Jump to content

CIFSS 2020 Divisional Realignment


dntn31

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, On2whls said:

The Southern Section is too big in terms of member schools.  Maybe there should be LA County North, OC, San Diego, Inland Empire, and LA City sections.  The top two rated section winners go to SBG, the next two highest rated section winners play for D1AA, and the last plays for D1A.  The playoff divisions could have 8 team brackets.

Didn't CIF kind of do this maybe 5-6 years ago when divisions were named Inland, Central, Western etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I will also be looking forward too is if they made any changes in terms of amount of teams in the D1 bracket. Could it go to four, stick with eight or go back to sixteen with the last option being the least likeliest. In the last CIFSS commish Wigod has stated that this playoff bracket could go to as few as four.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCalFball said:

What I will also be looking forward too is if they made any changes in terms of amount of teams in the D1 bracket. Could it go to four, stick with eight or go back to sixteen with the last option being the least likeliest. In the last CIFSS commish Wigod has stated that this playoff bracket could go to as few as four.  

Looks like (per step 4 above) #1 vs #16, so like the prior (to this year) approach but just keep it a secret who is going into what division.  Man, the team likely to finish #17 better watch out.  Play a little too good, we’ll teach you a lesson and send you off to Bellflower or Santa Ana for a flogging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dntn31 said:

Starting next year, the CIFSS is proposing playoff divisions that will factor in the current year's results (as opposed to how it works now where it only factors in prior season results).

More details here: https://cifss.org/news/football-2020/

Capture.thumb.PNG.d0eff71a073e17878d1add58f226d369.PNG

Capture2.thumb.PNG.9f76b7eee2b3175c0ed9124f64da3796.PNG

Divert, deflect...busy work until the MD/SJB Bowl.

BGW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, On2whls said:

Looks like (per step 4 above) #1 vs #16, so like the prior (to this year) approach but just keep it a secret who is going into what division.  Man, the team likely to finish #17 better watch out.  Play a little too good, we’ll teach you a lesson and send you off to Bellflower or Santa Ana for a flogging. 

The cutoff has to happen somewhere.  This would be true regardless of how the divisions are determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, frankyjames said:

Will they be able to recruit more transfers with this rule?

 

22 hours ago, frankyjames said:

Ironically, the same guy who authored this letter was one of the guys leading the change to the current CIF playoff format in 2014, AKA- The SoCal Rule. 

 

21 hours ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said:

@frankyjames I see you can't find the Delete account button... 

Maybe one of our admins can help @HawgGoneIt

Yup , talking to himself again.

block.jpg3.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cal 14 said:

The cutoff has to happen somewhere.  This would be true regardless of how the divisions are determined.

Yes, and the cutoff is an important factor.  Sierra Canyon got to play in the SS D2 bracket which is ultimately where they belonged.  It’s not like they blew everyone away, and they also weren’t good enough to win D1AA anyway.  In a 16 team D1 bracket, there would have been 8 additional teams that were a better match competitively for the lower bracket and the bowl games it feeds into.

Even the 8 team D1 bracket as it turned out, had only two teams with any sort of chance.  Hopefully CIF doesn’t move it to a four team bracket.  With the prospect of nearly guaranteed one and done in the playoffs, it’s hard to keep high performers interested in staying at their school, when choosing to go TL or a school within the district that will have a better chance of playing more games is an option. 

To be realistic, even an 8 team statewide Open bracket (which wouldn’t be favorable logistically) would still have four teams that stood no chance of a second game year in, year out.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, On2whls said:

To be realistic, even an 8 team statewide Open bracket (which wouldn’t be favorable logistically) would still have four teams that stood no chance of a second game year in, year out.  

Dunno

it would have given us Folsom vs either CC/ SJB/ MD in first round for most of last decade 
 

I would have liked to have seen that regardless of outcome 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, On2whls said:

Yes, and the cutoff is an important factor.  Sierra Canyon got to play in the SS D2 bracket which is ultimately where they belonged.  It’s not like they blew everyone away, and they also weren’t good enough to win D1AA anyway.  In a 16 team D1 bracket, there would have been 8 additional teams that were a better match competitively for the lower bracket and the bowl games it feeds into.

Even the 8 team D1 bracket as it turned out, had only two teams with any sort of chance.  Hopefully CIF doesn’t move it to a four team bracket.  With the prospect of nearly guaranteed one and done in the playoffs, it’s hard to keep high performers interested in staying at their school, when choosing to go TL or a school within the district that will have a better chance of playing more games is an option. 

To be realistic, even an 8 team statewide Open bracket (which wouldn’t be favorable logistically) would still have four teams that stood no chance of a second game year in, year out.  

Welcome to the world of NCS D-I.

This year in the CCS, three teams actually tied for the 8th spot in D-I.  They had to go down to the 3rd or 4th tie-breaker to finally determine who would be #8 in D-I and who would be the top two seeds in D-II.  The determination had to be made somehow.  The 8-seed ended up getting blown out by Serra and the D-II #1 seed won that division.  That's just how it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2019 at 8:36 AM, dntn31 said:

It's interesting that, in the proposal, they will be partnering with CalPreps to come up with the power ratings used to determine the divisions. I'm curious about the details of how that will actually work and what the level of transparency will be. Like, are they just going to straight up use the base CalPreps ratings or are they going to have Ned implement something new? If something new, will they make the criteria/algorithm public or is it proprietary? It's been fun the past few years trying to project how the divisions will shake out, but if they are doing this in a black box that goes away (and would actually make it easier for someone to "game" the system if they wanted to).

The issue I have with CalPreps is that many rational coaches may choose not to run up the score which will reflect in the MOV part of the algorithm. Classier coaches and programs know when they have dominated an overmatched foe and many will smartly put the brakes on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Gospeeder said:

The issue I have with CalPreps is that many rational coaches may choose not to run up the score which will reflect in the MOV part of the algorithm. Classier coaches and programs know when they have dominated an overmatched foe and many will smartly put the brakes on.

Calpreps already has a limit on how much of a blowout is counted.  That said, beating someone by 27 is more significant than 7, so I strongly support the use of MoV in the ratings.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...