The introduction of a new playoff system in San Diego's high school football scene, implemented by the CIF San Diego Section (CIF-SDS), has sparked debate among coaches, administrators, and media. The system, which leverages CalPreps' computer rankings to assess team strength based on strength of schedule rather than just traditional win-loss records, has left some questioning its impact on the competitive landscape in its inaugural season.
Under the new system, playoff spots are assigned solely based on CalPreps' rankings, with league champion earning automatic bids. As a result, the bracket includes 21 teams with losing records and even three winless teams.
In a recent article titled "Computer trouble: San Diego’s new football playoff system creates problems, prompts questions," San Diego Union-Tribune columnist John Maffei questioned whether the new playoff structure truly highlights the best teams. Maffei wrote “the CalPreps.com computer rankings have opened the playoff door to winless teams and teams with losing records.”
However, it's important to note that even under previous systems, teams with poor records sometimes made the playoffs. For example, last year, St. Augustine would still have been a 12-seed in Division I with a 0-10 record. Similarly, in 2011, when enrollment alone determined divisions, 1-8-1 Lincoln faced off against 1-9 Ramona in the opening round of Division III. This suggests that the inclusion of teams with losing records is not a new phenomenon or solely attributable to CalPreps' rankings.
CalPreps founder Ned Freeman, whose rankings are central to this new system, addressed concerns directly. Following public criticism, Freeman removed their San Diego Section rankings from the website, stating, “We're much better off in terms of our business reputation by not being associated with bad playoff plans that we get blamed for when we didn't design them.”
Freeman argues that his ranking system accurately measures team quality and that the true issue lies in the CIF-SDS's expanded playoff field. He contends that the fundamental problem is not with CalPreps' algorithm but with the decision to include so many teams in the postseason. “There are 36 teams with winning records, and all 36 made the playoffs. Maffei's contention that CalPreps put too many teams with losing records into the playoffs couldn't possibly have less validity; it literally has zero validity,” he emphasized.
Freeman expressed frustration with being made a "fall guy" for a system he didn't design, suggesting it was orchestrated from the beginning. He believes the expanded playoffs are less about promoting participation and more about increasing revenue through ticket sales—a move he argues undermines playoff credibility.
The controversy highlights a broader philosophical question facing high school sports: Should playoff systems prioritize inclusivity or focus on competitive achievement? The San Diego Section defends its approach, suggesting that broader playoff access motivates participation and ensures more athletes can experience postseason play. Freeman maintains that while encouraging participation is valuable, it should not come at the expense of competitive standards.
If the section considers future adjustments, potential solutions may include setting minimum performance benchmarks, like a required number of wins, or reducing the number of playoff spots to enhance competitiveness. This season's debate underscores the balancing act required to structure high school playoffs in a way that respects both player development and the spirit of competition.
Freeman remains steadfast in his belief that "the rankings are accurate in reflecting each team's quality." He hopes the CIF-SDS will review its current system to better align with both competitive and participation goals. As the debate continues, stakeholders will need to find a middle ground that honors the principles of high school athletics while maintaining the integrity of the playoff system.
No comments:
Post a Comment