Posted by Rebuilder on February 28, 2017 at 17:06:18:
In Reply to: Re: 3AA posted by Most Definitely on February 28, 2017 at 14:21:41:
: : : : : : : : : : How is TO playing for a CIF title??? (17-14), (5-5) - God awful!
: : : : : : : : : : Losses to Glendale / Burbank / Heart / CV / Newbury Park - This has to be the weakest division of them all!!!!!
: : : : : : : : : When 2 teams can't even win their own league, but can win a CIF title? Nice job CIF!
: : : : : : : : :And they got the best venue of the available 3, they're playing in Honda Center!!! Bishop should be playing HC not 3AA. WTF is wrong with CIF!!!!
: : : : : : : They won't have teams that have boys and girls playing in the finals playing on the same day. Never been done. So Bishop Mont boys are in the open finals on Sat. Means the girls must play Friday. Which leaves APU as a site since Honda Center has no games Friday. Before you comment understand the rules. Thats why Harv West boys have to play Friday night.
: : : : : : :Ok then smarty pants. Why is Marlborough vs. Leuzinger (2A) playing at Gordinez HS while 4A teams Beverly Hills and Palmdale playing at APU????
: : : : : :Well, because Beverly Hills is in Beverly Hills. Who's going to say no to BH, they would have allowed the to play at Honda is they demanded. Why??? Because they're Beverly Hills, got it?
: : : : Back to the original post. This division is weak. To think that one school will be getting a CIF plaque for winning this division is crazy. It's like being the tallest midget.
: : : It is no one's fault what division anyone was placed in this year. Next year, teams have more control over scheduling to "the system" but this year CIF just went with their point totals and very few understood it.
: : : I still talk to coaches who have little or no knowledge of what division they will be in next year or why. The informed have a huge advantage.
: : : Tons of coaches are already talking about scheduling "down" and keeping their point totals lower so they can be in a "winnable" situation for CIF. If you aren't a big dog - in other words Open or 1AA, imo, you will be aiming for 2AA (D3), 3A (D4) or 5AA (D5) --- these are the top divisions in the state set-up. So, if you have a really good program, you would want 2AA so that you have a great shot at a state run in D3, if you are a solid program, but don't have quite the athletes you'd aim for 3A so you can run through D4 and of course 5AA is where you want if you are a smaller school.
: : : The competitive equity system is going to unfortunately water down scheduling. Instead of rewarding the RPI (like NCAA now does), we are going to reward the point manipulators. I know our team will be a half division higher simply for defeating a D1 school. Glad for the victory, but it bumped us up 2 power points.
: : : And a loss to an Open team bumps your team up a full 1 point in the power rating. So if your team loses to an Open team 82-12 you get rewarded with a .5 to 1.0 bump in your power rating.
: : : Competitive equity is a move in the right direction, but it definitely needs some adjustments. I doubt they adjust it this year since it is in its infancy, but you can already see many teams benefiting and many teams being punished from last year's results.
: : : Hopefully, it (competitive equity) smooths out and gets the ship in the right direction. With nearly 600 schools, it is nearly impossible to appease everyone and no system will ever work completely.
: : : There is much more competitive equity, but what has basically happened is that a lot of good programs will be punished for being pretty good...not great...but pretty good. If you are one of the elite programs or an up and coming private school that can recruit...you belong in the open or 1AA. No doubt. A team like St. Anthony with an enrollment of about 180 can compete with Canyon who has an enrollment of 2400 because they can recruit and thus should be in the top division. But there are a lot of teams that have good coaches with solid programs who always make the playoffs and always schedule tough, but have up and down years due to the fact that they graduate great players and don't just reload. They may win 23 games one year and have a 6'3 center who graduates. The next year, they win 18 games, but aren't nearly the same team yet have to compete against teams that continually reload every year. They try to schedule tough and are penalized for it while teams that they beat by 30, who have similar enrollments get to play for CIF titles. The playoffs have been more competitive, but way more watered down than past years. There are teams who will win titles this year that would not have won ANY division outside of DIv 6 last season...and thus that presents the problem with the system. Good teams ...not the great talented teams...but some good ones are being penalized for being good every year and really being penalized for winning when they do have that one or two great once a decade type teams. I think there is a better system that I have come up with, but we are stuck with this for a while.
: : The bottom line is cry babies will cry unless they make it to championship. Always has always will.
Simple, don't schedule any non-league games or tournament games like Carnegie, play everyone equally during league losing all games and do this for two years then you get to play for the Division 6 Championship in your 3rd year. Call it rebuilding the program.
Post a Followup