class 223

SoCal High School & Prep Report

Class Divisions In CIF Basketball:
Who's Got It & Who Doesn't--(February 23, 1998)

Why do San Diego, North Coast, Central, Central Coast, North, and Sac-Joaquin only have Divisions I, II, III, IV and V, but Southern Section has broken those Divisions down even further into "AA" and "A" classifications? We couldn't find anyone at the CIF Southern Section Office today who had the answer, and we're not exactly sure ourselves. But we but we can hazard a guess: There are more than 300 schools in Southern Section, far more than in any of the other Division in CIF.

For example in Division I-AA, 33 teams made it to the playoffs, including the wild-card teams who competed last Wednesday; In Division I-A, 32 teams qualified, a total of 66 teams in the playoffs in Division I alone. The numbers go up to something like 300 for all divisions in the playoffs (some divisions are small and don't have a full complement of 32 teams competing in the brackets, such as in Division IV-A or Division V-A, so the number is not 320 as might be concluded).

We're not sure of the exact totals for each Division for all schools actually competing at each Division, but a quick comparison with San Diego's entire CIF Section for all Divisions, demonstrates that the entire San Diego Section has only 88 schools total. San Diego's Division I has only 18 schools competing (including two wild-card games) who will eventually compete in a 16 team pool. And look at Division III in San Diego: There are only 4 seeded teams, and the top two get a bye in the first round, so only a total of 6 teams compete for the Division Championship. Compare that to what would happen if there was only a single Division III in the Southern Section: there would be 36 teams competing (including 4 wild-card spots, 20 from D-III-AA, and 16 from D-III-A).

Beginning to get the picture?

In the Southern Section, because of the sheer numbers of schools, many with seemingly disparate population pools from which to draw upon for their teams, many of the schools argued over the years that even within the individual class divisons (I, II, III, IV and V), some teams were unfairly being eliminated, or were otherwise doomed to being non-competitive. Many also argued that it made the playoffs too unwieldy, made for some unrealistic matchups, and was basically unfair to a large number of teams. We're not sure that the extra sub-division has really solved the problem, and it continues to make for some very weird matchups and seedings.

The same is true of LA City Section, which about 10 years ago decided to "join" the CIF for basketball playoffs and then went to a different "divisional" makeup than City Section had enjoyed for many years. In the 50's, 60's and 70's, LA Unified teams only competed against other LA City Schools teams. There was no "State Championship", and the winners of the City Championship simply stopped there. Likewise there were no "3-A" and "4-A" divisions as there are now. There was Varsity, JV, Bee and Cee teams. If you were in 12th grade, and not big enough to play on varsity, you could still play on either the Bee or Cee team depending upon what were then called "exponents" a very weird formula based upon an athletes' height, weight, and a few other criteria which I just can't recall. Many argued that this was a great system, because it let a senior compete against other physically similar seniors. But others argued that the "exponent" system was too hard to figure out, made for unfair matchups, and so the system was scrapped a few years ago. In it's place is the current "Frosh, Soph, JV and Varsity" system, which has it's share of detractors too.

The way it currently works is if you are a senior and cannot make the varsity, you're gone, finished, done. No further competition for you bucko, hit the streets, and give us back the uniform Jack. And even stranger, if you are now in the 9th grade (when I went to LAUSD, high schools were only three year deals, and 9th grade was still junior high; "freshman" meant 10th grade. . . my, my, how the language changes), you can play on not just the Frosh team, but can "play up" on the Sophomore team, but you can't (or at least we're not aware of anyone who has done this) play on the JV or Varsity until you get to 10th grade. And weirdest of all, the Frosh-Soph team competes during the fall, before the regular season starts, so if you want to also play football, forget it.

We loved the "exponent" system. It kept more kids involved longer in sports, which meant that more kids stayed affiliated with their schools, were required to keep their grades up, and most importantly, more kids graduated, and they did it feeling better about themselves and better prepared for college or the working world. What's so great about telling someone who's played "sophomore" ball for one or two years, "Hey buddy, you're a good player, but guess what, you can't make the Varsity, so you're done." ? Nothing.

And while we don't know that it has any direct correlation, a little empirical evidence can't be all wrong. We went to a high school which had an enrollment of more than 3,000 students, and my class had more than 1,200 students enter in the 10th grade. We would venture a guess that of those 1,200 who entered, almost 1,199 graduated, and personally, we didn't know anyone who dropped out. In comparison, we recently attended a graduation at the same school and were astonished to learn that of the 950 students who entered as freshmen, only about 500 graduated. What happened to the rest? Dropped out. Was it because of athletics? Was it because of the influx of those who speak English as a second language in LAUSD who the school system can't deal or cope with? Was it just because of the current economy? We don't know, but we do know that when more kids competed in athletics throughout their high school years, more kids graduated and went on to college and universities. Maybe no connection or correlation, but you'd have a tough time convincing us. So, which was the better system? We've got our opinion, and that's one of the two things everyone's got. :- )

Of course, there are those who still argue that CIF should return to what Indiana High School basketball has just this last year abandoned, i.e., a single division in which all the teams in the state compete. But how often does a miracle like "Hoosiers" happen? Actually, answered the critics, if you look at Indiana as the prime example, it never happened again after that one day in 1954 in Indiana. What happened that one day in 1954 would become one of the most celebrated underdog stories ever. Tiny Milan High School - enrollment 121 - defeated mighty Muncie High 32-30, a victory that became the basis for the 1986 film ``Hoosiers.'' Never before and not since, has the disparity in enrollment between the winner and loser of "single class" basketball been as great as it was then. But even Indiana abandoned the "one class" format this year, and instead has switched to multiple class playoffs and divisions based upon enrollment size.

"Class-division" basketball came to California a long time ago, but the further sub-division into "AA" and "A" sub-divisions here in SoCal became a means of not only rewarding more teams with playoff berths, it was a way to recognize multiple "champions" who each competed on a more even playing field. It also afforded more playing opportunities to more players in post-season play. But with the divisions in, the concept of the "best" overall team in the state has also gone out the window. As it now stands, who was really the "best" last year? Could Harvard-Westlake, the D-III State Champion have beaten Crenshaw, last year's D-I State Champion? We're not sure, and we don't believe they faced off in the Best in the West last year, so we'll never know.

Even without "class" distinctions present, many would say that a single elimination tournament, which lasts three or four rounds, also doesn't establish the "best" team either. Look at the NCAA tournament as an example. It used to be that when UCLA was winning it all in the 1960's and 70's under Coach Wooden, a team could win three games and be in the finals. Were those UCLA teams the "best" over all the other teams? Probably, but there are some (we don't actually know these people) who would argue that in any given year UCLA just got lucky three times in a row, being seeded high and drawing weak opponents in a 32 team field. As it is now, with 64 teams in the tournament, a team has to win only six straight games to be crowned the "National Champions". Does it make the champion the "best" in the country? Maybe one of the best, but there are many who would say it doesn't really; was Arizona the "best" in the nation last year? We don't know. They were very good, but who knows what would have happened if Kansas had played them.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, which is Southern Section Divisions: Whether a school is in Division I-A or Division I-AA, or Division V, has to do with the number of students enrolled, and thus (at least theoretically) the size of the "pool" of students from which the teams can draw their talent. The consensus is that a school with an enrollment of 3,000 students can probably field a more competitive team than one with an enrollment of 300.

Of course "open enrollment" at public schools has undercut that theory somewhat, and even more seriously eroding the concept is what might be called "recruiting" at some private schools ("Oh my", I hear people saying, "there's no such thing as 'recruiting' at the high school level, is there?" :-o). The recruiting angle has probably more than skewed the field at most private schools, so much so that in fact there are many Division II-A (just to pick a division at random :- ) ), that would be more than competitive than any Division I-AA (the division reserved for the largest enrollment schools) you'd care to throw at them.

Setting aside the exact enrollment figures used in Southern Section (we're not exactly certain what the enrollment cut-offs for each division are, but we're getting these numbers from the CIF), the "AA" classification signifies a larger enrollment than a school with only "A" division status. If it's an all boy's school, then the enrollment figures are doubled.

And, for the playoffs, a school can (with rare exceptions) petition to play "up" in a higher enrollment division (as for example Alameda St. Joseph's does in the CIF's North Coast Section). This is usually done only in circumstances where the divisions are smaller than the Southern Section, and we are not aware of any teams which have, in Southern Section petitioned to play up. We're not saying it hasn't happened, just that we're not aware of it.

Since we don't have the exact enrollment figures used here in Southern Section in SoCal, in the meantime, the methodology used by the North Coast Section, which is probably about as similar as it gets between North and South, demographically speaking, will give an idea of the criteria used. The following is from the North Coast Section Website:

Enrollment figures for grades 10 to 12 have been used to determine the 1996-97 basketball divisions. Some schools have petitioned for placement in a higher division - if so, it will be shown as, e.g., "- B/G to I", meaning that both the boys and girls have petitioned to move up to division I from whatever division their enrollment would naturally put them in. Enrollment figures for each division are:
Div I - 1500 or more
Div II - 1125 - 1499
Div III - 750 - 1124
Div IV - 301 - 749
Div V - 300 & under
Single gender schools are so identified - for placement purposes, each single-gender school's enrollment was doubled.

We are fairly certain that the enrollment figures here in Southern Section are a little high, and that the distinctions are then made between A and AA schools based upon the overall criteria. If we're wrong though, someone will no doubt point it out to us. We thought you should know.