set up postseason is to separate the first group from the second.

The basic assumption is that schools committed to athletic success will have more talent and be more successful on the court. In short, their MaxPreps ratings should reflect that they work hard to excel at athletics.

The next step then, is to take the top 48 ranked Max Preps teams and remove them from section playoffs. At the end of the regular season, those 48 go directly into the NorCal Open. (You could go to 64 if you want, or down to 32. The idea is simply to level the playing field so that teams committed to athletic success are facing other teams committed to athletic success.)

This group’s three-week postseason goes Tuesday, Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday and then the championship game on Saturday. (Yes there’s a week between the final two games, but back when we arrived on horse and buggy, that’s the way it was. It worked fine. Not great, but fine.)

Now the remaining teams are all grouped by enrollment. They return to playing schools of similar size and without those programs committed to athletic success, the playoffs will be what the original setup was intended to be.

Those teams, however, that are placed into the Open will complain, and justifiably so. Team number 48 has zero chance of winning the state title. (On the boy’s side upsets might well be more likely, which would make it even more fun.).

So let’s reward the Open teams. First, they get a banner to hang in the gym. Second, every player and coach is given a properly sized T-shirt, sweatshirt, or some item of apparel to mark their participation in the Open. Players also get a pin or a small plaque. Finally, all those teams should be honored at NBA games with a chance to tour the arena, get pictures with a couple players, and get on the floor at halftime to be introduced. That experience is something special and the teams that don’t make the Open will not get it. Is that enough to make team 48 wish it had been team 49? Hard to say, but there’s no guarantee team 49 is going to win the Division I state title.

Also I would designate the Open champion as the only state champion. All others are Division champions. Any team finishing in the top eight gets another banner for the gym.

Fire away …

 

[kiddman32]

I like the proposal, Clay...

My only issue is using the MaxPreps rankings, which often suck, even late in the season. MaxPreps needs to get up to speed... and maybe bringing in other services, like the Massey ratings. Those are used in many states, some officially, some not.

I'm sure there are others out there, but I don't know whether they look at the MaxPreps rankings and put their spin on things, or whether they each have their self-designed and independent ranking systems.

Overall, I do like automated rankings as a concept, since they are very unlikely to have any favoritism involved.

What I would like to see is to have the CIF research and then pick three ranking systems to use... then take the consensus of these to determine rankings for the playoffs. That would be a start, then we could go to Clay's system... The main drawback, of course, would be funding all this.

 

[Cranky29er]

I like Clay’s proposal though a tweak might be to use league championship final or top 2 as the ticket to entry to the Open tourney for each section using MP to seed and add higher ranked teams that were upset to fill in. The rest play in the Champions tourney using MP to seed.

 

[northbaybbguru]

Im a fan of a single state champion and a 128/64 or? bracket..

BUT

That's such a radical change that of course it would never be approved. Whereas my simple tweek of moving 2 from D6 and add to the Open is a minor change and would have a much better chance of being approved. Especially if the right coaches /ADs were behind the proposal that could get others schools to follow along..

 

[Peninsula Pete]

I'm a fan of Clay's proposal. Qualifying for Open should be something worthy of being triumphed. Not something to avoid. I love the notion of figuring out how to praise it, including it being absolutely worthy of a banner. And also totally agree with the Division title designation for others. It's just real and doesn't water down what a state championship means. Great solution. How do we do it?

I also applaud the distinction made about "commitment to athletic success" versus "schools that recruit". We had a healthy discussion on this topic a year ago where I thought there was consensus on this board that a successful program where good players want to go and even having a loosely affiliated aau program as a feeder are both NOT recruiting. Conversely, bad talking another school, coach, program or offering special treatment in the way of promises, PT, dollars, living and transportation IS recruiting. I believe there are schools that are committed to athletic success that DO recruit and some that do NOT. I don't think it's accurate or responsible to lump them all together as "those who recruit". Thanks for the rewording.