Can someone explain why CCS automatically gets their second place teams into the regional bowl games when the NCS and SJS don't? Thats straight up unfair especially with the seeding process this year. The second place CCS teams will be seeded low and likely play teams with smaller enrollments...WTF. Also, everyone on this board knows second place teams in the NCS (foothill), and SJS (Folsom or Elk Grove) are ranked much higher than the CCS seconds. What about other teams like the loser of MC/CN or Rocklin/DO or CC/oakdale etc.. which are better than the CCS second place teams? It doesn't make sense, but then again the CCS open didn't either. It should be fair across the board, based on enrollment for all sections,
Regional Bowl Game questions
- Thread starter thespecialone
- Start date
As far as I know, CCS just asked for it and the CIF approved it. Maybe it had to do with the CCS only sending one eligible rep in the previous years because of the Open, but with the CCS now having "3" Opens, the runner ups should not have been allowed.
The CCS is unique since its powers are mainly private schools. A lot of those private schools are smaller schools. I believe Bellarmine is the only powerhouse that is D1. Serra I think would have been on bubble for D1 or D2 had they been eligible. Any ways the biggest problem with the CCS has been getting publics and privates both happy. With the new regional and state format every section winner advance which gave CCS 5 spots.
The old open division would have eliminated arguably the top teams from the section. And then you would have 4 teams advancing that probably wouldnt have won their division if there was no open division. So the CCS had to make the small public schools and small private schools happy and change their format. When CIF voted for the new proposal CCS was actually against expanding to 13 state games. They also had a note that all open divisions could advance a non section winner. So CCS came up with the current system that allows their weaker leagues to have their own 2 division and avoid the private powers however they wouldnt have a chance at state. They then made the 3 upper divisions open divisions allowing them to replace the lower two champions with runner ups. CIF hadnt approved of the 3 division runner ups advancing until the season had already started.
I am in no way a fan of the runner ups advancing but it is what it is. CIF approved it so really they should be blamed not CCS. CCS saw a loop hole that allowed them to advance 5 quality teams and CIF didnt have a problem with it. Had CCS not changed their format you would have had 4 teams that probably werent the best playing in regional games. This allows CCS to send its best teams to regionals to represent them and Norcal if they were to advance to state plus its keeps the private and public teams happy in the section. Like I said Im not a fan of losers advancing but it is what it is.
The old open division would have eliminated arguably the top teams from the section. And then you would have 4 teams advancing that probably wouldnt have won their division if there was no open division. So the CCS had to make the small public schools and small private schools happy and change their format. When CIF voted for the new proposal CCS was actually against expanding to 13 state games. They also had a note that all open divisions could advance a non section winner. So CCS came up with the current system that allows their weaker leagues to have their own 2 division and avoid the private powers however they wouldnt have a chance at state. They then made the 3 upper divisions open divisions allowing them to replace the lower two champions with runner ups. CIF hadnt approved of the 3 division runner ups advancing until the season had already started.
I am in no way a fan of the runner ups advancing but it is what it is. CIF approved it so really they should be blamed not CCS. CCS saw a loop hole that allowed them to advance 5 quality teams and CIF didnt have a problem with it. Had CCS not changed their format you would have had 4 teams that probably werent the best playing in regional games. This allows CCS to send its best teams to regionals to represent them and Norcal if they were to advance to state plus its keeps the private and public teams happy in the section. Like I said Im not a fan of losers advancing but it is what it is.
That's a great explanation of why the runner-ups were approved and what led up to it, thanks.
tl;dr - The CCS could break up their playoffs to five divisions, I-V, with each winner qualifying to get their five regional reps, but that would mean the Private schools would steamroll the lower divisions which the CCS has vehemently tried to prevent. The runner-up exemption allowed a couple of "non-open" brackets to be played without the privates involved.
tl;dr - The CCS could break up their playoffs to five divisions, I-V, with each winner qualifying to get their five regional reps, but that would mean the Private schools would steamroll the lower divisions which the CCS has vehemently tried to prevent. The runner-up exemption allowed a couple of "non-open" brackets to be played without the privates involved.
Last edited:
How the CCS is set up for football playoffs; is they have 3 open divisions (A) and 2 other divisions (B&C). The winners of the 3 open divisions advance as well as two runners up from those division (this stacks the deck for WCAL teams as the are really good in football). The winners of the B&C divisions stays home, so much for a Hoosier story here. But in allowing the CCS to put runners up in the Northern Playoffs they almost assure themselves a CCS representative ( WCAL ) in a State Bowl Game, because they may end up playing each other for a possible third time in the same season. And I have the believe that there are better teams that are runners up that have better records and power ratings that would deserve to go instead. But I think if you win you go on, if you lose you go home. IMO.
Hi all. I'm not sure I've posted in a long time or even at all.
For example, let's say that Milpitas, Oak Grove and SHP all win the Open Divisions. In the current system, this still assures Bellarmine and St. Francis to represent the CCS in regionals. Riordan would be on the outside, but a slightly lesser power than the the other two WCAL schools. I know, win-your in, lose-you're out, but Aptos or HMB getting a regional nod over one of the larger WCAL teams would probably make the WCAL unhappy.
There's one solution to this that would make everyone at least somewhat happy - A true State Playoff. I know people always say that you'd have to eliminate section playoffs to have a state playoff, but not necessarily - at least not eliminating all of the section playoffs. Though, this discussion could really be it's own thread.
I'm actually working on creating a mock state playoff for California HS Football using this years standings and such to create my own rankings for qualification and seeding purposes - once complete I see about posting them somewhere so others can see what it looks like.
For example, let's say that Milpitas, Oak Grove and SHP all win the Open Divisions. In the current system, this still assures Bellarmine and St. Francis to represent the CCS in regionals. Riordan would be on the outside, but a slightly lesser power than the the other two WCAL schools. I know, win-your in, lose-you're out, but Aptos or HMB getting a regional nod over one of the larger WCAL teams would probably make the WCAL unhappy.
There's one solution to this that would make everyone at least somewhat happy - A true State Playoff. I know people always say that you'd have to eliminate section playoffs to have a state playoff, but not necessarily - at least not eliminating all of the section playoffs. Though, this discussion could really be it's own thread.
I'm actually working on creating a mock state playoff for California HS Football using this years standings and such to create my own rankings for qualification and seeding purposes - once complete I see about posting them somewhere so others can see what it looks like.
Hope you will share your ideas here. You probably have seen Ned Freeman's state playoff idea on Calpreps. He even designed a tool to experiment with some different amounts of teams allowed in a state playoff system. I don't know if he still has that tool available.
Oh yeah I'll definitely share. After spending a week reading about and figuring out the CIF Regional Bowl System I'm way more invested than I should be, but now I've got to see it through - just time consuming compiling and inputting stats for all sections and section leagues to get the formulas to behave the way I want them to.
I've seen Ned Freeman's state tourney idea(s) and have messed around with the settings. Like it, I just like creating tournaments and brackets. I know his state tourney mentioned that 9-16 teams would play the closest 1-8 in their brackets, but I'm taking sections more into consideration - not necessarily matching them up division-for-division, but something close. Also using enrollment as a bit of a guideline for the different state divisions. Just a matter of me figuring out how to let schools in smaller divisions move up via points, etc.
It clearly gives the CCS an unfair oppurtunity that the other sections wont get. I understand there is still a game to be played but you would agree that many other second place teams from other sections would like that oppurtunity. Mark my words, these second place teams will be seeded lower in the new format and likely end up playing smaller schools (according to the board analogy by Cal hi sports) and probably winning which is another injustice
If the CCS broke into 5 divisions it would look a look like the NCS playoffs where privates rules as well. Besides Campo in D3 every champ will be private (CVC included as a charter) and something like 70% of past winners are private as well.
I like that you got some creative ideas flowing about the playoffs, I do to. I actually think the CCS model is great on a regional and state platform, just not for a sectional playoff. After the regular season we know who the best teams usually are. Have 5 open enrollment based divisions for Nor/So Cal with 8 teams each and have the remaining teams play in any kind of section playoff they want with nobody advancing like a NIT. Making the "state" playoff would be a big deal for the elite teams with great intersectional match ups and locally the sectional playoffs would have more competitive games rather than David v Goliath games. Just my 2 cents
If CCS did break up into 5 divisions you probably end up with close to the same 5 teams advancing. Bells and Milipitas would be D1 so one of them would be eliminated. Oak Grove would be D2 and St Francis would be on the bubble for D2 or D3 (this year they would be D2 due to the Serra ban). Riordan would be D4. SHP would be D5. It would create a very weak playoff and a private school would win every division or atleast be in the championship game. You would have the lower enrollment privates steam roll some of their opponents.
This is what the 5 Divisions would be...
D1
Bellarmine
Milpitas
Salinas
MA
San Benito
Silver Creek
Alvarez
Piedmont Hills
D2
Palo Alto
Oak Grove
Wilcox
North Salinas
Los Gatos
Santa Clara
Mitty
St Francis
(If Serra wasnt on a ban they would be D2 forcing SF down to D3 since they are the smallest enrollment in D2)
D3
Pioneer
Leigh
Westmont
Mt. Pleasant
Valley Christian
Aragon
Aptos
Hillsdale
D4
Soledad
Riordan
Burlingame
Capuchino
Live Oak
Terra Nova
Half Moon Bay
Carmel
D5
SLV
Pacific Grove
Scotts Valley
TKA
Palma
Menlo
SHP
MVC
I'm not sure how big the private/public disparity is in the NCS, but in the CCS for the past 15 years it's been so ridiculous that the majority vote has always been against any playoff structure that puts the lower enrollment WCAL teams in the lower enrollment playoff brackets. The majority of CCS coaches want to give public schools the ability to compete for a section championship without having to play the WCAL teams. If the CIF is okay with the CCS model, I think other sections should change their playoff structure going forward as well...it could make for some better quality teams making the regionals.
Hatch, I am not sure any section would want to follow the debacle that is the CCS. They are always the section scrutinized the most due to poor leadership and decisions. Look what the loser bracket from last year got Serra. A seat on the sidelines this playoff season. This season the losers bracket gets you a ticket to the playoffs. Head scratcher. If anything just due to the fact that the rules were changed this season in the losers side Serra should have had their suspension waived and at least given a chance to compete.
Actually, I see at least two other sections following the CCS's lead next year (SS and SDS). I would not be shocked if the SJS starts thinking about it, too. These brackets actually ended up being pretty good when it was all said and done. The strength of the section lies with D-II and D-III team and those brackets were fantastic. Teams that lost earlier in the year got revenge in the finals. Awesome. The large public schools need to step up their game. I'm told Salinas will be much better next year and the following. We'll see.
As for "the loser's bracket", there wasn't one. Two of the three runner-ups are advancing. This was the compromise to prevent the WCAL and other private schools from pounding the weaker teams from weaker leagues. Although the concept sounds very foreign to most on the board, the reasoning for the new CCS system is very sound.
The NCS has DLS in D-I, then a few private schools in D-IV (previously D-III). That's pretty much it as far as strong teams are concerned. Significant difference in how the two sections dealt with them. The CCS moved them into higher divisions, while the NCS allowed them to stay put in lower. More times than not, the CCS teams got eliminated, while the NCS teams advanced.
I really like that now the smaller CCS teams have a chance to show what they can do against the rest of NorCal.
An unfair advantage would be having some sections allow their powerful smaller schools stay in their enrollment division and advancing to the state games vs. other sections making them move up into higher divisions against much bigger schools. That's what's been happening since 2006. Care to guess which section has benefited the most from that setup? I'll give you a hint, it hasn't been the CCS.
If anything, this new CCS system levels the playing field.
The only problem most have with the CCS new format is losers advancing. Any set up that attempts to bring competitive equity to the divisions should be applauded.
Any set up that awards losing in a football playoff should be scoffed at.
Any set up that awards losing in a football playoff should be scoffed at.
The CCS is very weak for this. Can't believe a losing team gets rewarded in this fashion. Never seen such a thing. Only the CCS can pull something like this off. Sheese.
Pauljohnson: I believe you are right. The ccs playoff system is so different and "customized" to send teams to regional/state playoffs. The privates are happy they have a chance to go on. Non powerhouse ccs publics are happy they get a chance to win section championships without seeing wcal teams. CCS happy to send 5 teams and not 3. CIF will take those teams. I only people that have a concern are the general public that believe in losing teams do not advance. That's it. I think this ccs system will stay for awhile.
Once you get passed the losers advancing thought it actually worked out fine. As I pointed out earlier the teams in the championship games would have won more than likely any ways. SHP, Riordan, OG/SF, and MIlpitas/Bells all would have had a great chance in winning if it was 5 divisions. CCS obviously likes to create great competition in the section unlike other sections. Valley Christian, Riordan, and Palma/SHP would have destroyed the teams from D3-D5 As I also pointed out CCS probably would have sent better teams if they went to 5 divisions so idk how they are customizing to send their best teams.
Maybe the word customize was not the intent I wanted to convey. I just wanted to comment how the ccs got together and figured out a way for football teams in the section to play in a level playing field while also sending teams to regional/state.
I agree. There was more balance the most of the brackets than there has been in a long time. It's just that the large public schools like Salinas and Hollister need to step it up. There was a time when each was able to take on WCAL teams just fine.
Similar threads
