Re: Competitive Equity/ response to public vs private

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mens Message Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Coach on May 04, 2023 at 13:57:18:

In Reply to: Re: Competitive Equity/ response to public vs private posted by HS Coach on May 04, 2023 at 13:17:12:

: : : That's why you'd have two separate divisions...Duh!!

: : :
: : : : : You can solve all.of these and other "transfer issues" by just requiring student/athletes to attend the school in their residential.district/area. No transfer moves residences
: : : : : : .plain n simple!!

: : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : Does anyone feel like competitive equity has hurt good programs and helped bad programs? It seems like if you struggle badly for a couple of years you will be rewarded. Another observation is that it loads up the top couple of divisions which means after the first round in the playoffs half of all the best teams in Socal are out of the playoffs while you could have a school of 3,000 that has underachieved for a couple of years beating schools of 500 students in the semi's or finals of division V. Just wondering if anyone else is seeing this.

: : : : : : : : : : Yes, but that is exactly the point of it. Commissioner himself Said the point of it was to help struggling programs have a chance at playoff success. Also helps group all the schools that recruit every year towards the top so they don't get easy runs at the bottom division. The one flaw is the first year a school recruits it still is placed down....either way though it will all be changed in 2 years when they go to the same year data program, at that point recruiting schools will all be placed higher and the bottom divisions will all be lesser programs.

: : : : : : : : : Seems like struggling programs at schools of 3,000 should "WORK" to get better rather than be handed CIF Championships in division V. Words like WORK and EARN are no longer valued in our world of equity.

: : : : : : : : Only way a school with 3,000 student body gets to Division V is horrible coaching and athletic directors hiring their "buddies", only to blame and yell at the players for them being completely INEPT. That is the bottom line. That should never happen with 3,000 student body.

: : : : : : : : Take a look at Valencia/Placentia. Current coach "made" 12+ guys quit or transfer when he took over the program. Two or three players being D2 to NAIA types. A whole team quit! So, is it the entire team or the coach? Let me answer for all, the COACH!

: : : : : : : : In 2014 they were D1, now knocking on door to get to D5. The communities know what goes on in their local school districts and who is a good coach and who is a joke. Who would you send your kids to? The good coach or the joke? We all know what that answer is.

: : : : : : : A little confused with the example. Your bring up a school that the system does not help for the simple reason that they would not qualify for playoffs. They are in a league that they are not going to be able to get top 3 for a playoff bid and Division 5 never has at large bids so even if they had an easier non league schedule it wouldnt make a difference.

: : : : : : : Again if you look at who actually won in the D5 playoffs. Blair and Bosco Tech both brought in 3 transfers to add to both having 1 stud. This is why I say that the current system benefits a smaller program that loads up. Again there is no guarantee they will win the lower division but they have 1 really good shot where there are only a few solid teams and after that they will be in D4 with a more competitive field.

: : : : : : : Once the system changes in 2 years though, these types of teams would be hard pressed to win in the playoffs as they would have been in a much higher division.

: : : : : The problem with your transfer solution wouldn't work just for the reason that private schools don't have boundaries and public schools do. Another issue is that in some leagues it has become a bigger accomplishment to win your league than advance to a state tournament. The bottom line is that it rewards teams for losing.

: : : : Public school "boundries" are not as big a thing anymore though. Many schools allow out of area students (the you have the old school using somebody else's address). Somebody mentioned Blair,a public school, getting 3 transfers. Seems like it can be done at a public too

: : : : Somebody brought up Bosco earlier. Yeah, they had 2 impact transfers but played Lynwood who had 4 impact freshmen. And I say this not as an accusation but out of curiosity, do all 4 of those kids live in the defined "boundries" for Lynwood HS?

: : Imagine trying to require students to go to a certain school...CIF would dissolve from the lawsuits
: :::::: Great subject here. I am a real small school coach. My school is in a isolated area. We cant get a transfer. My school would win D-5 in Volleyball every year. Despite not recruiting or EVER getting a transfer. But instaed we are in a huge school division and we get hammered in first round. Obviously i am a basketball coach. But it is hard to deal with the fact that my school, that has 68 boys in it has to play against schools that have ,in some cases 2500 kids. It is a joke. So many things CIF could do and still get the balance they want. Add a true small school division, or a division for big schools that do not get transfers who cant compete? I dont know. SCIBCA needs to sort this out. There is a solution. I have a couple of simple ones... Good subject once again..

The CIF rationale for competitive equity is the data shows that playoff scores show that it has created equity because there are more close games and not as many blowouts. If a school of 68 boys plays a close game with a school of 2,000 is it really equity? There has to be some presence of enrollment. Maybe not divisions solely based on enrollment, but possibly enrollment limits. A school of 3,000 could only go as low as a certain division for example.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mens Message Forum ] [ FAQ ]