Interesting Request in the Southern Section
- Thread starter Streak One
- Start date
Why is this a surprise? It's a natural response to the latest CIF move to hand out trophies to even the least worthy units in the state. When a team is better off losing, you know something is way off base.
It’s been better off losing for a long time to get into easier brackets however coaches used to inspire to be your best and play the best and let the chips fall where they may.Not so much in today’s era as evident by coaches requests to be artificially dropped…it’s embarrassing and I wouldn’t want my kid playing for such a coach
I think it is surprising that coaches would actually try to get it changed (and think they could). It's like saying the quiet part out loud
Separate public and private in CA.
Winners play each other in a bowl game at the end.
End of story. Shouldn't be mixed at all with different rules. It's absurd.
Winners play each other in a bowl game at the end.
End of story. Shouldn't be mixed at all with different rules. It's absurd.
For so many years, good teams in the SS have been able to hide out in lower divisions and beat up on their neighbors. It hasn't really operated like a full section, but rather 13 or 14 separate mini-sections since they were never expected to compete against anyone else. Now that the SS actually wants to be like a full section, everyone is in shock. It's like lifting a rock and suddenly a cockroach is exposed and runs for cover.
I am happy NCS has some enrollment basis to their divisions. I cannot stand in other sections, where its pure equity. SJS system is decent where they go enrollment with competitive elements. CCS sucks, SHP might get rewarded for getting smacked by riordan for instance this year. 2 years ago HMB, who has 1000 students in a good year, went 10-0 and got the last seed and had to play Serra?!
It is impossible to please everyone but there must be a happy medium. NCS still has the Marin Catholic and Cardinal Newman issue, they are perpetually in D4, where competitively they belong in D2.
Do not even get me started with the bowls. Lincoln or whoever wins AAA (2000+) seems to get seeded LAST below even the NCS D7(!) winner. St Bernards (Catholic but in isolated Eureka 120-50 students) plays 2000 student Torrance?! It's clear that small-medium schools, usually public are getting screwed more than ever. I am not against all section (real sections not AAA or OAL) getting an extra game. But it is a joke to get "punished" by having a good year. Now if you are rolling though your section division I think you should be required to move up, NCS Rancho Cotate plays D2, while they are more D4 (1450) school size.
It is impossible to please everyone but there must be a happy medium. NCS still has the Marin Catholic and Cardinal Newman issue, they are perpetually in D4, where competitively they belong in D2.
Do not even get me started with the bowls. Lincoln or whoever wins AAA (2000+) seems to get seeded LAST below even the NCS D7(!) winner. St Bernards (Catholic but in isolated Eureka 120-50 students) plays 2000 student Torrance?! It's clear that small-medium schools, usually public are getting screwed more than ever. I am not against all section (real sections not AAA or OAL) getting an extra game. But it is a joke to get "punished" by having a good year. Now if you are rolling though your section division I think you should be required to move up, NCS Rancho Cotate plays D2, while they are more D4 (1450) school size.
I wouldn't separate privates and publics and I would say, if you want to play for NorCal and state titles, you have to announce that by a certain point and forgo section playoffs. All other teams can stay in sections as usual. And I know very well this will never happen for many reasons, chief among them being money
What good teams are hiding out in lower divisions? The SS has always attempted put the best teams in the Top playoff bracket.
4A
Big 5
Pac 5
Div 1
These era's put the 5 best leagues into the Top playoff bracket. That was when the CIF designated leagues to make up a playoff division.
Los Al and Edison have been in the Top playoff brackett since at least 1998. Mission Viejo has been in the Top playoff brackett since at least 2009
A lot to unravel here...
The best teams have not always been in the top division. The best leagues, maybe, but not the best teams. There were plenty of teams that had no business ever being in D-I (can you say "Moore League"?) but they were dragged up there because of one good league member.
Also, the persistent view that "if it's not D-I, it's crap" is on full display. Just because a team is good, that doesn't mean they only can go up to D-I. Maybe it's a team that historically was in D-X and their actual level was around D-V. How many years did Orange Lutheran control D-XI before finally being moved up? Oaks Christian after them? Mission Viejo in D-II? Hart in D-III? I remember in the mid-2000s Alemany complaining about being moved up to compete against Bishop Amat and Loyola.
The SS didn't operate as a whole section. If you were in a league, you were in a mini-section with the leagues in your division. If you were a really good or really bad team in that league, there was limited options for you to avoid the wrong level of competition in the playoffs. Many times, the numbering system of the division didn't even really represent the strength level. It was more about geography. D-V was Inland Empire. D-III was Santa Clarita Valley and Santa Monica area. D-IV was San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties.
The results were a whole crap-ton of blowouts for the first couple of rounds in just about every division. In this new setup, yes, the top teams in D-I will still be the top teams, but the rest of the divisions should be a lot more balanced. D-II this year actually looks really interesting with several teams having a viable shot at winning. That could never really happen in the old way.
By the way, Los Al and Edison haven't been in the top division for the last 10 years. 2011 was the last time.
For the 40+ years leading up to 1995 the Top 5 SS leagues consisted of the Top 8-10 teams in So Cal. Yes some more league teams and Citrus Belt league had some lessor team, but for the most part the winner of that Playoff bracket was almost unanimously the best team in So Cal.
And until the advent of unlimited transfering, the disparity for the most part was not as bad as it got after 2013. Lakewood was in the 2009 semi finals.
In the early 90's some upstart teams like St. Bonny, and Hart had teams that most likely could compete favorably. Yes they were in a different playoff bracket, but those teams did schedule games vs the Pac 5 powers. So I don't think they were hiding under a rock.
In 2004 MV was in D2 but scheduled and beat Los Al and Poly who were the D1 finalists. MV certainly wasn't hiding under a rock.
Cen10 got good in the early 2000's and the CIFSS promply moved them into the D1 playoff bracket.
OLU started a football program from scratch in the 90's same as JSerra in the 2000's. The CIF moved both of them into the D1 playoffs eventually.
The concept using CalPreps is a great one, and I am happy to see it. The CIFSS had to break alot of "sacred cows" to arrive at this.
Before you crack back on the CIFSS how about a similar analysis on the Nor Cal brackets where the best teams never had to face each other in the playoffs. At least in So Cal, the Top teams usually played at some point in the year. Unlike Nor Cal where the best teams were in silos.
Also @Cal14 your capacity to watch a game in person and evaluate teams is serverly lacking. For Example you watched Los Al struggle with Santa Margarita and immediately discounted Los Al without considering they were playing SM and not Grant. Your statement that you are 100% convinced that Folsom would beat Los Al in 2021 is a textbook example of your inability to allocate for SOS.
You have been making bad calls like this for years. Trying to convince people that Folsom, Valley Christian, Serra, Pittsburg, Bellarmine are State Top 10 teams only to have them suffer an inexplicable bad loss. Then you don't own your bad call.
You have been making bad calls like this for years. Trying to convince people that Folsom, Valley Christian, Serra, Pittsburg, Bellarmine are State Top 10 teams only to have them suffer an inexplicable bad loss. Then you don't own your bad call.
The CCS has been trying to figure out how to put their top teams in one bracket for the last 30 years. In the last couple, I think they finally did it. Putting the top 8 teams in the SS is one thing for a section of 400 schools. Putting the top 8 in a section of about 95 is something else.
The SJS still uses enrollment to a certain degree, but forces traditional D-I league champs into the D-I playoffs. For years, their playoff system was easily the worst in the state where weird things like 8-2 or 9-1 teams missed the playoffs altogether. Although the structure is better now, it could still use some work as there are still probably too many blowouts in the early rounds.
The NCS is probably the worst section in terms of playoff structure now, with their continued heavy reliance on enrollment. There is some competitive equity movement and petitioning, but not nearly as much as other similar sections. Similar to the SS, teams like Marin Catholic and Cardinal Newman have been allowed to hang out in lower divisions when in a lot of years, they should have been competing at least in D-II.
The fact that these three sections exist independently can't be helped and it certainly isn't going to change. Just about everyone here has been complaining about the Oakland and San Francisco sections being only 1 leagues for ages. Not going to change. The SS allowed itself to get bloated and that's not the problem of the remaining 9 sections.
Los Al not only blew their lead against SM, they nearly blew leads against Lincoln and Edison. I was never sold on Lincoln, either, and they just lost to Madison. Buchanan may or may not be around #15 in the state and the Griffins had to hold on against them, too. Are you going to contend that all of those schools should be borderline SS D-I teams? My evaluation wasn't based on their loss to Santa Margarita, it was confirmed by them.
The only times I've touted Bellarmine as a top 10 team were when they were really top 10 teams. 2008 was probably their best year, but had a loss to Serra in the same year the Padres lost to DLS by a muffed PAT. 2011, when they lost to DLS is double-overtime and to last minute heroics by Johnny Stanton.
I don't recall ever calling Valley Christian a top 10 team and they haven't been since, maybe 2005.
Any accusations of falsely promoting teams coming from you is a bit rich, given you've been trying to pimp Servite on everyone for the last 10 years. Congrats on finally being right about them this year.
If you don't want to separate them, would you agree that we should enact state wide rules that EVERYONE abides by for transfers and district boundaries for athletics. That would be fair right, if we're not going to separate them.
Or do you take the public stance that 2 different rule systems, for one playoff system, are better?
How many students does Serra have? According to this article: https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/california/junipero-serra-high-school-305904
Serra has 833 students, so maybe Serra got shafted for having to play HMB based on student enrollment.
Serra is an all boys school but I don't think we will be allowed to use gender and I will stop there.
I looked at enrollment numbers and enrollment numbers don't tell the entire story when it comes to football. That private school that we keep talking about Menlo High School (not Menlo Atherton) has 457 students but they are putting up 63 points on schools like Sequoia who have 2000 students enrolled. But according to your enrollment theory Sequoia would be at the top level and schools like Menlo & Serra would be at the bottom level?
Schools should be placed based on performance and if HMB or Menlo plays Serra or DLS in round 1, who cares? Everyone won't get a trophy every year.
That comparison is Apples to Oranges. Serra is an all Boys Catholic school. 833 boys who come from the city down to Santa Clara is quite large. HMB is 1000, maybe 500 boys, nearly all from the HMB area, many from low income families who need to work, some will not have the grades or family support, others have disabilities that do not allow them to participate in athletics. You cannot compare private schools to publics. It is ok to admit they are different. Do you understand the demographics and family backgrounds of Sequoia students?
My point wasn't that Los Al is anywhere remotely near being a Top 10 team, they are not. Los Al is a Calif Tier 3 team. My point is that you 100% gave a win to State Tier 4/5 team Folsom over Los Al. Just tired of Folsom getting the benefit of the doubt in hypothetical games. Every.Single.Time.Los Al not only blew their lead against SM, they nearly blew leads against Lincoln and Edison. I was never sold on Lincoln, either, and they just lost to Madison. Buchanan may or may not be around #15 in the state and the Griffins had to hold on against them, too. Are you going to contend that all of those schools should be borderline SS D-I teams? My evaluation wasn't based on their loss to Santa Margarita, it was confirmed by them.
The only times I've touted Bellarmine as a top 10 team were when they were really top 10 teams. 2008 was probably their best year, but had a loss to Serra in the same year the Padres lost to DLS by a muffed PAT. 2011, when they lost to DLS is double-overtime and to last minute heroics by Johnny Stanton.
I don't recall ever calling Valley Christian a top 10 team and they haven't been since, maybe 2005.
Any accusations of falsely promoting teams coming from you is a bit rich, given you've been trying to pimp Servite on everyone for the last 10 years. Congrats on finally being right about them this year.
I don't think there needs to be one set of rules because the schools are different. And I have heard some public schools who want to take on anyone and everyone despite different rules so separating them doesn't work for those schools IMO. I don't have a great knowledge of how SoCal schools work, but I think the transfer issue is different for the MD/SJBs as opposed to other schools. Those two programs have taken it to an unhealthy level in terms of competition.
What I would want to see if a state wide rule on how transfers are handled (getting there but still some differnces) and a state wide rule on when practices can start, etc.
Don't agree that schools playing under separate rule system should he expected to compete.
I agree with you on the state wide rule for transfers to make it fair and equitable.
Making assumptions about private school kids and their backgrounds isn't a good argument. I'm sure not all of Serra's boys play football and I noticed you conveniently left out Menlo High School which is a private school with lower numbers than HMB and yet I checked and HMB plays Menlo almost every year.
Like public schools, not all private schools are the same. I am sure the Serra and Menlo parents have to go to work as well. In fact, I am sure that some families in Half Moon Bay and some in Redwood City choose to send their kids to Serra. so why would HMB & Sequoia be treated different based on an assumption about the kids academic abilities & their parents?
With that said, football is a sport in which 22 players are on the field during each play. Menlo High School is putting up 50-60 points a game with their 11 on offense...
Bellarmine's advantage is drawing students from a population of millions of people. 1000 boys and an admission process. They can place athletics high on the totem pole as a way to increase and attract enrollment. Public schools do not have that advantage.
Using HMB as an example many parents work for hotels, hospitality, in the fields, or commute. Students nearly all comg from the HMB/Princeton area.
Bellarmine should be held to a higher standard than HMB. In reality they have more than 1000 potential players to choose from, they can host camps and entice incoming 8th graders from all over the SJ area. HMB has 500 at most, many are not potential athletes from a variety of reasons.
You are right not all privates are the same, Pinewood being a good example. Their football team is start up 8 man, look at their girls basketball.
A case by case basis is needed I think a mixture of enrollment and competitive equity is best. Enrollment is the main driver in public schools, it matters less in private. Look at Palma. Going by Calpreps rankings only (Central I think now does, CCS is just one piece) is fine for powerhouse programs but hurts mainly small and medium publics who are punching above their weight, but may be low in numbers or are having a great year. SJS system is decent and NCS is getting better.
For instance if NCS was by straight Cal Preps we could possibly have Monte Vista (2500) #4 vs #5 Windsor (1700). Or worse it would be possible DLS #1 vs Rancho Cotate #8 (1450).
Seems a few coaches may be worried they might be held accountable for their records for better and worse.
I have always been baffled by the inconsistency of the regular season versus the playoffs, particularly in the CCS. In the early 90's, when the CCS went to equity based divisions for league play, they never thought to align the playoffs with the regular season structure. I always use the college analogy....Whittier College doesn't win their Division III regular season conference final, and then play USC in their first round playoff game....The balance of power in those playoff games culminated in 2003, when Valley Christian blitzed Pacific Grove in a Division IV CCS final game 69-0. VC went 8-2 in the WCAL that year, and that DIV bracket was mostly B league champion schools. The Open Division debuted the next year. That change was great, as the 10's had more competitive CCS tournaments.
At this point, we are seeing huge disparities in league play. Football is barely surviving, the pandemic might have delivered the final blow. There have been productive ideas the last 4-5 years on how to restructure the CCS for football, and yet, no one seems to have the fortitude to make those changes happen. Meanwhile, the quality of play and participation plummet, and the margins of victory becomes massive. I wish I was more optimistic about the future of our sport.
At this point, we are seeing huge disparities in league play. Football is barely surviving, the pandemic might have delivered the final blow. There have been productive ideas the last 4-5 years on how to restructure the CCS for football, and yet, no one seems to have the fortitude to make those changes happen. Meanwhile, the quality of play and participation plummet, and the margins of victory becomes massive. I wish I was more optimistic about the future of our sport.
I went down negative alley, and failed to bring up the challenge of filling coaching slots (and not just in football). While coaches like Patrick Walsh receive all sorts of publicity, I always think the unsung heroes are the coaches at YB, James Lick, Lynbrook, etc...They know that each and every week they will be physically outmatched, and yet show up and their boys compete. Chris Oswald at Cupertino and Kevin Collins at Lincoln for years have shown the value of a quality coach at schools that do not re-load with superior athletes every year. Those dudes are unicorns and to be lauded for their commitment to the sport and their programs.
Last edited:
I see your point, but the football experience is about more than winning. The coaches you mention must have a clear understanding of this. We shouldn't be looking to help teams create a schedule where they can go undefeated. We should be teaching kids that they won't always win, and that they will be faced with high levels of adversity in life.
Teacher shortages, coaching shortages, and referee shortages are a real issue. Kids need to be developed today more than ever. Having coaches and other adults available to help boys and girls become responsible adults is very important. Learning how to win and lose is just a part of youth development.
Agreed....Providing a positive experience for kids is ideal, and the original equity leagues established appropriate competition for everyone. The lack of participation and the scramble for coaching consistency in a program is creating havoc even in league play. If we cannot address those two problems as a section, the sport will die.
To amplify some of your points: Bellarmine actually has an enrollment of 1,600 boys. It is the largest all-male prep school in the West. Serra has 830 boys, of whom 220 play football at three levels. That's almost 27 percent of the entire student body. HMB has 500 boys, of whom 60 play football at two levels. The private/public discussion has been ongoing for generations. It is indeed a clear athletic case of apples and oranges. The private/parochials tend to take sports very seriously; it's a matter of marketing/enrollment (dollars) for them. The publics, often with indifferent administrations and struggling athletic departments, don't need marketing to generate enrollment. They are automatically fed by their neighborhood middle schools. It's a matter of commitment and emphasis. In contrast, WCAL schools like Bellarmine, VC, Serra and St. Francis are regional football programs, not local entities. Those schools spread their tentacles throughout the West Bay region and, in some cases, into the East Bay. Go to the St. Francis sports website and check out its varsity football roster; note where each guy hails from. It's instructive. The Lancers, as an example, are a regional all-star team. Any comparison with Mountain View/Los Altos public school football programs is stark. Small wonder SF doesn't play those publics. This is an endless, though interesting, debate. Each year it gets more magnified as the differences intensify. And it isn't just football. Other sports are impacted. Two prime examples: Girls' basketball at Mitty and Pinewood. For everyone else in CCS, forget about it. Those two schools vacuum up most of the top talent south of Millbrae. I digress. Nothing new there. Stay feisty.
There are many factors contributing to the increasing shift between the "haves" and the "have nots." A major one if enrollment decline, a huge bay area issue and it will eventually reach the valley even as people move there, they will have less children and less immigration. Changing demographics is an issue, some schools especially in the valley still get it done, but it seems Bay Area football does not when enrollment lowers and students backgrounds change. Then private schools are getting better, even in NorCal, and attracting athletic Freshman (not necessarily the JR/SR transfer fiasco in SoCal) it is no doubt Serra has caused the demise of many football programs on the peninsula. A big issue is coaching and admin support, especially at publics, again much larger issue in the Bay than in the Sac/Valley. Getting an on campus coach is crucial, with few exceptions, they build better relationships with students, staff, admin, and community. They tend to stick around longer as well. Being a teacher/coach isn't popular now for many reasons, pay, bureaucracy, hours, lack of respect...
A good football program can be a benefit to the entire school community/culture, not just for players. Band, cheer, school spirit, pride, a safe activity to go to, ect.. Many publics in Sac/Valley still get this done despite not having "football demographics" it is just a wiliness from admin to get a coach who cares and takes pride in the school/community.
