Pretty sure it said 9am previously, now says
“Brackets for all divisions will be released on Friday, October 25th
, 2024 @ 2:00 p.m.”
Dear CIF-SS:
This year, please open up ALL SEATING for spectators at Mt. Sac for the SS semifinals and finals.
I attended several of the SS and Regional games last year and the only the west side, main bleacher area was open to spectators. All available seating was filled and spectators were packed and standing in the walkways. Only then did the venue management open up the far north side (opposite the scoreboard) for spectators. Meanwhile, CIF roped off the east side for 8 VIP and Media in attendance.
I was told by the venue that it wasn’t the venue’s call. It was a decision by CIF.
CIF-SS, if you are going to use a big aquatic center, then open it up to all and let them have a positive spectator experience and let it add to the overall experience. It worked great when USAWP MNT played Spain at Mt. Sac last summer.
You run similar CIF events in big stadiums and arenas (football, basketball).
Be a facilitator and promoter of the sport!
3 Likes
So it’s confirmed it’s not at Woollett?
Agree with you completely, it was a safety hazard for spectators plus limited viewing once the games ran long. I felt for Jserra/Newport parents when everyone decided to stay from previous games. Meanwhile 2 VIP stretched out on the opposite side.
Possibly put the VIPs on the pool deck?
I will provide my opinion of the current method of seeding for CIF playoffs. Take it for whatever it is worth.
I believe that the Massey ratings work fine for a sport where there is a single bracket/division for playoff spots. In that case, there is no incentive to ‘game the system’ to drop to a lower bracket/division. However, with CIF we have multiple divisions, and the likelihood of a team winning is based primarily upon the seed it gets.
For example, if you are seeded in the bottom half of a division, you will be playing the top seeded teams throughout the playoffs. If you are one of the top seeds you will be playing mostly lower seeded teams until the quarters or semis. While that would be a great system if the seedings are correct - it incentivizes teams to try and ‘drop’ a bracket/division to be one of the top teams. We all know that, and have seen it.
I believe that the only teams not incentivized to do this are the top 3 or 4 in their section. There will be some coaches who will try to play at the highest level, regardless of how they finish in order to provide the best experience for the athletes - but we all know there are coaches who make it about themselves, and would intentionally throw games in order to get a better seed in a lower division if they thought it would work.
Many coaches I have spoken to have heard ‘rumors’ of this happening this year. If you extract all of the scores, you can see some potential evidence, where a team dominates their league (D3/D4/D5, generally) but loses badly to some number of non-league opponents that are ranked way below them and are clearly not as good. This works when the ranking is based mostly on wins-losses, but qualifying for the playoffs is how you do in league (except for the few at-large qualifiers).
Here is a possible example (extreme, but plausible). A team is in a 5-team league where they play each league opponent once, then have a playoff of 2-3 games. That leaves 24 non-league/tournament games they can play. This team could win every league contest and lose every non-league contest, qualifying for the playoffs. The 6-24 record would ensure a very low ranking. This completely negates the stated purpose of the new system to make the playoffs more competitive from top to bottom.
The question is - how do you fix it? Well, just a thought but perhaps leagues have outlived their purpose in this environment. Maybe record should be how a team qualifies for the playoffs. This would disincentivize very low level teams from playing a higher level opponent when they have the choice. It might require CIF to release rankings every week again, so tournament directors have some clue about where a team should be seeded/placed in brackets. If done reasonably well, D6 teams would mostly play D6 opponents, and so on. The higher level teams would find it more difficult to find ‘easy wins’ and since record is meaningful, there would not be as much incentive to throw games.
I’m sure this has its issues, but it will be interesting to see if some teams in the lower divisions end up dominating in the playoffs. And, yes, I think it is important that those perennially ‘not so good’ teams have something to play for at the end of the season. Not every community can afford to have their kids play club all year, and with the Rialto Rule in place, some schools cannot hire a qualified coach if there is a teacher just wanting to pad his/her income.
Again, just my opinion for whatever it is worth.
1 Like
new ranking posted on https://polocoach.com/cifss/ratingsreport.php
Let’s hope it’s the polocoach.com rankings. Does anyone know who created the rankings shown on the Southern Section’s twitter feed?
Those are the illustrious Massey Ratings. It’s a privately owned algorithm that polocoach is very close to, but doesn’t quite have the exact same.
Updated document AGAIN on Open Division.
Three days of pool play and then right to Semifinals.
So if 4 groups, ONLY the top of the group advances to the Semifinal. Teams would be guaranteed 2 games.
Also states “Massey Ratings” as what drives selection.
wouldn’t 3 days of pool games imply a 4 team bracket?
day 1 - 1v4, 2v3
day 2 - 1v3, 2v4
Day 3 - 1v2, 3v4
The day/date references in their bulletin are still screwed up.
It states, “Pool Play: Thursday, October 29th”
October 29th is a Tuesday. So, do they mean Thursday, October 31st or Tuesday, October 29th?
You can’t do that and have 4 group winners that make the semifinals. Their comminications on this have been less than stellar.
Is it “Thursday” or 10/29? It cannot be both.
2 Likes
I know not the time to call out any teams but how would a team like Santa Margarita be so highly seeded with zero wins over teams ranked higher or near them and four losses to teams below them, San Clemente, Foothill, Mira Costa and Wilson? I get they have an impressive record, such as Buena, but no particular wins from either really stand out…just an observation.
2 Likes
I agree with you, that I don’t understand why Buena, Santa Margarita were ranked so high But my gripe is the Open should not been increased to 12 teams, they should of stayed at 8. Those additional bottom 4 teams have no chance of winning the Open, but would of been contenders for Div 1 along with a few other teams. On the subject of Santa Margarita, they were probably one of the most improved teams over the season. They lost by close scores to LBW, MC, Foothill, SC early in the season. They did not get a change to LBW, SC, Foothill late in the season but beat MC by 6 goals late in the season (that was an 8 goal differential from the first game). They played SHP to an overtime loss even with the lopsided officiating, then beat San Ramon and Campolindo up north, played a decent game against JSerra losing 13-9 and lost to MD by 1. I would of loved to see Buena and Santa Margarite in Div 1 to have a chance to win Div 1, not the Open division where in Bracket A they have no chance against Newport.
4 Likes
Good points…agreed on the Open Division, should have stayed at 8 teams. Feels a bit watered down now as it stands.
1 Like
[quote=“Waterpolorules, post:26, topic:504”]
What a blessing for these kids to feel the excitement of playoffs! The impact on their lives of winning a big game in a big moment for them is priceless.[/quote]
Sorry the “self esteem” argument never held any water with me. Anyone who is an employer can see society has NOT benefitted from fake accomplishment and overly praised children. They do not know how to handle failure and adversity. That is bad.