New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

seeinred
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by seeinred »

Just heard from a friend that knows; here are the new leagues in the Coast View Conference for the 2014 and 2015 football seasons.

South Coast League:
1. Mission
2. Tesoro
3. El Toro
4. San Juan Hills
5. Dana Hills

Sea View League:
1. San Clemente
2. Trabuco Hills
3. Laguna Hills
4. Capo Valley
5. Aliso Niguel
Playthegame
Posts: 4541
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by Playthegame »

Trabuco should be in SCL and El Toro in Sea View.......
User avatar
thebull
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:09 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by thebull »

SJH replaces Trabuco Hills/ San Clemente? They are no where near the same skill set.

Screwy system
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

Playthegame wrote:Trabuco should be in SCL and El Toro in Sea View.......
I am surprised that SC and TH did not petition to stay up and that would have left room for ET to go down possibly if they so petitioned. Only Dana should have come up.

I would have preferred that ET go down and no one come up, and leave the Sea View with 6 teams and South Coast with 4. That is something that should have been addressed in the thinking about why having the two leagues in the conference. It does neither league any good to force a 5th team into the upper division league and would benefit the lower to have 6 teams rather than 5.

If in another sport it is deemed that there is 6 teams that could compete in the upper league( Division) then there could be and it would benefit the upper league with 1 or maybe 2 more teams in the playoffs. (one more for an automatic 3rd place team with 6 team league and leaving room for at at-large team)
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by Bick »

The inconsistency of being competitive, and then way un-competitive from having to change leagues like this can't be good for building a program. I like the idea of San Clemente and Trabuco going to the SW Div, but think SJ Hills and Dana going up to Pac 5 is a joke.

One too many bong hits for the guy that came up with this.
seeinred
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by seeinred »

Right, even if Dana or SJH has a good run in league, and gets the #2 spot to get into the playoffs, they have no shot at moving on past the first round...
Big bummer for them.
2002 Tony said "only Dana should have come up."
WHY??? What reason can you possibly give to show that Dana should be promoted to the SCL???
Pitzrrr
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by Pitzrrr »

I am surprised that SC and TH did not petition to stay up
No way, they are probably doing backflips going down.

In the SCL they have an outside chance at getting in the playoffs.
MV and Tesero looks to be #1 and #2 almost every year , and if they do, an early exit is guaranteed.
Now being down in the Sea View, you are automatically in contention for a league championship.
You won't be blown off the field vs MV and maybe Tesoro.

Most importantly, they have a good shot at being in the SouthWest playoffs and a real punchers chance at advancing far into the playoffs!
User avatar
UHWarrior
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:18 am

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by UHWarrior »

SCHS should stay in the SCL, they have had a great deal of success making the playoffs consistently over the past 10 years. In fact in 2011 they lost in the PAC-5 championship to Santa Margarita. Under coach Patton they were consistent winners. They should swap El Toro, leave the chargers in the Seaview, keep SCHS in the SCL.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

seeinred wrote: 2002 Tony said "only Dana should have come up."
WHY??? What reason can you possibly give to show that Dana should be promoted to the SCL???
First before i start with my answer, know that if I could wave my magic wand there would be 6 teams in the SeaView. I also would not let Trabuco go down. The only two teams that should go down are ET and San Clemente.

With that said, the next part is One team has to come up, and the only teams that really qualifies over the rest of the SeaView is Dana.

Part of the answer is history over the last 4 years

Dana in 2009 goes 9-3 (4-1 in SC league) beats Olu in the playoffs in the first round before losing to Edison a 2nd time that year.
In 2010 Dana has a 5-5 year and they also beat Trabuco Hills and Capo, and Aliso.
in 2011 they have a down year going 3 - 7 but they still beat Capo 31-13 and SJH 36-0.
2012 Dana move down and ties for League Championship with a 3-1 league record. (as predicted) Their loss was to LH but beat the other league champ Capo 31-0.
2013 5-6 overall, but still 3-1 in league again.

Dana before they got to the SeaView, they were beating the teams in the SeaView. They have beat every team at least once in two years and Aliso has not beat Dana since 2004 and Capo has not beat Dana since 2005.

Dana has the size of school to move up and out of the 5 teams they are the only clear cut team that is somewhat dominate over the SeaView league itself. They are not a dominate team in the SW Division, may not win at the Pac5 level, but they are still the only team in the SeaView who should move up. ( if a team has to move up)
No one else really qualifies compared to them.

They are a team caught between, one of the better teams at the SeaView level but not at the Pac5, so they will bounce back and forth at this point.

Why not San Juan Hills over Dana - San Juan Hills this year is having a great year, however in 2012 they were 1-3 in league. In 2011 they were 0-4 in league and they were 0-10 for the season barely scoring at all.
( Shut out 3 times, only 1 score 3 games, and only 2 Td in 2 other games) So they are only a year removed from not being competitive at all, even at the SeaView level. I understand the calculation that brings them up to the SCL, but someone should have stood up and did what is right and put the brakes on that move.

ET had a great run with a Division 1 QB in Maning, however without him, they can not keep up at the Pac5 level either. They are a SeaView league type team and that is their level.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

Hey UH, I was going to mention that San Clemente is on 2 years away from being in the Pac5 Championship game, but once i looked at the bigger picture I think they do need to go down. They would not have been made it to the playoffs even if they were in the SeaView League this year.

They were not overly competitive at any level and from what I have been told by other adults in and around the program (not parents) is that the current coaching staff is running more players off then attracting them to want to play at SC. They may have a few rough years ahead of them.
User avatar
TommyTrojan
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by TommyTrojan »

The two largest schools in south county are being moved out of the Pac-5/SCL and being replaced with two schools who won a league championship for the time time ever in each schools respective history.

The idea of the 6/4 configuration has been brought up, but the logistics of it are so messy that it was impossible to implement. Some of the schools already have games contracted and would have to break them (MV vs Centenial for example) to play a cross over game. Mission would rather play that contracted game then a game vs a team in the SVL. The suggestion had been made to keep 6 up and 4 down and eliminate the cross over by having the 4 SVL league teams play home and home (as is done in D2 football on the west coast, and most sports), but there was no way that 6 teams wanted to be in the SCL and be stuck playing Mission.

Troy Rolen the basketball coach and AD at Mission is the main architect behind this conference and has been supported by the guys at San Juan Hills (up until it now hurts them). Mission saw 4 years ago that things were moving towards the possibility of sending Mission out of south county and into some other league (the Sunset was a possibility) and he needed to keep the Capo schools happy. San Juan liked the conference because it gave them a place to grow and play the 4 worst schools in each sport. Now that they have 750 kids in their freshmen class and are well on their way to being a massive school, they win a league title and the rules that they were so in favor of, now work against them. They have one good season, and their reward is a game against Mission for the next two years. That's how stupid this conference is.

Trabuco Hills, a school the crushed Dana and beat nearly the entire Sunset league (Newport, FV and HB, perhaps a slight exaggeration) gets to move down at the expense of that same Dana team. To be fair, Dana kicked the living daylights out of San Clemente this year.

At this point I bet the Capo schools wish they hadn't voted to continue the conference. I would bet that in four years the 6 of them will close ranks and create a Capo district league leaving Mission, Trabuco, El Toro and Laguna Hills looking for homes.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

if they could have split the league 4/6 with 6 down would have made a whole lot more sense.

With each team knowing there can be a change every 2 years, the contracts should be based on those two years so it is not a matter of breaking them but do they want to contract that team again for the next two years. All the teams in the conference should be on that contract schedule by now.

I also dont think the capo schools wish they had not continued, it may not work so well for football, but in the other sports it has worked with moving some schools down in one sport and up in another versus being down or up in every sport.

If you are correct that there could be a vote for a capo school district league, I wonder just how will all those school having to play in the Pac5 for all sports will feel about that, because I doubt CIF will let them play in a lower division with Tesoro and SC, as you have said with their size, wont be down for a long time and they also dominate in other sports other than football. That is a no win situation for the other schools.

So I guess I would take that bet...lol....
seeinred
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by seeinred »

While Dana I'm sure appreciates your slight vote of confidence in them Tony, let's be clear about the last 2 seasons at Dana. Preseason last year, they were 1-5. Their only win was to Irvine. In their first ever run in the Sea View, they went 3-1 and were Tri-champions. That was the first and only time Dana even grabbed a share of a league title from any league. They then coin flipped themselves to the leagues #3 team and thus missed the playoffs. They were not picked as a wildcard team because of their 4-6 record.
This season, they went 2-4 for the preseason with their wins coming from Irvine again and a San Clemente team who was beating them until Sam Darnold, SC's excellent QB was lost for the season. SC wouldn't win again after his injury. In League, they again went 3-1 and were not the league champs. They did make it to the playoffs at 5-5, but went out in the first round and finished 5-6.
The last 2 season's record: 9-12. Not stellar.
So again I say that while Dana was competitive in the SVL, there is no way they should have been moved into the SCL.
Last edited by seeinred on Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TommyTrojan
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by TommyTrojan »

Tony, I would not call the current process a success. The movement of schools up and down has created a system where any success is punished and failure is rewarded. In most sports, the schools that have moved down have dominated/won, while those moving up have not. There are isolated cases to the contrary, but its been mostly true. Take a close look this year as the leagues make changes for the second time since the founding of the conference. Note how many schools that moved up two years ago are back down, and how many who dropped are moving back to the SCL.

At least when you were in a league of 6 you knew who was in your league and who your rivals are. Aliso should be our rival, yet we don't play them in half our sports. Even if we can't beat them in basketball, shouldn't we get to play them? Isn't that what makes rivalries fun?

Keep in mind, playoff divisions are done sport by sport. There is no Pac-5 for waterpolo, golf, track, basketball, etc. A Capo league would be placed just as every other league is placed. Sometimes they are in a division the league is too good for, and other times they are placed too high. They may get unfairly placed up because of one teams, or able to be a division despite the dominance of one team (see: League, Pacific Coast). This sort of stuff happens now. Orange Coast volleyball teams like Costa Mesa play in the D1 for volleyball due to Laguna BEach's success.

The Capo schools are tired of dealing with Mission in football. They will have the ability to end that problem in 4 years by forming their own league. If Dana was being moved to the SCL, but didn't have to play MIssion, do you think the outcry would be like this? Perhaps, but being in a league with Tesoro, El Toro, San Juan and SC/TH wouldn't be that bad for the Dolphins.

As for the 6/4, Mission has a contract for a week 5 game with Centennial. Going to a 6/4 would require them to get out of that contract to start league at that point to enable cross over games. Also keep in mind that contracts aren't all lined up to end after odd years and it may not be easy to break a 2 year deal. I would prefer to have 6/4 for the playoff spots and eliminating the stupid mid-season bye, but trying to figure out the cross over games is a nightmare. It would have been much easier had the conference gone to 8 or 12 teams where the leagues would have been even numbers. Cross over in two 4 team leagues is much easier to schedule, and wouldn't be needed with two 6 team groups.
probablynot
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by probablynot »

I'll just put this here...

North
Santa Margarita
Mission Viejo
El Toro
Laguna Hills
Dana Point
Trabuco Hills

South
JSerra
Tesoro
San Juan Hills
San Clemente
Aliso Niguel
Capo Valley

...
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

Seeinred,
I understand everything you have said and agree with you. There is nothing you said that changes the facts of what I said. It is not a good spot to be in for Dana. THey are on the ave the top team in the SeaView league itself, not the division, not at that level of play. They still are not playing at the Pac5 level either.

However as I tried to point out, it is not that I was trying to show any confidence or lack of confidence in Dana, I was merely showing that out of the 5 teams, ( which none of them are at the Pac5 level of play ) they are the best one to choose out of the 5 teams. IMO the only team that should come up or is the best out of the 5 to qualify as a team to move up, not that they have shown they belong in the SCL.

should = a team has to move up while at least one team moves down, if no team has to move down, then Dana should stay in the SeaView.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

probablynot wrote:I'll just put this here...

North
Santa Margarita
Mission Viejo
El Toro
Laguna Hills
Dana Point
Trabuco Hills

South
JSerra
Tesoro
San Juan Hills
San Clemente
Aliso Niguel
Capo Valley

...
NIce try but not correct, This wont happen because you cant take those teams out of the Trinity, but if you could it would look like this,
North
Santa Margarita
JSerra
Mission Viejo
Tesoro
San Clemente ( usually but maybe next 2 years Dana Hills)
Trabuco Hills

South
El Toro
Laguna Hills
Dana Hills (usually but maybe San Clemente the next 2 years)
San Juan Hills
Aliso Niguel
Capo Valley
probablynot
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by probablynot »

My mistake, I was in other thread and left out the following that would be included;

Moore 5 to Southwest Division to replace Seaview League 5 teams which would go to Pac 5 and be worked in with South Coast League a la Marmonte League approach - a North and South.

Long Beach Poly to Trinity to replace the removed Santa Margarita and JSerra.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by 2002tony »

Tommy, I understand what you have posted but still there is some things to dont add up for me considering both sides of your comments.

I understand that no one wants to play in a league with Mission except Tesoro, for most years San Clemente. Everyone else would love to be in the lower division so they could have a shot at winning league and being more competitive in the SW division.

With that said, I dont think Capo or Aliso are so wanting to add Trabuco El Toro or having Dana in their league since they cant seem to beat them either. ( but they are not getting totally dismantled usually either by them )

I think there was some joy if you were a wrestler not to see Laguna Hills in your league for them to just wipe the mat off with an opponents agonizing sweat every year while winning league again, placing in CIF, and moving on to State.

I understand the point about Rivalries, however it is not such a great rivalery when you almost never beat them. You can say that about MIssion in football, and other teams in different sports. So what if Aliso is your rivalry in this sport or and that, and dont play you in other sports that they cant compete with you in. At least they might have a chance in another league.

Tommy, in one paragraph you say "Even if we can't beat them in basketball, shouldn't we get to play them? Isn't that what makes rivalries fun?" but then in another paragraph you talk about how the Capo schools are tired of dealing with Mission Football.(their Rival) and how Dana might be glad to move back if they didnt have to play Mission. I guess there is no "fun" in losing every year to a rival.

There is no great solution here, however always losing and not being competitive in one league at all in a particular sport, but could be competitive or at least have the chance at being competitive in the other league, makes a whole lot more sense then just to keep playing in the same league for every sport when you have no chance, rivalry or no rivalry, no one wants to be a doormat for another school.

This also brings me back to what you said, the teams that move down ( rewarded for losing (as you put it) in the SCL) win at the lower level. Sounds more like that is where they belonged in the first place. Next, those who do win (sounds like it was the same teams who moved down), get moved up. Maybe there should be a 3rd league, for the 4 or 5 teams that cant win at the SCL level but win at the SeaView level. We can call it a transition league where they are not good enough for one but too good for the other.

Something else you said, I didnt say 6/4, I said it should be 4/6, so the whole Centennial thing does not add up for me. There are more teams that dont play at the Pac5 level then do.

Also, the mid season bye week, if there were 6 teams per league, there still would be a mid season bye week. Mission has had a bye week almost every year since the the playing in week 0 became popular (to travel out of State usually before it became a trend to do it even when not traveling), when there was 6 teams in the SCL.The week 0 games gave teams more flexibility to play other teams when there was scheduling issues. As I was saying MV played in week 0 and took week 5 off before starting league. So did most other teams in the SCL. Most of the Trinity does this every year now with their 6 team league, which also gave Servite the chance to schedule DLS in week 5 and take week 4 off instead to prep for them.
User avatar
TommyTrojan
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: New South Coast League and Sea View League for 2014

Post by TommyTrojan »

The Mission contract issue is simply what I was told by one AP when I asked about what decision was made. Our sup was pushing it hard (and we supported it, although our preference was 6/4 with Capo, Aliso and SJH in the SV, but that was never going to happen). The cross over and 4/6 or 6/4 creates such a headache. With the conference, most schools played a week 0 and then had the bye during league, not week 5 (the byproduct of having 4 league games). In 4/6 you would have to start league week 5 and then play a cross over week 7 (with league starting week 8 for the SCL). However, you would have 2 school who don't have a cross game and what do they do week 7? The SCL now has to find a game week 6 (or take the bye) and are required to play a week 0 (not everyone is enamoured with the zero week)

I think when Tesoro and SC had it going, they didn't mind playing Mission and kept hoping to beat them. However, everyone is tired of playing a team that is stacked and seems to play by different rules than others. It is fun to play your rival, what isn't fun is playing a school that creates animosity. I'm frustrated because I want to play in a fairly competitive league where I know who is IN my league! I couldn't even tell you who we play in league for basketball. How does that foster any sense of a rivalry? HS sports are better when you have a rival.

No one outside of wrestling coaches and fans care that Laguna has a great program (keep in mind the SC did beat us last year). In a conference where you only have 9 wrestling teams, does it really mean much to win league when you beat 3 other schools? I know that was a negative with the 6/4 football idea.

Forcing teams to move up and down creates it own set of problems. DOn't you think that coaches knew exactly what would happen if they won or lost a certain week and how this might push them up or help drop them down? Why should a school like Trabuco with 3200 kids, move out of the SCL? Why should a school that finished 3rd place, and was a late Tesoro score away from being #2, be moved? Why punish SJH for finishing 4th and 1st in a two year period? Does anyone outside of Mission belong in the Pac-5? How on earth do we get put in with any of these schools?

I'd rather be in a set 6 team league where sometimes we win, sometimes we dont. Some sports we are good in, others we aren't. We've done that for decades, why try to create artificial success like this? If you were Dana, Capo, Tesoro or SC, wouldn't you rather have an all Capo league?
Post Reply