Re: At Large Team Made to Championship

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ SoCalHoops Womens Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Fan on February 25, 2020 at 09:48:52:

In Reply to: Re: At Large Team Made to Championship posted by Enrollment size? on February 25, 2020 at 08:35:40:

: : : : : : : Why is that 3 at large team made to Championship game? At Large team are not suppose to make to the Championship Game right. It goes to show that best team are not based on league play. If these team wouldnt made in. They would have been another good team sitting at home because they are in strong league. A change of playoff selection must be made.

: :
: : lol that will funny man but my team is not sitting at home. We are still in playoff for your information. There no cry baby here. It just real talk that what man do not cry. I only made my observation because I have attend alot high school game and have attend several playoff game this year. The team that seen play would have put whooping on these team without doubt. With that being said I not talking off head like you are. I'm talking about something know! .

: : : : : : _________________________

: : : : : : The short answer is that those teams that were selected as at-large were better than the competition they faced in the playoffs.

: : : : : : No one disagrees that the "best teams" aren't necessarily determined by the order of league finish. The change of playoff selection isn't to add more at-large, but to go back to what the CIF-SS did in the early 2000's, which was any team that finished with more than 10 wins qualified for a playoff berth, and the brackets were not just limited to 16 or 32 teams. Instead they had as many "wild card" games as were needed to accommodate as many teams were qualified to enter the playoffs in a particular division, using what were essentially play-in games.

: : : : : : Because there were so many teams, and so many really large brackets (with a lot of play-in teams) that made it very difficult to seed the brackets accurately, resulting in some odd first round pairings.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : And when the CIF moved away from enrollment-based divisions only, and decided to tighten the criteria and limit the size of the brackets, what you see is what now exists.

: : : : : : Also, I'm not sure what you're really saying about the three teams that made it to the finals that were at-large entries. Are you saying they didn't deserve to make the playoffs because other teams in other leagues or divisions had similar records, but were left out of other brackets? Or are you saying that there should be no at-large entries?

: : : : : : It's hard to know which you're really saying. But for my money, I don't think any of the teams that made the finals as at-large entries didn't deserve a shot.

: : : : : : Bishop Amat, for example, in D2A was an at-large from Del Rey league, a five team league in which they finished last (with only a 1-7 finish in league play, but 17-10 overall). Obviously, Bishop Montgomery, Serra, Cantwell and Serra were much tougher competition than Amat faced in their playoff games. Should they have been selected as a playoff team in D2A as at-large? The results they have achieved in the bracket seem to suggest that their seeding and placement in their division bracket was correct. Either they were good enough to get to the finals, or they over-achieved. Either way, why isn't it "fair" or right that they got to the finals? Why shouldn't they be there? Games are played on the court, not on paper.

: : : : : : In 4A, Paramount was also at-large, coming out of a very competitive San Gabriel Valley league in which they finished 5th out of six, with an overall 18-8 record,but only 3-7 in league against teams that were much tougher, two of which, Lynwood and Etiwanda, were both in the same pool in the Open Division. So did Paramount not deserve to be an at-large team because they were beaten in league by two open teams twice by large margins? By Gahr and Dominguez decisively in league play? By Warren decisively in their first meeting, and then by 3 in their second league meeting? The results Paramount achieved against teams in their own division suggest that they were a deserving playoff entry. Again, they beat the teams they beat on the floor playing against theoretically similarly placed opponents based on the CIF formulas that are used now to determine divisional placement. Agree or disagree with those formulae (and I do) the results sorta speak for themselves, don't they?

: : : : : : Finally, Artesia in 5AA made it to the finals as an at-large. In that division, you're really going to begrudge a team from being in the playoffs simply because they didn't make it to the top half of a competitive 605 League, playing against teams like Cerritos, Whitney and Pioneer?
: : : : : : That they've beaten the teams they have in their bracket means one of several things: 1) the CIF formulas for determining division placement are wildly inaccurate and a team that would have been in D2AA or 2A if the divisions were simply based on similarly-sized schools in terms of total enrollments as used to be done, are crappy, because they allow a school with a large enrollment (Artesia) to compete against relatively tiny schools like NuView Bridge, or Pacifica Christian, or Academic Career, all of which are basically small privates or charters, or 2) things were as they should be, and when push came to shove, when Artesia was matched against a school with a similar sized student population to draw from (San Bernardino) in a semifinal matchup, Artesia did what it needed to do and won.

: : : : : : I wouldn't be against changing the format again back to the way things used to be, but it's hard to argue that the at-large teams that have made it to the final games in their respective divisions didn't deserve to be in the playoffs,and don't now deserve to be in the finals.

: : : : : : Should there have been other at-large entries? Impossible to say at this point.
: : : : : :

: : : : : stop whining when I played only first place teams went to the playoffs and there were only 2 divisions

: : : : What I'm saying that these at large team deserve be in the playoff. They have shown that by making to the championship. There was several team that was in each division that didnt deserve be in the playoff because they was in a weaker league . Several team that was much stronger are sitting at home who would made the playoff more exciting but also more competitive.

: : :
: : : Right, more exciting team sitting at home like your team. Crybaby

: Going back to Enrollment size would be ridiculous because he would have teams like Sierra Canyon Harvard Westlake and some other privates pain in lower divisions and destroying all public schools in their divisions. The way CIF has it now is much more accurate especially for the upper divisions. Sometimes the lower divisions might have one team get in about another but how they fared in leagueIs not accurate as to how good they really are. Only how they played against teams at their division level gets a gauge as to their true talent. Buy a large amount the way CIF has it is much better than it used to be in provides much better competition

I do agree with you that we should not go back to enrollment size. Team was getting hammer during that time and people was wasting their money for blowout game. I do believe the new system has enhance the competition but it need more upgrading. I dont agree with playoff team being selective from league play unless they won their league. CIFSS should go by team ranking in their division because you have different division team in your league. you want at large team to have 500 record but not a league team. Come on that not right!

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ SoCalHoops Womens Forum ] [ FAQ ]