Re: Whoever came up with this needs to be excommunicated from basketball

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mens Message Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jc on February 06, 2025 at 09:47:29:

In Reply to: Whoever came up with this needs to be excommunicated from basketball posted by Department of Basketball Efficiency on January 30, 2025 at 16:31:05:

: : : : : : : : : : : : As the season winds down with the new playoff system , will there be any at large bids for teams that don’t qualify automatically ?

: : : : : : : : : : : 2 per division

: : : : : : : : : : Is that an average or are two guaranteed per division? In volleyball the higher divisions had more at-large bids

: : : : : : : : : 2 in each division

: : : : : : : : Are we sure it's not 3? I believe it is 3 no?

: : : : : : : Where is this stated? Why is there a hard rule on at large bids if the goal is to have true competitive equity? Why would a team in an outstanding league not get included at higher divisions vs a team in an average one at the lower divisions?

: : : : : : There is nothing stated specifically in the blue book regarding at-large, at all that I saw, other than .500+ record. There were 0-2 at-large bids per division for girls volleyball. I would think you take the total number of automatic qualifiers and looks at where it is relative to a multiple of 32 (minus the open division), and figure it out from there. If you're 11 short of a multiple of 32, then there'll be 11 at-large bids, and I would assume they just start at the highest ranked one's and work their way down. If they have like 2 over the multiple, then there will be 2 byes.

: : : : : : Could it be more complicated than that? Sure, but I don't see why it'd need to be.

: : : : : You are looking at it wrong. They are not going straight 32 teams each division. You have to encompass all auto qualifiers and many are way down there on the list. So you have the highest rated 2 at large make it in each group of 32 auto qualifiers and then start again at the next auto qualifier. A division also can't start with an at large as the 1 seed. So even division 1 will have a few teams miss out that if they lost a few more games would have made the playoffs in division 2. If there was a tweak to be made I would say it's giving the top divisions more at large bids and the bottom 2 divisions probably shouldn't have any. If you look at the rankings down there it's hard to find many with a winning record that don't automatically qualify. So cif will have to decide to either give a bye or slide everyone down a spot and let another team make it in a higher division.

: : : : 1. I am not sure that the assumption of more at large's for higher divisions are correct. Girls vball had very few. Some local sportswriter says about 2 in each division.
: : : : 2. To say a team cannot be a #1 seed as as an large is completely arbitrary and luck. Being the 9th or 41st ranked team and not make it vs the 10th or the 40th and because of that you do not make playoffs. Total hog wash...

: : : Exactly. In the past at-large teams have been seeded, and if I remember, very highly if not even as a #1 in a division. No reason to believe that would not happen now.

: : : I don't see the logic in there being an arbitrary number that the committee sets for at-large bids. Everything has to start with the number of automatic qualifiers and works from there. That has always been the case and would be illogical to think that using rankings would change that since the rankings have no initial impact on entry into playoffs.

: : : Here's how I'd assume it goes. I'm not taking open division into account just for simplicity.

: : : 1. Committee gets a list of all auto's from the leagues.
: : : 2. Let's say the number is 234 for argument's sake.
: : : 3. Divide 234 by 32 and you get 7.3, meaning there will be 8 divisions with a total of 256 teams, which is 8 brackets of 32.
: : : 4. Now go to the list of teams that have applied for at-large, and pick the 22 teams starting from the highest rank and moving down (unless they decide they do not want to fill 32 teams in each bracket for some reason and give a bye).
: : : 5. Group brackets now based upon the rankings of teams. 1st 32 are division 1, second 32 are division 2, etc.

: : : Takes all subjectivity out of it, which is exactly what the purpose of the model is. They took the best teams left that didn't auto qualify, and there is competitive equity based upon the rankings (whether people agree with the rankings is not the topic). If the process is any more complicated than that, than it makes no sense.

: : And I stand corrected. If I understand it correctly, there will be the same number of at-larges in each division, give or take 1 to account for the average. So number of auto qualifiers divided by 10 gives you the number per bracket, and then the empty spots are filled by at-large based upon rankings. From the cif playoff bulletin:

: : The CIF Southern Section Boys and Girls Playoffs shall be conducted in 10 playoff divisions for Girls (Open, Div 1, Div AA, Div 2A, Div 3AA, Div 3A, Div 4AA, Div 4A, Div 5AA, and Div 5A) and 10 playoff divisions for boys (Open, Div 1, Div AA, Div 2A, Div 3AA, Div 3A, Div 4AA, Div 4A, Div 5AA, and Div
: : 5A). In 2024, all divisions will be 32-team brackets, except for the OPEN Division. It will be the responsibility of the Commissioner, and his staff to establish the pairings in each first round game for all divisions. Playoff groupings will be created using an average of the total number of automatic qualifiers across all the divisions. A playoff division will start with an automatic qualifier and include all teams until the automatic qualifier which begins the division below it. Once automatic qualifiers have been placed into a division, any remaining spots will go to the highest ranked, .500 or better at large teams in that grouping. The ranking of each team will be determined by a schools rating at the designated time Thursday afternoon, February 6, 2025.

The problem isn’t necessarily with the automatic qualifiers, but rather how they are determining the at large entries. They need to tweak the system next year that allows all at large entries to be placed in one group and then take the highest rated at large entries.
If you look at the projected at large entries from division 1 through division 4A, you will see that the strength is schedule for say Cypress, which is currently on the outside looking in is significantly greater than the projected at large entries for division three AA and down. I hope in the future that they will give the lower divisions 32 at large entries from three AA on down thus allowing for division one, two AA and two A To have more at large entries. That would be far more equitable than what’s going to happen this season. Teams playing in leagues that are far superior to other leagues should not be penalized.

Follow Ups:

Re: Whoever came up with this needs to be excommunicated from basketball coach 10:20:59 2/06/2025 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments: : : : : : : : : : : : : : As the season winds down with the new playoff system , will there be any at large bids for teams that don’t qualify automatically ? : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 per division : : : : : : : : : : : Is that an average or are two guaranteed per division? In volleyball the higher divisions had more at-large bids : : : : : : : : : : 2 in each division : : : : : : : : : Are we sure it's not 3? I believe it is 3 no? : : : : : : : : Where is this stated? Why is there a hard rule on at large bids if the goal is to have true competitive equity? Why would a team in an outstanding league not get included at higher divisions vs a team in an average one at the lower divisions? : : : : : : : There is nothing stated specifically in the blue book regarding at-large, at all that I saw, other than .500+ record. There were 0-2 at-large bids per division for girls volleyball. I would think you take the total number of automatic qualifiers and looks at where it is relative to a multiple of 32 (minus the open division), and figure it out from there. If you're 11 short of a multiple of 32, then there'll be 11 at-large bids, and I would assume they just start at the highest ranked one's and work their way down. If they have like 2 over the multiple, then there will be 2 byes. : : : : : : : Could it be more complicated than that? Sure, but I don't see why it'd need to be. : : : : : : You are looking at it wrong. They are not going straight 32 teams each division. You have to encompass all auto qualifiers and many are way down there on the list. So you have the highest rated 2 at large make it in each group of 32 auto qualifiers and then start again at the next auto qualifier. A division also can't start with an at large as the 1 seed. So even division 1 will have a few teams miss out that if they lost a few more games would have made the playoffs in division 2. If there was a tweak to be made I would say it's giving the top divisions more at large bids and the bottom 2 divisions probably shouldn't have any. If you look at the rankings down there it's hard to find many with a winning record that don't automatically qualify. So cif will have to decide to either give a bye or slide everyone down a spot and let another team make it in a higher division. : : : : : 1. I am not sure that the assumption of more at large's for higher divisions are correct. Girls vball had very few. Some local sportswriter says about 2 in each division. : : : : : 2. To say a team cannot be a #1 seed as as an large is completely arbitrary and luck. Being the 9th or 41st ranked team and not make it vs the 10th or the 40th and because of that you do not make playoffs. Total hog wash... : : : : Exactly. In the past at-large teams have been seeded, and if I remember, very highly if not even as a #1 in a division. No reason to believe that would not happen now. : : : : I don't see the logic in there being an arbitrary number that the committee sets for at-large bids. Everything has to start with the number of automatic qualifiers and works from there. That has always been the case and would be illogical to think that using rankings would change that since the rankings have no initial impact on entry into playoffs. : : : : Here's how I'd assume it goes. I'm not taking open division into account just for simplicity. : : : : 1. Committee gets a list of all auto's from the leagues. : : : : 2. Let's say the number is 234 for argument's sake. : : : : 3. Divide 234 by 32 and you get 7.3, meaning there will be 8 divisions with a total of 256 teams, which is 8 brackets of 32. : : : : 4. Now go to the list of teams that have applied for at-large, and pick the 22 teams starting from the highest rank and moving down (unless they decide they do not want to fill 32 teams in each bracket for some reason and give a bye). : : : : 5. Group brackets now based upon the rankings of teams. 1st 32 are division 1, second 32 are division 2, etc. : : : : Takes all subjectivity out of it, which is exactly what the purpose of the model is. They took the best teams left that didn't auto qualify, and there is competitive equity based upon the rankings (whether people agree with the rankings is not the topic). If the process is any more complicated than that, than it makes no sense. : : : And I stand corrected. If I understand it correctly, there will be the same number of at-larges in each division, give or take 1 to account for the average. So number of auto qualifiers divided by 10 gives you the number per bracket, and then the empty spots are filled by at-large based upon rankings. From the cif playoff bulletin: : : : The CIF Southern Section Boys and Girls Playoffs shall be conducted in 10 playoff divisions for Girls (Open, Div 1, Div AA, Div 2A, Div 3AA, Div 3A, Div 4AA, Div 4A, Div 5AA, and Div 5A) and 10 playoff divisions for boys (Open, Div 1, Div AA, Div 2A, Div 3AA, Div 3A, Div 4AA, Div 4A, Div 5AA, and Div : : : 5A). In 2024, all divisions will be 32-team brackets, except for the OPEN Division. It will be the responsibility of the Commissioner, and his staff to establish the pairings in each first round game for all divisions. Playoff groupings will be created using an average of the total number of automatic qualifiers across all the divisions. A playoff division will start with an automatic qualifier and include all teams until the automatic qualifier which begins the division below it. Once automatic qualifiers have been placed into a division, any remaining spots will go to the highest ranked, .500 or better at large teams in that grouping. The ranking of each team will be determined by a schools rating at the designated time Thursday afternoon, February 6, 2025. : The problem isn’t necessarily with the automatic qualifiers, but rather how they are determining the at large entries. They need to tweak the system next year that allows all at large entries to be placed in one group and then take the highest rated at large entries. : If you look at the projected at large entries from division 1 through division 4A, you will see that the strength is schedule for say Cypress, which is currently on the outside looking in is significantly greater than the projected at large entries for division three AA and down. I hope in the future that they will give the lower divisions 32 at large entries from three AA on down thus allowing for division one, two AA and two A To have more at large entries. That would be far more equitable than what’s going to happen this season. Teams playing in leagues that are far superior to other leagues should not be penalized.

Optional Link URL:

Link Title:

Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mens Message Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:	: : : : : : : : : : : : : As the season winds down with the new playoff system , will there be any at large bids for teams that don’t qualify automatically ? : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 per division : : : : : : : : : : : Is that an average or are two guaranteed per division? In volleyball the higher divisions had more at-large bids : : : : : : : : : : 2 in each division : : : : : : : : : Are we sure it's not 3? I believe it is 3 no? : : : : : : : : Where is this stated? Why is there a hard rule on at large bids if the goal is to have true competitive equity? Why would a team in an outstanding league not get included at higher divisions vs a team in an average one at the lower divisions? : : : : : : : There is nothing stated specifically in the blue book regarding at-large, at all that I saw, other than .500+ record. There were 0-2 at-large bids per division for girls volleyball. I would think you take the total number of automatic qualifiers and looks at where it is relative to a multiple of 32 (minus the open division), and figure it out from there. If you're 11 short of a multiple of 32, then there'll be 11 at-large bids, and I would assume they just start at the highest ranked one's and work their way down. If they have like 2 over the multiple, then there will be 2 byes. : : : : : : : Could it be more complicated than that? Sure, but I don't see why it'd need to be. : : : : : : You are looking at it wrong. They are not going straight 32 teams each division. You have to encompass all auto qualifiers and many are way down there on the list. So you have the highest rated 2 at large make it in each group of 32 auto qualifiers and then start again at the next auto qualifier. A division also can't start with an at large as the 1 seed. So even division 1 will have a few teams miss out that if they lost a few more games would have made the playoffs in division 2. If there was a tweak to be made I would say it's giving the top divisions more at large bids and the bottom 2 divisions probably shouldn't have any. If you look at the rankings down there it's hard to find many with a winning record that don't automatically qualify. So cif will have to decide to either give a bye or slide everyone down a spot and let another team make it in a higher division. : : : : : 1. I am not sure that the assumption of more at large's for higher divisions are correct. Girls vball had very few. Some local sportswriter says about 2 in each division. : : : : : 2. To say a team cannot be a #1 seed as as an large is completely arbitrary and luck. Being the 9th or 41st ranked team and not make it vs the 10th or the 40th and because of that you do not make playoffs. Total hog wash... : : : : Exactly. In the past at-large teams have been seeded, and if I remember, very highly if not even as a #1 in a division. No reason to believe that would not happen now. : : : : I don't see the logic in there being an arbitrary number that the committee sets for at-large bids. Everything has to start with the number of automatic qualifiers and works from there. That has always been the case and would be illogical to think that using rankings would change that since the rankings have no initial impact on entry into playoffs. : : : : Here's how I'd assume it goes. I'm not taking open division into account just for simplicity. : : : : 1. Committee gets a list of all auto's from the leagues. : : : : 2. Let's say the number is 234 for argument's sake. : : : : 3. Divide 234 by 32 and you get 7.3, meaning there will be 8 divisions with a total of 256 teams, which is 8 brackets of 32. : : : : 4. Now go to the list of teams that have applied for at-large, and pick the 22 teams starting from the highest rank and moving down (unless they decide they do not want to fill 32 teams in each bracket for some reason and give a bye). : : : : 5. Group brackets now based upon the rankings of teams. 1st 32 are division 1, second 32 are division 2, etc. : : : : Takes all subjectivity out of it, which is exactly what the purpose of the model is. They took the best teams left that didn't auto qualify, and there is competitive equity based upon the rankings (whether people agree with the rankings is not the topic). If the process is any more complicated than that, than it makes no sense. : : : And I stand corrected. If I understand it correctly, there will be the same number of at-larges in each division, give or take 1 to account for the average. So number of auto qualifiers divided by 10 gives you the number per bracket, and then the empty spots are filled by at-large based upon rankings. From the cif playoff bulletin: : : : The CIF Southern Section Boys and Girls Playoffs shall be conducted in 10 playoff divisions for Girls (Open, Div 1, Div AA, Div 2A, Div 3AA, Div 3A, Div 4AA, Div 4A, Div 5AA, and Div 5A) and 10 playoff divisions for boys (Open, Div 1, Div AA, Div 2A, Div 3AA, Div 3A, Div 4AA, Div 4A, Div 5AA, and Div : : : 5A). In 2024, all divisions will be 32-team brackets, except for the OPEN Division. It will be the responsibility of the Commissioner, and his staff to establish the pairings in each first round game for all divisions. Playoff groupings will be created using an average of the total number of automatic qualifiers across all the divisions. A playoff division will start with an automatic qualifier and include all teams until the automatic qualifier which begins the division below it. Once automatic qualifiers have been placed into a division, any remaining spots will go to the highest ranked, .500 or better at large teams in that grouping. The ranking of each team will be determined by a schools rating at the designated time Thursday afternoon, February 6, 2025. : The problem isn’t necessarily with the automatic qualifiers, but rather how they are determining the at large entries. They need to tweak the system next year that allows all at large entries to be placed in one group and then take the highest rated at large entries. : If you look at the projected at large entries from division 1 through division 4A, you will see that the strength is schedule for say Cypress, which is currently on the outside looking in is significantly greater than the projected at large entries for division three AA and down. I hope in the future that they will give the lower divisions 32 at large entries from three AA on down thus allowing for division one, two AA and two A To have more at large entries. That would be far more equitable than what’s going to happen this season. Teams playing in leagues that are far superior to other leagues should not be penalized.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: