Thursday, May 07, 2020

Section auto team qualifiers now posted on CIF site

Changes from 2019
Boys Division III: NS +1/SJS -1

Girls Division IV: SJS +1/CS -1
Girls Division V: SDS +1/SS -1

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this...
What formula do they use to determine the spots? How many years do they go back? Does anyone know the link for determining the actual spots? Is it top 10 from previous year? So many questions :)

Albert Caruana said...

I believe the formula has to do with top 10 finishes during the past 3 seasons. One thing that could cause a change is that the Southern Section is capped at 7 teams in each division which means that a spot that would normally go to them ends up going to another section. There is also some rounding off with numbers that can skew the auto spots.

If someone else can point us out where we can find the formula is to determine the auto team qualifiers, please post below.

Anonymous said...

I’ve never been able to find the formula online. This is all I can find (from past CIF XC handbooks):

Team entries into the State CIF Cross Country Championships shall be based on a formula that is comprised of two factors:
1) An established baseline providing a minimum number of entries for each section;
2) Additional entries based upon the most recent
four (4) year history of the section team performance in each divisional race. No section shall have more than seven (7) team
entries in any divisional race.

Albert Caruana said...

Ok, so it is four years. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for looking that up! Couple of powerhouse teams in my son's division, so have to wait until a 3rd team spot opens up, unless he makes it as individual.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know why SJS D3 boys lost a spot? East Union was 6th at state.

Albert Caruana said...

It's based on results from the last four years so you would have to check out those results to see the whole picture.

Unknown said...

Finishes for the last 4 years in boys Div. 3 (in order from 2016 to 2019) for some sections
SJS: [12-13-16] [15-17-23] [14-16-20] [6-16-17]
NS: [18] [21] [7] [8]
CCS: [17-20-22] [11-13] [19-23] [20-21]
CS: [19-21] [6-20] [1-15] [9-23-25]
SDS: [1-5-23] [2-14-16-22] [11-17-21-22] [4-18-19]

NS had only 1 entry for the last 4 years. On the strength of Chico the last 2 years, the next best team in the NS should get an opportunity in my opinion - hence their entries are now 2. So the question then becomes who loses a spot? SJS has had only 1 top 10 finish in the last 4 years. Sure East Union did very well last year, but the SJS as a whole was not impressive. The SS and NCS are not going to lose a spot (one could make a case that the NCS should also gain a spot and get 5 entries). CS has had a top 10 finish the past 3 years, although with Ridgeview moved up based on the screwy rules in the CS, that section looks much weaker overall. But the CS moves teams around all the time so it is hard to get a consistent picture of their strength. SDS lost a spot in 2019, dropping to 3 entries, and it is doubtful they would ever go down to 2 based on their overall picture. CCS has really looked back the past 2 years, but does anyone really think they would drop to only 1 spot, no matter how bad they are? If the SJS wants to get back to 3 spots, they need to have top 10 finishes this season (if there is a season) and the next season too. And they need to do better than the CS, which is where I would guess the spot would come from.

Albert Caruana said...

Sections get a minimum of 2 teams advancing to state so at worst, CCS will continue to have 2 teams advance in Division III.

Anonymous said...

Size Range of D3 Schools:
Central: all over the map due to their "competitive equity" set up (29 schools)
CCS: 1082-1487 (25 schools)
NCS: 1350-1532 (29 schools)
Northern: 1250-1971 (5 schools)
SJS: 1340-1860 (31 schools)
SDS: 1505-1884 (20 schools)
SS: 1530-2050 (98 schools)

So CCS is basically running D4 sized schools against most everyone else's D3.

Anonymous said...

Enrollment should be a major consideration, but not the only mechanism for all schools. Placement for some has to be more equitable and based on other factors. Why is Jesuit always in D1 in the SJS? Its enrollment should place it in D2, but SJS has a bylaw that puts Jesuit into D1 according to the SJS website. Perhaps that is what Jesuit wants anyways. I don't know, but it sounds like competitive equity for Jesuit. Funny that the SJS St. Francis girls don't have the same rule as Jesuit and always seem to just slip into D2 each year. But I digress. Yes it is true that the CCS boys (and girls) in D3 run against larger schools. And yes that is unfair. Just as it is unfair that all sections run against larger schools from the SS. Still, moving a CCS school down from D1 to D2 and from D2 to D3 seems reasonable to make their enrollment line up with the other sections. I would certainly feel the Willow Glen boys (enrollment around 1700) are deserving to run in D3. But St. Francis MV? Competitive equity suggests no for them. Their boys won the state meet in D2 in 2017. Why does the SJS force Modesto Christian HS, enrollment 162, to play in D1 in the boys basketball section playoffs? Because some schools by their nature have advantages in some sports, and that includes cross country. But for the sake of argument, let's look at the CCS D2 schools at the state meet over the past 4 years in the boy's races. The top 2 entries (St. Francis and Willow Glen) have been solid. But the third CCS D2 entry at state has not, finishing in 21st or 22nd in all 4 years. Moving that team down to D3 would have helped some, moving that team up a few team places in the D3 race based on the times ran by their top 5. Lynbrook is the exception from last year, finishing 22nd in D2 but would have likely finished 15th in D3. Mitty in 2018, 2017, and 2016 would have fared less, moving up maybe 3 or 4 places in the D3 race of that same year and finishing in the 17th to 19th spots. So moving Lynbrook and Mitty down to D3 would not have had the impact that would have given the CCS more entries in D3. Sure the schools would have done better, and deserve to do so, but I don't believe they would have helped get more entries for the CCS. The same could be said about the third boys entry for the CCS in D1, finishing in 21st in 2016, 2018, and 2019 (they only had 2 entries in 2017 according to the CIF results). Moving the third entry finisher from CCS in D1 down to the D2 race would have moved it up a few places. That would be a good thing. But to suggest that moving all CCS teams (whose enrollments are in line with other sections) down to division 2 or 3 would automatically have a tremendously result in those divisions at the state meet only works for the three consistently strong teams - Los Altos, St. Francis, and Willow Glen. The point is that Willow Glen and Los Altos would do much better and maybe even podium, and they deserve that chance. But the rest of the boy's CCS just does not have a consistent competitive level equal to other mid range schools in other sections, and the move would not get more spots for the CCS. If all sections get a minimum of 2 spots, who is CCS going to pull from? You could drop everyone and increase D3 to even 4 spots, but do you really think the CCS will keep 3 boys spots in D1 and in D2? You would just be moving spots around, not increasing them overall. I don't follow D4 and D5 so I cannot comment on those divisions, but D1, D2, and D3 is at best a wash for the boys. I just don't see any evidence that other CCS teams that could move down would make any difference overall with regard to increasing entries for the CCS. The depth just isn't there at this time.

Anonymous said...

SJS bylaws: Section Champion From Previous Year.
If a school wins a Section championship at a particular level, that school must play at or above that
level the following year.

So Jesuit must want to run up in D1.
Bella Vista won last year (2018) and opted to move up to D1 Girls.
We'll see what St. Francis decides to do with their 2019 section title.

Anonymous said...

All WCAL schools should be D1 bottom line no matter their enrollment.

Anonymous said...

Sorry....opted "not" to move up to D1 girls

Anonymous said...

We appreciate the love, but Bella Vista boys last won sections in 2016, and have never been in D1. You might be thinking the last time the BV girls won in 2015, and the 4-peat of section titles from 2012(D2),2013(D2),2014(D1),2015(D2). They were promoted to D1 in 2014, but are back to D2 now.

Anonymous said...

The one thing that drives Walt (JH) and others crazy is the competitive inequity at State. Our Divisions up here in SJS are so out of whack as compared to D1-D3 in the South. D4 and D5 are closer and thus we do well. You are correct, CBEDS should not be the only factor. Success is what should also be considered. Look at McFarland...a D4 school running D1? In SJS, we will never get things changed. SJS does not see value in CIF success as compared to what they perceive as equity at the Section level. In my estimation, the way the Section views this is as if I was to see less value in students going to college as long as they are successful in high school...Some will no doubt go but that isn't my priority. One should not preclude the other.

Albert Caruana said...

If you think SJS is bad, check out the divisions for CCS. All we (all sections) are asking is that all schools compete against like-sized schools at the state meet. Yes, that means that some divisions at the section meet might not as competitive. But isn't that the case already? Not every division is the same.

Don't get me started on McFarland. That is so WRONG!

Anonymous said...

EVERY sport reseeds from section to nor cal EXCEPT cross country. It is very simple. Run your section meet. Select your section qualifiers however you want. Take all the teams, top 23 by enrollment are D1. Next 23 D2. School sizes carry as does socioeconomic status, resources, coaching, community involvement, etc. There will never be equity but it’s a start.

Albert Caruana said...

The following is from Jesuit HS coach Walt Lange.

Creating divisions based on size doesn't mean that " the section meet might not be as competitive."

Let the sections do what they want on their level and the state re-do the lineups the Sunday night before the State meet.

Take all qualifiers, divide them into 5 divisions based on size. Yes, that would mean D5 might have schools with enrollments larger than 600 (though not by much).

This is the same method used by most sections, including the Southern Section. Here's how it might have looked last fall, with placings based on team times: https://tinyurl.com/urj76zbml

Our section officials have made it quite clear they have no interest in the State meet situation and I would presume it's pretty much the same with the rest of the Sections.

Anonymous said...

Albert that link isnt working for me

Albert Caruana said...

Try this full link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRXzZJ14s1rVrbDzqsi0X0GqohM9FbSKxY6wwn_tlAWgqdZk6uzKya7bv60oBhdbUR7gTtpdfZw4xiQ/pubhtml

Anonymous said...

This is interesting. Let's play further. How would the number of entries for the state meet for each section and each division within each section be determined if CIF did do this? Could someone ask Walt his thoughts?

Anonymous said...

State entries would need to be based on CBEDS like they are in track.
But the biggest reason this will never happen is section commissioners are football / AD guys. They want competitive equity. Which is an off concept to be because you are essentially awarding a team that is ranked 54th & can’t win its league a state title while the 16th best team gets ousted first round. And not because of size of school but just because they are a better team.

Anonymous said...

This afternoon the president of Chico State announced that the CCAA has "determined that NCAA sport competition will not occur during the fall of 2020". Yesterday Los Rios Community Colleges announced online instruction for fall classes, and today the CSU system did the same. Looking more and more like there won't be high school cross country this fall.

Anonymous said...

The UC systems will follow this pattern and without Cal, USC, UCLA, the PAC-12 will have some rescheduling to do.

Anonymous said...

Last I checked USC wasn't part of the UC system. ;-). Plus both CAL and UCLA's defenses have been promoting social distancing for years already...

Anonymous said...

Funny how much people are willing to risk to watch football.

Anonymous said...

i mean Cal has been one of the top defenses in the Pac-12 since Wilcox got there

Oregon gvnr said there wouldn't be sports events with attendance either. too early to tell what's going to happen

Popular Posts