Please explain.......

[Bubba3000]

how St. Francis and Milpitas lose in the playoffs but are allowed to continue? If that's the new normal, shouldn't the NCS D1 team that loses to DLS in the NCS finals be allowed to move on and continue to play? That's the one team year in and year out that has 0% chance of going to State. Obviously, I'm an EBAL Homer but I can't think of a bigger underdog every single year than NCS D1 teams not named DLS.

 

[thespecialone]

Go to "regional bowl game questions thread" as we have already been discussing this

 

[CaliTrojan4Life]

how St. Francis and Milpitas lose in the playoffs but are allowed to continue? If that's the new normal, shouldn't the NCS D1 team that loses to DLS in the NCS finals be allowed to move on and continue to play? That's the one team year in and year out that has 0% chance of going to State. Obviously, I'm an EBAL Homer but I can't think of a bigger underdog every single year than NCS D1 teams not named DLS.

Yeah we've had a hard time understanding this mess. My question is why CCS section champs Aptos and Half Moon Bay get left out but these two losers get in???? I don't understand the logic here. As a matter of fact, I don't believe anyone understands this logic.

 

[thehookup55]

The only people who dont understand are the ones that clearly arent reading anyones posts. It is pretty easy to understand. All you guys are stuck on the loser goes home mentality. There are about 5 threads going right now that explain it so I would recommend doing some catching up.

 

[Bubba3000]

The only people who dont understand are the ones that clearly arent reading anyones posts. It is pretty easy to understand. All you guys are stuck on the loser goes home mentality. There are about 5 threads going right now that explain it so I would recommend doing some catching up.

I don't cruise these boards over the weekend and am overwhelmed come Monday morning with all the threads. My bad..........I guess..................

 

[carmelkyd]

CCS gamed the system and won. Last year CCS had 5 sectional champions and in the CIF's new state level play-off format CCS was going to have 5 teams they could elevate to state games. So CCS gambled...and won. They figured CIF was backed into a corner and was expecting CCS to send forward five teams. Had CCS sent fewer it would have screwed up the CIF brackets.

So CCS came up with 3 Open Divisions composed only of teams from the CCS "A" leagues. And 2 Non-Open Divisions composed of teams from CCS's "B" and "C" leagues. (The winner of 2 of the "B" leagues could have opted up into the Open and kicked two lowest ranked "A" teams down but that did not happen this year.) CCS said that only Open Division teams could be put forward to go to a state games. Of course, at the time CCS did this, CIF was saying ONLY winners could advance...but CCS seemed confident they could get CIF to change their thinking and therefore built language into the CCS by-laws that created a method for determining which 2 out of 3 Open losers could go to the state play-in games.

Subsequently during the past year, CCS engaged CIF in discussions about sending two of the three losers to state games. They made arguments how CCS with their Open Divisions was different than other areas of the state, how CCS had so many private schools (and the WCAL) and other things And that they simply were NOT going to send the winners of the 2 Non-Open Divisions to state.

And for whatever reason, CIF agreed. CCS could send their 3 Open Division winners plus 2 of the 3 Open Division losers.

Now that raises the question, if they were going to send 2 losers, why not the third loser? What is the logic for sending two of the three losers but not all of them? Or why not send zero losers and just let CCS send 3 teams to the state...what is the magic of 5 except that CCS had 5 sectional winners in the past?

I think we are going to find that CCS and CIF opened a can of worms. If I run any other section in the state I have to figure out how to use the system to send as many of my "best" teams as possible to state games even if some of them lose in the section finals, And what's not to say that all four teams who make the section's semi-finals shouldn't be invited to state games? Why not have a state level Open game and then 1AA through 10AA so more teams can get in?

I like the new play-off format but think that CIF's decision to allow sectional losers is going to backfire, But that's just my opinion.

 

[Bubba3000]

Thanks carmelkyd, explanation is much appreciate.

 

[thehookup55]

Now that raises the question, if they were going to send 2 losers, why not the third loser? What is the logic for sending two of the three losers but not all of them? Or why not send zero losers and just let CCS send 3 teams to the state...what is the magic of 5 except that CCS had 5 sectional winners in the past?

My guess is the 5 was because they have had 5 divisions since 2009 and when CIF approved the new regional and state format CCS had yet to change their playoff format. It had been proposed but wasnt approved until the end of April. CIF announced the new format in January. So CIF was under the impression that 5 teams from CCS would be in the regional game. They obviously couldnt send the 3rd loser because that would put them at 6 teams when CIF only had 5 spots for them. Why only send 3 when CIF gave them 5 spots to fill? The teams that were in the B/C brackets dont belong at the regional or state level. And if they did and they thought they did they could opt up into the open divisions. C leagues were exempt from opting up because they are in equity leagues so they have the chance to move into A leagues.

I think CCS got it right for their section. They ended up with 3 very competitive open divisions. It kept the small public schools from getting pounded by the small private schools which has always been the big complaint of CCS. And they get to advance 5 quality teams to regional games. Had they just gone to a basic 5 division format it would have been a boring sectional playoff. If other sections decide to follow what CCS is doing they just have to remember they have to snub their other teams from competing at the regional level. CCS had no problem making that decision because the new format was proposed by the coaches and they simply apporoved it. NCS is really the only other section that I think should consider it due to DLS.

 

[EBALISBEAST]

Foothill should be in this game, not a 2 loss Milpitas squad.

 

[FBAddict]

Foothill should be in this game, not a 2 loss Milpitas squad.

Good point - And of course Clayton Valley and Marin Catholic should been allowed/forced into Open division too. Anyway, if you like the idea of an Open division for North Coast Section, let your voice be known.

Lars Christensen, Commissioner
North Coast Section
5 Crow Canyon Ct., Ste 209,
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925)263-2110
info@cifncs.org

 

[Streak One]

I think more sections will adopt policies similar to the CCS in the comng years. A lot of very good NCS D1 teams have been left out of the regional/state fun.

 

[CaliTrojan4Life]

I think more sections will adopt policies similar to the CCS in the comng years. A lot of very good NCS D1 teams have been left out of the regional/state fun.

As well as SJS teams such as Oakdale, Rocklin and Antelope. But I definitely agree with you on this.

 

[HSfan82]

It is what it is and CIF okayed CCS to do this. But in football it is lose and go home once playoffs start. Basketball is a different and you have luxury of being able to play more games thus seeing more matchups. That's the beauty of football... you lay it all on the line for one game--that game.

 

[MC415]

Good point - And of course Clayton Valley and Marin Catholic should been allowed/forced into Open division too. Anyway, if you like the idea of an Open division for North Coast Section, let your voice be known.

Lars Christensen, Commissioner
North Coast Section
5 Crow Canyon Ct., Ste 209,
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925)263-2110
info@cifncs.org

1 Open Division or 3 Open Divisions? 1 Open division is dumb way to knock out your top teams from competing for a state title, I don't see how you would want Marin Catholic lumped in with DLS.....they are nowhere near on the same playing field

 

[FBAddict]

1 Open Division or 3 Open Divisions? 1 Open division is dumb way to knock out your top teams from competing for a state title, I don't see how you would want Marin Catholic lumped in with DLS.....they are nowhere near on the same playing field

My point exactly - you illustrate the drawback of an Open division. I used CVC and MC as examples simply because they among the top six teams in NCS according to Calpreps. If someone was using CP ratings to place teams in open today, the teams would be DLS, FH, Antioch, CVC, Pittsburg, MC, California, MV, Freedom, Freedom, CN, Campo, AV, Concord, Mor Cath, Fortuna and logan. That's 3 sectional champs in that group. Of course, some of these teams didn't rate this high before the playoffs.

Even with 3 open divisions. you pull your top 48 teams into 3 divisions and the remaining 59 teams vie for 32 slots for 2 other divisions. Three champs of Open and 2 runner ups of Open can advance to regionals and all others stay home including the champs of the non-open division. That's the CCS rules applied to NCS.

 

[superslow]

Under the current system from a competitive standpoint it looks to me DLS should just join the WCAL and the CCS. That would allow for no other changes to the system and seem fair to the NCS with Foothill in the regionals. CCS could keep their Open divisions likely just making Bellarmine the runnerup. Problem solved, right?

 

[FBAddict]

Under the current system from a competitive standpoint it looks to me DLS should just join the WCAL and the CCS. That would allow for no other changes to the system and seem fair to the NCS with Foothill in the regionals. CCS could keep their Open divisions likely just making Bellarmine the runnerup. Problem solved, right?

Yep - I think you have have been around long enough to remember that WCAL and DLS tried to work out a deal to make that happen. The deal fell apart when WCAL wanted it to happen but required that all sports move to WCAL, not just football. The precedence was set when Valley Christian wanted to join WCAL and did move all their sports to WCAL. DLS backed out due to the cost of travel for all sports.

But under the current CCS open division(s) rules, I think it would benefit WCAL immensely to have DLS there, even if it was for football only.

 

[EastBayDad]

You look at the teams playing still, and have to think foothill, Antioch, and Pitt would beat most of them pretty easily

 

[superslow]

Yep - I think you have have been around long enough to remember that WCAL and DLS tried to work out a deal to make that happen. The deal fell apart when WCAL wanted it to happen but required that all sports move to WCAL, not just football. The precedence was set when Valley Christian wanted to join WCAL and did move all their sports to WCAL. DLS backed out due to the cost of travel for all sports.

But under the current CCS open division(s) rules, I think it would benefit WCAL immensely to have DLS there, even if it was for football only.

I know there's been discussion in the past but I didn't recall the details. I hope the powers-that-be revisit the idea.

 

[CaliTrojan4Life]

You look at the teams playing still, and have to think foothill, Antioch, and Pitt would beat most of them pretty easily

I think Foothill would beat any team in the CCS handily. We all know about the shellacking Antioch put on Milpitas and the best team in the CCS struggled to beat them over the weekend. SJS Oakdale would also beat a lot of teams easily in this field of teams.

 

[Cal 14]

Good point - And of course Clayton Valley and Marin Catholic should been allowed/forced into Open division too. Anyway, if you like the idea of an Open division for North Coast Section, let your voice be known.

Lars Christensen, Commissioner
North Coast Section
5 Crow Canyon Ct., Ste 209,
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925)263-2110
info@cifncs.org

I believe this is called "Wanting their cake and eating it, too."

 

[Cal 14]

Under the current system from a competitive standpoint it looks to me DLS should just join the WCAL and the CCS. That would allow for no other changes to the system and seem fair to the NCS with Foothill in the regionals. CCS could keep their Open divisions likely just making Bellarmine the runnerup. Problem solved, right?

Problem? I don't see a problem at all. I just see a bunch of people whining from other sections who didn't choose to implement the same policies that the CCS did.

 

[Cal 14]

I think Foothill would beat any team in the CCS handily.

Then Foothill should have stepped up and played some instead of that crappy non-league schedule they had. Stagg? Castro Valley? Really?

 

[2wcats]

I think Foothill would beat any team in the CCS handily. We all know about the shellacking Antioch put on Milpitas and the best team in the CCS struggled to beat them over the weekend. SJS Oakdale would also beat a lot of teams easily in this field of teams.

PG, not sure where you got the info that Bellarmine "struggled" to beat Milpitas. I was at the game and Bellarmine was in control from the first series and was clearly the better team that night. I expected the game to be much more competitive but Milpitas was flat and the Bellarmine was not. I sat on the Milpitas side so I am not a Bellarmine homer just in case you jump to that conclusion.

 

[MC415]

Then Foothill should have stepped up and played some instead of that crappy non-league schedule they had. Stagg? Castro Valley? Really?

how would that have helped them when they played DLS in the finals?

 

[mshNASTY]

Then Foothill should have stepped up and played some instead of that crappy non-league schedule they had. Stagg? Castro Valley? Really?

If Foothill's schedule was so crappy why do they have a tougher rated schedule than both Bellarmine and Milpitas on MaxPreps? You can throw that argument in the trash bin...

 

[CaliTrojan4Life]

Then Foothill should have stepped up and played some instead of that crappy non-league schedule they had. Stagg? Castro Valley? Really?

how would that have helped them when they played DLS in the finals?

If Foothill's schedule was so crappy why do they have a tougher rated schedule than both Bellarmine and Milpitas on MaxPreps? You can throw that argument in the trash bin...

I guess this answer the question. Huh....

 

[CaliTrojan4Life]

PG, not sure where you got the info that Bellarmine "struggled" to beat Milpitas. I was at the game and Bellarmine was in control from the first series and was clearly the better team that night. I expected the game to be much more competitive but Milpitas was flat and the Bellarmine was not. I sat on the Milpitas side so I am not a Bellarmine homer just in case you jump to that conclusion.

The score....even though I know the score some times doesn't correctly project the outcome of a game that's all I had to base this one on.

 

[2wcats]

If Foothill's schedule was so crappy why do they have a tougher rated schedule than both Bellarmine and Milpitas on MaxPreps? You can throw that argument in the trash bin...

This is a good question. The average strength rating for Foothill's opponents is 28.4 and the average strength rating for Bellarmine's opponents is 33.2.
Neither one of those numbers matches the SOS listed in Calpreps: Foothill - 33.9 Bellarmine - 31
From Calpreps: "Schedule Strength" is simply an average of the ratings of the teams that school has played.
Anyone have any idea why ??? Or where I made a mistake

Foothill
Opponent/ Rating
San Leandro (CA) 18.9
Freedom (Oakley, CA) 35.2
Stagg (Stockton, CA) 11.6
Castro Valley (CA) -6.3
Granada (Livermore, CA)* 21.4
San Ramon Valley (Danville, CA)* 22.7
Livermore (CA)* 1.8
Monte Vista (Danville, CA)* 35.6
California (San Ramon, CA)* 36.7
Amador Valley (Pleasanton, CA)* 32.2
Freedom (Oakley, CA) 35.2
Antioch (CA) 49.7
De La Salle (Concord, CA) 75.1
28.44615

Bellarmine
Opponent/Rating
Franklin (Elk Grove, CA) 38.8
Del Oro (Loomis, CA) 52.4
Aptos (CA) 23.8
Serra (San Mateo, CA)* 47.2
Mitty (San Jose, CA)* 36
Riordan (San Francisco, CA)* 41.8
St. Francis (Mountain View, CA)* 47.7
Sacred Heart Cathedral (San Francisco, CA)* 14
Valley Christian (San Jose, CA)* 44.7
St. Ignatius (San Francisco, CA)* 19.6
Piedmont Hills (San Jose, CA) 1.4
San Benito (Hollister, CA) 25.5
Milpitas (CA) 38.4
33.17692

 

[2wcats]

The score....even though I know the score some times doesn't correctly project the outcome of a game that's all I had to base this one on.

26-13 is a struggle? Bellarmine is a double wing run first team that eats the clock. 26-13 is not a struggle

 

[Cal 14]

This is a good question. The average strength rating for Foothill's opponents is 28.4 and the average strength rating for Bellarmine's opponents is 33.2.
Neither one of those numbers matches the SOS listed in Calpreps: Foothill - 33.9 Bellarmine - 31
From Calpreps: "Schedule Strength" is simply an average of the ratings of the teams that school has played.
Anyone have any idea why ??? Or where I made a mistake

Foothill
Opponent/ Rating
San Leandro (CA) 18.9
Freedom (Oakley, CA) 35.2
Stagg (Stockton, CA) 11.6
Castro Valley (CA) -6.3
Granada (Livermore, CA)* 21.4
San Ramon Valley (Danville, CA)* 22.7
Livermore (CA)* 1.8
Monte Vista (Danville, CA)* 35.6
California (San Ramon, CA)* 36.7
Amador Valley (Pleasanton, CA)* 32.2
Freedom (Oakley, CA) 35.2
Antioch (CA) 49.7
De La Salle (Concord, CA) 75.1
28.44615

Bellarmine
Opponent/Rating
Franklin (Elk Grove, CA) 38.8
Del Oro (Loomis, CA) 52.4
Aptos (CA) 23.8
Serra (San Mateo, CA)* 47.2
Mitty (San Jose, CA)* 36
Riordan (San Francisco, CA)* 41.8
St. Francis (Mountain View, CA)* 47.7
Sacred Heart Cathedral (San Francisco, CA)* 14
Valley Christian (San Jose, CA)* 44.7
St. Ignatius (San Francisco, CA)* 19.6
Piedmont Hills (San Jose, CA) 1.4
San Benito (Hollister, CA) 25.5
Milpitas (CA) 38.4
33.17692

The playoff games are rated heavier than regular season games. Additionally, simply taking an average isn't the proper means to judge this.

If team A player 10 games against teams all rated at 25 and team B played 9 at 20, but one at 75, which schedule would be tougher? Team A would have more tougher games, but the average would be 25. Team be would have 9 weaker games, but the average would be 25.5.

So, basically, the reason why Foothill's average is higher can be summed up in three letters... D, L, and S. Other than that *one game* Bellarmine's is higher. Out of the opponents they could control, Bellarmine's is MUCH higher.

But, other than that, my statement remains... if they wanted to show they were better than the top CCS teams, they should have scheduled them instead of Castro freakin' Valley.

 

[2wcats]

The playoff games are rated heavier than regular season games. Additionally, simply taking an average isn't the proper means to judge this.

If team A player 10 games against teams all rated at 25 and team B played 9 at 20, but one at 75, which schedule would be tougher? Team A would have more tougher games, but the average would be 25. Team be would have 9 weaker games, but the average would be 25.5.

So, basically, the reason why Foothill's average is higher can be summed up in three letters... D, L, and S. Other than that *one game* Bellarmine's is higher. Out of the opponents they could control, Bellarmine's is MUCH higher.

But, other than that, my statement remains... if they wanted to show they were better than the top CCS teams, they should have scheduled them instead of Castro freakin' Valley.

Thanks for the explanation. I knew playoff games had more weight than regular season games for a team's strength rating but assumed it was already accounted for. Kinda double dipping on it if they add a kicker in SOS as well don't you think?

 

[Cal 14]

Thanks for the explanation. I knew playoff games had more weight than regular season games for a team's strength rating but assumed it was already accounted for. Kinda double dipping on it if they add a kicker in SOS as well don't you think?

I've tried different multipliers for the playoff games to try to make mathematical sense of it, but couldn't quite locate one. It's possible that the values escalate as they advance through the rounds. Not quite sure.

However, if you look at the two schedules, particularly the non-league section between Foothill and Bellarmine, it's almost embarrassing.

(Advantage in opponent rating)
Week 1: Bellarmine by 19.9
Week 2: Bellarmine by 17.2
Week 3: Bellarmine by 12.2

Combine that with the fact that the WCAL was clearly better (even with the extra bad team that the EBAL didn't have) and there's no contest. NCS D-I was better than CCS D-I, mainly because the strength of the CCS is in D-II.

 

[Dooer]

Someone mentioned Antioch beating Milpitas more handily then Bellarmine. I think that most of us realize that comparative opponents does not always pass the muster.

 

[Cal 14]

Someone mentioned Antioch beating Milpitas more handily then Bellarmine. I think that most of us realize that comparative opponents does not always pass the muster.

Doing so may suggest that Folsom is only 2 points better than Concord.