By Rich Gonzalez
Editor, DyeStatCal.com
(August 12, 2007) -- Ohhhh my. Heeeere we go again.
The last time CIF cross-country policy was changed to supposedly benefit the entire state, it was the CIF-Southern Section that truly gained.
A team time-based at-large system was a landslide "triumph" for the CIF-SS as the use of out-dated course conversion data (despite our prior warning) led to an eventual gift windfall of additional berths for the state's largest section.
To this day, the CIF-SS still indirectly prospers from that
ruling while its added state meet represent-ation hasn't realized the dominant force it was said to be.
So when another Southland-based coaching colleague approached me a few years ago about the need to create a sixth statewide division, I balked.
When asked to provide his ra-tionale, he reasoned that the bur-geoning population growth within the Southern Section and the con- tinual infusion of new schools on the Southland scene made the competitive landscape too tough, with
the resulting logjam creating competitive imbalance within the section.
He further reasoned that a sixth statewide division would be a win-win situation: The Southern Sec-
tion would have its divisional congestion eased and the rest of
the state would not have to con-
tend with competing shorthanded against the dominant big brother from the south come each Thanks-giving weekend.
One small problem: David from the north is no longer easily bullied by the Goliath from the south.
The Southland popoluation expansion had arguably diluted the talent pools at most schools as enrollments dropped while students
|
The real issue here isn't the need for a sixth statewide division. It's the need to bust up the Southern Section's largest divisions into sub-divisions for regionalized championships. |
flocked to neighboring new schools.
I assured the Southland coach
a few years ago that fresh data research showed
the rest of the state was performing better by the year and -- with the exception of Division I -- Southern Section superiority
had been disappearing.
So far, that has since played out to be true.
Upon expansion to the five-division state meet format in 1996, the Southern Section initially held the clear upper hand in Divisions II through V.
In those first four years, the CIF-SS enjoyed an amazing 98% success rate in "Top 10" placings of its state meet team qualifiers. But in staggering twist, only 71% of CIF-SS state meet qualifiers have placed
in the "Top 10" during the last four years and only 66% during the last two years.
Since 1996, the Southern Section accounted for a healthy 56% of the "top-five" team finishes at the state meet in Divisions II through V.
That trend ended in 2003.
That year, the Southern Section not only failed to claim at least 50% of the top-five places in those four divisions for the first time, it took only 45%. The trend repeated itself in 2005 and 2006, with last year's showing (42.5%) being its worst in the 20-year history of the state meet.
The trend has been similar through 10-deep team placings in those four divisions, with the CIF-SS racking up 46 of those 80 spots in 2002, but only 42 of 80 in both 2003 and 2004, and only 37 of 80 in both 2005 and 2006.
And while the CIF-SS collected 56% of the state meet plaques in that time frame, the hardware windfall is no longer a certainty. CIF-SS teams were completely shut out of the podium positions in 2002 (Division
III girls), 2003 (DIII girls), 2004 |
(D IV girls) and 2005 (D II boys).
Further, only two SS teams placed in the top 8 in Division II Boys at the 2006 meet, matching the section's softest showing in the 20-year history of the meet.
Without question, the gap between the SS and the state outside Division I has dissipated. Now the rest of the state can hold it own,
"If there's good, healthy compe- tition across the state, why would anybody want to change it?", asked Bob McGuire, who has been instru-mental in pushing through policy
changes at the CIF level for years.
But adding a sixth statewide division would give another set of disproportionate new berths to the Southern Section and further handicap several already small CIF sections that only have a handful of teams in the five-division format.
The real issue here isn't the need for a sixth statewide division. It's the need to bust up the Southern Section's largest divisions into sub-divisions for regionalized champ-ionships. Break Divisions I and II into subdivisions A and AA (by enrollment) to ease the 110-plus team tie-ups currenty existing there.
Much like the format 15 years ago, run the sub-divisions in the same CIF-SS Finals race to deter-mine state berths, but also score them separately to determine champions and placings.
Impacted divisions crown an additional section champion. More deserving kids earn awards. Top SS teams still advance to state. State-wide non-realignment keeps com-
petitive equity.
More importantly, the CIF-State championship outcomes remain intriguing -- not dictated by an alignment which benefits one section while punishing the rest.
That's a win-win situation.
|
