Video shot by Tulelake High School student Kendra Rupert.

1. Fall River (15) – the Bulldogs had first place finishes by the varsity boys, varsity girls, and JV boys. The JV girls were 2nd.

2. Etna (13) – the Lady Lion JVs took first. The varsity boys, girls, and JV boys were second.

3. Burney (7) – the Raider varsity boys, JV boys, and JV girls all finished 3rd. The varsity girls were 4th.

4. Happy Camp (5) – the varsity girls finished 3rd. The varsity boys, JV boys, and JV girls were 4th.

All-Tourney teams

Varsity Boys

Juke Parker, Fall River (MVP)
Austin Reynolds, Fall River
Tyler Murphy, Etna
Michael Gallagher, Burney
Charley Reed, Happy Camp

Varsity Girls

Yadira Contreras, Fall River (MVP)
Maryann Parker, Fall River
Sara Hoyt, Etna
Kassandra Polmateer, Happy Camp
Sara Gard, Burney

JV Boys

Tanner Gallion, Fall River (MVP)
Jonathan Westlund, Fall River
Sawyer Eastlick, Etna
Tyler Linares, Buurney
James Simmons, Happy Camp

JV Girls

Hannah Seeley, Etna (MVP)
Natalie Aldrich, Etna
KayCee Jasperse, Fall River
Shania Murray, Burney
Frankie Snider, Happy Camp

The video was shot during the first round of the Etna Tournament on Friday, January 20.

This is just a short one, as I was testing out some new equipment.

Look for coverage of Saturday’s JV championship games.

Boys Varsity

Etna 59 – Burney 49

The Etna Lion boys varsity basketball team earned its first win of the season in the opening round of the Etna Tournament. The first three quarters of the game were tight, with neither team able to pull away. The Burney Radiers led 22-18 at the end of the first quarter. The squads were tied at half, 28-28. Etna held a slim 43-42 lead going into the final frame.

Back-to-back buckets by Kainen Krueger and a hoop by Nicky DelaRosa pushed Etna’s lead to seven points, 49-42, with 5:10 left in the game.  After a Raider freebie, a basket from Austin Berry made it 51-43. Colby Rimmer hit a shot to make it a 10-point game, 53-43. The Lions went on to win by that same margin 59-49.

Tyler Murphy led Etna with 13 points. Rimmer and DelaRosa each put up 10 points. Austin Berry scored 9, and Krueger added 8 points.

Michael Gallagher led the Raiders with 19 points, and Colten Ferguson had 18.

Etna will play Fall River on Saturday at 7:30 pm. Burney will play Happy Camp at 4:30 pm on Saturday.

Fall River 68 – Happy Camp 47

The Fall River Bulldogs dominated the game from start to finish, leading the Happy Camp Indians 10-3 at the end of one quarter, 34-10 at the half, and 51-27 after three quarters.

Klay Wortham and Austin Reynolds both scored 13 points for the Bulldogs. Colton Policastro and John Michael Hubbard added 10 points apiece.

Happy Camp was led by Charley Reed with 27 points, and Clayton Tuttle with 9.

Girls Varsity

Etna 53 – Burney 35

The Etna Lady Lions established control early over the Burney Lady Raiders, leading 28-13 at the half, and cruised to the win.

Etna was led by Jessie Eiler with 15 points. Sara Hoyt had 13, and Marina Gutleben put up 10 points.

Shaina Hoke led the Lady Raiders with 11 points, and Sarah Gard had 9.

Etna plays Fall River at 6:00 pm on Saturday. Burney takes on Happy Camp at 3:00 pm.

Fall River 61 – Happy Camp 60

Early on, this one looked like it was going to be the Happy Camp Lady Indians routing the Fall River Lady Bulldogs. It didn’t work out that way.

Happy Camp led 21-14 at the end of one quarter, and 38-23 at the half via the 3-point shooting of Florence Peters and Kassandra Polmateer.

Fall River made adjustments at halftime, and shutdown the long range attack of the Lady Indians in the third quarter, allowing only a free throw and a 2-point basket. The Lady Bulldogs outscored Happy Camp 18-3 in the quarter to go into the final frame knotted at 41-41.

Two hoops in a row by Fall River’s Yadira Contreras gave the Lady Bulldogs a 45-41 lead in the fourth quarter. A freebie by Polmateer made it 45-42. Fall River extended its lead to five points, 47-42, on a dish from Kacey Putnam to Catie Thompson for a basket.

A 3-ball from Polmateer, and another from Peters regained the lead for Happy Camp, 48-47, with 4:40 to play. Fall River countered with a 3-pointer by Putnam to go back in front, 50-48. Peters tied it 50-50, with a deuce.

Happy Camp would gain a 5-point lead, 57-52, on a basket by Krista Reynolds, set up by Talley Sinead, with 1:55 to go in the game. However, two Contreras treys sandwiched around a Thompson free throw put Fall River up 59-57, with 22 ticks on the clock. Two freebies by Parker sealed the win, with 5.9 seconds left in the game. Peters hit a 3-ball at the buzzer to make the final score 61-60 for Fall River.

Junior Varsity Boys

Etna 48 – Burney 34

Etna plays Fall River on Saturday at 2:00 pm. Burney plays Happy Camp at noon.

Fall River 46 – Happy Camp 28

Junior Varsity Girls

Etna 39 – Burney 22

Etna plays Fall River at 1;00 pm on Saturday. Burney plays Happy Camp at 11:00 am.

Fall River 39 – Happy Camp 9

The Etna Lady Lions varsity basketball team started their game against the Happy Camp Lady Indians with eight straight points on Wednesday night in Etna. Then, the the Lady Indians opened up the artillery from long-range, with a barrage of 3-balls. Etna would eventually limit the Indians’ 3-point shooting, and come away with a win.

Trailing 8-0, Happy Camp’s Florence Peters hit a deuce and then a trey, to make the score 8-5 at the end of the first quarter. Peters came right back at the start of the second frame with a 3-ball and another 2-point basket to give the Lady Indians the lead 10-8.

Etna tied it on a bucket by Melissa Berry, and took a 13-10 lead on a hoop by Marina Gutleben and a freebie from Jessie Eiler.

Happy Camp then went to Kassandra Polmateer. A bucket and a 3-pointer from Polmateer regained the lead for Happy Camp, 15-13, with 3:20 to go in the first half. After a free throw by Eiler, Polmateer drilled her second 3-pointer, making the score 18-13. Kelsey Eastlick added a freebie for Etna, and then Polamteer connected from downtown again, making it 21-15. Happy Camp hit five 3-pointers in the first half.

However, the 3-point barrage wasn’t enough to secure the lead for the Lady Indians going into the intermission, as Etna scored the last seven points of the half. Savanna Hanley scored for Etna to make it 21-17. Two from the charity stripe by Eiler made it a one possession game, 21-19. With three seconds left on the clock, Hannah Seeley set up Eiler for the Lady Lions’ first trey of the game, giving Etna a 22-21 lead at the half.

Etna opened up the second half with an 11-0 run, completing an 18-0 run that started with about a minute to go in the first half. The first four points of the half came on free throws by Eiler. A bucket by Berry was followed by two more freebies from Eiler, upping the Etna advantage to nine points, 30-21. Sara Hoyt stole the ball and fed Eiler for a basket to cap the run, and extend the Lady Lions lead to 32-21, with 5:20 to go in the third quarter.

Etna would lead by as many as 20 points, 48-28, in the fourth quarter and go on to win by 16 points, 53-37.

Eiler led Etna with 18 points, and was 13/18 from the line. Gutleben had 8 points. Seeley put up seven, and Kelly Menne added six points.

Happy Camp was led by Peters with 20 points, and Polmateer with 14. Both players hit four 3-balls apiece.

Etna JV girls defeated Happy Camp 60-21. The Etna JV boys won 73-18.

Clayton Tuttle went off for 24 points, Justin Wright rained five 3-balls, and Charley Reed had a pair of highlight reel around the back drives for layups, as the Happy Camp Indians defeated the Etna Lions 70-59 on Wednesday night in Etna.

Although Etna never led in the contest, it remained fairly close the entire way, with the Indians never leading by more than the final margin of 11 points. The game was tied three times in the first half, and Etna came within one point, 40-39, with 6:13 left in the third quarter on a 3-pointer by Colby Rimmer.

Tuttle asnswer Rimmer’s 3-pointer, with a trey at the other end, putting Happy Camp back up by four points, 43-39. A put back by Preston Munson for Etna, made it 43-41. Two freebies by Reed, another 3-ball by Tuttle and a put back by Corey Barnett extended Happy Camp’s lead to nine points, 50-41, at the end of three quarters. Etna never mounted another serious challenge, and the Indians went on to win 70-59.

Tuttle led all scorers with 24 points, including three 3-pointers. Reed and Wright each put up 18 points for Happy Camp.

Rimmer led Etna with 22 points, including five treys. Nicky DelaRosa had 13, and Munson added 11 points for Etna.

The winner of the challenge will be the girls or boys team that is most successful during the 2010/2011 season, which is defined as the team that advances the furthest in the North Section CIF playoffs. The challenge will end at the finish of the section playoffs and does not include any state playoff games because Division-VI teams (Butte Valley, Dunsmuir, and Happy Camp) are not eligible for state playoffs. Tiebreakers also do not include state playoff games. Games against JV teams do not count.

If two or more teams reach the same point in the playoffs, the tiebreakers are as follows:

1. Best overall record (winning percentage).

2. Team with best record in its division (winning percentage).

3. Least points allowed per game.

4. Biggest point differential per game.

5. Coin flip.

Please note that the Challenge is not meant to determine the best basketball team, only the team with the most successful season. It’s a rare day when any Division-VI team beats any Division IV team on the court. It can happen, but the odds aren’t good.

What the challenge does do is fill a gap. It’s not unusual for one of the teams listed above to have a very good season, but not win its league because they are playing against schools that are much larger and a division higher. Or, the team runs into a private school during the playoffs that has an unfair advantage in obtaining players. And, of course, there are the public schools that are pretty much sports “factories” that “attract” players from nearby cities. It’s tough to compete against those types of schools.

The PremierWest/SiskiyouYouth Basketball Challenge is a way for a successful team to get the recognition it deserves.

The standings for the challenge will be updated on the SiskiyouYouth.com website each Wednesday and Saturday (Sunday if games are played on Saturday), as well as by Rick Martin on NorCal Classic Hits radio 102.3/101.7 on Wednesday and Monday mornings. The first update will be Sunday, December 4.

Last season’s winner was the Butte Valley Lady Bulldogs who won the NSCIF D-VI title. They also won the challenge the prior year. The Happy Camp Lady Indians won the first B-Ball Challenge.

Good luck to all the teams.

Share on Facebook ]]> http://www.siskiyouyouth.com/2011-12-premierwest-bank-siskiyouyouth-com-b-ball-challenge/feed/ 0 http://www.siskiyouyouth.com/north-section-football-playoff-ranking-system-is-a-joke-how-to-fix-it/ http://www.siskiyouyouth.com/north-section-football-playoff-ranking-system-is-a-joke-how-to-fix-it/#comments Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:47:27 +0000 Ray Wolf http://www.siskiyouyouth.com/?p=14924 Opinion

I’ve been meaning to write this for years. Yes, literally “years.” Finally, I’ve had enough with the North Section CIF system for football playoff ranking. The North Section’s way of determining football playoff teams is seriously flawed. It rewards mediocrity and it often denies good teams a fair shot at making the playoffs or being ranked as high as they should be in playoff points. If you want to skip all the explanation and just get to my proposed formula, click “more” and scroll down.

For a concrete example of a team in this year’s playoffs that greatly benefited from this bogus system, we can look at Gridley (4-6) in Division-II.

What did Gridley, a team with a losing record, do to merit not just being a playoff team, but a 5-seed? Well, they went 0-2 against D-III teams. They were 2-3 against D-II teams. Of course they were 2-1 against D-I schools—D-I schools with a combined 8-22 (.364) record , including that 0-10 powerhouse Las Plumas. They did not beat a single team with a winning record.

On the other hand, there were two 5-5 teams left out, Central Valley and Yreka. Let’s compare.

Central Valley was 1-0 against D-III teams, 3-3 against D-II teams, and 1-2 against D-I teams. CV’s D-I opponents were a combined 17-13 (.567), including 8-2 Enterprise and 8-2 West Valley. While the Falcons didn’t beat a team with a winning record, they did beat Gridley, 32-15, in Gridley…that’s a pretty decisive road win.

So, how about Yreka. Hmm, Yreka was 1-1 against D-III opponents, 4-3 against D-II opponents, and 0-1 against D-I. Yreka’s D-I opponent was 8-2.They beat Central Valley, 21-6, in CV, during the Falcons’ homecoming none the less. Oh, and they had that win over some pretty good team. Now, who was that? Oh ya, number-1 ranked, 9-1 Orland—a team that beat Gridley 42-7! So, the team that handed the top team it’s only defeat, has a better winning percentage than Gridley, both overall and in division, doesn’t make the playoffs?

Can you maybe see why I refer to the North Sections’ playoff ranking formula as “flawed.”

So, how did this happen? In Yreka’s case, it’s because they didn’t play any pitifully weak D-I schools, like Gridley did. You see, in the North Section’s system, you get more points for playing an upper division school than anything else in terms of strength of schedule—no matter what the record is of the upper division school, and no matter whether it’s a win or a loss.

I propose what I think is a better way at the end of this article. If you already know how the NSCIF’s formula doesn’t work, you can skip down to my proposal. If not, here’s how it “works” (as best as I can figure). It’s kind of complicated and a pain in the butt. Then again, pretty much all strength of schedule formulas are complicated to a greater or lessor extent.

The section’s current formula for ranking teams is divided into three equal parts.

Overall Record

This is the only part worth retaining. Teams are awarded points based on their winning percentage. So, if a team goes 8-2, that’s an .800 winning percentage. The percentage is then multiplied by 10 to get the points. In this case .800 x 10 = eight points.

League Finish

League finish is further divided into two parts:  finish in league and winning percentage in league. The first part is determined by where you finish in the league standings: 10 points for 1^st, 8 for 2^nd, 6 for 3^rd, and so on. The second part is based on your league record. Say a team finished third in league at 4-4. That would be a .500 percentage. Multiply by 10 and you get 5 points. For finishing 3^rd they get 6 points. Add the two parts together 5+6=11. Divide by two, 11/2 = 5.5 points.

This portion of the formula has to go. All leagues are not created equal. Where you finish in league should have no bearing on your playoff ranking.

Strength of schedule

The final part of the formula is strength of schedule. The current formula for determining strength of schedule is ridiculous. Why? It’s because teams get points (6) simply for playing an upper division school, regardless of that opponent’s record. That’s just plain wrong. Teams also get points (3) for playing a division opponent, again regardless of how good the opponent is. Playing lower division opponents earns no points no matter how good that opponent is. So, if a D-II team plays an undefeated D-III team that has beaten three D-II opponents, the D-II team gets nothing for it in terms of strength of schedule. And again, that’s just wrong. Points for playing upper division and division opponents is half of the strength of schedule formula, Part-A. The other half, Part-B, is points (4) for a team’s opponent’s record. If an opponent’s final record is above .500 the team gets points.

Let’s look at a couple of examples to illustrate the flaw.

Team “A” plays four upper division opponents, all of which have losing records, defeating two. Team “A” gets 24 points (4×6). They also play six division opponents and get 18 points (6×3). Two of the division opponents have winning records (one at 8-2, and one at 6-4), and team “A” beats the team with the 6-4 record as well as two of the teams with losing records. So, for the first part of the strength of schedule formula, Team “A” gets 42 points (24+18) for playing upper division teams and division teams. Playing two teams with winning records gets team “A” 8 points in the second part of the formula..

The next step is to add Part-A to Part-B and divide by the number of contests: 42 + 8 = 50. 50/10 =5.0

Now, let’s say team “B” plays two upper division teams, one has a winning record (7-3) and they defeat both of them. Team “B” gets 12 points (2×6). Team “B” plays six division opponents, two have winning records (one at 8-2, and one at 6-4) , and gets 18 points (6×3). Team “B” beats the team with the 6-4 record as well as two of the teams with losing records. Team “B” plays two lower division teams, one that goes undefeated (10-0), and another that has a losing record, and gets no points. They beat the team with a losing record. So, for Part-A, team “B” gets 30 points (12+18).

In Part-B, team “B” gets 16 points for opponent’s record (4×4) because they played four teams with a winning record, including the lower division team.

Add the two parts together and you get 30+16=46. Divide by 10, and Team “B” gets 46/10 = 4.6 points in the strength of schedule.

So under the current formula, team “A” gets more strength of schedule points than team “B” by playing a grand total of two teams with a winning record, both in team “A’s” division. On the other hand, team “B” played the same number of winning teams in the division as team “A” did, plus an upper division team and a lower division team with winning records for a total of four teams with winning records, yet has less strength of schedule points. So, how is that fair?

Here’s another part of the current formula that makes no sense, and again rewards mediocrity, Nowhere in the formula are teams rewarded for beating upper division opponents, or anyone else for that matter. So, a team that loses to four upper division opponents gets the same benefit as a team that beats four upper division opponents. Yes, the team that wins improves it’s overall record, but that team could get the same benefit in overall record by beating division opponents or lower division opponents. So, I guess the idea is to encourage teams to go find the worst possible upper division teams to play.

Having said all this, I’m a big believer in having a solution if you’re going to complain about a problem. So, here goes.

A Better Formula

First, keep three components in the formula–overall record exactly as it is currently, substitute division record for league record/league finish, and ditch the current strength of schedule formula for the one I’m about to propose.

My strength of schedule formula is designed to reward playing good teams, and is even more rewarding if you beat good teams. Under my full formula, overall record and division record are equally weighted, but the strength of schedule is subordinate to the other two. Why? It’s because overall record and division record are in direct control of the teams playing the games. It’s decided on the field. Strength of schedule depends in part on the performance of teams that the team being ranked never has the chance to play (For instance, Yreka never played upper division 0-10 Las Plumas, but Las Plumas’ record and division status would have a bearing on Gridley’s strength of schedule).

My strength of schedule formula is divided into two parts: winning games against upper division, same division, and lower division. And, playing games against upper division, same division, and lower division

Games Won

Upper division

Teams get six points for defeating an upper division opponent with a final record of .700 or higher.

Teams get four points for defeating an upper division opponent with a final record of .500 – .699.

Same Division

Teams get four points for defeating a division opponent with a final record of .700 or higher.

Teams get two points for defeating a division opponent with a final record of .500 – .699.

Lower Division

Teams get three points for defeating a lower division opponent with a final record of .700 or higher.

Games Played

Upper Division

Teams get three points for playing an upper division opponent with a final record of .700 or higher.

Teams get two points for playing an upper division opponent with a final record of .500 – .699.

Same Division

Teams get two points for playing a division opponent with a final record of .700 or higher.

Teams get one point for playing a division opponent with a final record of .500 – .699.

Lower Division

Teams get one point for playing a lower division opponent with a final record of .700 or higher.

Let’s look and see how this would have affected Gridley, Central Valley and Yreka in playoff rankings this season.

Part-1: Overall Record

Yreka 5-5, .500 percentage x 10 = 5.00 points

Central Valley 5-5, .500 percentage x 10 = 5.00 points

Gridley 4-6, .400 percentage x 10 = 4.00 points

Part-II: Division Record

Yreka 4-3, .571 percentage x 10 = 5.71 points

Central Valley 3-3, .500 percentage x 10 = 5.00 points

Gridley 2-3, .400 percentage x 10 = 4.00 points

Part-III: Strength of Schedule

Yreka

Games Won

Upper Division

None won

Same Division

One with .700 or higher, Orland (9-1) earns 4 points

One with .500 – .699, Central Valley (5-5) earns 2 points

Lower Division

.700 or higher, none won

Games played

Upper Division

One with .700 or higher, West Valley (8-2), earns 3 points

Same Division

Three with .700 or higher, Orland (9-1), Corning (7-3) and Klamath Union (7-2) earns 6 points

One with a .500 – .699, Central Valley (5-5) earns 1 point

Lower Division

.700 or higher, none played

Total strength of schedule points for Yreka is 16 divided by 10 =1.60

Central Valley

Games Won

Upper Division

.700 or higher, none won

.500 – .699, none won

Same Division

.700 or higher, none won

.500 – .699, none won

Lower Division

.700 or higher, none won

Games played

Upper Division

Two with .700 or higher, West Valley (8-2) and Enterprise (8-2), earns 6 points

Same Division

One with .700 or higher, Corning (7-3), earns 2 points

One with  .500 – .699, Yreka (5-5) earns 1 point

Lower Division

.700 or higher, none played

Total strength of schedule points for Central Valley is 9 divided by 10 = 0.90

Gridley

Games Won

Upper Division

.700 or higher, none won

.500 – .699, none won

Same Division

.700 or higher, none won

One with .500 – .699, Wheatland (5-5) earns 2 points

Lower Division

.700 or higher, none won

Games played

Upper Division

.700 or higher, none played

.500 – .699, none played

Same Division

Two with .700 or higher, Orland (9-1) and Sutter (9-1) earns 4 points

Two with .500 – .699, Central Valley (5-5) and Wheatland (5-5) earns 2 points

Lower Division

Two with .700 or higher, Live Oak (8-2) and Willows (7-3) earns 2 points

Total strength of schedule points for Gridley is 10 divided by 10 = 1.00

Ranking order for Yreka, Central Valley and Gridley under my system

Yreka 12.31 (Overall 5.0, Division 5.71, Strength 1.6)

Central Valley 10.90 (Overall 5.00, Division 5.00, Strength 0.90)

Gridley 9.00 (Overall 4.00, Division 4.00, Strength 1.00)

Under my formula, Yreka and Central Valley come out ahead of Gridley because they both played more good teams, and in Yreka’s case actually beat a very good team, which is the main reason they are at the very top of the three teams compared. Well, that and the fact that both Yreka and Central Valley won the most games overall and had better division records than Gridley.

That makes sense, right?.

Of course it does. So hey, North Section how about fixing your football playoff formula to reflect who is actually deserving of being a playoff team, and who deserves to be highly ranked.

Just for fun, this is what the top six in D-II would look like with my formula

1. Orland – 19.73
2. Sutter – 19.30
3. Lassen – 16.70
4. Corning – 16.00
5. Yreka – 12.31
6. Central Valley – 10.90

I do have to admit that there is one ranking that may be a bit skewed. Lassen only played one division game, a 34-14 win over Central Valley. So, the Grizzlies wound up with a rather soft 10 points for their division record. However, it’s my understanding that Lassen will be back in the primarily D-II Northern Athletic League next season, which will correct that issue.

Actual Section Seeding

1. Orland
2. Sutter
3. Corning
4. Lassen
5. Gridley
6. Wheatland

Oh ya, almost forgot. Wheatland, the sections’s six-seed, got there the same bogus way that Gridley did, by playing weak D-I teams. The D-I opponents were a combined 17-33 (.340), with 8-2 West Valley accounting for nearly half the wins. Wheatland lost to West Valley 41-16. For comparison, Yreka lost to West Valley 20-7, and led 7-6 at the half. When West Valley thrashed Wheatland, it was 35-7 Eagles at the half…just saying.

So there you have it. Trash it, tear it apart, use it, improve it…whatever. But please implement a formula that rewards the good teams and doesn’t allow other teams the ability to punk the system by earning points for mediocrity.