CIF Football Playoff Pairings: Second Round
DIV 2
Sierra Canyon at Vista Murrieta
DIV 3
Glendora at Apple Valley
DIV 4
Bonita at Cypress
Lawndale at La Serna
St. Francis at Chaparral
DIV 6
Santa Ana at Dominguez
DIV 7
Pasadena at La Mirada
St. Pius/St Matthias at Rio Hondo Prep
DIV 8
California at Highland
DIV 9
St. Margarets at San Dimas
DIV 10
Kaiser at Northview
Palmdale at Covina
DIV 12
Compton at Walnut
Rosemead at Woodbridge
DIV 13
South Pasadena at Western Christian
San Gabriel at Montclair
DIV 14
Alhambra at Hamilton
Loara at Pomona
*”Game Night” with times, dates and details of key games to be posted soon
Please stop already with these enrollment complaints. It has no impact in playoff divisions, heck you even have league teams with big discrepancies.
I am looking at Division 10. 3500+ enrollment Kaiser is playing 1200+ enrollment Northview. I know enrollment is large in some schools that cant compete ie Wilson. However, it seems that Northview is in a tough battle with Kaiser full of athletes. However, I am praying that Northview wins and Covina wins. This would create a true battle royal, blood thirsty, neanderthal fight, two teams that hate each other between NV and Covina. I would love to watch it but I am hoping to watch SD play Laguna Beach in the third round.
And neither are you and Starla from Napoleon Dynamite, or your DELETED in Wisconsin.
I agree I don’t like the infinite amount of divisions, perhaps just 9.
Division 1 (A, B, C)
Division 2 (A, B, C)
Division 3 (A, B, C)
Eliminating the participation trophies, while also displaying ranking levels more clearly. I’m a fan of SG and I like their playoff birth, but this playoff team doesn’t compare to an actual playoff team like SG and Alhambra of 2011. Better performing teams should be highlighted with this bracket format in my opinion.
Do you know who is not playing for a CIF ring? EL RANCHO and the ranch18. Just saying.
@how about this. No one is ever happy but who cares. This new system needs tweaking and need to get rid of half these division. If not, why not add up to D 20 or D25? Too many underperforming teams are playing for CIF titles.
The news is that NOBODY is ever going to be happy with CIF’s system, no matter how much it is revamped or tweaked. So why don’t we just put all the team names into a rotary hopper, spin it around about a thousand times, and draw the pairings out at random? Then, probably, somebody will say the hopper should have been spun two thousand times, or else the guy doing the drawing was crooked.
What about those teams who scheduled way up, competed well in those tough games then breezed through their league and got dropped into easy divisions due to their 5-5 or 6-4 record, I had more faith in the system but it’s already proving to be terrible.
Did CIF do it right? The teams that overachieved all played up a division or two. They played the teams that underachieved and played down a division or 5. Most of the teams that overachieved had to play on the road. Is it fair that 10-0 Yorba Linda team had to play up divisions and play Bishop Amat? They were other 10-0 teams that overachieved and played up. They were other first place teams that overachieved and had to play up. This should be no surprise that a lot of those teams lost for the reason that they had to play up against teams that dropped a division or 2. So basically we are now watching underachieving teams playing against other underachieving teams. That is really what CIF created. It’s the first year of doing things so they should learn from this year and make some adjustments. First, a team that wins league should get a home game, Next, an at large team should always be on the road. Finally, after all the 16 teams in each division be 500 or better, 3-7, 2-8 teams should not be in the playoffs. CIF should reward mediocrity. That’s my principle.