Is anyone ready to go back to the bad old days yet?

[personalogic]

I have been griping ever since they first introduced the Open division. My basic premise is that the terms of competition should be set at the beginning of the season, then let the chips fall where they may. The more discretion is given to anonymous committees, the more ridiculous and unfair the tweaking becomes. This year's "competitive equity" process has made things so laughable that I am wondering if anyone else thinks it's time to scrap the whole mess.

Establishing divisions by student enrollment has its flaws, but at least is objective. And actually reasonably fair when you consider that a school's primary resource is its student body, and how it chooses to focus that resource is not something that should be penalized. If a D3 enrollment school decides to emphasize basketball, why drag them out of contention for a D3 championship? Or, for that matter, why reward the less competitive D3 schools by removing their more successful rival?

If you let teams qualify for Norcal based solely on how they finished in their sections/divisions, you'll still have some subjectivity in how you seed the teams. But at least teams won't be in or out based on the whims of a committee.

And if you really need an Open Division, let teams choose to compete in that division at the start of the season.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

I have been griping ever since they first introduced the Open division. My basic premise is that the terms of competition should be set at the beginning of the season, then let the chips fall where they may. The more discretion is given to anonymous committees, the more ridiculous and unfair the tweaking becomes. This year's "competitive equity" process has made things so laughable that I am wondering if anyone else thinks it's time to scrap the whole mess.

Establishing divisions by student enrollment has its flaws, but at least is objective. And actually reasonably fair when you consider that a school's primary resource is its student body, and how it chooses to focus that resource is not something that should be penalized. If a D3 enrollment school decides to emphasize basketball, why drag them out of contention for a D3 championship? Or, for that matter, why reward the less competitive D3 schools by removing their more successful rival?

If you let teams qualify for Norcal based solely on how they finished in their sections/divisions, you'll still have some subjectivity in how you seed the teams. But at least teams won't be in or out based on the whims of a committee.

And if you really need an Open Division, let teams choose to compete in that division at the start of the season.

I whole heartedly agree! Let teams what want to go open, GO OPEN. And those that don't...stay!

 

[WOW Freddy]

The privates play under different rules, give them two 16 team brackets in Nor Cals an open and a regular bracket. Give the publics four 16 team brackets an open and three regular brackets. That would solve the problem. The All Star Teams against each other and the regular high school teams against each other. This way here ever one plays by the same rules. I know it will never happen, but it is just a thoight.

 

[ClayK]

So all of the private schools in the state that don't recruit -- which is the vast majority -- would play in the one division? And of course the 17th best private that should be in Open would dominate the second division.

 

[WOW Freddy]

The best and then the rest. They all recruit. So let them play each other. Take the top 16 and then the next 16. Really I don't care how they seperate them. I am more concerned about a level playing field. This is never going to happen, but it would be nice.

 

[personalogic]

The privates play under different rules, give them two 16 team brackets in Nor Cals an open and a regular bracket. Give the publics four 16 team brackets an open and three regular brackets. That would solve the problem. The All Star Teams against each other and the regular high school teams against each other. This way here ever one plays by the same rules. I know it will never happen, but it is just a thoight.

I used to think that the privates had a huge advantage. Call it "recruiting" or simply devoting the resources to developing strong programs, as you will. Not sure that is such a big deal now. Kids (and their parents) coming up through AAU learn where the better coaches/programs are and find ways to go there. Private or public. And privates still have the cost disadvantage.

 

[colhenrylives]

I used to think that the privates had a huge advantage. Call it "recruiting" or simply devoting the resources to developing strong programs, as you will. Not sure that is such a big deal now. Kids (and their parents) coming up through AAU learn where the better coaches/programs are and find ways to go there. Private or public. And privates still have the cost disadvantage.

Tuition? May I note the important phrase "financial need adjustment."

 

[personalogic]

Tuition? May I note the important phrase "financial need adjustment."

Until I see proof that athletes receive financial aid at a particular school based on standards that are different for non-athletes, I will continue to assume that cost is still part of the equation. Certainly, I have heard quite a few private school parents complain that they are not getting the bang for their buck that they expected.

 

[Azanna]

So all of the private schools in the state that don't recruit -- which is the vast majority -- would play in the one division? And of course the 17th best private that should be in Open would dominate the second division.

Why don't the CIF crack down on the private schools that do recruit, I do not know how to police it but something needs to be done or even better stop holding the public schools to such a high standard and let kids go to whatever school they wish, that would probably be easier.

 

[Streak One]

I like the model of enrollment based and then moving teams up based on success. It would turn Division I into a defacto Open Division which is fine.

The changes made by the CIF is to open paths for above average teams to play for state titles, which is absurd.

 

[observer22]

Did Northern California fix its failing basketball playoff system? The verdict is in.
BY JOE DAVIDSON

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/high-school/joe-davidson/article204408779.html

 

[Streak One]

The games have been more competitive and the Open is really good. I still think there are issues and inconsistency in this format that weren't addressed in that story.

Basically the old system wasn't working. The new system has its issues and I'm not sure there is a perfect system

 

[personalogic]

I like the model of enrollment based and then moving teams up based on success. It would turn Division I into a defacto Open Division which is fine.

The changes made by the CIF is to open paths for above average teams to play for state titles, which is absurd.

My counter arguments would be (1) teams moved to higher divisions are deprived of the opportunity to compete in their natural divisions (2) the winner of a division that has had its best team(s) moved up is not a true champion (3) whenever you bump a team up, some team that would otherwise have qualified to compete gets bumped out, and (4) bumping teams up based on past success is problematic since the loss of one or two quality seniors can radically and immediately change a team.

From the point of view of CIF it's all about more competitive games generating more revenue. From my point of view, it's about teams being given the opportunity to prove they are the best teams in their divisions.

 

[Mo Green]

The best and then the rest. They all recruit. So let them play each other. Take the top 16 and then the next 16. Really I don't care how they seperate them. I am more concerned about a level playing field. This is never going to happen, but it would be nice.

All of the semi-decent players will flock to the competitive problems and 'the rest' will have a JV level tournament to close the season, we can call it the California Invitational Tournament (CIT) and you can hold it in gyms that accommodate the friends and families of the players.

 

[Mo Green]

The games have been more competitive and the Open is really good. I still think there are issues and inconsistency in this format that weren't addressed in that story.

They are more competitive now but, for the most part, they traded those first round blowouts for blowouts in the state finals.

Basically the old system wasn't working. The new system has its issues and I'm not sure there is a perfect system

The old system, when each section sent their top 2 was working just fine. Making NorCals actually meant something. Expanding the field and staying with a natural seeding (ie 1v16, 2v15...) is going to result in more blow outs. It doesn't take a three-digit-IQ to comprehend this. CIF got greedy and killed two birds with one stone so to speak by catering to the everyone-deserves-a-trophy crowd. Now they are trying to fix their own mistake by kicking the blow out problem down the road to a bigger stage. Congrats?

 

[Mo Green]

From the point of view of CIF it's all about more competitive games generating more revenue. From my point of view, it's about teams being given the opportunity to prove they are the best teams in their divisions.

They need to prove it first in sectionals. California post season basketball is a joke. It was bad enough when we advanced just the runners-up. No we send teams that don't even win a game in sectionals (maybe avoiding that now with NCS expanding all of its brackets to 16.)

 

[personalogic]

Did Northern California fix its failing basketball playoff system? The verdict is in.
BY JOE DAVIDSON

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/high-school/joe-davidson/article204408779.html

Press release regurgitation masquerading as journalism. Fake news.

They need to prove it first in sectionals. California post season basketball is a joke. It was bad enough when we advanced just the runners-up. No we send teams that don't even win a game in sectionals (maybe avoiding that now with NCS expanding all of its brackets to 16.)

Taking the top two teams from each section to Norcal is plenty. I made that argument years ago. Partly to avoid meaningless first round blowouts. But also taking into consideration that some kids (believe it or not) actually play more than one sport. Track, softball, etc. are already well underway.

 

[ClayK]

From a national perspective, the California system makes more sense -- though as Doug points out, it has its flaws and there is no perfect system.

Putting all the teams in one or two brackets is unfair. Dividing by enrollment is unfair. Dividing by public and private is unfair to most privates and with the added divisions, makes it even more an "everyone gets a trophy" production.

As long as some schools take athletics more seriously than others -- and private, charter and magnet schools have a financial motivation to do so because athletics attracts paying customers and also generates free marketing -- the best way to divide postseason competition is to attempt to have those schools that take athletics seriously compete against each other as much as possible.

That's the goal of the present system. The enrollment system, where Pinewood plays in Division V against Lassen and Irvington plays against Carondelet in Division I, makes no sense given the reality of the situation. Dividing public and private (and where do magnet and charter schools go?) creates eight or nine or ten separate divisions and truly no state champion.

If you go through the states, as I do every year, the California system is the most progressive, the most realistic, and the fairest overall. Like democracy, it's not a very good system, but it's a lot better than any of the others.

 

[personalogic]

From a national perspective, the California system makes more sense -- though as Doug points out, it has its flaws and there is no perfect system.

Putting all the teams in one or two brackets is unfair. Dividing by enrollment is unfair. Dividing by public and private is unfair to most privates and with the added divisions, makes it even more an "everyone gets a trophy" production.

As long as some schools take athletics more seriously than others -- and private, charter and magnet schools have a financial motivation to do so because athletics attracts paying customers and also generates free marketing -- the best way to divide postseason competition is to attempt to have those schools that take athletics seriously compete against each other as much as possible.

That's the goal of the present system. The enrollment system, where Pinewood plays in Division V against Lassen and Irvington plays against Carondelet in Division I, makes no sense given the reality of the situation. Dividing public and private (and where do magnet and charter schools go?) creates eight or nine or ten separate divisions and truly no state champion.

If you go through the states, as I do every year, the California system is the most progressive, the most realistic, and the fairest overall. Like democracy, it's not a very good system, but it's a lot better than any of the others.

You say that "dividing by enrollment is unfair". But is it? Aren't you really saying that it's unfair that teams that are more dedicated, work harder, and are more talented shouldn't be allowed to do better than lesser teams?

Maybe you can explain why it would have been unfair to leave Bishop O'Dowd and Cardinal Newman in their enrollment divisions this season, as opposed to serving them up to be slaughtered in the first round of the Open Division.

 

[mkbgdns]

I'm not sure there is a perfect system

I'm sure there is not a perfect system.

 

[ClayK]

I'm not contending that Bishop O'Dowd and Cardinal Newman "deserved" to be in the Open. What I'm saying is that Cardinal Newman does not belong in Division IV with Kelseyville and Middletown because they are playing a different game, and have different goals. What I'm saying is that Bishop O'Dowd does not belong in Division III with Elsie Allen and San Rafael because O'Dowd has a different focus on athletics than those two public schools.

You could also make the same case about Sacramento, a magnet school that can draw from the entire Sacramento school district as it has no boundaries, and any charter school. Those public schools generate their income from the state by the number of students who attend, so the marketing of winning teams, and the attraction of students to athletic programs is a clear benefit.

There is no perfect system, and I'm not convinced there's a good system, but that said, there are still some systems that are better than others.

 

[thekingera]

What I'm saying is that Cardinal Newman does not belong in Division IV with Kelseyville and Middletown because they are playing a different game, and have different goals.

Spot on.

Bishop O'Dowd does not belong in Division III with Elsie Allen and San Rafael because O'Dowd has a different focus on athletics than those two public schools.

Another good point.

There is no perfect system,

Agreed. There is no perfect system. The old system was far from perfect. I would argue that this system is more fair to the upper level teams because it doesn't allow them to hide behind enrollment numbers and play teams in the playoffs that they have no business playing. A work in progress I guess.

 

[Coach Cardinal]

Maybe at the NorCals level - some of the changes are working but at the NCS level we are "hiding" the schools that are allowed to "recruit" (or if you would rather use the term - "focus" on basketball more.

StreakOne says:
"I like the model of enrollment based and then moving teams up based on success. It would turn Division I into a defacto Open Division which is fine."

Clay says:
"Enrollment makes no sense -- Irvington plays against Carondelet in Division I," and says no to "Dividing public and private (where do magnet and charter schools go?)"

Let not have D1 as the "Defacto Open" lets have a NCS open. In 2-3 years - Miramonte will be D1, maybe BOD and Salesian. So what happens to the "Irvingtons" that do not have open boundaries (like a Miramonte, Logan or all the privates) - how will "Irvington" compete in D1? We seem to care about the smaller public schools - "let's move the big bad privates" (or schools more focused on basketball) up but what about the larger publics that play by the rules - that take the kids that enroll in their schools AFTER the other publics (i.e. Miramonte) and the privates have taken the "pick of the litter". Good coaches and programs that are trying to compete at the D1 level are playing an unbalanced game. What makes us think that a San Raphael competing against BoD is wrong but Irvington competing against BoD is okay?

The best answer is NCS open - just like the CCS open. That way the top get to compete against the top and in any given year if injuries/graduation changes the dynamic D2-D4 schools are not penalized by being "artificially" moved up to D1. It will also allow some larger public schools to continue to compete (or even participate) in the NCS playoffs. Imagine a NCS D1 division with the following schools - Carondelet, Miramonte, BoD, Salesian, Heritage, Logan and Berkeley - I am sure I forgot 1-2 others. That leaves ALL the other D1s (about 20 of them) fighting for seeds 9-16. So all the other D1 are likely NEVER hosting another NCS game.....EVER. AND traveling for round 1 to places like Carondelet, Miramonte, Salesisan and BoD. That's really competitive equity?

 

[da real]

"Teams compete in different levels, elite down to non-elite," Blake said. "In math, you don't suddenly take the trigonometry student and put him into general math any more than you'd take the general math student and put him or her into trig. Where do you fit? That's our thinking. We're following a classroom model."

This is a losers mentality. Non-elite teams should not compete for "state titles".

. It will also allow some larger public schools to continue to compete (or even participate) in the NCS playoffs.

There is nothing preventing large or small public schools from competing right now. Some schools might not be great at basketball.... That's ok.

 

[Mo Green]

From a national perspective, the California system makes more sense -- though as Doug points out, it has its flaws and there is no perfect system.

ANy system where a team that loses in the QFs advances is a joke.

 

[Coach Cardinal]

ANy system where a team that loses in the QFs advances is a joke.

I can agree to that in "theory" - I do believe that in the Southern and Central Coast Sections they have "Open Tournaments". This allows more teams the chance to "win" their way into NorCals. I do understand and agree that some team - like Redwood - deserved to be in the NorCals as a D2 rep as a replacement for BoD, who was chosen for the Open Division. But since the current format has 88 slots, many here are discussing how best to fill those 88 slots. It seems that you believe that there should be less, that is another possibility.

Assuming your format - "You have to win at least 2 (semi-finalist), maybe 3 (Finalist) - 1) Does SF and Oakland Sections get the same amount of slots as other Sections even though their Sections has less teams? 2) How do you handle the CCS, which provides auto bids (8) to everyone in their Open Tournament? Many were D2s this year (Mitty, St. Francis, Presentation) - are other divisions limited to 4-5 slots - so only the champions? In D5 (Pinewood and Eastside) so no one from D5 CCS playoffs? 3) What about the Northern Section - I don't believe they have D1 and D2 - do they only get 8 slots (D3-D6)? Just wondering your thoughts?

 

[Norcal_Fan]

I can agree to that in "theory" - I do believe that in the Southern and Central Coast Sections they have "Open Tournaments". This allows more teams the chance to "win" their way into NorCals. I do understand and agree that some team - like Redwood - deserved to be in the NorCals as a D2 rep as a replacement for BoD, who was chosen for the Open Division. But since the current format has 88 slots, many here are discussing how best to fill those 88 slots. It seems that you believe that there should be less, that is another possibility.

Assuming your format - "You have to win at least 2 (semi-finalist), maybe 3 (Finalist) - 1) Does SF and Oakland Sections get the same amount of slots as other Sections even though their Sections has less teams? 2) How do you handle the CCS, which provides auto bids (8) to everyone in their Open Tournament? Many were D2s this year (Mitty, St. Francis, Presentation) - are other divisions limited to 4-5 slots - so only the champions? In D5 (Pinewood and Eastside) so no one from D5 CCS playoffs? 3) What about the Northern Section - I don't believe they have D1 and D2 - do they only get 8 slots (D3-D6)? Just wondering your thoughts?

Love Logan but they had NO business being in Norcals and leaving San Leandro and Mt. Eden out was a complete effing joke. It's because moves like this that give the entire system a target to shoot at. Here are the rules...buuuuuut we'll bend the rules. Can you tell me the last time San Leandro was eligible for Norcals? This year would have been the first in a LOOOONg time.

SF and OAL:
I believe that the OAL and the AAA should only get two teams (at most) because of the size of their section. This would mean at most two into Norcals each year

CCS
What does suck for CCS is not having at least two teams per division, being able to move forward to Norcals because the Open teams get automatic birth. That's some BS. I would say that the top 4, maybe 6 teams from open get automatic birth and allows lower level teams to compete as well.

NS
I really have no clue as to the NS. IF they only field teams D3-D6, if it's above a certain number (I think they have quite a few per division) then they'd get 4. If not, it gets adjusted to 2.

NCS/SJS
Both need open division sectional playoffs. Depending on the teams, it could be 6 or an 8 team division, with top two going to Open and last 4 sprinkled to the other divisions (or maybe they're automatically in Division 1.

 

[ClayK]

I think an Open division for SJS and NCS would help a lot ... now you take the top two teams in each Open automatically so you start with six. Given the reality of the level of play in the Northern, SF and Oakland sections right now, the two at-large teams would likely be the best semifinal Open losers.

If, or when, SF, Oakland or NS have an Open team, they could fill one or both of the spots.

All teams in the Open divisions are guaranteed a spot in NorCals, but will be seeded by competitive equity.

Taking NCS this year, it would have then been clear which two teams were definitely Open, and then the two semifinal losers would have been in the pool with the SJS and CCS semifinal losers to determine the last two spots. (Or maybe a D1 winner sneaks in.)

 

[personalogic]

I think an Open division for SJS and NCS would help a lot ... now you take the top two teams in each Open automatically so you start with six. Given the reality of the level of play in the Northern, SF and Oakland sections right now, the two at-large teams would likely be the best semifinal Open losers.

If, or when, SF, Oakland or NS have an Open team, they could fill one or both of the spots.

All teams in the Open divisions are guaranteed a spot in NorCals, but will be seeded by competitive equity.

Taking NCS this year, it would have then been clear which two teams were definitely Open, and then the two semifinal losers would have been in the pool with the SJS and CCS semifinal losers to determine the last two spots. (Or maybe a D1 winner sneaks in.)

I have to admire whoever coined the term "competitive equity" to describe something that is neither competitive nor equitable. It almost makes it seem like it's not really just a bunch of barely knowledgeable old men sitting around in a room playing fantasy basketball.

 

[thekingera]

While it may not be the best system, I thought it was pretty fair this year.

I just like how it didn't allow the privates to "hide" in the lower divisions and play teams they shouldn't be playing.

While it did do what was intended at the top, I do believe it diluted the lower half of the divisions.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

I have to admire whoever coined the term "competitive equity" to describe something that is neither competitive nor equitable. It almost makes it seem like it's not really just a bunch of barely knowledgeable old men sitting around in a room playing fantasy basketball.

I think I understand what they were trying to do for "competitive equity" the unfortunate thing is that most, if not all of the administrators that tried to seed these teams together have NO clue about teams, common opponents etc. They have SO many teams and so little time. I'm sure they ALL looked at Maxpreps AND shuffled without really looking at each division. In a lot of them, there was neither rhyme or reason..there really isn't . So we'll continue to get people in there until there is a way for coaches to really have input. It's funny, why is there so much secrecy to who's making the seeds and why isn't there any transparency from CIF. what are they trying to hide? The fact that State Farm is actually trying to get teams with Cal Star kids better seeds so that they win state championships? hmm....

 

[Willtalk]

Anyone who has ever worked in construction recognizes it is far easier to build from scratch than to remodel. The same seems also applicable in many different areas as well. If a person is not building on a solid foundation most of the time is spent compensating for existing flaws. John Woodens entire coaching philosophy is based on this. This is especially applicable to laws being that the entire structure needs to be based on precedence and continuity. The fact that every year more and more adjustments have to be made is evidence that the system in place lacks stability.

The problem with the system today is that the last few years have been used trying to compensating for rather than actually fixing existing flaws. For agenda reasons they rushed into the initial implementation of an Open bracket with out due thought or planning. I remember this very subject was discussed on this site at that time. What we have now are the consequences of implementing something with out due diligence. They were either totally over their heads or they were in a hurry to compensate for something else they did not want changed. I suspect it was a little of both.

So typical of people in power to hide their own incompetence by creating the illusion that something is being done to fix issues they actually helped to bring about and bear the responsibility for. The bottom line is that the intent is never about fixing problems, rather only maintaining the power to stay in charge. The best sort of cure is a change of personal that gets people with a new perspective in those positions. We can see what sort of positive effect this has had on the 49er front office. The problem with the 49ers and most goal displaced institutions is that the more incompetent a person is the more unlikely they are to want to give up their power and control. To maintain functionality in institutions that claim to work for the public good there needs to be a constant healthy turnover. Of course this does not happen in todays society. People have come to believe that positions of public trust are in fact personal entitlements.

 

[ClayK]

Just a note: State Farm has no relationship with CIF ...

But absolutely they should release who's on the committee along with the section commissioners. And CIF should hold two conference calls (one for boys, one for girls) several hours after the seedings are announced to explain its rationale for various decisions.

 

[colhenrylives]

You can make a pretty good argument that, in a state as large as California (more populated, with 40 million souls, than Canada, Poland or Australia, it's akin to a separate country), no comprehensive prep basketball playoff system will be totally satisfactory. The schools are too diverse in terms of factors such as size, location, demographics, stated goals, public/private, religious and not, charter or not, athletic emphasis, open enrollment or not, boarding component, etc. The setup will continue to be tweaked section by section and by CIF itself. One small recommendation: The larger sections should conduct an Open Division tourney; CIF should conduct the Open Division regional brackets with 16 schools in both north and south.

 

[observer22]

Open divisions are great. The best versus the best. Plus by taking the top 2 teams (section finalists) to the NorCal Open, the Open teams are earning their way in and hopefully it would be seen as more of an accomplishment than getting thrown in as an at large team while other similar teams compete in the NIT brackets.

 

[Streak One]

Anyone who has ever worked in construction recognizes it is far easier to build from scratch than to remodel. The same seems also applicable in many different areas as well. If a person is not building on a solid foundation most of the time is spent compensating for existing flaws. John Woodens entire coaching philosophy is based on this. This is especially applicable to laws being that the entire structure needs to be based on precedence and continuity. The fact that every year more and more adjustments have to be made is evidence that the system in place lacks stability.

The problem with the system today is that the last few years have been used trying to compensating for rather than actually fixing existing flaws. For agenda reasons they rushed into the initial implementation of an Open bracket with out due thought or planning. I remember this very subject was discussed on this site at that time. What we have now are the consequences of implementing something with out due diligence. They were either totally over their heads or they were in a hurry to compensate for something else they did not want changed. I suspect it was a little of both.

So typical of people in power to hide their own incompetence by creating the illusion that something is being done to fix issues they actually helped to bring about and bear the responsibility for. The bottom line is that the intent is never about fixing problems, rather only maintaining the power to stay in charge. The best sort of cure is a change of personal that gets people with a new perspective in those positions. We can see what sort of positive effect this has had on the 49er front office. The problem with the 49ers and most goal displaced institutions is that the more incompetent a person is the more unlikely they are to want to give up their power and control. To maintain functionality in institutions that claim to work for the public good there needs to be a constant healthy turnover. Of course this does not happen in todays society. People have come to believe that positions of public trust are in fact personal entitlements.

Great way to describe it. You can only out some many band aids on a cut before it just doesn't work anymore.