Division 1 Playoffs

FBOC
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by FBOC »

MD you think JSerra beats SM? Also if you are correct with brackets then there needs to be a change. How is it fair the 2 2nd place teams get easier games than MV and Chaminade. San Clemente and Ranco Cugamonga. Both of them win and makes the 2nd round not as interesting as it should be
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by MDDad »

FBOC wrote:MD you think JSerra beats SM?
It's almost too close to call, but probably not.
Also if you are correct with brackets then there needs to be a change. How is it fair the 2 2nd place teams get easier games than MV and Chaminade. San Clemente and Ranco Cugamonga. Both of them win and makes the 2nd round not as interesting as it should be.
It's not fair, but it's one of those old carryover rules I mentioned. The CIF tries to match league #1's against other league #3's and at large teams, and they try to match league #2's against other league #2's. The fact that one league's #3, 4, 5, and 6 teams may be better than another league's #2 carries little weight. Hence the match-ups I posted...and I agree that the bracketing guidelines should be changed.
dntn31
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by dntn31 »

MDDad wrote: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:

#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.
I like your bracket better. After reviewing, I realized that my bracket had Mission #1 and Mission #2 in the same half of the bracket as well has a 4-2 1 seed split. Your version fixes both of those things. I tried playing around with the ordering as much as possible to make it work, but I guess my fatal flaw was being unwilling to move Vista Murrieta up that high in the "seeding".

The only thing I question is their willingness to pit MV vs SM in a rematch in round 1, but that would be fairly easy to avoid on their end simply be swapping Chaminade/MV or SM/Servite.

I also agree that the bracket guidelines need to be revisited. I like how they say "if you tried to determine 7 or 8 seeds you'd get 25 different answers from 25 people" but they literally have a public weekly poll that lists 7 and 8 seeds. May as well just seed everyone and be done with it.
Playthegame
Posts: 4541
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by Playthegame »

MDDad wrote:What difference does it make? Either way, they will both be in the same quarter bracket and meet in the second round.
Playthegame wrote: and for the 4 seed and the 5th ranked team really no diff
Glad we agree...not sure why you posted but ok...and I think your brackets are good, just switch Rita and JSerra...but perhaps you know something I do not...
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by MDDad »

dntn31 wrote:I also agree that the bracket guidelines need to be revisited. I like how they say "if you tried to determine 7 or 8 seeds you'd get 25 different answers from 25 people" but they literally have a public weekly poll that lists 7 and 8 seeds. May as well just seed everyone and be done with it.
Agreed. Deciding between 7 and 8 is no more or less difficult than deciding between 1 and 2. There are dozens of polls in high school and college that do it every week, with a much larger pool of teams to consider.

The rule of placing a league's 1 and 2 on opposite sides of the bracket is now archaic. Division 2 will have eight 1's and only four 2's, so the rule can't hold. Furthermore, the 1's and 2's are often not from the same league. And Division 1 has a 2 (Rancho Cucamonga) without a corresponding 1.

The rule requiring 1's to play 3's and wild card teams, while 2's play 2's in the first round is also out. In Division 2, every 2 will have to play a 1 in the first round (unless Norco is seeded).

The rule of not having teams from the same league meet until the semifinals is similarly torpedoed when five or six Trinity League teams are in the playoffs. At least two teams must be in the same quarter bracket.

The at-large rules are similarly silly. Determining strength of schedule by opponents' W/L records is absurd. Any metric that determines a school that plays Arroyo (9-0) and Apple Valley (8-0) has a stronger schedule than one that plays Corona Centennial (6-1) and St. John Bosco (6-2) is ludicrous.

Using W/L records as one of the five factors is also wrong, as it encourages teams to augment their records by scheduling patsies for their preleague games.

Calpreps has provided us with power ratings for every team in the state, and by the end the season they are very accurate. The CIF is like the guy who's presented with a truckload of matches, but he keeps trying to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together.
Playthegame
Posts: 4541
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by Playthegame »

Good break down of current pairing flaws!
User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 9818
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by Omar Bongo »

Calpreps has provided us with power ratings for every team in the state, and by the end the season they are very accurate

They should just seed the teams by those power ratings, this is what it would look like as of today:

1 Mater Dei
16 Vista Murietta

8 Rancho Cucamonga
9 Servite

5 Chaminade
12 Long Beach Poly

4 J Serra
13 Bishop Amat


3 SJ Bosco
14 Serra

6 Mission Viejo
11 O Lutheran

7 Santa Margarita
10 San Clemente

2 CC
15 Murietta Valley
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4715
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by Professor Fate »

That would be good news/bad news for Servite. A likely first round win, but then a 2nd loss in the same season to Mater Dei, which has never happened before.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
FBOC
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by FBOC »

MDDad wrote:It's almost too close to call, but probably not.


It's not fair, but it's one of those old carryover rules I mentioned. The CIF tries to match league #1's against other league #3's and at large teams, and they try to match league #2's against other league #2's. The fact that one league's #3, 4, 5, and 6 teams may be better than another league's #2 carries little weight. Hence the match-ups I posted...and I agree that the bracketing guidelines should be changed.
MD dad the reason I asked is bc you had SM as Trinity 4. If they win would that mean MV would play JSERRA or are they playing SM regardless? Any chance a big win over San Clemente improves MV' s power ranking? Their league kills them. Everyone they played in non league is in the playoffs in D1 or D2 LH except Baldwin which is meant to be a fun trip every 2 years to Hawaii. Well if it matters I will be rooting for SM and BA. In the final 2 wks
Luca
Posts: 6668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by Luca »

While we are all admittedly wasting our time on this board to a greater or lesser degree when we could be engaging in more productive endeavors, this topic appears to be a uniquely inconsequential bit of frivolity, given that which ever victims are selected for the at-large berths they will face the best teams in the state in the first round and there will be a running clock by the end of the first quarter.............................Luca
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by Bick »

MDDad wrote: Calpreps has provided us with power ratings for every team in the state, and by the end the season they are very accurate. The CIF is like the guy who's presented with a truckload of matches, but he keeps trying to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together.
Funny how calpreps, for the most part, is used to determine division placement, but not playoff seeding. Great analogy with the guy with 2 sticks. And what's the point of using a coach's poll again?
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by MDDad »

Omar Bongo wrote:They should just seed the teams by those power ratings...
Bingo. Thank you.
FBOC wrote:MD dad the reason I asked is bc you had SM as Trinity 4.
Yeah, and I've changed my mind at least four times since. I'll probably flip a coin when filling out the pool form this week.
Any chance a big win over San Clemente improves MV' s power ranking?
Of course, but it won't make enough difference to move them out of the same quarter bracket with Chaminade.
Luca wrote:...which ever victims are selected for the at-large berths they will face the best teams in the state in the first round and there will be a running clock by the end of the first quarter.
I disagree. The three at-large teams will almost certainly be Santa Margarita (or JSerra), Servite and Orange Lutheran, and none of them will be assigned to play Mater Dei or St. John Bosco in the first round.
Bick wrote:Funny how calpreps, for the most part, is used to determine division placement, but not playoff seeding.
I suppose the CIF has to maintain some facade of relevance and self-importance, and one way of doing that is by reinventing the wheel. It's just that they usually come up with a square one.
TheFan
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:29 am

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by TheFan »

Keep the chatter going boys, but everyone is playing for second. MD will win it all easily. The only team that can beat MD is MD.
OutOfState
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:21 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by OutOfState »

I think that Corona Centennial would strike fear into any Monarch supporter. With the exception of them, I don't see anybody being able to beat them.
SoCalFball
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by SoCalFball »

Yeah I think CC will have something to say about all that
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by 2002tony »

MDDad wrote: The rule of placing a league's 1 and 2 on opposite sides of the bracket is now archaic. Division 2 will have eight 1's and only four 2's, so the rule can't hold. Furthermore, the 1's and 2's are often not from the same league. And Division 1 has a 2 (Rancho Cucamonga) without a corresponding 1.
I dont see how this rule cant hold..A league's 1 goes on one side and the leagues 2 on the other. I dont see how having 8 #1's cant have that leagues #2 in the other bracket is effected.

In the case case of 8 league #1's in a Divisional pool but a Leagues #2 is seeded in the Div (2-4, like in Div. 1 with Bosco being trinity 2nd place but will still be seeded 2 or 3) it would mean that 2 lowest ranked League #1 will have to play each other. The guideline of a League #1 playing another leagues At large or #3 goes out the window when there are not enough spots for them in the pool of teams in that division
MDDad wrote: The rule of not having teams from the same league meet until the semifinals is similarly torpedoed when five or six Trinity League teams are in the playoffs. At least two teams must be in the same quarter bracket.
This is true but I also am not sure since that guideline is out that having an at large team from the same league cant play one of the 4 seeded teams in the first round. If that is the weakest team in the pool then they should go to the #1 seed no matter what league they are from to make it fair for the #1 Seed to play the weakest team

Also I think we try to use as many of the guidelines as possible when it makes sense or we just have no other choice as stated in the case if a second place team is seeded and there are 8 #1's. you fill the brackets as best you can with the normal routine of placing the seeded teams, then filling out the rest of the spots with the teams that are ranked, but adhering to the first and 2nd place teams are in different brackets. Then you add in what is left.
MDDad wrote:
The at-large rules are similarly silly. Determining strength of schedule by opponents' W/L records is absurd. Any metric that determines a school that plays Arroyo (9-0) and Apple Valley (8-0) has a stronger schedule than one that plays Corona Centennial (6-1) and St. John Bosco (6-2) is ludicrous.
cant agree more. Just off the top of My head as I am writing this, for the at large teams determination, there is a ranking system to put teams into a Div, then looking at calpreps ranking or CIF retooling the end of the season ranking with in each Division, take the rank that a team is and add that number together and the lowest number is placed first in the at-large pick, ( ie teams in Division 1 are ranked 1 to 18 ,Div 2 19 to 39 so on...with each team being placed in their end of the season rankings, so if a team from Div 2 played 2 teams in Div 1 ( lets say team #1 MD and #3 CC that team would have a score of 4 ( 1 + 3 ) so far.

Every team can take 1 team's score out of their total. but you cant take any out of your league. If a team only plays 3 pre league teams then they are judged against the other teams in the at-large pool with just 3 preseason games also. meaning each of those other teams can throw out 2 games if they played 5 preseason games. The teams with the lowest score would mean they played against tougher teams in most cases.

There also has to be a metric that either adds or subtracts a little from that number if you won or lost by a considerable number. That way you wont have a lower Division team just playing upper level teams to just get that lower ranking number. Going 3-0 against those teams with another team going 0-3 against the same teams should not be the same. (which is where the W vs L comes in) just a thought..
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by MDDad »

2002tony wrote:cant agree more. Just off the top of My head as I am writing this, for the at large teams determination, there is a ranking system to put teams into a Div, then looking at calpreps ranking or CIF retooling the end of the season ranking with in each Division, take the rank that a team is and add that number together and the lowest number is placed first in the at-large pick, ( ie teams in Division 1 are ranked 1 to 18 ,Div 2 19 to 39 so on...with each team being placed in their end of the season rankings, so if a team from Div 2 played 2 teams in Div 1 ( lets say team #1 MD and #3 CC that team would have a score of 4 ( 1 + 3 ) so far.

Every team can take 1 team's score out of their total. but you cant take any out of your league. If a team only plays 3 pre league teams then they are judged against the other teams in the at-large pool with just 3 preseason games also. meaning each of those other teams can throw out 2 games if they played 5 preseason games. The teams with the lowest score would mean they played against tougher teams in most cases.

There also has to be a metric that either adds or subtracts a little from that number if you won or lost by a considerable number. That way you wont have a lower Division team just playing upper level teams to just get that lower ranking number. Going 3-0 against those teams with another team going 0-3 against the same teams should not be the same. (which is where the W vs L comes in) just a thought..
No offense, tony, but I read that three times and then my eyes started to bleed. As convoluted as the CIF process is, yours seems even worse.

The bottom line is that power ratings take all those factors into account and return one single number. We know that a team with a 55 power rating should be seeded higher than a team with a 50, and it really should be as simple as that. This is high school football, not quantum theory or astrophysics, so let's not unnecessarily complicate it.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by 2002tony »

another thing that has a somewhat high degree of happening is if Amat beats Chaminade and is the league champion..now that would make for some unpredictable brackets...lol.

I dont know MDDad it was just off the top of My head as i said..but I have a question, when Jserra played MD , did their power ranking increase?
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by MDDad »

2002tony wrote:when Jserra played MD , did their power ranking increase?
Yes, Mater Dei increased by 1.8, and JSerra increased by 1.2.
BigBosco
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:48 am

Re: Division 1 Playoffs

Post by BigBosco »

my gut is telling me Chaminade will beat MV when they meet in the 2nd round.

I’ll be rooting for MV to win.
Post Reply