NCS votes down Open
- Thread starter ClayK
- Start date
Three things, but I think the main thing is probably the first:
1) It was a rush to put it in this year;
2) Didn't like the Open teams automatically going to NorCals;
3) Didn't feel that the present system (moving teams up by NCS success) was factored in.
My guess is they come back to it next year, and pass it for 2020-21.
1) It was a rush to put it in this year;
2) Didn't like the Open teams automatically going to NorCals;
3) Didn't feel that the present system (moving teams up by NCS success) was factored in.
My guess is they come back to it next year, and pass it for 2020-21.
I firmly believe the A.D.s didn't understand what they were voting on.
They heard "OPEN" and said nope.
let me say this.....
I DONT WANT TO EVER HEAR ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL A.D. GRIPE ABOUT THE PRIVATE SCHOOL ADVANTAGE IN THE NCS EVER AGAIN!!!
The OPEN is essentially a private shool section (with a few exceptions)....
so now when the Salesians and O'dowds of the world win their 1st round games by 60...no gripes from the public school lambs that got slaughtered....
YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO GET THE BIG BOY/GIRLS SQUADS OUT OF YOUR SECTION..
YOU &%$#*& IDIOTS!!!
ps...congrats on never winning a section title ever again as the same 8 teams will battle for them every yr.
They heard "OPEN" and said nope.
let me say this.....
I DONT WANT TO EVER HEAR ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL A.D. GRIPE ABOUT THE PRIVATE SCHOOL ADVANTAGE IN THE NCS EVER AGAIN!!!
The OPEN is essentially a private shool section (with a few exceptions)....
so now when the Salesians and O'dowds of the world win their 1st round games by 60...no gripes from the public school lambs that got slaughtered....
YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO GET THE BIG BOY/GIRLS SQUADS OUT OF YOUR SECTION..
YOU &%$#*& IDIOTS!!!
ps...congrats on never winning a section title ever again as the same 8 teams will battle for them every yr.
#2...its competitive equity in Norcals...the 8 teams in the OPEN are getting in to the Norcals regardless what they would do in regular sections
#3.. no need to move up the dominant teams anymore if they aren't playing in the regular sections.
I just don't see the justification on why they'd say no. It's a win/win for everyone. Once again, dummy principals/AD's that don't know what they're voting about....
It could be that there were more objections on the boys' side that we aren't aware of. It certainly seems like it makes complete sense for the girls.
I also think that if the NCS commissioner was fervently in favor, it would have passed, but Gil has never really liked the idea. Of course, there will be a new commissioner next year.
It's also possible that they will bring it back in April, approve it and implement for 2019-20.
I also think that if the NCS commissioner was fervently in favor, it would have passed, but Gil has never really liked the idea. Of course, there will be a new commissioner next year.
It's also possible that they will bring it back in April, approve it and implement for 2019-20.
As part of the team that put the proposal together I am also surprised that it did not pass - "win/win" for everybody. The process started at the league (MVAL) level, then to SAC level and then to NCS. We received questions and feedback at each level. At the SAC level there was some confusion on how it helped all divisions and not just D1 and we (Doug S. and I) were able to answer the questions and talk through those issues. I think that some of that may have been lost at the last meeting/vote. There is also likely some difference of opinion when comparing girls vs boys. We are exploring options on when/how to bring the proposal (updated/improved) back through the process. We are hoping to educate members of the lower divisions on why this is the correct thing to do, address some potential "blockers" and hope to have the "NCS Open Division" implemented 2019-20.
Last edited:
Coach cardinal can you please share your views if you can on how it's a win win for everybody
on the boys side of NCS.I do completely agree on the girls side of things it makes alot of
sense but I do feel it's not as clear cut on the boys side of things.
on the boys side of NCS.I do completely agree on the girls side of things it makes alot of
sense but I do feel it's not as clear cut on the boys side of things.
Last edited:
Here's an idea for you: Bring in a savvy hoops spokesman (woman) from CCS to expound on the merits of an Open Division. Of course, there is one fairly big caveat: CCS contains not one but two outstanding private/parochial basketball leagues, the WCAL and the WBAL. CCS happily uses the Open Division to quarantine top teams from those two circuits. It works very nicely, thank you very much. It's especially appropriate when dealing with the grotesque public-private/parochial imbalance on the girls' side of the equation.
Under the current format teams will move up divisions based on three years of success. Eventually more of the good teams will be in Division 1 or Division 2.
In the open proposed format a team with no history of success from any division could have a 2-3 year window where they are very good and could be section contenders but are bumped to the open due to their top eight ranking.
While the open division is the flavor of the month the current format allows for more of a traditional progression through the divisions.
In the open proposed format a team with no history of success from any division could have a 2-3 year window where they are very good and could be section contenders but are bumped to the open due to their top eight ranking.
While the open division is the flavor of the month the current format allows for more of a traditional progression through the divisions.
Hey Bones40 - like I said in my post "There is also likely some difference of opinion when comparing girls vs boys." -- I have begun to understand some of the potential issues/blockers on the boy's side and would love to hear your opinion on why you think it is a "less than" solution on the boys side of NCS.
So here's one sticking point:
NCS only has 21 slots in NorCals. Without the Open, each of the five divisions is in line to get four spots, with one extra. If the Open takes eight, that leaves 13 for the remaining five divisions, and the D4 and D5 teams fear that NCS would divide those unequally so that D4 and D5 would never get four slots while D1 and D2 would still have a chance at that many berths.
A possible solution (and that's the process right now): Open gets eight; D1 through D5 finalists all automatically qualify, for ten. That leaves three spots, and maybe this? D1 gets an at-large; D2/D3 get an at-large; and D4/D5 get an at-large, chosen by the committee that does the seedings.
All this, however, highlights an underlying issue about competitive equity -- which is that it really doesn't exist with divisions. As a former D5 coach, I can say with confidence that the semifinal losers in D5 would be lucky to win one game in 10 against the D1 semifinal losers, and in fact, often the D5 champion would too.
In true competitive equity, the top 21 teams out of NCS would likely not include any D5 teams, and maybe not any D4 teams, and the same would apply in all sections. This is even more to the point in the present NCS structure, which will over time stack D1 with all the strong programs. This means that actual D1 schools like Deer Valley, say, will be stuck behind the O'Dowds and Carondelets in postseason, but still could be a lot better than any team in D5 -- but never get to NorCals.
Adding the Open alleviates that problem to some extent, removing those traditional powers, but if they're all in Division I (which is supposed to happen over time), it really unbalances the process. Let's say there are six schools that have moved into D1 due to the NCS process -- how likely is it that all six would wind up in the NCS Open, even if they deserved to be?
Still, the Open is the first step, I think most people agree, even on the boys' side. But that doesn't solve the problem ...
NCS only has 21 slots in NorCals. Without the Open, each of the five divisions is in line to get four spots, with one extra. If the Open takes eight, that leaves 13 for the remaining five divisions, and the D4 and D5 teams fear that NCS would divide those unequally so that D4 and D5 would never get four slots while D1 and D2 would still have a chance at that many berths.
A possible solution (and that's the process right now): Open gets eight; D1 through D5 finalists all automatically qualify, for ten. That leaves three spots, and maybe this? D1 gets an at-large; D2/D3 get an at-large; and D4/D5 get an at-large, chosen by the committee that does the seedings.
All this, however, highlights an underlying issue about competitive equity -- which is that it really doesn't exist with divisions. As a former D5 coach, I can say with confidence that the semifinal losers in D5 would be lucky to win one game in 10 against the D1 semifinal losers, and in fact, often the D5 champion would too.
In true competitive equity, the top 21 teams out of NCS would likely not include any D5 teams, and maybe not any D4 teams, and the same would apply in all sections. This is even more to the point in the present NCS structure, which will over time stack D1 with all the strong programs. This means that actual D1 schools like Deer Valley, say, will be stuck behind the O'Dowds and Carondelets in postseason, but still could be a lot better than any team in D5 -- but never get to NorCals.
Adding the Open alleviates that problem to some extent, removing those traditional powers, but if they're all in Division I (which is supposed to happen over time), it really unbalances the process. Let's say there are six schools that have moved into D1 due to the NCS process -- how likely is it that all six would wind up in the NCS Open, even if they deserved to be?
Still, the Open is the first step, I think most people agree, even on the boys' side. But that doesn't solve the problem ...
Clay well said one thing I would like to say and I am not aware at all if this problem exist
on the girls side but it is a big problem on the boys side and that is when it comes to
seeding norcal's cif has repeatedly NOT followed NCS seeding from the sectional playoffs
As it stands now in the current playoff format. If 8 teams are being put in the open division
most of them being league champs and have these teams not be eligible to play
for a sectional title in there enrollment division should not turn around and be
punished in norcal's and be seeded behind a team they lost to in November by cif.
I DO like the 3 game neutral court open division format CCS has in place with so
much at stake these games should not be played on anyone's home court. I am
not sure NCS were going to follow that mold it was said it would be seeded at higher
seeds home court and that it would be lose and your done not a 3 game format.
I do believe this is going to pass at some point but there are things that need to be
cleaned up and thought out a little more and I am sure it's wishful thinking but
It would be nice for CIF officials and NCS officials to get on the same page in
regards to seeding.
on the girls side but it is a big problem on the boys side and that is when it comes to
seeding norcal's cif has repeatedly NOT followed NCS seeding from the sectional playoffs
As it stands now in the current playoff format. If 8 teams are being put in the open division
most of them being league champs and have these teams not be eligible to play
for a sectional title in there enrollment division should not turn around and be
punished in norcal's and be seeded behind a team they lost to in November by cif.
I DO like the 3 game neutral court open division format CCS has in place with so
much at stake these games should not be played on anyone's home court. I am
not sure NCS were going to follow that mold it was said it would be seeded at higher
seeds home court and that it would be lose and your done not a 3 game format.
I do believe this is going to pass at some point but there are things that need to be
cleaned up and thought out a little more and I am sure it's wishful thinking but
It would be nice for CIF officials and NCS officials to get on the same page in
regards to seeding.
1st of all....thank you for helping to put the proposal together and PLEASE try again next year.
I am a good friend with many of the NBL coaches and they didn't even know there was a vote on it. THEIR AD's NEVER ASKED THEM THEIR OPINIONS!!!
When told of the vote the coaches I talked to were upset at the NBL vote.
The NBL voted AGAINST 11-1... the only team to vote for it was CN. (and I know for a fact the CN AD asked the CN coaches their opinion)
I would ask, suggest, beg(?) for a representative from the committee to have a meeting with the NBL schools and THOROUGHLY go over the proposal and explain the positives of it.
AGAIN as I said before on this thread I don't think the ADs (at least in the NBL) understood what they were voting on.
I usually post on the boys side, but the conversation about this is much more rich on the girls side so Ill add my 2 cents:
The current structure (or the past 4 years) of NCS as it pertains to divisions for playoffs seems to be the biggest hurdle for the "Open Division" supporters. Over the past 4 years teams have been moving up and down based on recent program successes. So as we sit right now we have schools on both the boys and girls sides that are in divisions that do not correspond with their enrollment. I understand why it was done, one year (on boys side) St. Joes won D5, Salesian won 4, Moreau won D3, ODowd won D2, and De La Salle lost in NCS Championship in D1 (missed freethrow with no time on clock).
So now that you have most of the above teams moving slowly upward towards division 1, schools are spread out amongst different divisions and you cant make a Open Division with the teams in their current divisions. If all the teams were put back in their original enrollment divisions and then an "Open Division" was created I think it would work out. If you are a "upper middle class" D1 team on the boys side (Top 10 to 15) you are already seeing the better privates slowly move into your division, and on top of that your gonna give 8 slots out in the Nor-Cal's (probably mostly to CIF D1, and D2). would make it harder for you to get in Nor-Cal unless you win it. It would also almost certainly mean that the semi-final losers in D4 and D5 would not get in.
So my recommendation at this point, unless you are going to put everyone back in their enrollment divisions and then create the open is to go on and create a private/catholic school bracket (that has 2 divisions, upper divison and lower division) and a public bracket (that has 4 divisions based on enrollment). The winner and runner up of the Upper private would auto bid into CIF open, and the winner of the public school D1 championship would be the at large open team (if needed). To fill the rest of the divisions you only take the winners and runners up of section championships and then you have 3 at large bids that you can "tinker" with to get whoever you need into a divisional bracket.
Not sure if it would work, but it seems like nothing is "working" so far. Everyone thinks the system the way it is now is flawed. I dont see any other way around it, especially with the rising cost to live in California, the Privates cannot be in the same playoff structure as the publics.
The current structure (or the past 4 years) of NCS as it pertains to divisions for playoffs seems to be the biggest hurdle for the "Open Division" supporters. Over the past 4 years teams have been moving up and down based on recent program successes. So as we sit right now we have schools on both the boys and girls sides that are in divisions that do not correspond with their enrollment. I understand why it was done, one year (on boys side) St. Joes won D5, Salesian won 4, Moreau won D3, ODowd won D2, and De La Salle lost in NCS Championship in D1 (missed freethrow with no time on clock).
So now that you have most of the above teams moving slowly upward towards division 1, schools are spread out amongst different divisions and you cant make a Open Division with the teams in their current divisions. If all the teams were put back in their original enrollment divisions and then an "Open Division" was created I think it would work out. If you are a "upper middle class" D1 team on the boys side (Top 10 to 15) you are already seeing the better privates slowly move into your division, and on top of that your gonna give 8 slots out in the Nor-Cal's (probably mostly to CIF D1, and D2). would make it harder for you to get in Nor-Cal unless you win it. It would also almost certainly mean that the semi-final losers in D4 and D5 would not get in.
So my recommendation at this point, unless you are going to put everyone back in their enrollment divisions and then create the open is to go on and create a private/catholic school bracket (that has 2 divisions, upper divison and lower division) and a public bracket (that has 4 divisions based on enrollment). The winner and runner up of the Upper private would auto bid into CIF open, and the winner of the public school D1 championship would be the at large open team (if needed). To fill the rest of the divisions you only take the winners and runners up of section championships and then you have 3 at large bids that you can "tinker" with to get whoever you need into a divisional bracket.
Not sure if it would work, but it seems like nothing is "working" so far. Everyone thinks the system the way it is now is flawed. I dont see any other way around it, especially with the rising cost to live in California, the Privates cannot be in the same playoff structure as the publics.
Interesting proposal, but the "private" distinction is a tough one. Where do charter schools fit, as they can recruit from anywhere? And what about magnet schools?
And only two divisions for the non-publics is problematic as well because there's a lot of distance between Bishop O'Dowd and Oakland Military Institute. How does University, say, slot in that distinction?
I think I mentioned above that a system that guaranteed the top two finishers in each division a berth in NorCals might help alleviate that concern -- but at the same time, I think NCS has to eventually drop the "move up" provision. I'm not sure that enrollment makes much sense as to dividing teams into divisions, as again O'Dowd is a great example, and so is Pinewood. On the flip side, schools like Ygnacio Valley probably need to be below their enrollment.
There's no perfect system, of course, so the best we can do is try to make a better one.
And only two divisions for the non-publics is problematic as well because there's a lot of distance between Bishop O'Dowd and Oakland Military Institute. How does University, say, slot in that distinction?
I think I mentioned above that a system that guaranteed the top two finishers in each division a berth in NorCals might help alleviate that concern -- but at the same time, I think NCS has to eventually drop the "move up" provision. I'm not sure that enrollment makes much sense as to dividing teams into divisions, as again O'Dowd is a great example, and so is Pinewood. On the flip side, schools like Ygnacio Valley probably need to be below their enrollment.
There's no perfect system, of course, so the best we can do is try to make a better one.
In CCS, the beauty of the Open Division is that it's usually seven private/parochials and one public. In NCS, it could be much the same thing, such as: Carondelet, O'Dowd, St. Mary's, St. Joseph's-ND, Salesian, Marin Catholic, Newman and perhaps Miramonte.
Clay,
I would say OMI would be in the lower "non public" bracket and University would be on the bubble almost every year for the upper or lower bracket.
Its really tough because you already have "fixes" in place that don't necessarily work. To add an "open" division along with the "fixes" that don't work only adds to the problem of not being able to make this work.
Here's a radical plan:
1) Eliminate divisions entirely. All teams start the season in the same pool.
2) At season's end, all Division I through V section teams that qualify for postseason are divided by competitive equity into divisions. If there are 65 teams, say, that meet the criteria and apply, the committee then ...
a) Puts eight teams in the Open, leaving 57.
b) The next 12 best are Division I; the next 12 are Division II, leaving 33.
c) Divisions III through V each have 11 teams.
(The same process would work regardless of the number of teams -- it could be that all five divisions have equal numbers, but if not, the extra teams are added to the higher brackets.)
3) The top two teams in each division playoff are guaranteed spots in NorCals, along with the Open teams. That's 18 -- but along with this reform, NorCals increases the limit for each section's qualifiers so that if NCS, say, deserves 25 teams by competitive equity, that's what they get. (I have a long story that should come out in SportStars are some point that lays the NorCal plan out in detail.)
No we don't worry about teams moving up or down in divisions because it's all based on how a particular team did in a particular year. If a small private school gets two 6-5 Lithuanian transfers for one season and goes unbeaten, maybe they're Open; the next year they could be D5. If a big public school is barely good enough to qualify for postseason and in the judgement of the committee is the fifth worst team, it goes D5. The next year it could be D3.
Scheduling for postseason then becomes uncertain, but of course for teams going to NorCals it's uncertain now. There's no telling what division a team might wind up in NorCals, but aside from coachly whining, what difference does that make? In the end, you wind up playing good teams, and ideally you wind up playing good teams that are about your talent level.
Fire away ...
1) Eliminate divisions entirely. All teams start the season in the same pool.
2) At season's end, all Division I through V section teams that qualify for postseason are divided by competitive equity into divisions. If there are 65 teams, say, that meet the criteria and apply, the committee then ...
a) Puts eight teams in the Open, leaving 57.
b) The next 12 best are Division I; the next 12 are Division II, leaving 33.
c) Divisions III through V each have 11 teams.
(The same process would work regardless of the number of teams -- it could be that all five divisions have equal numbers, but if not, the extra teams are added to the higher brackets.)
3) The top two teams in each division playoff are guaranteed spots in NorCals, along with the Open teams. That's 18 -- but along with this reform, NorCals increases the limit for each section's qualifiers so that if NCS, say, deserves 25 teams by competitive equity, that's what they get. (I have a long story that should come out in SportStars are some point that lays the NorCal plan out in detail.)
No we don't worry about teams moving up or down in divisions because it's all based on how a particular team did in a particular year. If a small private school gets two 6-5 Lithuanian transfers for one season and goes unbeaten, maybe they're Open; the next year they could be D5. If a big public school is barely good enough to qualify for postseason and in the judgement of the committee is the fifth worst team, it goes D5. The next year it could be D3.
Scheduling for postseason then becomes uncertain, but of course for teams going to NorCals it's uncertain now. There's no telling what division a team might wind up in NorCals, but aside from coachly whining, what difference does that make? In the end, you wind up playing good teams, and ideally you wind up playing good teams that are about your talent level.
Fire away ...
Other California sections handle their Open Division arrangement/seedings without nearly the hand-wringing and agonizing over-analysis we are seeing in the North Coast Section. This is not rocket science. Other Open Division sections (certainly CCS and the gigantic Southern Section) routinely administer their post-season hoops playoffs with dispatch and a minimum of complaints.
Last edited:
Similar threads
