Posted by California Interscholastic For Profit on February 08, 2017 at 13:14:13:
In Reply to: Re: Cif .500 rule is terrible posted by Rating on February 07, 2017 at 11:32:17:
: : : : Don't like it communicated late and added in November. If true why would anyone challenge themselves w schedule next year? Awful rule especially for low division teams.
: : : I think if you are below .500 but ranked in your division, you should still be allowed at-large. It would entice low division teams to still play a hard schedule and would give benefits to those in harder leagues. That or cap the playoffs at 32 teams and allow more at large teams in lower divisions. I know some under .500 teams that would smack some over .500 teams in their same division.
: : How are they going to fill 32 spots without taking under .500 teams?? What a joke rule... changed divisions for better competitive play then added a bullcrap .500 rule to hurt lower level teams
: If they lose money this year, CIF can go to a formula that takes strength of schedule into account and thus encourages teams to play tougher schedules rather than filling it with easy games. So you may end up with a losing (below .500) record but a higher rating than a team with a better record and as such given entry to playoffs. Just another option...
Expect half a dozen byes per division at the lower levels. CIF must have been losing money on the first round games at those levels.
There will be some very bad second round games in divisions 4 through 6, as many ranked teams will miss the playoffs for playing in decent leagues while five Omega League and four Coastal League teams make the playoffs. There is much disparity at the lower levels when it comes to league strength.
Post a Followup