Proposed CCS Play-off Changes for Next Year

[PALbooster]

The recent CCS post season football meeting brought forward the following recommended changes for next seasons CCS playoffs. This has to go through multiple rounds of approvals before these changes are actually implemented.

CBEDS will no longer be utilized to place teams in the play-offs. The CCS would use the existing point system and at the end of the year the top four teams in each of the 5 A leagues plus 4 A teams with the most CCS points that did not place in the top four in their league. One major change is that any B league champion can opt into the open division for play-offs as long as they have more points than the lowest A league qualifiers. Any A teams that are bumped out would be placed in the lower division Non-Open play-offs

Once these 24 teams are determined. They will be ranked from 1-24 based on power points instead of CBEDS. The CCS would use a snake to create two equivalent Open divisions (Division I and Division II (or 1A).

One division would have teams ranked 1,4,5,8,9,12,13, and 16. The other division would have teams 2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15. The two finalists of each of these divisions would go onto normal regional playDivision III would consist of teams 17-24 with the winner going onto norcal regional play.

I am not sure what problem these changes solve for. Given the somewhat arbitrary assignment of CCS points I don't think the snake process will lead to two "equal" divisions. I think you will see somewhat random divisions like this year where one division (this year division II) looks much stronger than the other division.

The proposed methodology assures that a lower ranked team (winner of DIII) will go to Norcal regional play in place of a team that had a much stronger regular season.

Assuming no B league champion like Gilroy, Soledad, Menlo, Leland, or Santa Clara opted up to the open division - using this years final results the play-offs would have looked like this. If a B team opted up Bellarmine would have been moved down first, then Palo Alto, etc.

Division I
1. Milpitas vs 8. Menlo-Atherton/Live Oak/Seaside
4. Oak Grove vs 5. Piedmont Hills
3. Aragon vs 6. Palma
2. Half Moon Bay vs 7. San Benito/SHC/Westmont

Division II
1. Salinas vs 8. San Benito/SHC/Westmont
4. Valley Christian vs 5. Aptos
3. Saint Francis vs 6. Wilcox
2. Serra vs 7. San Benito/SHC/Westmont

Division III
1. Menlo-Atherton/Live Oak/Seaside vs 8. Bellarmine
4. Mitty vs 5. Burlingame
3. Los Gatos vs 6. Terra Nova
2. Menlo-Atherton/Live Oak/Seaside vs 7. Palo Alto

Non-Open Divisions

Two major change recommendations were to go from two divisions to three divisions and add eight teams to the non-open play-offs. Also a recommendation to seed teams by power points instead of CBEDS. This year the divisions would have looked like this (Assuming no B league champions opted up to the open division)

Division IV
1. Gilroy vs 8. Independence/Alisal/Cupertino/Santa Clara/Hillsdale
4. Menlo/Branham vs 5. Menlo/Branham
3. Christopher vs 6. Soledad
2. Leland vs 7. Independence/Alisal/Cupertino/Santa Clara/Hillsdale

Division V
1 Independence/Alisal/Cupertino/Santa Clara/Hillsdale vs 8. Fremont/Carmel
4 Willow Glen vs 5. Carlmont/Sobrato/Scotts Valley
3 Independence/Alisal/Cupertino/Santa Clara/Hillsdale vs 6. Carlmont/Sobrato/Scotts Valley
2. Independence/Alisal/Cupertino/Santa Clara/Hillsdale vs. 7. Carlmont/Sobrato/Scotts Valley

Division VI
1. Fremont/Carmel vs 8. Santa Cruz
4. Jefferson/Overfelt/Watsonville vs 5. Jefferson/Overfelt/Watsonville
3. Jefferson/Overfelt/Watsonville vs 6. King City
2. St Francis Watsonville vs 7. Sequoia/San Mateo

 

[joebl]

What a wacko idea! Who came out with this proposal?

Was there any discussion around fixing the existing point system?

 

[Anonymous411]

Why not allign with the rest of the Country and do playoffs D1-D5 even D6? This system punishes some teams for having a strong season. On top of that you are going to have a C league playoff......really, everyone gets a trophy I guess. Who created this proposal? CCS would be better represented at Regional and State based on enrollment. Just my 2 Cents!

 

[SearsPoints]

Absolutely ridiculous plan!

 

[carmelkyd]

So did you say that the winner and second place team from D1 and D1A will go to the regional game and ONLY the winner of DIII will go to a regional game? I hope that is what you said.

As for the Non-Open divisions I am all for the DVI proposal. There are 5 A leagues in CCS. Within those 5 leagues there are 37 teams. At the end of the season there are 3 A league play-off divisions. 8 teams in each play-off division. So 24 A league teams make the play-offs. That means that at the A league level 65% of the teams make the play-offs.

There are 5 B leagues and 3 C leagues in CCS. Within those 8 leagues there are 56 teams. At the end of the season there are 2 B/C league play-off divisions. 8 teams in each play-off division. So 16 B/C league teams make the play-offs. That means that at the B/C league level just 28% of the teams make the play-offs.

What is wrong with adding another play-off division for the B/C league teams? With 3 play-off divisions for the B/C league teams then 24 B/C teams would make the play-offs...43% of the teams playing in the B/C leagues in the play-offs. Still substantially less than the percent of the A league teams that make the play-offs.

In fact if CCS added both a Division VI and a Division VII there would still be fewer B/C league teams in the play-offs as a percentage of the total number of teams in those leagues than there are in the A league level play-offs.

 

[PALbooster]

So did you say that the winner and second place team from D1 and D1A will go to the regional game and ONLY the winner of DIII will go to a regional game? I hope that is what you said.

Carmel - YKD - that is correct

 

[joebl]

I can see that they are in theory trying to get the top 4 teams from CCS to the Regional Bowls. I see 2 problems with this.

1) They are basing the top 4 teams on CCS power points, which has been proven that in the current format does not reflect team strength, nor strength of schedule. How can a system be defended that give equal points to facing Los Altos and SF? Del Oro would be considered a B-league team under the current system.
2) We get further away from a true CCS champion. Something already being done with the many titles they are offering...

 

[PALbooster]

JoeBl,

You raise valid points but there is no "perfect" system. I think the current system has functioned fairly well. This year at the end of the regular season before the play-offs the teams that got to NorCals were ranked 1 (Serra) 2 (Milpitas) 4 (St. Francis), 5 (Half Moon Bay), and 7 (Salinas) - #3 (Valley Christian) and #6 Aragon lost in the DII semi-finals.

The proposed system would not have improved on this result and the highest rated DIII team would have been #8 Mitty that was 5-5 in the regular season.

I like that the CCS utilizes an objective system with all (or at least most) of the rules defined. The alternatives to the current system is tweaking the point system which always has other consequences (i.e. if you go back to rating WCAL teams as an A plus league you get the same points for playing Serra as you do for playing Riordan and more points for playing Riordan than Milpitas).

For out of section results you have many of the same issues of trying to prejudge strength of schedule or strength of leagues in setting up a point system prior to the season starting. A team that schedules a SFL, EBAL or BVAL team probably isn't too worried about laying 0.5 or 1 point and being seeded slightly lower against another CCS team come play-off time.

You could incorporate a system like Calpreps that attempts to factor in teams strength of schedule and does a good job of it in my opinion and it a fully objective system using linear programs to create rankings at the end of the year and select your at-large teams.

The final alternative is to have a committee and make it a subjective process, but there are so many conflicts of interest I am not sure that you get a better result using a committee or clappers or by tweaking the point system than you do over the current process.

I think that the proposed alternative being put forward would almost always guarantee that you would have a DIII winner (ranked between 17-24 in the CCS point system) that is not as strong as many of the teams that don't make it out of DI and DII.

Finally, while I think that CBED rankings aren't necessarily indicative of a teams quality or strength, I do think there is a general correlation between the size of a school and what I think is the most important competitive attribute which is roster size. I think the current CCS system does a good job on insuring that a small roster team (almost always a DIII team) will play against schools that have a higher chance of having smaller rosters. Most of these smaller roster teams have excellent front line players, they either just have have to play both ways and wear out against bigger rosters or their teams have to play lesser players to a full two platoon team. The current system does give a better chance to a HMB, Carmel, SHP, Terra Nova or SHC type team to get to regionals.

 

[joebl]

JoeBl,

I like that the CCS utilizes an objective system with all (or at least most) of the rules defined. The alternatives to the current system is tweaking the point system which always has other consequences (i.e. if you go back to rating WCAL teams as an A plus league you get the same points for playing Serra as you do for playing Riordan and more points for playing Riordan than Milpitas).

For out of section results you have many of the same issues of trying to prejudge strength of schedule or strength of leagues in setting up a point system prior to the season starting. A team that schedules a SFL, EBAL or BVAL team probably isn't too worried about laying 0.5 or 1 point and being seeded slightly lower against another CCS team come play-off time.

You could incorporate a system like Calpreps that attempts to factor in teams strength of schedule and does a good job of it in my opinion and it a fully objective system using linear programs to create rankings at the end of the year and select your at-large teams.

The final alternative is to have a committee and make it a subjective process, but there are so many conflicts of interest I am not sure that you get a better result using a committee or clappers or by tweaking the point system than you do over the current process.

I think that the proposed alternative being put forward would almost always guarantee that you would have a DIII winner (ranked between 17-24 in the CCS point system) that is not as strong as many of the teams that don't make it out of DI and DII.

Finally, while I think that CBED rankings aren't necessarily indicative of a teams quality or strength, I do think there is a general correlation between the size of a school and what I think is the most important competitive attribute which is roster size. I think the current CCS system does a good job on insuring that a small roster team (almost always a DIII team) will play against schools that have a higher chance of having smaller rosters. Most of these smaller roster teams have excellent front line players, they either just have have to play both ways and wear out against bigger rosters or their teams have to play lesser players to a full two platoon team. The current system does give a better chance to a HMB, Carmel, SHP, Terra Nova or SHC type team to get to regionals.

I actually thought the WCAL A-plus was a better system, although remains to be seen if this year's league is the new normal, or just an anomaly for the league being down so much after the top 3. In your example, Serra does not equal Riordon due to league champion points, but you could say SF/VC does. Same with Milpitas being worth more than Riordon. In most years, the WCAL bottom 3 teams are comparable or better than teams #2-4 in the other A-leagues, so think overall it would be more fair. What I dont like is encouraging teams to play the bottom A-league teams as opposed to going out to other sections and playing stronger teams.

I also dont have an issue with using CalPreps to help adjust. Perhaps a blend of point system with calpreps would be a good alternative. Ultimately, would love to get the state to head toward a true playoff system. They can still keep their bowl games, but let's acknowledge them as Bowl games instead of calling them State Championships.

 

[SpeedCity51]

They should keep the system as is, add one more B/C league playoff division, and automatically have the top 3 WCAL teams be placed in division 1, with any other WCAL teams that qualify for the playoffs placed in division 2. You use the CBEDs to fill in the gaps. Champ and runner up go to regionals in D1 and 2, champ only goes to regionals for D3. Any B/C league champ or co-champ can opt up if they want, and they bump out team with lowest power points.

 

[Cal 14]

Why not allign with the rest of the Country and do playoffs D1-D5 even D6? This system punishes some teams for having a strong season. On top of that you are going to have a C league playoff......really, everyone gets a trophy I guess. Who created this proposal? CCS would be better represented at Regional and State based on enrollment. Just my 2 Cents!

That's already been tried. It doesn't work for the CCS because of the high number of private schools. Only the CCS and SS have this problem to this magnitude.

 

[Cal 14]

This is such a terrible proposal. Makes no sense whatsoever and serves no visible purpose.

I really don't want to see another situation where a really solid Terra Nova or HMB gets knocked out by a Serra or St. Francis.

There's still the possibility this gets voted down, right?

 

[oldblueyes]

I hope we continue to extend football season until Dec 18 next year with runner-ups and maybe a 3rd place team or two still playing for bowl titles! Is there way to send San Jose High or Mills to that Division 6 or 7 title game next year?

 

[FBAddict]

I think I am reading it correctly on the CCS website that the CCS Board of Managers failed to approve all three proposals in their April 4th meeting. If true, there should be no changes to the CCS playoff structure for 2018.

Interestingly, their vote goes against all 3 levels of approvals for these proposals. The levels include the Athletic Directors Committee, League Committee and the Executive Committee. Only the EC committee disproved of proposal #3 about adding an additional Non-Open play off division. Otherwise, proposal #1 & #2 seemed destined to pass.

 

[Cal 14]

I think I am reading it correctly on the CCS website that the CCS Board of Managers failed to approve all three proposals in their April 4th meeting. If true, there should be no changes to the CCS playoff structure for 2018.

Interestingly, their vote goes against all 3 levels of approvals for these proposals. The levels include the Athletic Directors Committee, League Committee and the Executive Committee. Only the EC committee disproved of proposal #3 about adding an additional Non-Open play off division. Otherwise, proposal #1 & #2 seemed destined to pass.

Good. They were stupid proposals.

 

[carmelkyd]

So what was wrong with the third play-off bracket for B/C teams? As structured today, 64.9% of the A teams make the play-offs. Yet just 28.6% of the B/C teams make the play-offs.

I think it is crazy that nearly 2/3rds of the A teams that begin the season will make the play-offs. While fewer than 1/3rd of the B/C teams will have a chance to play in the post season.

Want to keep to 5 play-off brackets? Why not have only 2 A level play-off brackets? 43% of the A teams will make the play-offs. Then 2 brackets for the B leagues...46% of the B league teams would make the play-offs. And 1 bracket just for C league teams...38% of those teams making the play-offs.

Or keep the 3 A league brackets just because. Make the next 2 brackets (who would not be eligible for the State level games) for the B league teams and add a new bracket just for C league teams. What would be so wrong with this? Why not give 8 more teams...maybe 240 kids...the chance to enjoy the memory of playing in the football play-offs.

 

[colhenrylives]

This is a yearly exercise in attempting to isolate the CCS private/parochials (with an obvious emphasis on the WCAL) and to broaden "title" opportunities for the CCS publics.

 

[carmelkyd]

Broaden "title" opportunities??? When 65% of the A level teams will be in the play-offs, I'm not sure it is possible to broaden the title opportunity any more than this. Want to narrow the title opportunities? Cut out one of the A level play-off brackets.

And if you want to look it this from the perspective of how many divisions there are (5 today) what is so wrong with 6 divisions? 3 divisions that really count so that the winners are eligible for State games. And 3 divisions where everyone knows the title means something LESS than a title among the top 3 A level divisions. But to the kids who play in those lower play-off divisions...for the coaches...for the parents...for the schools, the ability to be included in post season competition (especially in a division that is not watered down by 65% of the teams making the play-offs) is something that will be long remembered.

No I am not for participation awards. No I don't want 7, 8 or 9 play-off brackets. But when 65% of A level teams get to play in the post season and just 29% of the B / C teams make the post season, I think something should be done. Just like we know the Houston Astro's World Series title was more meaningful than the Durham Bulls International League title, we will always know that the Division 1, 2 or 3 title was more meaningful than the Division 4, 5 or 6 title. Broadening the title doesn't water down the impact. But it does give more kids a chance to build long lasting memories.

 

[Cal 14]

So what was wrong with the third play-off bracket for B/C teams? As structured today, 64.9% of the A teams make the play-offs. Yet just 28.6% of the B/C teams make the play-offs.

I think it is crazy that nearly 2/3rds of the A teams that begin the season will make the play-offs. While fewer than 1/3rd of the B/C teams will have a chance to play in the post season.

Want to keep to 5 play-off brackets? Why not have only 2 A level play-off brackets? 43% of the A teams will make the play-offs. Then 2 brackets for the B leagues...46% of the B league teams would make the play-offs. And 1 bracket just for C league teams...38% of those teams making the play-offs.

Or keep the 3 A league brackets just because. Make the next 2 brackets (who would not be eligible for the State level games) for the B league teams and add a new bracket just for C league teams. What would be so wrong with this? Why not give 8 more teams...maybe 240 kids...the chance to enjoy the memory of playing in the football play-offs.

Largely, the only reason the C teams make the playoffs is because they don't have A teams in their league. It's an easier playoff run in C leagues, thus fewer slots available.

 

[Cal Husker]

What a ridiculous proposal! Under this proposal, once again, the WCAL teams will be sprinkled throughout the 3 divisions almost guaranteeing CCS championships for them.
Why in the world would we go away from the current system that, although not perfect, resulted in diverse finals that that looked like this:
Salinas/Milpitas
SF/Serra (and 2 other WCAL teams in D2)
Terra Nova/HMB
Christopher/Leland
Gilroy/Menlo

That resulted in 4 of the 5 champions being public and division 2 having 4 WCAL teams. This is the BEST scenario that the CCS has had in regard to isolating those teams. Its as close to a private school playoff as we will get. Yes it is unfortunate for teams like Aragon (I would bet they were the driving force behind this proposal) You can never make everyone happy but this is as close as we will get.
PLEASE explain/educate me why and who would benefit from this new proposal.

In this day and age of football why would the CCS move away from enrollment based playoffs?
How will you explain a potential Carmel (could be A)/Hillsdale (could be A)/Seaside vs Bellarmine Matchup????

 

[joebl]

Broaden "title" opportunities??? When 65% of the A level teams will be in the play-offs, I'm not sure it is possible to broaden the title opportunity any more than this. Want to narrow the title opportunities? Cut out one of the A level play-off brackets.

And if you want to look it this from the perspective of how many divisions there are (5 today) what is so wrong with 6 divisions? 3 divisions that really count so that the winners are eligible for State games. And 3 divisions where everyone knows the title means something LESS than a title among the top 3 A level divisions. But to the kids who play in those lower play-off divisions...for the coaches...for the parents...for the schools, the ability to be included in post season competition (especially in a division that is not watered down by 65% of the teams making the play-offs) is something that will be long remembered.

No I am not for participation awards. No I don't want 7, 8 or 9 play-off brackets. But when 65% of A level teams get to play in the post season and just 29% of the B / C teams make the post season, I think something should be done. Just like we know the Houston Astro's World Series title was more meaningful than the Durham Bulls International League title, we will always know that the Division 1, 2 or 3 title was more meaningful than the Division 4, 5 or 6 title. Broadening the title doesn't water down the impact. But it does give more kids a chance to build long lasting memories.

I would disagree with your assessment. This is the Central Coast Section Championships - not A, B, C champions. It makes absolute sense to have the best teams in the section play for section championships. The overwhelming majority of top teams are from A divisions, and therefore should be overwhelmingly represented. Divisions combined to create "Super Divisions" so that the weakest teams didn't have to be crushed by the better teams and be more competitive playing each other. . The B/C divisions were created to be lessor divisions to A. Those B/C teams can move up by being successful and therefore increase their chances of making into the playoffs, but dont understand why you would want to reward these lessor divisions with additional playoff spots when they are not even in the top 8 of their own super division. There are already too many entries in the playoffs and think it would be better to reduce to the total number of titles and playoff teams.

 

[carmelkyd]

Guess it depends on whether you want to do what is best for the kids (within reason) or best for the board posters. By your logic, the MLB teams should have play-offs but none of the minor league leagues should have play-offs. I agree with you that the B/C divisions are lesser to the A's. But what is wrong with play-offs for the minor league teams? As structured by CCS, the top 3 divisional play-offs are eligible to go to the "World Series" (or in this case to state games.). But that shouldn't preclude there being divisional play-offs for the B's and C's. I just cannot agree that there should be fewer titles and fewer play-off teams. Taking the opportunity away from kids, parents, coaches and schools to be part of the post season overlooks the fact that high school sports still is about the kids...compared to college where it becomes a business. Let's call the play-offs for the A level teams the Section Championships and those for B / C teams the Area Championships for the Lesser Teams. Two Area Championship levels for the B teams and one Area Championship level for only C teams.

 

[shcguy92]

Maybe this is stupid but why not do what you have done with basketball. Consistently top performing schools can move up to higher divisions rather than place teams based on CBEDS?

I think it rewards consistent play and performance allowing teams to move up rather than be pigeonholed into a division then do so well get booted to Open Division.

Using the ladder method would be best.

 

[joebl]

Guess it depends on whether you want to do what is best for the kids (within reason) or best for the board posters. By your logic, the MLB teams should have play-offs but none of the minor league leagues should have play-offs. I agree with you that the B/C divisions are lesser to the A's. But what is wrong with play-offs for the minor league teams? As structured by CCS, the top 3 divisional play-offs are eligible to go to the "World Series" (or in this case to state games.). But that shouldn't preclude there being divisional play-offs for the B's and C's. I just cannot agree that there should be fewer titles and fewer play-off teams. Taking the opportunity away from kids, parents, coaches and schools to be part of the post season overlooks the fact that high school sports still is about the kids...compared to college where it becomes a business. Let's call the play-offs for the A level teams the Section Championships and those for B / C teams the Area Championships for the Lesser Teams. Two Area Championship levels for the B teams and one Area Championship level for only C teams.

The problem with your analogy is that MLB and Minor League Baseball are two different leagues. The CCS has one league for football, just has divisions rated based on historical performance. Currently 40 out of 93 teams make the playoffs, and you want more? Why not just let everybody in the playoffs and provide participation trophies for all of them? I prefer reducing the total number of playoffs and would like to try and get the best teams in the playoffs.

 

[SpeedCity51]

You guys realize these schools aren’t professional franchises right? If that were the case, then I would agree, no need to add more divisions. If a school wants to go to a better division, sign better players, get better coaches. But that isn’t the case. You guys act like the B and C league schools are doing something wrong, like they don’t “deserve” to make the playoffs. Why? They work hard too, they just happened to be born to parents that decided to live in an area where they have to attend a small school or a school without favorable demographics.

Maybe they should just have rule that any athletic kid can transfer to schools with good programs so they can participate in the playoffs. O that’s right, then people would whine about players transferring too much.

 

[Cal 14]

You guys realize these schools aren’t professional franchises right? If that were the case, then I would agree, no need to add more divisions. If a school wants to go to a better division, sign better players, get better coaches. But that isn’t the case. You guys act like the B and C league schools are doing something wrong, like they don’t “deserve” to make the playoffs. Why? They work hard too, they just happened to be born to parents that decided to live in an area where they have to attend a small school or a school without favorable demographics.

Maybe they should just have rule that any athletic kid can transfer to schools with good programs so they can participate in the playoffs. O that’s right, then people would whine about players transferring too much.

After going back and forth a bit on this, I've landed on my final sentiment... "cry me a river". Every year, teams take 1st, 2nd... all the way through 7th or 8th in some cases. Every one of those had the same basic opportunity to make the playoffs as the rest of the teams in their league. If a player goes to a school in a down region or "unfavorable demographics", typically they're playing schools in league of similar conditions. Beat those teams, you make the playoffs.

More teams make it from A leagues because the competition is tougher. The competition is not as tough in the B and C leagues. Top teams from B leagues (or if the coaches believe they could be a top team) can always make a push to move up in division. From what I've read, those teams are generally OK with being in the lower leagues. Being OK with that means they know the playoffs rules.

 

[SpeedCity51]

After going back and forth a bit on this, I've landed on my final sentiment... "cry me a river". Every year, teams take 1st, 2nd... all the way through 7th or 8th in some cases. Every one of those had the same basic opportunity to make the playoffs as the rest of the teams in their league. If a player goes to a school in a down region or "unfavorable demographics", typically they're playing schools in league of similar conditions. Beat those teams, you make the playoffs.

More teams make it from A leagues because the competition is tougher. The competition is not as tough in the B and C leagues. Top teams from B leagues (or if the coaches believe they could be a top team) can always make a push to move up in division. From what I've read, those teams are generally OK with being in the lower leagues. Being OK with that means they know the playoffs rules.

Spot on. Those kid’s parents should have known better then to move to schools without favorable demographics to good football teams.

 

[Cal 14]

Spot on. Those kid’s parents should have known better then to move to schools without favorable demographics to good football teams.

This just in... life isn't fair.

Bottom line is that they have an easier path to the playoffs than teams in A leagues.

 

[carmelkyd]

Cal you are a smart guy but your statement simply is not true. 65% of A league teams make the playoffs and 29% of B/C teams make the playoffs. You can finish fourth or fifth in an A league and make the playoffs while third place teams in B/C leagues often do not make the playoffs.

Granted teams that finish fourth or fifth in an A league are usually a better team than B league champions. But the issue is that B/C league teams should also have a 69% chance to make the playoffs against their B/C peers.

 

[joebl]

Cal you are a smart guy but your statement simply is not true. 65% of A league teams make the playoffs and 29% of B/C teams make the playoffs. You can finish fourth or fifth in an A league and make the playoffs while third place teams in B/C leagues often do not make the playoffs.

Granted teams that finish fourth or fifth in an A league are usually a better team than B league champions. But the issue is that B/C league teams should also have a 69% chance to make the playoffs against their B/C peers.

You are wrong because you are associating teams in B/C divisions as if they were in a different league as the A teams. For example, the BVAL league is made up of 24 teams. The League has decided to separate into 3 divisions based on strength of teams. So the top 8 make up the MHAL, the 9-16 are in the STAL, and the 17-24 teams are in WVAL. These "super leagues" were created to help the weaker teams have more competitive games, not so that more of these teams can make the playoffs. Is it fair to a team like Leigh, who beat Branham, but were not able to make playoffs because they had to play against A division teams, while Branham got to play B division schedule and made the playoffs? They are part of the same BVAL league.
At what point do you say that there are too many teams in the playoffs - or should we just allow every team to be in a playoff?

 

[Cal 14]

Cal you are a smart guy but your statement simply is not true. 65% of A league teams make the playoffs and 29% of B/C teams make the playoffs. You can finish fourth or fifth in an A league and make the playoffs while third place teams in B/C leagues often do not make the playoffs.

Granted teams that finish fourth or fifth in an A league are usually a better team than B league champions.

Therefore, A league teams have a more difficult path to the playoffs.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Cal 14]

Cal you are a smart guy but your statement simply is not true. 65% of A league teams make the playoffs and 29% of B/C teams make the playoffs. You can finish fourth or fifth in an A league and make the playoffs while third place teams in B/C leagues often do not make the playoffs.

Granted teams that finish fourth or fifth in an A league are usually a better team than B league champions. But the issue is that B/C league teams should also have a 69% chance to make the playoffs against their B/C peers.

You don't seem to get why the percentages are as they are. The fact that more A league members get to the playoffs doesn't mean that their path is easier. More of those members advance because their path isn't easier.

I'd imagine that if anyone in B or C leagues wants a piece of that "easier path", they can petition their local region for movement into their respective A league. Hey, Aptos did it, right? Why not Carmel, Del Mar, or Capuchino?

The reduced number of playoff spots was the concession for not having to face teams like Palma, Sacred Heart Prep, or St. Francis in the playoffs.

 

[colhenrylives]

There are B and C leagues for a reason: They typically cannot hang with the big boys, the A league toughies. In a sense, the power leagues have already culled the sporting wheat from the chaff.