LS: Olu +1
W/L: Loyola +1
CO: OLu +1 assuming they stay within 35 of StM and MOV matters...otherwise 0
SOS: Olu +2 currently 42-23 v. 44-28 (Loyola has played 9 games)
Total: Olu 3-1 or 4-1 Lancers in, Cubs out.
These teams have already clinched autobids:FriarJoe wrote:Who are the two teams that are out? Looks like Alemany for sure and then perhaps the last place Trinity team? Thoughts?
Mission Viejo (South Coast)
Bishop Amat (Mission)
Centennial (Big VIII)
These teams are all likely to receive autobids (but have not yet clinched):
Mater Dei (Trinity)
Rancho Cucamonga (Baseline)
San Clemente (South Coast)
Murietta Valley (Southwestern)
EDIT: Vista Murrieta (Southwestern)
These teams have a non-trivial amount of uncertainty in terms of receiving an autobid:
St. John Bosco (Trinity)
Santa Margarita (Trinity)
These teams cannot receive autobids and MUST be selected as an At-Large team:
Alemany (Mission) - cannot reach .500 and would therefore not be selected before any other At-Large candidates (effectively OUT)
It essentially comes down to the bottom 3 teams in the Trinity league vs Loyola. All of the Trinity league teams would beat Loyola via the CIFSS At-Large selection criteria:
There is only one scenario in which Loyola would would advance over OLU (which is highly unlikely):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)
OLU v Loyola:
(a) Head-to-head: N/A +0
(b) League Strength: OLU +1
(c) Overall W-L: OLU 5-5, Loyola: 6-4, Loyola +1 (Worst Case)
(d) Common opponents: SM beats OLU, +0 (Worst Case) (EDIT)
(e) SOS: OLU 61-39, Loyola 61-39, +0 (Worst Case)
Worst Case: OLU 1, Loyola 1 (EDIT)
Loyola would be selected over OLU as an at-large selection ONLY if the following occurs:
- OLU loses all of their remaining games.
- Loyola wins all of their remaining games.
- Santa Margarita beats OLU.
- ALL of OLU's non-league opponents lose ALL of their remaining games.
- ALL of Loyola's non-league opponents win ALL of their remaining games and Serra beats Long Beach Poly.
- The CIFSS implements some undocumented tiebreaker (to break the 1-1 tie on selection points) that Loyola wins. (EDIT)
TLDR; Alemany is definitely out. Barring a miracle, Loyola is also out.
I forgot to mention Vista Murrieta. Essentially, they are likely to receive an autobid, though not guaranteed. They would either have to lose to both Temecula Valley (highly unlikely) and Great Oak or to just lose to Great Oak and then have Murietta Valley also lose both their remaining games in which they are currently heavily favored (Great Oak and Murrieta Mesa). The first scenario would result in a tie between Vista Murietta and Murietta Valley for 3rd in the Southwestern League and Murrieta Valley would win the tiebreaker over Vista Murietta via head to head matchup. The second scenario could result in a 3-way tie for 2nd in the Southwestern League between Vista Murrieta, Great Oak and Murrieta Mesa which would be resolved by coin flips. Either of these unlikely scenario would put VM against Loyola for the final At-Large spot, and Loyola would be in due to the fact that VM would have a record under .500.
Well, it's important to understand that there are only 4 official seeds in the bracket. The rest of the bracket is filled via the CIFSS guidelines found in the Handbook ( pg. 8 ):SoCalFball wrote:What teams do you see could slide up or down a couple of spots in the projected playoff bracket?
If you attempt to construct a bracket that fulfills all of these requirements and compare that to the weekly CIF poll, then you would expect to see the following teams "move up":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.
Long Beach Poly and Murrieta Valley (based on their #1 league designation)
And the following teams to "move down":
Any of the Trinity League teams that finish outside of the top 2 in league (based on their designation as a #3-6 team).
The loser of San Clemente/Mission Viejo, due to them having to be placed in the opposite side of the bracket from the winner of that game who would get either #4 or #5 while giving preference to the other league #1s.
Here's my current projection for the bracket.
Interesting! If that's the case, then the current worst case scenario for OLU v Loyola in determining At-Large teams is a 1-1 tie in the selection criteria points. In the unlikely event that this happens, I wonder what they would do to break that tie. This means that the sliver of hope that Loyola had just got a bit smaller.Bick wrote:Just checked w/ CIF...MOV is not considered at all. Just the W/L.
Makes sense, but OLU isn't guaranteed those 2 points yet. It's like 99.9999%, but not quite 100%.Bick wrote:Coin flip. But won't happen this year. OLu gets 2 pts for better SOS.
OLU (Worst Case):
La Mirada 4-6
Vista Murrieta 3-7
St. John Bosco 8-2
Mater Dei 10-0
Santa Margarita 6-4
Loyola (Best Case):
Santa Margarita 7-3
St. Augustine 7-3
Notre Dame 7-3
Bishop Amat 5-5
Actually, I just realized that in this worst-case scenario for OLU that Vista Murrieta would be 3-7 and would therefore not make it in as an At-Large. So, unless I'm missing something that means OLU is clinched to make the playoffs by either finishing top 3 in league or as an At-Large.
- Omar Bongo
- Posts: 9606
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Actually, they take the entire schedule into account. Chaminade's SOS is a little higher, so ranking-wise there's probably not a whole lot of daylight between them. There are still a few games to be played, but it would be an interesting matchup in the second round.
Oh, BTW, 4-4 "powerhouse" Bishop Amat's SOS (56.3) is significantly higher than both of theirs...
Chaminade SOS 47.6
08/25 Beat Oaks Christian (Westlake Village, CA) 47-10 [opponent rating: 52.8]
08/31 Beat Mountain Pointe (Phoenix, AZ) 39-25 [opponent rating: 52.3]
09/08 Lost to St. John Bosco (Bellflower, CA) 31-17 [opponent rating: 77]
09/15 Beat Bakersfield (CA) 43-14 [opponent rating: 31.9]
09/22 Beat Crespi (Encino, CA) 39-7 [opponent rating: 16.4]
09/28 Beat Serra [Junipero] (Gardena, CA) 37-32 [opponent rating: 49.8]
10/13 Beat Loyola (Los Angeles, CA) 37-14 [opponent rating: 48]
10/20 Beat Alemany (Mission Hills, CA) 45-0 [opponent rating: 35.8]
Mission Viejo SOS 42.1
08/19 Beat Baldwin (Wailuku, HI) 39-14 [opponent rating: 7]
09/01 Beat Vista Murrieta (Murrieta, CA) 41-7 [opponent rating: 44.8]
09/08 Beat La Habra (CA) 42-27 [opponent rating: 51.5]
09/15 Beat Poly (Long Beach, CA) 12-7 [opponent rating: 56.1]
09/22 Beat Santa Margarita (RSM, CA) 28-23 [opponent rating: 68.9]
09/29 Beat El Toro (Lake Forest, CA) 49-17 [opponent rating: 33.1]
10/06 Beat Tesoro (Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) 42-6 [opponent rating: 37.7]
10/13 Beat San Juan Hills (San Juan Capistrano, CA) 35-7 [opponent rating: 39.9]
10/20 Beat Trabuco Hills (Mission Viejo, CA) 63-0 [opponent rating: 21.4]
There is an argument for Chaminade getting the 4 seed and there is an argument for MV getting the 4 seed but neither matter as CIF coach's poll will determine seeding...and for the 4 seed and the 5th ranked team really no diff...per OoS, and I can not see a diff either...been that 4 seed a few times and your lucky to get past qtrs'
All the games will be close except the one's MD is playing in, until and if SJB get's healthy and the QB drama worked out...they should also beat their toughest comp by 2 TD's and if not... then maybe just 2 PTS...
Play offs will be some good ball...looking forward to LBP match up's I think they could upset a team or two...
Chaminade only lost to SJB by 2 TD's and MV has W's over LBP and Rita, SJB over Rita by 2pts, MV over Rita by 5 pts. IMHO MV should get the 4 seed...but not by much...Rita will take the number 3 in the Trinity, they will not loose to JSerra, or Olu you could make an argument that Rita should be ranked over Chaminade by virtue of MoV...
enough of the battle for the 4 seed...Who ever it is...they will be very lucky to get past the second round
Nice job on reading and interpreting the bracketology system. I've done that homework in years past and know it can be a bear. After the CIF released its latest rankings yesterday, I see the brackets just slightly differently:dntn31 wrote:Here's my current projection for the bracket.
#1 Mater Dei (Trinity 1) vs. Gardena Serra (Mission 3)
Rancho Cucamonga (Baseline 2) vs. Vista Murrieta (Southwestern 2)
Mission Viejo (South Coast 1) vs. Santa Margarita (Trinity 4 at-large)
#4 Chaminade (Mission 1) vs. Servite (Trinity 5 at-large)
#3 St. John Bosco (Trinity 2) vs. Bishop Amat (Mission 2)
Long Beach Poly (Moore 1) vs. JSerra (Trinity 3)
Murrieta Valley (Southwestern 1) vs. San Clemente (South Coast 2)
#2 Corona Centennial (Big VIII 1) vs. Orange Lutheran (Trinity 6 at-large)
The problem one runs into is that the bracketology rules are a carry-over from when entire leagues were assigned to a single division. Since that's no longer the case, it makes it impossible to follow some of them. Furthermore, the CIF has come up with pairings in the past that can only be supported by their vested interest in maximizing the gate.