ADVERTISEMENT

Open Division In Each Section

RespectBBGame

Sports Fanatic
Mar 16, 2015
875
77
28
Open division in each section would help decided the top teams in each Section. Just think of these sections open teams

SJS
1) SMS
2) Brookside
3) Vanden
4) Oak Ridge
5) Antelope
6) MC
7) Lincoln
8) Sac High

NCS
1) MM
2) BOD
3) Salesian
4) SMB
5) Carondelet
6) Cardinal Newman
7) Castro Valley
8) Campolindo

CCS
1) Mitty
2) Pinewood
3) SHC
4) Valley Christian
5) Menlo
6) Presentation
7) Scotts Valley
8) ESP

This my opinion who would be the 2 top teams in each division
SJS
1) SMS 2) BROOKSIDE
NCS
1) MM 2) BOD
CCS
1) MITTY 2) PINEWOOD
THIS WOULD FILL 6 SEEDS AND 2 MORE AT LARGE BETHS FROM S3CTION
My guess would be SHC and Carondelet or Salesian.

Does anyone have any other guesses. Remember this is only an opinion! !!!
 
MM is disqualified because they duck all the big tournaments....
they don't deserve a shot at the Open...

Flame on ....at least Sue didn't duckout...I respect the fact that Mitty went to the Nike TOC
 
Open division in each section would help decided the top teams in each Section. Just think of these sections open teams

SJS
1) SMS
2) Brookside
3) Vanden
4) Oak Ridge
5) Antelope
6) MC
7) Lincoln
8) Sac High

NCS
1) MM
2) BOD
3) Salesian
4) SMB
5) Carondelet
6) Cardinal Newman
7) Castro Valley
8) Campolindo

CCS
1) Mitty
2) Pinewood
3) SHC
4) Valley Christian
5) Menlo
6) Presentation
7) Scotts Valley
8) ESP

This my opinion who would be the 2 top teams in each division
SJS
1) SMS 2) BROOKSIDE
NCS
1) MM 2) BOD
CCS
1) MITTY 2) PINEWOOD
THIS WOULD FILL 6 SEEDS AND 2 MORE AT LARGE BETHS FROM S3CTION
My guess would be SHC and Carondelet or Salesian.

Does anyone have any other guesses. Remember this is only an opinion! !!!
This is a pretty good list. I would like to see BC in D4 with a shot to win state and Pinewood in D5 with a shot to win state.
 
And that's the problem. We cannibalize our best and reduce our chances to compete against SoCal which has many more schools and more strong programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: northbaybbguru
So Campo is a great example of Open issues: They just lost to Miramonte 102-39.

Open? Well, they are one of the top eight in NCS, but in section opens, just as in the NorCal Open, there's a pretty big disparity between one and eight -- and essentially four to six have no chance.

But otherwise you wind up like it is this year in Pennsylvania: The three best teams are all in different divisions and will never play -- and will coast to their respective division titles.
 
Clay,

The issue you bring up regarding Campolindo in the (hypothetical) NCS Open is the same exact issue I have been bringing up regarding the State Open for the last three years. You always took the other side in those discussions -- in favor of the the way the State Open division is now. I believe you said it's the best of many flawed alternatives, or something like that. So are you saying that if it's Salesian, or Mitty, or Carondelet, or Brookside that's getting screwed, then oh well that's how the ball bounces. But put that glove on Campolindo's hand, and all of the sudden it becomes a good example of the "Open issues"? Hmmm.
 
Open division in each section would help decided the top teams in each Section. Just think of these sections open teams

SJS
1) SMS
2) Brookside
3) Vanden
4) Oak Ridge
5) Antelope
6) MC
7) Lincoln
8) Sac High

NCS
1) MM
2) BOD
3) Salesian
4) SMB
5) Carondelet
6) Cardinal Newman
7) Castro Valley
8) Campolindo

CCS
1) Mitty
2) Pinewood
3) SHC
4) Valley Christian
5) Menlo
6) Presentation
7) Scotts Valley
8) ESP

This my opinion who would be the 2 top teams in each division
SJS
1) SMS 2) BROOKSIDE
NCS
1) MM 2) BOD
CCS
1) MITTY 2) PINEWOOD
THIS WOULD FILL 6 SEEDS AND 2 MORE AT LARGE BETHS FROM S3CTION
My guess would be SHC and Carondelet or Salesian.

Does anyone have any other guesses. Remember this is only an opinion! !!!



respect......are those your seedings also? because...

SJS....

Oak Ridge and Antelope would be seeded higher than Brookside in the SJS

BC would get the 4 seed. Which means SMS in the 2nd round and no 2nd place.

SMS wins it...2nd place???

In the NCS....

SMB would be no better than a 8 seed, they are only 10-10..would they even qualify?..
bump 5,6 ,7,8 up 1 spot. Put SMB at 8 or out completely.

MM wins it.....2nd place is a battle.


In the CCS......

I don't think ESP gets in. There has to be somebody else in the CCS...ESP is only 11-9

Mitty wins it......2nd place is a battle. GREAT 2/3 matchup Pinewood vs SHC
 
Last edited:
Clay,

The issue you bring up regarding Campolindo in the (hypothetical) NCS Open is the same exact issue I have been bringing up regarding the State Open for the last three years. You always took the other side in those discussions -- in favor of the the way the State Open division is now. I believe you said it's the best of many flawed alternatives, or something like that. So are you saying that if it's Salesian, or Mitty, or Carondelet, or Brookside that's getting screwed, then oh well that's how the ball bounces. But put that glove on Campolindo's hand, and all of the sudden it becomes a good example of the "Open issues"? Hmmm.

You misunderstand ... I'm saying "Oh well" to Campo too. If there isn't an Open, and Campo stays in D3, then it's competing with O'Dowd every year, and O'Dowd, with merit scholarships, is not playing remotely the same game as Campo. That's "Oh well" for Campo too ...

I haven't coached there for five years, and the only reason I mentioned that school was the game with Miramonte.

It's not the best system, and there may be better ones, but what we have now is an improvement over the past, in my opinion.
 
Northbay

BROOKSIDE would have the 6 according to max prep would breeze through meet SMS Championship game.
This was a guess on the teams and I did seed them. Plus with the same as Open Brookside has strengthen of schedule and played in state game last year. Which only 3 team from SJS played in Vanden, SMS and Brookside. So if was to go by Open standards Brookside would #2.
ESCP play a though schedule so they would be in.
 
Eastside Prep is way, way down. Not even close to prior seasons. No chance for the Open this time.
 
How about having the open committee just grabbing the top 8 or 12 teams in the state no matter where they come from and having them all put into the open tournament to battle it out? At least you know all 8-12 would be somewhat on the same level. Then allow everyone else to battle it out in their respective divisions. Unless some of the lower ranked teams petitioned to be placed into the open because they felt confident enough to be there.

But I really have an issue with those that shake in their boots about being put into the open tournament. I will say that SMS is probably the best team in the state but even they are beatable. Back in the day you just played who they put in front of you and aimed to give em hell regardless to how much hype was put out on how good a team or player was supposed to be. I guess they just don't make " " like they use to.
 
Last edited:
Paytc
I agree with you becauae look at alot school schedule. They run so far to be so perfect until they have to face what then be run from all year. Like you said most teams are scared to play better teams. My question why maneuver around top teams just play them and see where your team real place with the best. But I guess today age in team don't believe in being the best you have to play the best. But thats just my opinion. But next yeat this all changes can't wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paytc
I agree with you on that RespectBBGame. I really don't understand controllable fears. I can somewhat relate to having uncontrollable fears that are out of your control such as being hit by a astroid or being on a sinking ship or crashing plane. But being afraid of playing a team or a sport just doesn't register as a legitimate fear to me. The problem is wimpy coaches pass their fears on to their teams and most games are loss before tip off out of fear and from the psychological edge. That is also why you see certain programs consistently at the top year in and year out. Part of it obviously is the talent level. But courageous leadership or lack there of can make or break a program and a team.
 
How about having the open committee just grabbing the top 8 or 12 teams in the state no matter where they come from and having them all put into the open tournament to battle it out? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be an ideal scenario except for one thing- Travel. This is a big state and the south traveling north for one weekend isn't that big a deal, however with a multiple game playoff it would propose a problem. They are sort of doing that right now via the regionals. I believe they should make the Open purely optional. Let the teams who want to play Open request Open and those that want to stay in their divisions opt out if they so chose. Let the Open Championship be exclusive and special. As someone stated rename the other finals state divisional championships to differentiate between them and the actual state champion. The only problem with that is that in years where one team appears to be a lock not many teams would chose to enter Open. The thing is that on any given day a good team can beat a much better team if everything aligns right.

It just seems that past attempts to tweek and correct inequalities haven't really solved the problems. The real problem is the huge inherent differential in talent and ability in respect to girls basketball. The game is evolving and the landscape is changing so rapidly that the changes are usually a day late and a dollar short.
 
Is there a way or is it possible to have the first round losers fall back into their respective brackets or a division bracket in general?

The four losers fall back into division alignment and the four winners from north and south play a 8 team double elimination tournament Thursday, Friday and Saturday?

The boys and girls open would become the marquee attraction and the attention was cause those that even would consider tanking want to tackle the open.
 
That would be an ideal scenario except for one thing- Travel. This is a big state and the south traveling north for one weekend isn't that big a deal, however with a multiple game playoff it would propose a problem. They are sort of doing that right now via the regionals. I believe they should make the Open purely optional. Let the teams who want to play Open request Open and those that want to stay in their divisions opt out if they so chose. Let the Open Championship be exclusive and special. As someone stated rename the other finals state divisional championships to differentiate between them and the actual state champion. The only problem with that is that in years where one team appears to be a lock not many teams would chose to enter Open. The thing is that on any given day a good team can beat a much better team if everything aligns right.

It just seems that past attempts to tweek and correct inequalities haven't really solved the problems. The real problem is the huge inherent differential in talent and ability in respect to girls basketball. The game is evolving and the landscape is changing so rapidly that the changes are usually a day late and a dollar short.
Willtalk
While your idea of an opt in is a good idea to bat around, you answered your own question that it probably won't really work. If we took this year as an example. SMS is pretty much a lock for the best in the state. Who would want to face them just to lose in the open if they could stay in their own division and win that with ease. MM, if they hold true to form, would most certainly avoid facing SMS if they could win a state title by facing Campo or BOD.Sure there would be some bravehearts that would take on SMS but I think there would be more top teams that would opt out.
 
Willtalk
While your idea of an opt in is a good idea to bat around, you answered your own question that it probably won't really work. If we took this year as an example. SMS is pretty much a lock for the best in the state. Who would want to face them just to lose in the open if they could stay in their own division and win that with ease. MM, if they hold true to form, would most certainly avoid facing SMS if they could win a state title by facing Campo or BOD.Sure there would be some bravehearts that would take on SMS but I think there would be more top teams that would opt out.

I honestly do not think MM wants to avoid SMS. IMHO (and a die-hard SMS fan), MM is very much looking for the opportunity to avenge last year's playoff loss and is seeking to do so in the playoffs (versus the regular season) where it counts. With an undefeated record and an impressive victory against over-rated Mater Dei (avenging last year's huge loss at MLK showcase at SMS), MM is very, very confident and not afraid. If anything, SMS needs to be on their guard against a team like MM. SMS is good, very good. But, as they showed against Salesian and their last game vs Clovis West, they are not as invincible as some might think. These very close victories for SMS is what I believed knocked them down in the latest USA Today weekly computer poll behind Duncanville. SMS vs MM will be a very, very competitive game. Whoever wins this game, wins the state championship and could very well leapfrog Duncanville as the best team in the country (according to USA Today computer). Stay tuned.
 
I think "fear" is the wrong word. I don't schedule my team against Campolindo -- what would be the point? I also don't schedule my team against St. Joseph Notre Dame, a D5 team that would beat us by 50 (and will do so to every team in the BCL-East when they move in claim multiple championships next year).

I'm not "afraid" of playing them. I'm not "afraid" of losing. What I want to do is what's best for my players and my program, and I don't see how losing a bunch of games by big margins helps either.

I understand, though, we're talking about teams that have designs on section titles and beyond -- but as everyone who's played knows, confidence is a huge part of athletic success, and some teams/players need their confidence built to play at their highest level, not beaten down. Of course you want to play some games against better teams, but you also may want to play some games that help your players believe in themselves, your system and your program.

That's a judgment call that varies from team to team, and I don't believe one size fits all. Pico and Brookside Christian are very competitive and I think those players and that program can handle the kind of schedule Respect is talking about -- I think a lot of other quality teams might do worse at the end of the day if they did the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paytc
I think "fear" is the wrong word. I don't schedule my team against Campolindo -- what would be the point? I also don't schedule my team against St. Joseph Notre Dame, a D5 team that would beat us by 50 (and will do so to every team in the BCL-East when they move in claim multiple championships next year).

I'm not "afraid" of playing them. I'm not "afraid" of losing. What I want to do is what's best for my players and my program, and I don't see how losing a bunch of games by big margins helps either.

I understand, though, we're talking about teams that have designs on section titles and beyond -- but as everyone who's played knows, confidence is a huge part of athletic success, and some teams/players need their confidence built to play at their highest level, not beaten down. Of course you want to play some games against better teams, but you also may want to play some games that help your players believe in themselves, your system and your program.

That's a judgment call that varies from team to team, and I don't believe one size fits all. Pico and Brookside Christian are very competitive and I think those players and that program can handle the kind of schedule Respect is talking about -- I think a lot of other quality teams might do worse at the end of the day if they did the same thing.

Clay,

I can agree with your post. However there are some coaches who are lets say less brave than others. There are some coaches that do their best work before the game starts. Then there are others who are great game time under the pressure coaches. The most courageous ones make better leaders in my opinion. Many times you will notice that a team adapts it's coaches personality. So if the coach is timid, you will tend to see a timid team. Some players are the same way. Some are better in practice or easy small time games, but freeze up in the big lights on the big stage. That again is why if you have courageous leadership at the top and on the floor, you tend to have more relaxed players and get better results.

Now I do totally agree in the fact you must take everything on a case by case basis. I am the last that promotes the one shoe fits all in anything, especially coaching. Each courageous leader must do what they feel will produce the most confident players and most confident team. And if you don't have the high level players I don't care how courageous or how good a coach you are, you have to be realistic.

And you must remember most don't know your team as well as you do. Each coach has to do what they feel is best for their team with regards to scheduling of games. Ultimately we are all trying to build confidence and see improvements in individuals and improvement in our teams. And only a select few will be champions because it takes good and accountable coaching, the right mix of talent and effort, and the right breaks.

But everyone can learn to be more courageous. And everyone has room to continue to improve as coaches, players, parents, refs, and as people.
 
That would be an ideal scenario except for one thing- Travel. This is a big state and the south traveling north for one weekend isn't that big a deal, however with a multiple game playoff it would propose a problem. They are sort of doing that right now via the regionals. I believe they should make the Open purely optional. Let the teams who want to play Open request Open and those that want to stay in their divisions opt out if they so chose. Let the Open Championship be exclusive and special. As someone stated rename the other finals state divisional championships to differentiate between them and the actual state champion. The only problem with that is that in years where one team appears to be a lock not many teams would chose to enter Open. The thing is that on any given day a good team can beat a much better team if everything aligns right.

It just seems that past attempts to tweek and correct inequalities haven't really solved the problems. The real problem is the huge inherent differential in talent and ability in respect to girls basketball. The game is evolving and the landscape is changing so rapidly that the changes are usually a day late and a dollar short.

Willtalk,

The only problem is if they let it be optional they couldn't predict the number of teams that would opt in each season. Some years only one team might opt in and then some years 24 teams might. As far as the travel.... just have to make it work, or a team wins by forfeit. Good points ! Thanks for sharing them.
 
Last edited:
One thing at a time ...

*If you ask the SoCal teams, they get screwed by the officials on a regular basis in the championship games, but I'm not sure that's from the location as much as the fact that refs are drawn from all over the state and vary wildly not only in ability but in the way they call the game.

*Letting teams choose would result in very few teams playing in the Open, and would allow those teams that seriously recruit to win state championships by dropping down so they could recruit better in the future. And even if teams don't out-and-out recruit, a state championship banner hanging on a gym wall is going to encourage more talent to come to a particular school than a second-round loss in the Open.

*Scheduling is a delicate dance with many variables. I scheduled a team this year that was 3-22 last year because I felt we needed a game we could win after playing in tournaments back-to-back weeks that we would be lucky to go 3-3 in. That team turned out to be way better and beat us badly. And a schedule that looks about right can suddenly be way too tough if a key player gets hurt. And if it all comes together, all of a sudden there are too many easy wins.
 
I think with changes coming Norcal like Socal will make a big difference in playoffs because a team can actually say there are the best. This will help the ones that lose in D1 because that can say they 2 to 8 best in Norcal and there will be no second guessing that point. This gives teams in the other divisions that haven't won a State or even a Section title have a chance to do so. Teams that schedule out of D1 will have a low seating in playoffs because that will go against the strength of schedule of other teams. That just because your have a better record doesn't mean you will have high seed in the playoffs.
CHANGES ARE COMING NEXT YEAR FOR THE BETTER OF THE GAME IN EACH SPORT.
 
You guys do realize its only the Southern Section who is changing and not the LA City, San Diego or Central Sections, right? The Southern Section does not account for all other sections in SoCal, nor does it encompass all of Southern California.

Personally, I believe this is being done out of outside pressure and necessity to appease pie in the sky parents who want their kids to be able to say they've won something big, instead of just participating and getting smashed by the Mater Deis and Sierra Canyons of the world. So they create the Open for that in the Southern Section. Still not good enough, we want all of the good teams out so bad to mediocre teams can finally get on a run and win something significant. Setting a bad precedent as far as I'm concerned. Really, this is almost as bad as when the SS allowed any team that won 10 games into the playoffs many years back. Same pressure from parents.

The Southern Section is so massive compared to every other section in California they can attempt something like this. On the surface, this sounds great to some. But seriously, ranking every team in every sport, where do you find the resources to pull something like this off? Schools have been slashing jobs and losing money for years, but the CIF-SS introduces this? Doubt it lasts more than a couple of years.

I don't think this will be done anywhere else. Each section will do what works best for each, factored into what is believed to generate the most revenue over anything else. 8 team open sectional playoffs will not be the same $$ as spreading teams and their fan bases out to the different semi-final and Finals locations each year. From a financial standpoint that will lose money.
 
Great insight -- thanks. Actually, though, it would be easier to rank teams in smaller sections so it might be more feasible.

There is, of course, the financial issue to consider ... but if TV is willing to pay more for Open and wants the best teams, then that might be a factor.
 
Clay
Yes this will bring TV money to the CIF like it does in Texas. This would be a smart move for the CIF committees. This will help pay for the state and section expenses. WIN WIN situation in many different ways.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT