you say the old system rewards private schools that recruit and leaves public schools with zero chance to compete. If you look at the schools in Norcal finals, Div 5-3 you have 4-private, 2 public. In D2-Open 4 private and 2 public. Either way, private schools will always have the advantage.
Gotta Love Competitive Equity
- Thread starter Norcal_Fan
- Start date
but when do you pull up or leave down the privates? they all have similar student body, but some have way more talent.
I'll just copy my post from another thread:
good basketball teams for public schools:
you need the following combination:
open enrollment
good coaching and junior program
admin support
any school; small, public, or otherwise, that has those things can build a strong program.
then I'll add, the 'recruiting' is performed at the elementary and middle school levels and start the indoctrination. If you can get an out of district freshman to get to you, then more power... but usually, that would be accomplished at the aau/junior program levels.
see: laguna creek c/o 22. they gave up once that class graduated... but that was a classic recruiting job.
good basketball teams for public schools:
you need the following combination:
open enrollment
good coaching and junior program
admin support
any school; small, public, or otherwise, that has those things can build a strong program.
then I'll add, the 'recruiting' is performed at the elementary and middle school levels and start the indoctrination. If you can get an out of district freshman to get to you, then more power... but usually, that would be accomplished at the aau/junior program levels.
see: laguna creek c/o 22. they gave up once that class graduated... but that was a classic recruiting job.
Some private schools give scholarships or pay for players one way or another. A player recently landed at one private school after putting up a several thousand dollar non-refundable deposit at a different school.
Some public schools have open enrollment.
* * * * *
Only one state in the country has all schools in the same postseason playoff. Not surprisingly, Kentucky is dominated by a major Louisville private school and a few publics.
* * * * *
One thing left out in all this discussion is the experience of the players, who presumably are the reason for high school sports in the first place. The multiple divisions give players a chance to advance and play fun games in postseason. One thing we've learned over the years in the West Coast Jamboree is that players and coaches enjoy competitive games the most, regardless of the bracket or size of school of the opponents.
The best way to ensure competitive games is to bracket by results, not school size.
Take a look at the CIF brackets and you'll see a few first-round blowouts, and then plenty of competitive games (I consider anything under 15 competitive, though obviously not knowing how the game progressed, a 15-point game could have been a 30-point blowout or a seven-point game with three minutes left.)
If you count the experience the players, competitive equity is superior to enrollment-based brackets in terms of playing fun, close games.
And mediocrity is not rewarded. You have to win the games. In the past, coaches manipulated the system by playing a lot of bad teams from good leagues (in SJS) or playing bad teams from higher divisions (in NCS) to meet certain requirements. In this system, coaches are complaining that they will have to play good teams to get losses so they can drop down divisions.
How about not whining and just playing?
Some public schools have open enrollment.
* * * * *
Only one state in the country has all schools in the same postseason playoff. Not surprisingly, Kentucky is dominated by a major Louisville private school and a few publics.
* * * * *
One thing left out in all this discussion is the experience of the players, who presumably are the reason for high school sports in the first place. The multiple divisions give players a chance to advance and play fun games in postseason. One thing we've learned over the years in the West Coast Jamboree is that players and coaches enjoy competitive games the most, regardless of the bracket or size of school of the opponents.
The best way to ensure competitive games is to bracket by results, not school size.
Take a look at the CIF brackets and you'll see a few first-round blowouts, and then plenty of competitive games (I consider anything under 15 competitive, though obviously not knowing how the game progressed, a 15-point game could have been a 30-point blowout or a seven-point game with three minutes left.)
If you count the experience the players, competitive equity is superior to enrollment-based brackets in terms of playing fun, close games.
And mediocrity is not rewarded. You have to win the games. In the past, coaches manipulated the system by playing a lot of bad teams from good leagues (in SJS) or playing bad teams from higher divisions (in NCS) to meet certain requirements. In this system, coaches are complaining that they will have to play good teams to get losses so they can drop down divisions.
How about not whining and just playing?
I’d argue that coaches NOW-A-DAYS are manipulating the system and playing the poor sisters of the blind to keep their SOS low and boost their record. I know you hate hearing this but Sopak is and has been notorious of doing this with his teams. Sure he plays a couple big dogs but always ducks the platinum division and plays some of the worst teams. Doherty, Branson, Berean, have no place playing an open team like c-let.
If the NorCal’s were seeded solely on true CE/SOS, I’d have no problem with that. But if you had knowledgeable people helping on the committee (say like you) it would balance the sand baggers. I guess the biggest problem I have is the arrogance of the section commissioners in moving teams up 2 to 3 divisions, when they should be moved up one or two. The other thing is having a sectional winner, move up to divisions to be a low seed. How is that equitable?
If the NorCal’s were seeded solely on true CE/SOS, I’d have no problem with that. But if you had knowledgeable people helping on the committee (say like you) it would balance the sand baggers. I guess the biggest problem I have is the arrogance of the section commissioners in moving teams up 2 to 3 divisions, when they should be moved up one or two. The other thing is having a sectional winner, move up to divisions to be a low seed. How is that equitable?
When Sopak went to C-Let the thought was with the resources of a private school it will Enable Sopak to achieve more. Unfortunately with the section making Lepolo sit out that year I think it put a target on him and unlike Mitty it's caused players not to transfer. Tough situation to be in. He has to build through his pipeline not by annual transfers.
Did she have to sit out because she played for Cal-Stars or did she previously transfer from 2 different schools? I thought She was at SJND before going to CLET after Hippol left. To one of Clay's points, maybe she should be allowed to play with no penalty...
The MaxPreps algorithm is proprietary so we don't know the details, but ...
I did the national rankings for them for a long time and looked at the MP numbers a lot to try and compare teams from different states. What I gathered was this: The MP algorithm is much more weighted to wins than strength of schedule, and the number of wins is important.
So, two things if the committee takes the rankings seriously:
1) Coaches who want to be ranked high should hunt wins, not tough games. (Now you have to play some tough games to prepare your team, which is a different aspect.)
2) Definitely play all 26 games.
And now comes the hard part: Do you try for the highest possible ranking, or do you sandbag by losing games to good teams?
The answer is you don't know. If you go for the highest possible ranking and wind up seeded #15 in a division above you, you've failed. But if you sandbag and get seeded #15 in your own division, you've failed.
And since no one can predict what other teams will do, or how things will look at season's end, it seems to me coaches shouldn't worry about the MP ranking. Instead, focus on the schedule that makes your team as good as it can be when the undoubtedly goofy seedings come out. You can't control the rankings or the seeding (and indeed you never could, even with enrollment-based divisions), so just try to have your team as well prepared as possible for whatever happens.
I did the national rankings for them for a long time and looked at the MP numbers a lot to try and compare teams from different states. What I gathered was this: The MP algorithm is much more weighted to wins than strength of schedule, and the number of wins is important.
So, two things if the committee takes the rankings seriously:
1) Coaches who want to be ranked high should hunt wins, not tough games. (Now you have to play some tough games to prepare your team, which is a different aspect.)
2) Definitely play all 26 games.
And now comes the hard part: Do you try for the highest possible ranking, or do you sandbag by losing games to good teams?
The answer is you don't know. If you go for the highest possible ranking and wind up seeded #15 in a division above you, you've failed. But if you sandbag and get seeded #15 in your own division, you've failed.
And since no one can predict what other teams will do, or how things will look at season's end, it seems to me coaches shouldn't worry about the MP ranking. Instead, focus on the schedule that makes your team as good as it can be when the undoubtedly goofy seedings come out. You can't control the rankings or the seeding (and indeed you never could, even with enrollment-based divisions), so just try to have your team as well prepared as possible for whatever happens.
good point. So I guess the bigger question is why does the CIF or any other institution that uses their rankings allow the algorithm to be propriety? You would think (I know this is a stretch) that the CIF or any public entity would want full transparency into why/how things are done (seedings). I certainly would want to know the justifications of why X high school should be moved down two divisions to be the number one seed or why Y high school should be moved up 3 divisions to be a sacrificial lamb after winning a section championship.
I mean if this is how it's going to be moving forward, why not just do away with sections and just have a HUGE norcal tournament where teams are in divisions based on record, SOS (this really has to have more of a factor), and place in league?
I mean if this is how it's going to be moving forward, why not just do away with sections and just have a HUGE norcal tournament where teams are in divisions based on record, SOS (this really has to have more of a factor), and place in league?
So when CIF went to SBLive a few years ago, one of the ideas was that each section could devise its own rating formula to avoid using MP's proprietary one. That never worked at all, because getting people to agree on the details of any such complex formula is all but impossible. No section, as far as I know, did anything but use MaxPreps.
As for just getting past the sections, first they would have to essentially fire themselves, which isn't going to happen. But it would make for better brackets, as D1 girls showed. The way the process works is that each section submits a list of teams in ranking order. So the section tells the NorCal committee that Team A is better than Team B and the committee will almost always go along.
In D1, there were seven CCS teams, so the first thing they did was put them in different brackets, regardless of seeding. Next they looked at the lists from SJS, NCS, Oakland and the Northern Section. The Northern section commissioner had one goal in the meeting, which was to keep Pleasant Valley out of D1, so that wasn't going to happen. The OAL representative somehow convinced the committee that those forfeit losses were real losses, so Oakland Tech was out as well.
Now all that was left was NCS and SJS, and in SJS, the three teams were ranked in this order: Oak Ridge, Whitney and McClatchy. So McClatchy had to be the lowest seed of those three teams. With seven of the bracket spots filled by CCS, six NCS slots had to be filled -- and again, the committee chose to avoid section rematches and ignore true seeding. So the six NCS teams were placed, leaving three spots.
McClatchy was the last team placed, and for whatever reason was 16th instead of 13th or 14th. I'm guessing it was because the way the bracket was filled, and the committee felt that well, 16 isn't that much different than 13, so what the heck.
Without sections, that wouldn't have happened.
As for just getting past the sections, first they would have to essentially fire themselves, which isn't going to happen. But it would make for better brackets, as D1 girls showed. The way the process works is that each section submits a list of teams in ranking order. So the section tells the NorCal committee that Team A is better than Team B and the committee will almost always go along.
In D1, there were seven CCS teams, so the first thing they did was put them in different brackets, regardless of seeding. Next they looked at the lists from SJS, NCS, Oakland and the Northern Section. The Northern section commissioner had one goal in the meeting, which was to keep Pleasant Valley out of D1, so that wasn't going to happen. The OAL representative somehow convinced the committee that those forfeit losses were real losses, so Oakland Tech was out as well.
Now all that was left was NCS and SJS, and in SJS, the three teams were ranked in this order: Oak Ridge, Whitney and McClatchy. So McClatchy had to be the lowest seed of those three teams. With seven of the bracket spots filled by CCS, six NCS slots had to be filled -- and again, the committee chose to avoid section rematches and ignore true seeding. So the six NCS teams were placed, leaving three spots.
McClatchy was the last team placed, and for whatever reason was 16th instead of 13th or 14th. I'm guessing it was because the way the bracket was filled, and the committee felt that well, 16 isn't that much different than 13, so what the heck.
Without sections, that wouldn't have happened.
So by my calculations since CE went into effect the OAKLAND Section has SEVEN state titles between Oakland and Oakland Tech Boys and girls.
And you CE apologists still think that's OK?
the NCS needs to engulf the Oakland section and have those teams go thru the same grinders that the rest of the East Bay has to.
Ridiculous
And you CE apologists still think that's OK?
the NCS needs to engulf the Oakland section and have those teams go thru the same grinders that the rest of the East Bay has to.
Ridiculous
You can apply the same argument to the AAA/San Francisco Section in low divisions in football.
I agree with you Northbay, but it will never happen. It should have happened years ago!
And since I know I'll get pushback on that statement...
Do u think Oakland at 1579 kids if they had to go thru the NCS PLAYOFF to qualify for the NorCals that there is any way on God's green earth theyd be placed in D5?
NOT a chance...they probably wouldnt even make thr NorCals in NCS D2 (where they'd be placed)
Do u think Oakland at 1579 kids if they had to go thru the NCS PLAYOFF to qualify for the NorCals that there is any way on God's green earth theyd be placed in D5?
NOT a chance...they probably wouldnt even make thr NorCals in NCS D2 (where they'd be placed)
A SIX team OAL and you're telling me there is nothing wrong and the system works....fairly?
Last 4 yrs...SEVEN state titles!!!
How many state title does the NCS have in the same time frame? (All divisions)
Last 4 yrs...SEVEN state titles!!!
How many state title does the NCS have in the same time frame? (All divisions)
Those Lincoln/Bal “titles” really bother me for some reason, even though I’m happy for the kids and their respective Coaches do a great job.
It bothers me they can’t even match up against NCS D7. I just want to see NCS D7 vs AAA in the regional.
Prior to 10 years ago and especially 20+ years ago the AAA actually had a good team or 2 year in year out. I know demographics/generations change but jeez…
Lincoln couldn’t play Ferndale?
Another gripe…. With the new NCS format, if implemented last season, Ferndale wouldn’t have qualified for playoffs. Yet Deer Valley would in D4. Large school mediocrity!!!!
Of course the OAL should be in NCS, and San Francisco should be in CCS. That would give CIF eight sections and everything would be easier.
But no commissioner is going to vote another commissioner out of a job, so absent a move by the state legislature, that will not change.
As pointed out, Oakland has benefitted enormously from its protected status, but that is less a condemnation of CE than it is of the way CIF is set up.
But no commissioner is going to vote another commissioner out of a job, so absent a move by the state legislature, that will not change.
As pointed out, Oakland has benefitted enormously from its protected status, but that is less a condemnation of CE than it is of the way CIF is set up.
does state legislature oversee CIF? Seems like they can do whatever it is they please...
My understanding is murky, but I believe CIF is authorized by the state to oversee high school sports. Presumably if a legislator cared enough, he or she could impose reforms (four sections instead of ten, etc.).
But any changes would be met by howls of protests, so I think it's unlikely.
But any changes would be met by howls of protests, so I think it's unlikely.
I don't know where you are getting your stats from.
I count two from the girls, and one, this year from the boy's.
Here's wishing you great hoops
I wonder how the boundaries are set up with CCS and NCS schools. There are a lot of BCL city teams in NCS but not in CCS and SI, SHC, and Riordan are in the CCS. One could argue that AAA schools could also be in NCS as well as the OAL. It would be interesting to see who actually pays the checks of the AAA and OAL administrative staff cause a merger makes sense, but what commish would want to give up 150K a year?
Oakland High girls won D III a couple of years back. Oakland High Boys also won DIII last year. Plus the tech Boys this year and all those the Tech girls have won. makes it about 7.
Similar threads
