So this year, 75% of the top 100 teams from CalPreps are in Southern California. I imagine it has been like this in past years. Yet Northern California schools are leading (pretty significantly) in the number of state titles won. So why aren't more Northern California schools ranked in the Top 100 by CalPreps? Seems like 75% of the state titles should be won by SoCal schools since 75% of their teams are in the Top 100. Is there something in the CalPreps algorithm that favors Southern California schools? Maybe the Southern California Open, D1 and D2 type schools are often better than the Northern California Open, D1 and D2 schools, but Northern California is superior on the lower than D2 (or D3) level? And since there are more lower than D2/3 title games that is why Northern California leads in the "who has won most state title game" tally. Or maybe it is as simple as there is just that there are more schools in Southern California. Any thoughts?
Is CalPreps Wrong?
- Thread starter carmelkyd
- Start date
The rankings should be broken up by either division or school size (large, medium, small). Back in the day some publications provided rankings broken down by school size.
I don’t really pay attention to Cal Preps anymore, it just seems overly Biased towards CA teams…..
What I have found interesting though is on the National Board we do a Pick’em and the dudes who run it have Cal Preps as a participant…. Cal preps picks have been around a 70% Correct clip the last few years, this year they are sitting at 68%….
So for me, I would call Cal Preps about 70% Accurate in their rankings…. 🤣
This is easy to explain, simply look at the playoff systems in the South and North and the disparity of level of teams which face each other as the level of the games decline. It's not apples to apples. Only 1 of the top 10 down south move on (and the domino effect from that across the entire southern section), while in the north you have teams which lose moving on in some cases and a widespread effort to get as many of its best teams to state. CalPreps, while not error proof, is pretty darn good.
Look at SJS for example, if the SS model was used, Grant would have been in the Open and lost to Folsom and not advanced to state. This goes on, on a much wider scale throughout the North.
Last edited:
Not sure why this even needed to be explained but great job high lighting the obvious.
This is correct. As an example, the Trinity League is filled with powerhouse teams. Only one (MD) played in a state game this year.
JSerra beat Lincoln (SDS) 28-19 and finished tied for last place in the Trinity league.Let that sink in
The same effect happened in a microcosm back when the SJS was strictly divided by North and South playoff brackets. The two, three, or even four best teams in that division might all be on one side of the bracket due to geography. There were many times that the City Championship (North semi-final) was the best match-up in D1. If that scenario were in place now, Oak Ridge would never have made it to the finals.
Last edited:
Set aside your playoff comments. Guess my question still is why are 75% of the top teams according to CalPreps in the southern part of the state? Are kids in Southern California simply better football players than kids from the north? Are coaches in the south better than coaches in the north? This isn’t a question about who makes the playoffs and who doesn’t. It’s why are 75% of the top 100 teams in the state from the south?
Yeah I think somebody lined up the top in the south vs top in the north and honestly, I don't think the north would win 1 game out of 20 with many of them just blowouts. We get the purple participation ribbon for the SBG in the north.
Grant got destroyed by Lincoln of SDG at Grant and the Pacers went on to claim a SBG. One of many examples.
Population, demographics, overall a population less focused on social issues and more focused on winning, what did I miss?
The landscapes are different. SoCal is bigger. There are more quality inner and suburban city football programs. SoCal also trains differently than we do. The PopWarner scene in LA is the best in the country and they take football a lot more serious than we do here in NorCal.
Also, Santa Margarita who finished 5-7 was tied for Last in the TL with JSerra, beat Cen10 and also won a Playoff game and almost upset SJB in the playoffs losing by like 3 points…. 🤣
Let's first look at the sheer numbers.
Among the full NorCal sections, there are 398 football schools.
Among the full SoCal sections, there are 532 football schools.
The Central Section has 112 football schools, but is generally split between NorCal and SoCal. Not sure in which region you're counting these schools, but for the sake of argument, let's split these numbers as the CIF did (2:5, NorCal:SoCal). This places an additional 32 teams in NorCal and 80 in SoCal.
Now NorCal 430. SoCal 612.
By sheer percentages, this places 41.3% of the state's teams in NorCal and 58.7% in SoCal.
Add into this the number of small, rural communities that have high schools in the NCS, NS, and SJS. I estimate these to be somewhere in the vicinity of 50 teams. Yes, the CS also has several and the SDS has a few, but not in the same numbers (maybe around 40?). Now consider the general weakness of the Oakland and San Francisco sections.
You are then automatically left with the majority of that 75% automatically being located in SoCal.
Once you get past the Trinity and maybe Alpha leagues, things do tend to start to balance out a bit. In my opinion, the mid-sized schools in NorCal tend to be better than those in SoCal. Much like in the CCS, a lot of the lower division teams in the SS and SDS are big schools.
Again looking at demographics the North has a lot more small schools than the South. Look at the lower division bowl games where a small school from the North with 600 students is playing a team from the South with 2,300 students that was moved down due to competitive equity. And the Trans Valley League in the SJS section is the best small school league in the state, with Escalon, Hughson, Sonora, Hilmar. It's better by far than any league in the LA section with schools 3 or 4 times their size. But again, it's really the sheer population advantage the South has that makes the difference. De La Salle has always been criticized for drawing players from other schools but their population base cannot even come close to that of the Trinity League teams. And other private schools one level down from them, like Oaks Christian or Sierra Canyon have a huge advantage too. It's frustrating on the Div. 1 level in the SJS every year when Folsom is basically unbeatable. Then imagine in the Trinity League where every team not named Mater Dei or St. John Bosco is close to the best in the state and they have essentially no chance of being in a bowl game.
>>>nd the Trans Valley League in the SJS section is the best small school league in the state, with Escalon, Hughson, Sonora, Hilmar. It's better by far than any league in the LA section with schools 3 or 4 times their size.
Because most of the talent in LA City section goes elsewhere.
>> De La Salle has always been criticized for drawing players from other schools but their population base cannot even come close to that of the Trinity League teams. And other private schools one level down from them, like Oaks Christian or Sierra Canyon have a huge advantage too.
There are 3M people in the east bay. DLS is the only game in town. There are more people in the area around the Trinity, however, tons of competition from similar programs. DLS is its own worst enemy with the offensive system they employ. How many WRs (read athletes) and QBs are excited to play in that system? Remember that 5 star QB two seasons ago and the endless 3 and 4 star athletes 10 miles over the hill? They would be at DLS if the offensive system wasn't such a turn off.
Similar threads
