Jump to content

CIF-SS D1 Playoff Bracket


dntn31

Recommended Posts

Here is my projection for the CIF-SS D1 Bracket.

I had a pretty stable bracket as of last week, but Vista Murrietta losing tonight really threw things into a bit of chaos, since they were favored to win and the loss ended up resulting in a 3rd place finish in the Southwestern League instead of 2nd.

The first thing that needs to be determined are the At-Large teams. All of the teams except the following automatically qualify by virtue of their finish in their respective leagues: JSerra, Servite, Orange Lutheran, Loyola, Alemany.

This is how the At-Large teams are determined:

Quote

At Large teams must have a .500 record or better for their complete schedules to be considered. In the sport of football, in order to alleviate byes, if there are no .500 teams entered or all .500 or better teams have been taken, then the next best record as submitted by leagues will be taken. However, no team under .500 will be placed until all .500 at-large entries have been placed.

The Selection Committee, with the full support of the CIF-SS Football Coaches Advisory Committee, will utilize the following criteria in its selection process for at-large teams with each category below having the specific weight listed:

(a) Head-to-head competition of teams under consideration (4 points)
(b) Overall strength of the league from which the team is entered based on the end of season rankings (1 point)
(c) Overall win-loss record (1 point)
(d) Strength against common opponents (1 point)
(e) Strength of schedule (2 points, using overall win-loss record of opponents)

Alemany is eliminated by virtue of their record (3-7) which leaves Loyola and the bottom 3 Trinity teams. If you plug in the data, all 3 Trinity teams beat Loyola out in total points, so they will all receive At-Large entries into the bracket, leaving Loyola and Alemany as the only 2 teams left out of the bracket.

Now that the teams have been determined, it's time to construct the bracket. Here are the guidelines for how the CIF-SS determines the bracket:

Quote

The initial step is to designate four teams (maximum) as seeds, with No. 1 and No. 4 placed in the top bracket and No. 2 and No. 3 in the bottom bracket. An exception to this procedure would be if seeds in the same half of the bracket are from the same league.

Is it possible to designate more than four seeds? The task would be virtually impossible on two counts. Attempting to delineate which team is the No. 7 seed, as opposed to No. 8 or No. 12 rather than No. 13 would result in 25 different answers by 25 different people. Additionally, an attempt at a true seed would be in opposition to the CIF-SS Constitution and By-Laws, which specify a league’s designated No. 1 entry, shall meet a No. 3 entry and a No. 2 shall meet another No. 2 where the draw provides for same in the opening round.

The next stop is to fill the bracket draw and a simple guideline provides the ground rules for same. Assuming for the moment the top four seeds are all No. 1 teams, the procedure calls for the No. 2 teams from each of these leagues to be placed in the opposite half of the bracket.

Consider there are five leagues assigned to this particular bracket, it now becomes necessary to place the only league not represented thus far, League D. The No. 1 designee is placed in either half of the bracket, with League D #2 in the opposite half.

The final step is to place the No. 3 teams from each of the respective leagues in the open slots, attempting to place each in one of the remaining A quarters of the bracket where the league is not represented. This process eliminates the aspect of schools from the same league meeting in the second round of competition.

An exception to this procedure occurs where geography does not permit wide placement. The Office then follows the directive of the CIF Southern Section Council from its meeting on March 13, 1980, which directs schools be placed in the same half and if necessary, quarter of the bracket to curtail excessive travel.

Another factor utilized by the Office when formulating initial pairings is to review the playoff bracket for the previous years in an effort not to match identical teams which may have been paired the previous year or two years back. This would not preclude two leagues being matched in consecutive years, but with two different representative schools.

Unfortunately, these guidelines were written before the new divisonal structure was created. For example, there are teams from 7 different leagues represented in D1 and some of the leagues (Baseline) have their #1 teams (Upland) in a different division. It's nearly impossible to construct a bracket that meets all of these guidelines. The most important things to take away have been highlighted above.

The other thing to mention is that the weekly CIF coaches poll, has historically provided the most insight into the determination of seeds and how the rest of the bracket is filled out. The current top 4 seeds reflect the poll as of Monday October 30 (they will not release a new one between now and the announcement of the official brackets on Sunday). My current projection reflects the current ordering of the top 4 teams within the poll as of last week (and all top 4 teams won this week). Mater Dei is certain to receive the #1 seed and Bosco will receive the #3 /#2 seed in order to be placed in the opposite side of the bracket from Mater Dei along with Cen10 (likely Cen10=2, SJB=3). Right now Chaminade is at #4 in the poll with Mission Viejo at #5. A lot of people think MV should be the #4 seed and it's entirely possible that they are moved up. Essentially, the CIF-SS has more or less full discretion to "massage" the bracket as they see fit within the confines of the criteria posted above.

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dntn31 said:

Placeholder, just waiting for the MV/San Clemente game to go final before I post my bracket.

In other news, Vista Murrieta just fell to mighty Great Oak and finished 3rd in the Southwestern League.

would love to see MD***** play Poly and Amat some how in the playoffs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sammyswordsman said:

Official brackets come out Sunday, but take it from me this is what we will be looking at.

Upper Bracket

1. MD

16.Fodder

 

San Clemente

8. Jserra

 

5.Mission Viejo

Servite

 

OLU

4. Chaminade

 

Lower Bracket

2. Cen10

Amat

 

Poly

7. Santa Margarita

 

6. Rancho Cucamonga

Serra

 

Murrieta Valley

3. SJB

Think MD***** will play Layola in round one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

I know Vista got 3rd in their league and the Cubs got 4th but just seem like Layola should be in over an under .500 team...guess we’ll see Sunday around 11am

The records only matter if they don't auto-qualify by virtue of their league placement. The Southwestern League has 6 teams so they have 3 teams guaranteed to make the playoffs. Vista Murrietta finished in the top 3, so they are in no matter what their overall record is. The Mission League has 7 teams and also gets 3 automatic entries. Loyola finished in T-4th so the only way they can get into the playoffs is through the At-Large process. As an At-Large team, they are only compared to other At-Large teams and Vista Murrietta is not an At-Large team.

BTW, I agree that Loyola is more deserving than VM. It's just the way the system works and Loyola is getting the short end of the stick.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

The records only matter if they don't auto-qualify by virtue of their league placement. The Southwestern League has 6 teams so they have 3 teams guaranteed to make the playoffs. Vista Murrietta finished in the top 3, so they are in no matter what their overall record is. The Mission League has 7 teams and also gets 3 automatic entries. Loyola finished in T-4th so the only way they can get into the playoffs is through the At-Large process. As an At-Large team, they are only compared to other At-Large teams and Vista Murrietta is not an At-Large team.

Well MD***** may drop 50 on them by half

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bodysurf said:

 

If these projections hold out I would fully expect that JSerra beats Murietta Valley. Poly  and SM is a toss up in my opinion. Serra gives Mission Viejo all they can handle also. 

 

MV has a few guys playing both sides of the ball.  That won’t work as they encounter tougher teams. 

Murrieta Valley should not be a good match for JSerra.  

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...