New CCS play-off Proposal for 2019

[PALbooster]

The CCS committee report has been released and contains the proposed changes for the CCS play-offs for 2019

In response to the CIF mandate that only section winners advance to regional play, the CCS has proposed to amend its current playoff format. The new proposal is fairly complex and requires a fair amount of math. This is a proposal that has just passed the first round of voting and requires further approvals before it is official, so part or all of this is subject to change.


I.Selecting the field of 40 teams.

A. Automatic Qualifiers (33 teams)

33 spots will go to automatic qualifiers as follows. The top 4 teams in the 5 a leagues (WCAL, Gabilan, Mt. Hamilton, PAL Bay, Deanza) will qualify for the play-offs; the top two teams from the section’s five B leagues (Santa Teresa, PAL-Ocean, Mission (top 3 teams), Cypress (only top team) and El Camino); and the league champion from the three C leagues (West Valley, Pal-Lake, Santa Lucia).

B. At-Large Teams (7 teams)

In addition there will be 7 at-large teams that will be selected as follows: The top 10 remaining teams determined by their CCS points will be in a pool. The teams will then be ranked by their Calpreps ranking at the end of the regular season with the top ranked team getting 10 points, the second highest ranked team 9 points, etc. with the 10thranked team getting 1 point. These will then be added to their CCS points and the top 7 teams will get the 7 at-large spots.

II.Seeding the Field

Once the 40 teams are selected they will be seeded in a formula that is similar to how the at-large teams are selected. All forty teams will be ordered by their calprep rating at the end of the season. The top team will get 40 points, the second team 39 points, etc with the 40thranked team getting 1 point. This will be added to their CCS points and the teams will be ranked from 1-40 wihtout regard to CBED enrollment or league classification (A, B or C). Once that is done the playoffs and seedings will be set as follows:

Teams ranked 1-8 will be in division I
Teams ranked from 9-16 will be in division II
Teams 17-24 will be in division III
Teams 25-32 will be in division IV
Teams 33-40 will be in division V

The five division winners will advance to regional play.

III.Changes in Calculating CCS points

Two proposed changes for calculating CCS points.

1.Bonus Points for Playing top 150 Calprep team

A. 2 bonus points for playing a team ranked in the Calpreps top 100
B. 1 bonus point for playing a team ranked in Calpreps between 101-150

2. Changes in points for out of section and out of state teams

In addition to getting the bonus points above for playing an out of section team ranked in the top 100 or 150 in Calpreps for CS (or an out of state team ranked higher than the 100th CA team or 150th CA team) – the committee will set a Calpreps rating cut-off that will determine if an out of section and out of state team is an A team, B team or C Team regardless of their won-loss record.

It will take a little time but I will show later what this would have looked like for this year.

 

[SpeedCity51]

Seems like the Top two divisions will be loaded with the top 2-3 teams from all the A leagues with divisions 3-5 being the middle of the pack A league teams and the B/C league champs. Pretty convoluted way to seed the teams, but it seems like it will be pretty effective in accomplishing what they want.

 

[TheGoldenShower]

I’m more concerned about the time it’s going to take for PAL Booster to break down the points each week.

Might be easier to get a commite together and seed in a one hour meeting based on honesty. Just saying

 

[831ccschamp]

The CCS committee report has been released and contains the proposed changes for the CCS play-offs for 2019

In response to the CIF mandate that only section winners advance to regional play, the CCS has proposed to amend its current playoff format. The new proposal is fairly complex and requires a fair amount of math. This is a proposal that has just passed the first round of voting and requires further approvals before it is official, so part or all of this is subject to change.


I.Selecting the field of 40 teams.

A. Automatic Qualifiers (33 teams)

33 spots will go to automatic qualifiers as follows. The top 4 teams in the 5 a leagues (WCAL, Gabilan, Mt. Hamilton, PAL Bay, Deanza) will qualify for the play-offs; the top two teams from the section’s five B leagues (Santa Teresa, PAL-Ocean, Mission (top 3 teams), Cypress (only top team) and El Camino); and the league champion from the three C leagues (West Valley, Pal-Lake, Santa Lucia).

B. At-Large Teams (7 teams)

In addition there will be 7 at-large teams that will be selected as follows: The top 10 remaining teams determined by their CCS points will be in a pool. The teams will then be ranked by their Calpreps ranking at the end of the regular season with the top ranked team getting 10 points, the second highest ranked team 9 points, etc. with the 10thranked team getting 1 point. These will then be added to their CCS points and the top 7 teams will get the 7 at-large spots.

II.Seeding the Field

Once the 40 teams are selected they will be seeded in a formula that is similar to how the at-large teams are selected. All forty teams will be ordered by their calprep rating at the end of the season. The top team will get 40 points, the second team 39 points, etc with the 40thranked team getting 1 point. This will be added to their CCS points and the teams will be ranked from 1-40 wihtout regard to CBED enrollment or league classification (A, B or C). Once that is done the playoffs and seedings will be set as follows:

Teams ranked 1-8 will be in division I
Teams ranked from 9-16 will be in division II
Teams 17-24 will be in division III
Teams 25-32 will be in division IV
Teams 33-40 will be in division V

The five division winners will advance to regional play.

III.Changes in Calculating CCS points

Two proposed changes for calculating CCS points.

1.Bonus Points for Playing top 150 Calprep team

A. 2 bonus points for playing a team ranked in the Calpreps top 100
B. 1 bonus point for playing a team ranked in Calpreps between 101-150

2. Changes in points for out of section and out of state teams

In addition to getting the bonus points above for playing an out of section team ranked in the top 100 or 150 in Calpreps for CS (or an out of state team ranked higher than the 100th CA team or 150th CA team) – the committee will set a Calpreps rating cut-off that will determine if an out of section and out of state team is an A team, B team or C Team regardless of their won-loss record.

It will take a little time but I will show later what this would have looked like for this year.

Does this make things more balanced in the D4 D5 brackets or would there be a potential for a WCAL team in every division? Say the automatic qualifiers from the C leagues in CCS and the cypress division winner from PCAL would not fair well against any A league team let alone a WCAL team.

 

[SpeedCity51]

Does this make things more balanced in the D4 D5 brackets or would there be a potential for a WCAL team in every division? Say the automatic qualifiers from the C leagues in CCS and the cypress division winner from PCAL would not fair well against any A league team let alone a WCAL team.

Just did some quick math to compare Monterey (9-1 B league champ) and St. Ignatius (3-7 WCAL school), and using the end of the season Calpreps ratings St Ignatius would have 41 power points to Monterey’s 38-39 (not sure how much of a bonus they get for being a B-league champ). So it appears even the lowest ranked WCAL schools will have more power points then the B league champs most years.

Edit: this was not counting the bonuses for playing top teams

 

[PALbooster]

Here is what the 2018 CCS play-offs would have looked at with the 2019 rules - without recalculating bonus points for playing top 150 or top 100 Calprep schools.

The only two changes among the 40 play-off teams would have been North Salinas and Alisal would have been in and Mountain View and Pioneer would have been out.

If you start to include the bonus points for top 100 (2 points) and top 150 opponents (1 point) - and redoing how out of section and out of state team opponent points are calculated you will end up with a system biased toward A league teams. As of know in the CCS Palo Alto, Kings Academy, Burlingame and Sacred Heart Prep are teams ranked between 100-150 in the state. Serra, Wilcox, Aptos, Menlo-Atherton, St. Francis, and Valley Christian rank in the top 150. That means that all WCAL teams would get 6 extra points; all Pal-Bay teams 3 extra points, All Deanza teams 3 extra points, Gabilan teams 2 extra points and PAL ocean teams 2 extra points.

For out of section opponents for this year McLymonds (Palo Alto), Christian (Kings Academy) ranked in the top 150. Clovis (Salinas), Valor Christian, CO (Menlo-Atherton), Liberty (Gilory), Del Oro (Oak Grove), Bishop O'Dowd (Seaside), Serra (Serra), Pittsburgh (Serra), Pinnacle AZ (Leland), De La Salle (St. Francis), and Notre Dame (St. Francis) are all ranked in the top 100.

Likely impact would be that teams like Bellarmine, Menlo, Half Moon Bay, and Cupertino would have grabbed at-Large spots over North Salinas, Alisal, Del Mar and Willow Glen - but I will crunch the numbers on that and confirm.

Division 1

8) Serra 59 vs 1) St. Francis 71.5
5) Palma vs 64.25 vs 4) Menlo-Atherton 65
6) Palo Alto 64 vs 3) Valley Christian 65.33
7) Carmel 60 vs 2) Wilcox 71.33

Division 2

8) Burlingame 47 vs 1) Aptos 58.5
5) Terra Nova 53.5 vs 4) Independence 54
6) Live Oak 51 vs 3) Salinas 56.25
7) Mitty 50.5 vs 2) Sacred Heart Prep 58.33

Division 3

8) Oak Grove 41.5 vs 1) Kings Academy 47
5) Monterey 44.5 vs 4) Saint Ignatius 45
6) Los Gatos 42.33 vs 3) Sacred Heart Cathedral 46
7 Overfelt 42 vs 2) San Benito 46

Division 4

8) Aragon 28 vs 1) Milpitas 37.5
5) Leland 33 vs 4) Christopher 34
6) Willow Glen 29.5 vs 3) Gonzales 35
7) Monte Vista Christian 28.5 vs 2) Carlmont 36.33

Division 5

8) Mt. Pleasant 16.5 vs 1) Alisal 26
5) North Salinas 22.5 vs 4) Saratoga 22.83
6) Santa Clara 20.83 vs 3) Del Mar 25.5
7) Soledad 19 vs 2) Piedmont Hills 26

 

[carmelkyd]

About time CCS recognizes that the calpreps model is a fair calculation of team strength not only within the section but also within the state. I assume that the determination of a team's ranking within the section and state will be based on the model as of the last game(s) of the regular season. When the last game ends on Saturday, it seems the section will have to wait until some time on Seedings Sunday to see how calpreps has updated. Maybe the seedings meeting will have to move to Sunday afternoon to make sure the calpreps model has updated? In any case this whole things seems interesting and likely a very fair way to select and seed teams.

 

[PALbooster]

With the bonus points you will also see the seeding of teams that played top 100 and top 150 teams move up and teams that did not will move down.

If the CCS wanted to get all regular season data from calpreps they would have to wait until Sunday night or Monday to do their election and seeding meeting - the language currently proposed says calpreps data viable an hour before the meeting - so if it was the traditional Sunday AM they would be missing Saturday results from around the section and state in the Calpreps calculations.

 

[carmelkyd]

This is going to make it very interesting as to the strategy some coaches will be using to schedule non-league contests.

 

[SpeedCity51]

Those are some really evenly matched brackets. D1 and D2 are loaded, but there are some intriguing matchups in D3 and even D4. D5 is... yikes. But then again it’s the lowest division for a reason, and it’ll be nice to see some of the middle of the road B league teams have the opportunity to actually win a game in the playoffs.

 

[ThunderRam]

New CCS NCS play-off Proposal for 2019: No coin flips!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[carmelkyd]

Good point SpeedCity. The winner of each D is going to a regional play-in game. So winners of D IV and D V go to a regional play-in game. Assuming the 1 seed in D V wins then Alisal...the third place finisher in a B league would be going to a state play-in game. I'll buy the idea that this new proposal would be an interesting way to create fair seedings within CCS. But it sure would make CCS look silly when looked at by those who would like to see the best teams in CCS playing the regional play-in games.

 

[SpeedCity51]

Good point SpeedCity. The winner of each D is going to a regional play-in game. So winners of D IV and D V go to a regional play-in game. Assuming the 1 seed in D V wins then Alisal...the third place finisher in a B league would be going to a state play-in game. I'll buy the idea that this new proposal would be an interesting way to create fair seedings within CCS. But it sure would make CCS look silly when looked at by those who would like to see the best teams in CCS playing the regional play-in games.

Eh, I don’t really care about “sending the best” to be honest. A fair CCS playoff system easily trumps that for me.

 

[TheGoldenShower]

This would be less equitable then current proposal. Can you imagine the D4 or D5 team playing Del Oro or Capital Christian?

 

[SearsPoints]

This would be less equitable then current proposal. Can you imagine the D4 or D5 team playing Del Oro or Capital Christian?

Would never happen, they would be playing teams like Rio Linda, Colfax or Hilmar.

 

[PALbooster]

I don't have a snapshot of all the calpreps ranking at the end of the regular season but I believe the CCS teams in the top 100 were St. Francis, Valley Christian, Wilcox, Serra and Menlo-Atherton - the top 150 included Palma, Palo Alto and Aptos.

Once you calculate these proposed bonus points to the mix I end up with Bellarmine and Half Moon Bay making the field and Alisal and North Salinas getting bumped. Seedings also change and end up like this

Division 1

8) Salinas 60.75 vs 1) St. Francis 79.5
5) Palma 67.25 vs 4) Palo Alto 68
6) Menlo-Atherton 67 vs 3) Valley Christian 71.33
7) Serra 67 vs 2) Wilcox 74.33

Division 2

8) Saint Ignatius 51 vs 1) Sacred Heart Prep 60.33
5) Terra Nova 55.5 vs 4) Mitty 58.5
6) Independence 54 vs 3) Aptos 59.5
7) Sacred Heart Cathedral 52 vs 2) Carmel 60

Division 3

8) Overfelt 42 vs 1) Live Oak 51
5) Oak Grove 45.5 vs 4) Burlingame 47
6) Los Gatos 45.33 vs 3) Kings Academy 48
7) Monterey 44.5 vs 2) San Benito 48

Division 4

8) Half Moon Bay 30 vs 1) Bellarmine 40
5) Leland 33 vs 4) Christopher 35
6) Gonzales 33 vs 3) Carlmont 35.33
7) Aragon 30 vs 2) Milpitas 37.5

Division 5

8) Mt. Pleasant 16.5 vs 1) Willow Glen 27.5
5) Saratoga 22.83 vs 4) Del Mar 24.5
6) Santa Clara 20.83 vs 3) Piedmont Hills 25
7) Soledad 19 vs 2) Monte Vista Christian 26.5

 

[FBAddict]

About time CCS recognizes that the calpreps model is a fair calculation of team strength not only within the section but also within the state. I assume that the determination of a team's ranking within the section and state will be based on the model as of the last game(s) of the regular season. When the last game ends on Saturday, it seems the section will have to wait until some time on Seedings Sunday to see how calpreps has updated. Maybe the seedings meeting will have to move to Sunday afternoon to make sure the calpreps model has updated? In any case this whole things seems interesting and likely a very fair way to select and seed teams.

Yep - and its a full database covering nearly every team in America. Its easy enough to use the ratings range for the top 150 of CA and apply those numbers to other states.

I don't think CCS will have to change their seeding meeting time. Calpreps usually has their data populated by 8AM Sunday morning and the ratings adjust immediately upon data entry.

It is Sunday late afternoon when Calpreps runs their projections. But having followed Calpreps for more than 12 years for certain teams from week to week, I am confident reliable ratings data is in place in time for the CCS seedings now.

 

[FBAddict]

This would be less equitable then current proposal. Can you imagine the D4 or D5 team playing Del Oro or Capital Christian?

It won't happen that way. The CCS D4 and D5 champions will most likely end up somewhere in RBG D-5AA-D6A almost every year.

 

[SpeedCity51]

It won't happen that way. The CCS D4 and D5 champions will most likely end up somewhere in RBG D-5AA-D6A almost every year.

This set up reminds me of NCAA basketball. D1-3 is like the actual tournament where all the big boys play. D4 and D5 are like the NIT and CBI; post season opportunities for schools not good enough to make the “real”. And it may sound like I’m bashing it, but it’s the opposite. The NIT and CBI can be very valuable for young teams because of the extra practice and games, and it can serve as sort of a springboard for the following year. Plus it gives schools like Milpitas or Aragon that didn’t have the seasons they were hoping for an opportunity to go out on a high note, which I think is cool.

 

[thehookup55]

so it’s pretty much back to the old system of putting the best in one division. Not sure why they don’t just call D1 the Open division again.

 

[FBAddict]

so it’s pretty much back to the old system of putting the best in one division. Not sure why they don’t just call D1 the Open division again.

Because its not now... Every division will be seeded by the same standards. The seeding characteristics are the same for D5 as it is for D1. The only similarity is that the old Open (DI from pre-2006) had the top 8 of CCS. The current Open DI didn't have the top 8 for sure. But in contrast of previous years, D5 will have the bottom 8 of CCS.

 

[SearsPoints]

In my opinion, this is an improvement from the current system.

 

[lt1488]

All the work Nancy lazenby blazer set up originally will no longer exist. I remember the consolation games

 

[thehookup55]

Because its not now... Every division will be seeded by the same standards. The seeding characteristics are the same for D5 as it is for D1. The only similarity is that the old Open (DI from pre-2006) had the top 8 of CCS. The current Open DI didn't have the top 8 for sure. But in contrast of previous years, D5 will have the bottom 8 of CCS.

My point is you are putting your best in one division making the ccs D1 title the ultimate goal. That was a huge complaint with the old format. Don’t see the point of letting teams that are in the bottom of the section have a shot at moving onto regionals. You are likely to have a bad WCAL team end up in some lower division and destroy some small schools. Or a large public go destroy some small publics. Atleast with the old format it was enrollment based and you could prevent some of these matchups from happening.

 

[thehookup55]

Could you imagine Carmel being in D2 or D1? They got absolutely destroyed in D5.

 

[SpeedCity51]

People love to crap on the CCS playoffs, but let’s not pretend like these changes were random. They went away from pure enrollment based divisions where a few schools could opt up because in 03 the defending D1 champs (Valley Christian) weren’t allowed to opt up because they didn’t have enough power points and beat Pacific Grove with their enrollment of about 600 69-0 in the D4 title game. Do we want a return to that? I don’t. So they went to the Open set up, which worked ok IMO, but then they changed it again because hardly anybody was opting up, defeating the whole purpose of the Open. So they went to the current set up, which I like. But now only division champs are available so it has to change. Personally I would have liked Cal 14’s proposal to this, but this proposal is pretty fair.

And c’mon hookup, Carmel didn’t “get destroyed in D5”, they easily made it to the title game and ran in to the one team in the bracket that was better then them.

 

[thehookup55]

People love to crap on the CCS playoffs, but let’s not pretend like these changes were random. They went away from pure enrollment based divisions where a few schools could opt up because in 03 the defending D1 champs (Valley Christian) weren’t allowed to opt up because they didn’t have enough power points and beat Pacific Grove with their enrollment of about 600 69-0 in the D4 title game. Do we want a return to that? I don’t. So they went to the Open set up, which worked ok IMO, but then they changed it again because hardly anybody was opting up, defeating the whole purpose of the Open. So they went to the current set up, which I like. But now only division champs are available so it has to change. Personally I would have liked Cal 14’s proposal to this, but this proposal is pretty fair.

And c’mon hookup, Carmel didn’t “get destroyed in D5”, they easily made it to the title game and ran in to the one team in the bracket that was better then them.

They got man handled in D5 by TKA. The score was way closer than the game was. What do you think would happen to them if they qualified for D1 or D2 in this format? With them being bumped up in the PCAL this is unlikely to matter for them now but it could happen to another team in a B league that goes undefeated.

 

[TheGoldenShower]

All the work Nancy lazenby blazer set up originally will no longer exist. I remember the consolation games

The section losers going on took its place

 

[TheGoldenShower]

It won't happen that way. The CCS D4 and D5 champions will most likely end up somewhere in RBG D-5AA-D6A almost every year.

You are right, this would be CCS D5 champ with massive enrollment vs tiny school. If I’m the Basketball coach I’m pissed my BB guys are playing in December for a consolation regional bowl game. IMO sending these five would be equitable and all deserving.

MA
VC
Aptos
TKA
Palma/Carmel

PROJECT A MATCHUP


neutral field
[2018] Hilmar (CA) 42, [2018] Alisal (Salinas, CA) 14

 

[FBAddict]

PROJECT A MATCHUP
neutral field
[2018] Hilmar (CA) 42, [2018] Alisal (Salinas, CA) 14

I think Hilmar is uncommonly good for its level this year. That's D6-AA
Here's other levels:
D6-A Lincoln (SF) Lincoln 28 Alisal 21. [That's more competitive]
D7-AA Denair (SJS section) Denair 31 Alisal 28 [That's even more competitive]. And you might have noticed that Denair hammered Santee (SoCal LAS section) 42.14.

 

[PALbooster]

In general I think the CCS proposal is a good one. By incorporating calpreps rankings as about 50% of a teams total score it will insure highly rated teams are moved up to a higher division. Also measuring out of section and out of state games by calpreps rankings rather than a teams total wins will make this more accurate with regard to the quality of the opponents.

The only quibble I have is with giving two extra points for playing a top100 team and one point for a top 150 team. Many of these teams are league champions so a team could end with 4 points for getting blown out by 60 points (1 point for playing an A team, 2 for a top 100 team and 1 for a league champion). I think it should be 1 additional point for either top 100 or top 150.

If you look at this year's numbers a 1-9 Seaside ends up tied for the final at-large berth due to 4 extra points for playing BishopO'Dowd, Palma and Aptos. Riordan ends up 0.5 points from a potential play-off spot mainly on the strength of six extra points from playing three league opponents in the top 100 - even though they had 1 win by one point over an 0-10 team and being competitive in one league game.

This will make the CCS play-offs more exciting with fewer mismatches. As pointed out above it will mean CCS section winners from the lower divisions will be in the lower rungs of the regional play-offs.

 

[SpeedCity51]

They got man handled in D5 by TKA. The score was way closer than the game was. What do you think would happen to them if they qualified for D1 or D2 in this format? With them being bumped up in the PCAL this is unlikely to matter for them now but it could happen to another team in a B league that goes undefeated.

Yeah, they got manhandled by TKA In D5. They also won their first round game easily in D5. And they won their second round game easily in D5. Saying they “got destroyed in D5” makes it sound like they got blown out in the first round and had no business in the bracket.

As far as what would have happened to them in D1 or D2, I would assume they would be one and done.

 

[joebl]

In general I think the CCS proposal is a good one. By incorporating calpreps rankings as about 50% of a teams total score it will insure highly rated teams are moved up to a higher division. Also measuring out of section and out of state games by calpreps rankings rather than a teams total wins will make this more accurate with regard to the quality of the opponents.

The only quibble I have is with giving two extra points for playing a top100 team and one point for a top 150 team. Many of these teams are league champions so a team could end with 4 points for getting blown out by 60 points (1 point for playing an A team, 2 for a top 100 team and 1 for a league champion). I think it should be 1 additional point for either top 100 or top 150.

If you look at this year's numbers a 1-9 Seaside ends up tied for the final at-large berth due to 4 extra points for playing BishopO'Dowd, Palma and Aptos. Riordan ends up 0.5 points from a potential play-off spot mainly on the strength of six extra points from playing three league opponents in the top 100 - even though they had 1 win by one point over an 0-10 team and being competitive in one league game.

This will make the CCS play-offs more exciting with fewer mismatches. As pointed out above it will mean CCS section winners from the lower divisions will be in the lower rungs of the regional play-offs.

The extra points didnt seem to adjust getting a fairly good ranking of the top 8 - much better than you did with just following the lousy CCS Point system:

8) Salinas 60.75 vs 1) St. Francis 79.5
5) Palma 67.25 vs 4) Palo Alto 68
6) Menlo-Atherton 67 vs 3) Valley Christian 71.33
7) Serra 67 vs 2) Wilcox 74.33

This looks pretty close to how you would seed the CCS on eye test.

 

[thehookup55]

Why doesn’t the CCS just allow current D4 and D5 become bowl eligible? Eliminate the losers move on and allow the winners from D4 and D5 to go compete at the lower levels of regionals.

 

[FBAddict]

Why doesn’t the CCS just allow current D4 and D5 become bowl eligible? Eliminate the losers move on and allow the winners from D4 and D5 to go compete at the lower levels of regionals.

I thought about that scenario too. However, I think the new CCS playoff proposal is a move to get closer to the CIF SBG bowl alignments now being used. The current CIF SBG alignment attempts to pair teams with similar strengths in a non-enrollment, strength-based divisional system.

 

[thehookup55]

I thought about that scenario too. However, I think the new CCS playoff proposal is a move to get closer to the CIF SBG bowl alignments now being used. The current CIF SBG alignment attempts to pair teams with similar strengths in a non-enrollment, strength-based divisional system.

I get that but it just doesn’t make sense to eliminate 7 or your top 8 teams. Imo by going enrollment based in ccs it allows fair competition. I get there will always be blowouts but atleast make it an even playing field based on enrollment. A small public school has no business competing against a large private. I still go back to Carmel (mainly because they are a good small public school) potentially having to face WCAL teams. They have no business trying to compete with them. I can already see some teams scheduling cupcake teams in hopes of not having enough points to put them at the top division. I’d rather be ranked #9 in ccs and win D2 to advance to regionals then be a one and done team in D1.

 

[FBAddict]

I get that but it just doesn’t make sense to eliminate 7 or your top 8 teams. Imo by going enrollment based in ccs it allows fair competition. I get there will always be blowouts but atleast make it an even playing field based on enrollment. A small public school has no business competing against a large private. I still go back to Carmel (mainly because they are a good small public school) potentially having to face WCAL teams. They have no business trying to compete with them. I can already see some teams scheduling cupcake teams in hopes of not having enough points to put them at the top division. I’d rather be ranked #9 in ccs and win D2 to advance to regionals then be a one and done team in D1.

I think there is something inherently wrong with the current CCS Powerpoint system. This proposal doesn't do away with that system entirely. Sometimes I see the point system working out well and other times, it just places the seeding in whacked out positions. At least the new proposal attempts to modify the CCS powerpoints. If three or 4 WCAL teams end up in DI with a handful of non-WCAL teams that demonstrate a great season, isn't that the purpose of playoffs? And if Carmel can demonstrate a season on par with other "DI slotted" schools. why not compete there?

I prefer a divisional structure where teams start out the season according to their paired classification (enrollment or SOS or CalPreps 5 year Dynasty rating) and they stay in the division until they prove on the field that they should move up or down divisions the following year. Then to seed the teams in the divisions according to strength makes a bit more sense. There is never an answer that will please everyone. Almost every school, coach, AD, team wants to be slotted where they will win. It just is not realistic though when you KNOW 7 of the 8 teams will lose in playoffs for every division.

Hey, if you think everyone is afraid to play the top WCAL teams, lets create a system where the top 2 WCAL teams gets an automatic DI and DII bye to RBG and then the remaining schools can fight it out in D3-D5. For sure the NCS section should do that with DLS. And maybe the SJS should do that with Folsom, SS do that with MD & SJB and definitely Oakland should do away with playoffs entirely and just elect Mack as their RBG representative every year.

Or maybe we can give every school a banner to hang on their wall that says "2018 Section Champs of Our Campus"

Sorry - I'm getting carried away... I should stop there for sure.

 

[SpeedCity51]

The southern section eliminates most of its best teams in one bracket, so I don’t really see what the big deal is if the top bracket is loaded.

 

[thehookup55]

The southern section eliminates most of its best teams in one bracket, so I don’t really see what the big deal is if the top bracket is loaded.

Which is stupid haha

 

[SpeedCity51]

Which is stupid haha

I think it’s pretty cool and creates good and interesting matchups. I would rather find out who the best team in the CCS is then see all the best teams spread out playing in bowl games against a bunch of teams I don’t really care about.