MIRAMONTE 4 PEAT ARTICLE ON NCP.

[OnBall8]

Well obviously they aren't going that far back and you know it. I'm not trying to defend using recent history, I think you are completely correct that it should be this year only.
I just think the Open was sold from the side of perpetual losers who were tired of the private schools winning most years in some/most divisions. And in their thinking, strong teams (who you say recruit) can often reload vs rebuild, so if they can use past results to push them out of the way more often, the better it is for the little guys.

 

[mkbgdns]

or, in Norcal, past results should guarantee Berkeley an Open slot for the next 10 years. not.

I don't see how conceding that MM looks like a #8 seed in the Open and would likely be one-and-done is either denying their Open-worthy resume, or whining. that's not to say they're not open (pun?) to divine intervention in the form of CW or Salesian showing up in the final field.

 

[northbaybbguru]

I confess to the whining ... I think, though, that every program would like to have a state championship banner on the wall. Salesian does not; Miramonte does not.

So if you are going to look at history to determine this year's placement in the Open -- which I disagree with -- then shouldn't state championships be taken into account? In other words, if your case is that Miramonte has been tremendously successful in recent years, thanks in great part to a graduated player who is now in the conversation for NCAA Freshman of the Year, shouldn't it also be taken into account that Miramonte has never won a state title?

It seems to me, on the other hand, that's what has happened in the past should have no bearing on this year's seedings, for Cardinal Newman or SMS or Miramonte. (If Cardinal Newman were to win the Division IV state title again this year, for example, would that mean they should be Open next year, even though they graduate five seniors?)

If Miramonte is one of the seven or eight best teams in Northern California based on this year's results, then the Open designation is fair. But Miramonte, and SMS and every other team, should not be judged on previous success or lack thereof (why Folsom cannot be considered because of what happened three years ago is a mystery to me -- and those criteria do not apply in the South).

If the idea of the Open is let the best teams decide on the court who's the best, then what happened three years seems irrelevant, at least to me. What should matter is what happened this year ...

SALESIAN has made it to 3 state title games and won multiple section titles since the inception of the OPEN bracket. Im sure there isnt a single person( outside of the Salesian program) that feels sorry for them NOT winning one of their 3 state title game chances.
And MM got to the OPEN state title game last year and has won multiple section titles also. So im not really sure what point you are trying to make using those 2 examples.

 

[ClayK]

You don't get a banner on the wall for going to the Open final. Sure, the banner may not mean that much, but when you go back to the gym in the future, there's your name -- and you can claim you were a state champion. The NorCal Open title definitely means more in reality, but it doesn't reap the same rewards.

And in fact, the CIF president made it clear that Open participation is not worth anything special and that CIF would never consider honoring Open participants in any way. State champions get medals and pictures and such, but not Open participants.

At one level, of course, all that is irrelevant, but I'm guessing that a lot of Cardinal Newman players, coaches and fans are pretty proud to call themselves 2016 state champions. Would they have been as proud, would the community had noticed as much, if they had lost in the NorCal Open semis?

 

[Paytc]

You don't get a banner on the wall for going to the Open final. Sure, the banner may not mean that much, but when you go back to the gym in the future, there's your name -- and you can claim you were a state champion. The NorCal Open title definitely means more in reality, but it doesn't reap the same rewards.

And in fact, the CIF president made it clear that Open participation is not worth anything special and that CIF would never consider honoring Open participants in any way. State champions get medals and pictures and such, but not Open participants.

At one level, of course, all that is irrelevant, but I'm guessing that a lot of Cardinal Newman players, coaches and fans are pretty proud to call themselves 2016 state champions. Would they have been as proud, would the community had noticed as much, if they had lost in the NorCal Open semis?

Good point. But adults should be ashamed of themselves if they literally force the bottom feeders into the open tournament and don't reward Open participants as they reward Division champions and participants. But of course these same adults won't miss an ounce of sleep just as long as they continue to feel big about themselves even if their actions are small. SMH..........

 

[ClayK]

I was a little surprised at the vehemence with which Roger Blake responded to my suggestion that CIF do something to make participation in the Open special.

My real concern is that, at some point, a coach is going to try to lose in order to game the system. It's happened before, and will happen again, and it shouldn't -- but if there's an advantage to be gained from losing, the temptation can be pretty strong.

 

[observer22]

You don't get a banner on the wall for going to the Open final. Sure, the banner may not mean that much, but when you go back to the gym in the future, there's your name -- and you can claim you were a state champion. The NorCal Open title definitely means more in reality, but it doesn't reap the same rewards.

And in fact, the CIF president made it clear that Open participation is not worth anything special and that CIF would never consider honoring Open participants in any way. State champions get medals and pictures and such, but not Open participants.

At one level, of course, all that is irrelevant, but I'm guessing that a lot of Cardinal Newman players, coaches and fans are pretty proud to call themselves 2016 state champions. Would they have been as proud, would the community had noticed as much, if they had lost in the NorCal Open semis?

Case in point; On the boys side, a couple of years ago Monte Vista had a 1 loss team in D1 and decided not to opt up to the Open Division even though they were obviously one of the top 8 teams in the North, and since they did not meet the criteria yet, they weren't forced up. They won the D1 state title that year. The very next season, they had an equally good team winning the EBAL and NCS and were forced up to the Open Division. The 3rd place team in the EBAL that season SRV ran the table in the D1 NorCal playoffs and beat Chino Hills and the Ball brothers in the state title game in an overtime thriller at Hass.

The town of Danville threw a parade for the SRV team for winning the 1st state championship in the 100+ year history of the program, something they had not done for the Monte Vista team the year before. And certainly the MV team that won the EBAL and NCS over SRV that same year year and lost in the Open got no parade either. I really like Clay's idea of rewarding teams in some way that make the Open, but just don't know how it can be done, especially if the powers that be scoff at the idea. Until something is done to address that issue, people will value a state title in a lower division over being an also ran in the Open Division.

 

[Paytc]

I was a little surprised at the vehemence with which Roger Blake responded to my suggestion that CIF do something to make participation in the Open special.

My real concern is that, at some point, a coach is going to try to lose in order to game the system. It's happened before, and will happen again, and it shouldn't -- but if there's an advantage to be gained from losing, the temptation can be pretty strong.

I know a lot of people have problems with honesty or when people challenge authority. I will say many are obedient. I'm sure those with the authority appreciate the obedience. It's not easy speaking out. But change typically comes about by those with a bit more courage and integrity. Not by the many who just obey and look the other way. Well I think we all know there are coaches out there trying to lose intentionally to avoid playing in the Open. Not that I agree with anyone for dodging the Open. I think you should just play whoever comes on the schedule. But obviously if there was more recognition and some type of rewards be it medals, a plaque, certificate(s), banner, trophy, ribbon,poster,keychain,patch, pin, picture, or something, going to the Open would be considered an honor and not a punishment to more than half of the participants. To be even considered as one of the top 16 teams in the state of California should be better recognized than it is. But the punishment is more important than the appreciation of achievement. SMH.....

 

[mkbgdns]

they literally force the bottom feeders into the open tournament

the punishment is more important than the appreciation of achievement.

let me start by saying I completely agree that Open Selection should be rewarded in some way, maybe even more (bigger? faster? better? linguistically?) than enrollment division state champions. I'm biased--I root for MM, which has been to all four Opens, and might have only a Norcal banner (if they give one) to show.

but this notion of punishment is, I think, unintended. some group decided to have a real, undisputed state champ, with 16 contestants. could have been 2, 4, 8, or 32. the fallout comes from obliviousness, not ill will. I'm not in anybody's mind, but I'd guess the effect on the 15 teams that don't win came as unintended consequence--not that you needed to be a genius to see it coming, but that the focus was narrowly on finding the Champ. never too late to fix an unforeseen problem, although bureaucrats aren't known for acknowledging and remedying a problem in their own creations. hence the strong reaction to suggested improvements in their love child.

I'm puzzled by your "bottom feeders" remark. was that sarcasm toward the punitive attitude of the organizers? after all, unless you're a fisherman looking to catch a particular species, that name is usually a put-down. together with your statement that the punishment is "more important", I think you're projecting a strong punitive intent, with the actual championship as an afterthought. I think it's the other way around. to the designers, the championship matters, the collateral damage is not important at all. like smart bombs (sic), they're not so smart.

unless the actual intent is to punish the bottom feeders (successful smaller programs) by denying them state enrollment division championships. in which case, bombs away!

 

[OnBall8]

they literally force the bottom feeders into the open tournament

The way I interpreted it (and I may be wrong) was that, depending on how things shake out in sectionals, some people may feel like there aren't 8 teams that fully fit the bill to be in open.. thus forcing a borderline team to become the 8th seed, and as many people on here have called them, "cannon fodder".. we can't forget that the committee does not have to fill spots up to 16 if they don't want to.. Do you guys think that they would ever go with less? How would people feel if the 1 and/or 2 seeds got a bye in the first round?

 

[mkbgdns]

once a committee can agree on on a magic number 16 (I'll bet it took some time), you think they'll agree to change it to 13? or 11? the Open format may not be cast in stone, but I'll bet it's not much more flexible.

I had a hopeful thought-- don't depend on cif to make your team's season a success. THEY DON'T CARE. I think kids who have made it to Norcal, any division, know they've had a good year. I also would guess that after they've graduated college, and moved away, their memory of that season will involve specific moments with their teammates . I don't think they'll close their eyes and picture a banner in the rafters. or at least I hope this.

 

[OnBall8]

once a committee can agree on on a magic number 16 (I'll bet it took some time), you think they'll agree to change it to 13? or 11? the Open format may not be cast in stone, but I'll bet it's not much more flexible.

It says in the bylaws that they can take a maximum of 8, but they don't have to take 8.

 

[mkbgdns]

thanks, didn't know that. a little ignorance goes a long way.

 

[ClayK]

The first year, SoCals only had six girls teams (NorCal only had six boys teams) but after that it was "agreed" they would fill the brackets, I believe.

Here's the sad truth: No matter what system you use -- enrollment, committees, rolling dice -- someone is going to wind up on the short end of the stick and someone is going to get a smoother path. There's no way to avoid it.

So really what we're looking for is the system that's fairest to the most teams (since no system will be fair to all teams). I still believe the competitive equity system they're using now is fairer than the enrollment system, and I think it has the potential to be even better. But if you look across the country -- and I do, on a weekly basis -- there's really nothing that works perfectly for everyone. There will always be teams that are unlucky one way or another, and there will always be teams that wind up getting a break they maybe didn't deserve.

 

[mkbgdns]

and I might have built a fantasy about cif being rigid and uncaring, but I think the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. I'm not sure anyone in a decision-making capacity thinks it's broke.