Southern Section move ups

socalogo.gif (8739 bytes)
SoCalHoops High School News

CIF Southern Section Votes To Restrict
"Move-Ups" During Playoffs--(Mar. 26, 2000)

The Southern Section Council of the CIF voted last week to restrict teams from moving up a division for the playoffs, a vote which will, commencing in 2001, require teams to play in their normal enrollment division. Playoffs (and only playoffs, not regular league play) are enrollment-based, whereas league cut across the enrollment barriers. While league play involves some large schools playing some smaller schools, in the Southern Section playoffs (indeed in the entire State of California in all sections) similar size schools are placed in the same divisions for the playoffs.

Currently a team in any division below I may move up into a higher enrollment bracket, but all such moves must involve a jump to the highest enrollment division in the division, i.e., a move from D-VA can only be made to D-IVAA, III-AA, II-AA, or I-AA. In other words a team cannot move up from V-A to V-AA or IV-A. The enrollment-based playoff system applies to most team sports, including baseball, basketball, cross-country, soccer, softball, tennis and volleyball.

This past week, when the league representatives voted, 44 out of 76 voted to restrict movement. The proposal was presented by Los Alamitos Vice Principal Jerry Halpin on behalf of the Sunset League.

According to a story published this past Saturday in the LA Times' Orange County Edition, written by Paul McLeod, Halpin told the OC Register that part of the rationale for the proposal was that last season nine baseball teams moved up to Division I, taking some of the wild-card berths that would have gone to other Division I teams -- teams that had nowhere else to go because of their enrollment.

In our view, this is probably not much of a reason to require that a stronger team which feels it deserves to "play-up" should be prevented from doing so, especially in basketball. This year, the Southern Section used a "10-win" rule, and as a result, every team that applied and had 10 wins got to enter the tournament. In other words, restricting movement based on the rationale that it would take away wild-card spots might be fine for baseball (although frankly, we don't know why the same "minimum-win" rule wouldn't work in virtually every other team sport), but it's just not right in basketball.

While the proponents of the motion believe it will lead to a "fairer" playoff system, they claim that it will do so by preventing the "super-teams" from splitting the section titles among themselves. The Times noted, we believe somewhat curiously, that the "Mater Dei boys' basketball team, which has won nine section titles in a variety of large-school divisions, may end up in Division II, where it could face Artesia and Dominguez," but as far as we can tell, this is probably not a correct statement: Mater Dei is in D-IA and not I-AA (at least for basketball) which means that Mater Dei was in its division not because of a move from a lower division (remember, a team cannot move to a lower-half of a division, only a higher one), but because that's where their enrollment put them. Mater Dei winds up in Dominguez' division only if they have a smaller enrollment than they currently have, not because of the new rule. While the Times' statement might be correct in sports other than basketball, it doesn't seem correct to us. . . .

Likewise, Artesia, Simi, Dominguez, Fontana, all played this year in their normal enrollment divisions. . . Thus rather than promoting change or some different system more "fair" system, this will simply insure that the consistently strong teams continue to avoid facing each other in the playoffs, and it would prevent a move such as Artesia made two years ago to D-IAA from their enrollment division which is II-A.

The Times also quoted Villa Park boys' basketball Coach Kevin Reynolds, who likewise said he wasn't aware the section was voting on changing the playoff structure. The Times noted that that Reynolds "said the ramifications are huge for teams that move up in their division only when it is to their benefit." But his quote in fact seems to suggest that he was saying exactly the opposite.

Here's what he said: "I could have told you back in August, when I saw how the divisions were spread out, that Long Beach Poly, Mater Dei, [Compton] Dominguez and [Lakewood] Artesia would win their divisions," Reynolds told the Times. "The fact of the matter is, those four schools will try to avoid each other as much as they can."

Well, if movement among divisions is restricted, then these schools won't have to try to avoid each other. . . all they'll have to do is continue to play in the divisions in which their enrollments place them. . . . unless those enrollments change, or the criteria for placement changes dramatically, they'll continue to avoid each other. This year, none of those teams moved up, which meant that Artesia played in II-A, Dominguez in II-AA, Mater Dei in I-A, and Poly in I-AA, and guess what. . . they all won section titles. This measure voted on last week and approved by the Section Council, will do nothing to change that, but merely institutionalize it.

In any event, critics of the proposal were quick to condemn it. "This is a joke," Newport Harbor volleyball Coach Dan Glenn told the Times. "I'm on the boys' volleyball committee and I didn't even know about this."

The philosophy behind movement is designed to permit those schools who believe they will see better competition in higher divisions to get that tougher playoff run. Historically, it's what most of the schools in NorCal do. It's what Alameda St. Joseph-Notre Dame has done for as far back as we can remember, and had they not, all those Jason Kidd led teams would have surely been able to beat their normal D-V competition.. . . Heck, they wouldn't even need to play, just mail in the results.

In our view, movement is a good thing, and if a team feels it can compete at the higher bracket level, why not let them. The rationale as stated by Mr. Halpin, i.e., that allowing tougher, better lower enrollment schools into the higher enrollment divisions will somehow take away "wild-card" spots is really not much of an argument, especially in basketball, where (a) the brackets can support as many wild-card games as are needed and (b) everyone makes the playoffs who wants to. In our opinion, the rule is not needed and will not have the desired effect, but will simply restrict teams from challenging themselves as much as they might desire. Of course there's nothing wrong with a team playing in its normal CBED enrollment division, and much of this is probably a lot of ado about nothing. . . after all, when league structures cross multiple divisions, what difference really does it make whether a team moves up. . . as long as nobody can move down, then everyone's protected.

We don't often stick our noses directly into something like this, but in this case, the vote to restrict movement upward only, is a bad decision. It should not be adopted, and we would urge the Southern Section Council to rethink the proposal and reject it in favor of less restrictive and more inclusive alternatives.