Girls Basketball Top 20 Rankings - Week of February 10

[Streak One]

1. Mitty (19-3)

2. Salesian (23-3)

3. Cardinal Newman (24-2)

4. St. Mary’s, Stockton (17-4)

5. Miramonte (20-3)

6. Bishop O’Dowd (17-6)

7. St. Joseph (18-7)

8. Pinewood (19-2)

9. Heritage (19-5)

10. Antelope (23-3)

11. McClatchy (23-2)

12. Laguna Creek (23-2)

13. Menlo (17-5)

14. American (23-1)

15. San Ramon Valley (20-4)

16. California (16-8)

17. Woodcreek (22-5)

18. Oak Ridge (19-5)

19. St. Mary’s, Berkeley (19-6)

20. Alameda (20-4)

 

[ClayK]

The rankings are difficult this year because the top teams have beaten each other ... so head-to-head doesn't work as well as one would hope.

So here's my question: If head-to-head is confusing (Team A beat Team B which beat Team C which beat Team A) or non-existent, which is the more important metric: Common opponent or strength of schedule?

 

[basketba11]

Both common opponent and SOS should become factors. But IMO, I like to see the team with more quality wins be seeded or ranked higher.

 

[Streak One]

The rankings are difficult this year because the top teams have beaten each other ... so head-to-head doesn't work as well as one would hope.

So here's my question: If head-to-head is confusing (Team A beat Team B which beat Team C which beat Team A) or non-existent, which is the more important metric: Common opponent or strength of schedule?

I don't have a specific formula. I look for teams that have the most quality wins and who has avoided the head scratching loss

 

[Norcal_Fan]

The rankings are difficult this year because the top teams have beaten each other ... so head-to-head doesn't work as well as one would hope.

So here's my question: If head-to-head is confusing (Team A beat Team B which beat Team C which beat Team A) or non-existent, which is the more important metric: Common opponent or strength of schedule?

I think common opponent is always the next best bet because if team A an B played team C, and one beat them and the other lost, then the winner would have a the clear advantage. The problem is that if it's one of the only good wins and your SOS is below an update 7-8, I don't believe it does justice to the whole body of work (weak schedule means a team didn't challenge itself).

 

[ClayK]

Interesting SoCal development: Sierra Canyon is the top seed in the Southern Section Open Division. Mater Dei, 26-2, is fourth.

Sierra Canyon just lost its fourth game, to Rutgers Prep in New Jersey.

Mater Dei beat Sierra Canyon head-to-head.

Mater Dei lost to Long Beach Poly (also with four losses), which is seeded third. Sierra Canyon beat Long Beach Poly.

 

[GBBall4L]

Interesting SoCal development: Sierra Canyon is the top seed in the Southern Section Open Division. Mater Dei, 26-2, is fourth.

Sierra Canyon just lost its fourth game, to Rutgers Prep in New Jersey.

Mater Dei beat Sierra Canyon head-to-head.

Mater Dei lost to Long Beach Poly (also with four losses), which is seeded third. Sierra Canyon beat Long Beach Poly.

Sierra Canyon actually got blasted by Rutgers Prep based on seeing the game on BallerTV. I guess that doesn't factor into the SoCal Open Rankings because Rutgers Prep is in NJ.

 

[northbaybbguru]

That's not good... dont like seeing our top teams going out of state and getting blasted.

Does a loss like that make ClayK and Maxpreps take pause and maybe rethink LJCD as #1?

And I say that meaning maybe So Cal and our state isnt as strong as we think. Or do we just overlook and say it was a brainfart by SC. 1 off..

 

[GBBall4L]

That's not good... dont like seeing our top teams going out of state and getting blasted.

Does a loss like that make ClayK and Maxpreps take pause and maybe rethink LJCD as #1?

And I say that meaning maybe So Cal and our state isnt as strong as we think. Or do we just overlook and say it was a brainfart by SC. 1 off..

From my observation, it looked like Sierra Canyon didn't adjust. Rutgers Prep hit a lot of step-back 3s that game and it just appeared that Sierra Canyon got rattled and started playing hero ball. They didn't crowd the 3 point line as if they thought Rutgers prep was making those shots by luck. Sierra Canyon has a very large 6-4 Polynesian girl that they didn't use down low despite the Jersey team being smaller. It just seemed like the load got placed on the 2 five star guard's shoulders. Couple that with poor defensive rotations on a 3 point shooting team and you have a recipe for a 20 point loss. I didn't see any real press by SC although I haven't watched them enough to understand if they press at all.

La Jolla Country Day is a different animal in my opinion than Sierra Canyon.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Interesting SoCal development: Sierra Canyon is the top seed in the Southern Section Open Division. Mater Dei, 26-2, is fourth.

Sierra Canyon just lost its fourth game, to Rutgers Prep in New Jersey.

Mater Dei beat Sierra Canyon head-to-head.

Mater Dei lost to Long Beach Poly (also with four losses), which is seeded third. Sierra Canyon beat Long Beach Poly.

That's hard to swallow....beating a team head to head and being 4th. I wonder if the early loss to Rosary in league helped lowering the seed. Also, with the "scorebook live" model, how does the "equation" come in to play? I hate the lack of transparency into the seeding process.

 

[ClayK]

It's going to be the same lack of transparency when the Open seedings come out, both for NCS and NorCal. They used to be open to the public (thank you, Paul Gaddini) but given a chance, the bureaucratic urge for secrecy prevailed.

It's a shame ...

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Is the CIF a private entity or are they public? Because I remember reading something bout the brown act that has to deal with forums needing to be open. It seems that there should be a way to have the seeding meetings open

 

[ClayK]

I think it's only board meetings that need to be open to the public, and all section and CIF meetings adhere to the Brown Act.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

I think it's only board meetings that need to be open to the public, and all section and CIF meetings adhere to the Brown Act.

how if they don't make it public to all?

 

[mkbgdns]

I'd guess selection/seeding is not done by the "board", but by a committee thereof. the board of a large corporation doesn't decide salaries of each employee (seeding?).

 

[stepslide]

I don't have a specific formula. I look for teams that have the most quality wins and who has avoided the head scratching loss

With sickness and injuries you should throw out a bad loss potentially. It's now about how healthy a team is and how well they are playing. SOS may be more important than an early head to head loss or common opponent

 

[Norcal_Fan]

With sickness and injuries you should throw out a bad loss potentially. It's now about how healthy a team is and how well they are playing. SOS may be more important than an early head to head loss or common opponent

NCS/CIF only looks at results and does not take who was sick, injured etc.

 

[OnBall8]

NCS/CIF only looks at results and does not take who was sick, injured etc.

As should be the case. A couple years ago when Virginia lost as 1 seed vs a 16 seed. They had just lost one of their best players to injury. The committee wasn't going to give them a lower seed, even though they were a worse team without him. It was a body of work put together by the TEAM that earned the 1 seed. Same thing applies here.. its a team sport, results on the court have to count

 

[Streak One]

With sickness and injuries you should throw out a bad loss potentially. It's now about how healthy a team is and how well they are playing. SOS may be more important than an early head to head loss or common opponent

I agree that a lot can go into a result, but that is a rabbit hole to go down. What if you had to sit in traffic on the way to a game (saw a game with Berkeley about 8 years ago where they litterally walked in and started playing 5 mins later)? And that is just one outside circumstance that "could" affect a result