Hi all... new to the boards and still fairly new to the area, so please excuse any faulty assumptions driven by my inexperience with NorCal high school basketball. But as a newbie I'd like to ask the seasoned vets on this board to walk me through the value-add of the CIF and of competitive equity.
The "pro" argument seems to be "avoiding blowouts"...which supports better attendance...which generates higher CIF revenues.
Here are several questions and counter-arguments to that:
1) Why is “point differential” the most important component of what the CIF is looking to improve? Does “point differential” actually equate to better attendance, or is this just an assumption? One might argue that choice of venue or choice of date or “distance lower seed must travel” might correlate a lot more…
2) Does Competitive Equity unfairly impact either boys or girls...or big schools or small schools? The points differential improvement (according to a recent Mercury News article) seems to be much lesser for the boys and is also lesser for higher levels. In some cases it’s just a basket or two difference. Does a basket or two at those levels justify such a massive change to the entire tournament protocol? Maybe a specific tweak to the lower levels or the girls tournament might have improved outcomes for all?
3) Why is “driving revenue” part of the conversation at all? Is the CIF “for-profit” and, if so, why? One might argue that cost-cutting (does the CIF really need 2-3 henchmen at each high school door at each venue? and 2-3 more to make sure no one walks on the floor at halftime?) could achieve the desired result…
4) Where does the CIF money actually go? We know it pays for lots and lots of door-checkers and ticket-takers…but as a coaching participant I have also noted the increased CIF charge per game doesn’t get teams things like water buckets…or a dedicated CIF trainer...or anything else “neutral for both teams and appropriate for a State Tournament.” So what does the $$ go to, exactly?
5) Do the ends of Competitive Equity even justify the means by which it is achieved? Is the possibility of slight higher CIF revenues worth it at the cost of diluting the value of a State Title* at levels below Div 1? Note the asterisk, which will be probably necessary going forward. As in, * well, we actually lost our league this year…and got bumped down 2 divisions…and aren’t the best team of a similar enrollment within a 10 mile radius…but we did get hot and see some favorable match-ups…and we did win this tournament thingy, whatever it’s supposed to be. So are we really "State Champs?") As a former player and now coach, I would much rather lose big in my bracket proudly vs. win big at a lower level. Hell, in a competitive equity model, Angola never plays the Dream Team in ’92 and finds out just where they stood. And look at the leaps that international basketball has made since 1992. Sometimes losing is a good thing!!
6) Flip-side to the argument above…Is the possibility of slightly higher CIF revenue worth it at the cost of pre-maturely ending a solid team’s season and deflating their achievements? As in, “well…we had a great season guys and got bumped up a couple divisions as a low seed and had to go on the road and had a tough draw and damn…actually we really have nothing much to show for a really, really good year because I would have loved to have seen us against similar enrollment schools. Thanks CIF!”
7) Before making a massive change to the State Tournament in California, did the CIF analyze what works in other states? (I am from NY, where the tournament seems to work very well…it’s by enrollment then by classification. So, for each level of enrollment – AA is the largest and B or C is the smallest – there is a State Title Winner each for Public, Private, and Independent schools. Then those 3 winners also have a final play-off to crown the "NYS Federation Champion." And note that the Federation Title is actually secondary for most teams…the biggest achievement is winning the New York State Title in your school grouping of AA, A, B, or C.)
8) Before making this massive change, did the CIF consider other easily-achievable alternatives to attempt to increase revenues/attendance? Rather than a tough draw and a road game for #16 seeds, how about 3-4 neutral venues throughout Northern California that have 6 games each and cost $50 for the full day?? Maybe the “neutral site closer to home” increases the #16 seed’s chances and allows more of their fans to attend and the point differential is achieved that way?
9) Did anyone in the CIF ever actually play basketball? If the CIF really cared about the kids and the experience, why put title games in a massive empty arenas with terrible depth-perception that probably correlates to very poor shooting? Why not target smaller venues and absolutely pack them? Maples? Fresno? Pacific? The JuCo gyms? Additionally, why does the CIF force the use of slick, brand-new basketballs for these play-off games? Who wants to play with a slick new basketball at season's end? Why does this happen? How does either of those things - the ball and the arena - allow kids to put their absolute best foot forward and create the maximum opportunity to shine in one of the most important moments of their high school careers?
Anyway – that’s enough for now…will let you folks agree/disagree as you see fit and hope I can learn a little bit more as a result. Although as the newbie, I swear there is a “What does the CIF actually do and who is behind it?” newspaper story or documentary to be had somehow. I just don’t get it. Feels like the tail is wagging the dog…
Thanks,
Ben Batory
(Long-time assistant coach & former player)
The "pro" argument seems to be "avoiding blowouts"...which supports better attendance...which generates higher CIF revenues.
Here are several questions and counter-arguments to that:
1) Why is “point differential” the most important component of what the CIF is looking to improve? Does “point differential” actually equate to better attendance, or is this just an assumption? One might argue that choice of venue or choice of date or “distance lower seed must travel” might correlate a lot more…
2) Does Competitive Equity unfairly impact either boys or girls...or big schools or small schools? The points differential improvement (according to a recent Mercury News article) seems to be much lesser for the boys and is also lesser for higher levels. In some cases it’s just a basket or two difference. Does a basket or two at those levels justify such a massive change to the entire tournament protocol? Maybe a specific tweak to the lower levels or the girls tournament might have improved outcomes for all?
3) Why is “driving revenue” part of the conversation at all? Is the CIF “for-profit” and, if so, why? One might argue that cost-cutting (does the CIF really need 2-3 henchmen at each high school door at each venue? and 2-3 more to make sure no one walks on the floor at halftime?) could achieve the desired result…
4) Where does the CIF money actually go? We know it pays for lots and lots of door-checkers and ticket-takers…but as a coaching participant I have also noted the increased CIF charge per game doesn’t get teams things like water buckets…or a dedicated CIF trainer...or anything else “neutral for both teams and appropriate for a State Tournament.” So what does the $$ go to, exactly?
5) Do the ends of Competitive Equity even justify the means by which it is achieved? Is the possibility of slight higher CIF revenues worth it at the cost of diluting the value of a State Title* at levels below Div 1? Note the asterisk, which will be probably necessary going forward. As in, * well, we actually lost our league this year…and got bumped down 2 divisions…and aren’t the best team of a similar enrollment within a 10 mile radius…but we did get hot and see some favorable match-ups…and we did win this tournament thingy, whatever it’s supposed to be. So are we really "State Champs?") As a former player and now coach, I would much rather lose big in my bracket proudly vs. win big at a lower level. Hell, in a competitive equity model, Angola never plays the Dream Team in ’92 and finds out just where they stood. And look at the leaps that international basketball has made since 1992. Sometimes losing is a good thing!!
6) Flip-side to the argument above…Is the possibility of slightly higher CIF revenue worth it at the cost of pre-maturely ending a solid team’s season and deflating their achievements? As in, “well…we had a great season guys and got bumped up a couple divisions as a low seed and had to go on the road and had a tough draw and damn…actually we really have nothing much to show for a really, really good year because I would have loved to have seen us against similar enrollment schools. Thanks CIF!”
7) Before making a massive change to the State Tournament in California, did the CIF analyze what works in other states? (I am from NY, where the tournament seems to work very well…it’s by enrollment then by classification. So, for each level of enrollment – AA is the largest and B or C is the smallest – there is a State Title Winner each for Public, Private, and Independent schools. Then those 3 winners also have a final play-off to crown the "NYS Federation Champion." And note that the Federation Title is actually secondary for most teams…the biggest achievement is winning the New York State Title in your school grouping of AA, A, B, or C.)
8) Before making this massive change, did the CIF consider other easily-achievable alternatives to attempt to increase revenues/attendance? Rather than a tough draw and a road game for #16 seeds, how about 3-4 neutral venues throughout Northern California that have 6 games each and cost $50 for the full day?? Maybe the “neutral site closer to home” increases the #16 seed’s chances and allows more of their fans to attend and the point differential is achieved that way?
9) Did anyone in the CIF ever actually play basketball? If the CIF really cared about the kids and the experience, why put title games in a massive empty arenas with terrible depth-perception that probably correlates to very poor shooting? Why not target smaller venues and absolutely pack them? Maples? Fresno? Pacific? The JuCo gyms? Additionally, why does the CIF force the use of slick, brand-new basketballs for these play-off games? Who wants to play with a slick new basketball at season's end? Why does this happen? How does either of those things - the ball and the arena - allow kids to put their absolute best foot forward and create the maximum opportunity to shine in one of the most important moments of their high school careers?
Anyway – that’s enough for now…will let you folks agree/disagree as you see fit and hope I can learn a little bit more as a result. Although as the newbie, I swear there is a “What does the CIF actually do and who is behind it?” newspaper story or documentary to be had somehow. I just don’t get it. Feels like the tail is wagging the dog…
Thanks,
Ben Batory
(Long-time assistant coach & former player)
Last edited: