Tuesday, August 21, 2018

CIF Sac-Joaquin Section divisions now posted


15 comments:

Anonymous said...

a revision has been posted.

Albert Caruana said...

The revision has been posted. What changes were made so I don't have to go back and compare the two versions?

Anonymous said...

Comparing the two versions:

West from D2 to D1.
Rocklin from D1 to D2.

Anonymous said...

Are these official enrollment numbers, or just estimates from the school(s)?

I see my daughter's school listed and it was not the number reported by the principal when they couldn't take anymore students from out of district. So not sure why they are in such a low division.

Final question, would there be penalties for schools that underreport their numbers??

Anonymous said...

August 22, 2018 9:39 PM

You must mean Vista Del Lago, they are over 1840 and yet they somehow have an even 1800, exactly 1800. This means it is easier to win D3, CIFSJS should fix this, but they won't. They need the good performance.

Anonymous said...

From the SJS Constitution.

School Enrollment
a. School enrollment is based on the present year enrollment report and one projected year.
b. Enrollment of a school comprised entirely of the students of the same gender will be doubled.
c. A three-year school’s enrollment will be increased by doubling the size of its sophomore class.
d. A margin of 100 shall be allowed above or below the actual figures in determining enrollment
placement.
e. No school will be permitted to petition to change its classification to a lower classification than its enrollment classification although it may be in a higher classification.

Albert Caruana said...

If you think ADs are going to fudge numbers to win a XC title...come on.

Anonymous said...

Albert,
VDL- 2nd Place at CIF State D3 last year. Come on.... I would try and stay in D3 too.

Anonymous said...

VDL was 2nd at state last year in D3 and the LCC girls are D2 this year, so . . . What amazes me is how the numbers just seem to 'work out'. Of course it is in the interest of the SJS to have high placers at state so as many as possible qualifying slots for future teams are available. We don't want the fiasco that we had a few years back when Jesuit did not make it to state in D1 and could have likely won the D2 section title that year and represented the SJS at state in D2. That was when 25% of schools went to D1, not the current 20%.

Carl Triola said...

C'mon Albert! You know the ADs are fudging those numbers for XC! HA!

Anonymous said...

VDL was 2nd at state last year in D3 and the LCC girls are D2 this year, so . . . What amazes me is how the numbers just seem to 'work out'. Of course it is in the interest of the SJS to have high placers at state so as many as possible qualifying slots for future teams are available. We don't want the fiasco that we had a few years back when Jesuit did not make it to state in D1 and could have likely won the D2 section title that year and represented the SJS at state in D2. That was when 25% of schools went to D1, not the current 20%.

Albert Caruana said...

The teams or school or ADs do not know where the cutoffs are for each division and section. I think it's insulting to accuse teams of cheating to be in a certain division.

I know in CCS, the CBEDs are determined by the previous school year so that might be the difference between the two numbers.

Anonymous said...

The post above already gave you your answer.


"a. School enrollment is based on the present year enrollment report and one projected year.
d. A margin of 100 shall be allowed above or below the actual figures in determining enrollment placement."

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the rules. Yes i also saw that from the principal's email that enrollment at VDL was 1840, so according to the rules they are abiding.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Albert. Data always looks suspicious to some part of the audience. They are within the rules, so move on.

Popular Posts