Re: At Large Team Made to Championship


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

Posted by You arent making sense though on February 26, 2020 at 17:52:56:

In Reply to: Re: At Large Team Made to Championship posted by POS on February 25, 2020 at 21:41:30:

: : : : : : : 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.

: : :
: : : : : : _________________________

: : : : : : 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.

: : : Hi, umm please list the teams that are from weaker leagues and list teams that didn't make the playoffs from stronger leagues. Here's the thing I know that you won't list anybody because you don't want to be outed and its okay. Besides the teams that are listed Bishop Amat, Paramount and Artesia are all ranked in their final division poll so no surprise there. All these teams had to do was stay above .500 and they were in. Also, Bishop Amat and Paramount come from usually strong leagues just like the Trinity League and the Mission League. If any of those schools are above .500 and did not get an automatic berth into the playoffs then there is a good chance that all or most of the teams from the SGV and the Del Rey will make the playoffs. So no surprise there. Artesia on the other hand frankly should not have made the playoffs because they are in a weak, non-competitive league and still finished 4th. Any school with an enrollment of more than a 1,000 should not be down in Division 5AA or Division 5A. Let the schools like Ganesha, Magnolia, Paramount and Artesia fight it out in Division 4AA and 4A and let the smaller schools with a smaller pool of talent play for championships down there in Division 5AA and 5A. Instead the smaller schools are losing to a school double or triple their size. Now is that fair? I know would point out the Sierra Canyons and Orangewoods of the world. Yes those small little private schools sure can gather some of the top talent around. But that is only like .5% just like your argument for more at large teams by only using the top .5%. But CIF has done enough already with competitive equality. What more do you want CIF to do? Teams like Ganesha, Anaheim, Artesia, LB Wilson and a host of others are playing for championships that would have never had happened without competitive equality. But as always the lazy people of the world what their cut so they don't have to work hard but still get rewarded just the teams the teams I just mentioned. Just like over the past few years since competitive equality teams are having a great year and don't have to play or do anything and will get their participation, I mean their CIF Championship. Then we will hear about how great they are until you find out that they finished 3rd or 4th in a league and went 5-5 or 4-6 and didn't play or beat anybody good but oh boy Division 3A sure is easy. It must be nice to be rewarded with a possible championship after being horrible in basketball for the past 20 years. CIF does enough. They put out the requirements that everyone must meet to make the playoffs. If a team that finished out of the top half of their league is crying because they missed the playoffs then I would recommend getting better at playing basketball and maybe you can beat the other local neighborhood kids in basketball instead of losing to a team like San Dimas or Torrance. I don't want to know who those teams played or beaten and I don't care either. If your team lost San Dimas or Torrance or any other teams similar then your schools sucks or maybe just your coach.

: : Here is a fact. 17 ranked teams in Divisions 3 and lower missed the playoffs because there were no spots. The spots went to worse teams in bad leagues. How does that make any sense. I am not disagreeing that there are weak teams playing for CIF championships. What I am saying is lets at least get the best weak teams in the bracket if we are going to have this system.

: No the 17 spots went to teams that finished in the top half of their league. These at large teams didn't do their jobs and that was win in their league. Besides, down in those divisions you have anywhere between 45-65 teams in a division. So CIF doesn't care if an at-large team that is 14-14 and finished 5th in their league is better than a team that went 10-18 but finished 3rd in their league. CIF will take the least complicated way and just fill the bracket with teams that automatically qualified for the playoffs. It cuts down on justifying the means. Just like CIF no longer seeds teams anymore they just plug teams in as they deem necessary and move on to the next bracket. Every team starts out the season with the opportunity to make the playoffs. The main thing is you have do well in your league to make the playoffs, plain and simple. Just like in the NCAA tournament if you are a bubble team and you didn't make it into the tournament then it is on that team for not doing their job and make it easier from the committee to select them. Our playoffs are similar, when you have 45-65 teams to choose from someone is going to be left out and its not anyone's fault but their own. Its bad enough that CIF will be giving out participation trophies to the majority of the teams playing this weekend. I can't wait to see these teams move up in the divisions and when they don't make the playoffs next year all of the crying and whining about how its not fair. Or how everyone graduated and now that they are up with the upper echelon teams its not fair because now we suck. CIF needs to fix this because it's not fair!! Life's not fair and it is a tough lesson to learn but CIF has done enough for everyone. Just get over it and maybe next year actually do well in league so we don't have to hear your crying.

You say you don't want a participation trophy but by being a bad team in a bad league you are getting one for going into the playoffs. The NCAA works because they take the best 64 teams, nothing to do with qualifying from a league. They take the best even if its the 9th place team fro the ACC over the 2nd place team from the WAC. Would you want to the NCAA to take league placings placing every league equal. Hell no! Just like the NCAA, I want the best 64. In CIF I want the best 32 out of the 55-65 teams.


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


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