Since you no longer play schools your own size or even gradually move up divisions (which I would agree with if you have multiple solid years in a row). You better start recruiting hard if you are a small school. Because if you have a solid year playing against likewise competition (league/section for the most part) you will then get bumped into divisions that are meant for schools with thousands of kids. Norcal and State titles have become almost impossible to win if you are a small school unless you are able to hand out free rides like Salesian. While I agree with competitive equity on the surface, the massive overhaul to the system is way over the top. If you are a smaller school you better start recruiting harder because all a "solid" season is going to get you is an early round exit in a higher division you have no business participating in to begin with.
One thing the new CIF "competitive equity" seeding is promoting is recruiting.
- Thread starter norcalbasketball
- Start date
The bottom line is that there is no perfect system, nor even one that comes close.
Enrollment is a horrible barometer of talent level. Private/public split is deeply flawed. Competitive equity causes the problems mentioned above.
But of course, recruiting is rampant across the country in all sports, regardless of the system, so the fact that competitive encourages more might not be the worst possible outcome, given the alternatives.
The question really isn't whether competitive equity is a bad system, but rather what system would be better?
Enrollment is a horrible barometer of talent level. Private/public split is deeply flawed. Competitive equity causes the problems mentioned above.
But of course, recruiting is rampant across the country in all sports, regardless of the system, so the fact that competitive encourages more might not be the worst possible outcome, given the alternatives.
The question really isn't whether competitive equity is a bad system, but rather what system would be better?
Enrollment based with adjustments made on year to year basis. Not an outright 1-80 ranking. Every school should have a divisional ranking to start the year. When postseason comes around they should be flexible to move up or down a division or stay in their current division. Past success and current team should go into the decision-making. Like I said competitive equity only affects small schools. The big schools either get placed where they would be anyways or they get to play in the lower divisions.
So if Pinewood or Eastside doesn't make Open, they go no higher than D4? And if O'Dowd or SMS doesn't make Open, they go no higher than D2?
(SJND, when enrollment was the criterion, always came in a few students under the line between D4 and D5. It was an annual occurrence -- if the D4 line was 406 students, SJND has 401; if it was 395, SJND had 392.)
(SJND, when enrollment was the criterion, always came in a few students under the line between D4 and D5. It was an annual occurrence -- if the D4 line was 406 students, SJND has 401; if it was 395, SJND had 392.)
The best system is one tournament winner..
That said, a good alternative would create incentives for schools to opt into a "premier division" at the beginning of the season. In order to achieve this, I would place severe restrictions on the pre-season travel and opponents for schools that were not willing to opt into the "premier division". Opting in would not guarantee that you were accepted but it would ensure that you are able to play a competitive pre season schedule. I would possibly limit the number of pre-season games for teams not willing to opt in.
Any system where the schools do not opt into an "open" or "premier" division is flawed.
That said, a good alternative would create incentives for schools to opt into a "premier division" at the beginning of the season. In order to achieve this, I would place severe restrictions on the pre-season travel and opponents for schools that were not willing to opt into the "premier division". Opting in would not guarantee that you were accepted but it would ensure that you are able to play a competitive pre season schedule. I would possibly limit the number of pre-season games for teams not willing to opt in.
Any system where the schools do not opt into an "open" or "premier" division is flawed.
the Salesian "free ride" example may not be the best as Salesian has never won a state title...
and ALL public schools are "free rides"
Last edited:
Competitive Equity here to stay?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/27/cif-basketball-why-competitive-equity-is-here-to-stay/
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/27/cif-basketball-why-competitive-equity-is-here-to-stay/
SMS has been D1 for some time. Pinewood has also been really good for years so mentioning them in D5 wouldn't be part of my point either. There should be some sense used in state tourneys not just a random lazy 1-80 ranking.
