Good morning. It would appear that in the last 4 years, the bottom 2 qualifiers from the NCS and CCS outperform most bottom 2 state qualifiers from other sections.
This adds to the evidence that using medal count to allocate qualifiers is not equitable. These numbers show that the CCS and NCS 2's, 3's and 4's consistently outperform the CS and SS 8's, 9's and 10's. Furthermore, the number of medals earned by the bottom 2 state qualifiers is extremely telling, NCS 10, CCS 6, SS 1, CS 0.
What's the answer? Easy, separate Ca. into Divisions. But until that happens a more equitable way should be found to allocate State Qualifiers. "That's the way we've always done it," is just not cutting it.
Four Year CIF State Qualifier Analysis
.pdf
Download PDF
2023 CIF State Qualifier Analysis
.pdf
Download PDF
2022 CIF State Qualifier Analysis
.pdf
Download PDF
2020 CIF State Qualifier Analysis
.pdf
Download PDF
2019 CIF State Qualifier Analysis
.pdf
Download PDF
Interesting thoughts. I'm curious to see how this plays out.
Did you break down the strength of the opponents? Being a low qualifier from a big section is more likely to draw a higher qualifier from a weaker section, while a CC2 might pick up a SS7. Just an example.
I agree about the need for divisions. I can't see any other way to make the tournament competitive for the non-power schools.
But I don't see that happening in the near future.
So, what's a solution to the problem you outline above? Tweak the allocation system to include a W/L for all slots? Any slot that underperforms is on the chopping block?