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.

Divison-IV

Yreka is seeded 4th and gets a 1st round bye. The Lady Miners will host number-5 Orland on Tuesday, November 15.

Trinity is seeded 8th and hosts 9-seed Central Valley, on Tuesday November 8th.

Division-V

Mt. Shasta is seeded 5th and gets a 1st round bye. The Lady Bears will go to number-4 Portola on Tuesday, November 15.

Tulelake is seeded 9th and goes to 8-seed Modoc on Tuesday, November 8.

Weed and Etna did not qualify for playoffs.

Division-VI

Dunsmuir is the 8-seed and will host number-9 Redding Christian on Tuesday, November 8.

Happy Camp is the 11-seed and goes to 6-seed Redding Adventist on Tuesday, November 8.

Butte Valley did not qualify for the playoffs.

Best of luck to all the teams!

MOUNT SHASTA – The third-seeded Mt. Shasta Bears soccer team defeated the sixth-seeded Trinity Wolves, 3-0, on Tuesday afternoon to advance in the small schools post season tournament. The Bears will travel to Tulelake on Thursday to take on the second-seed Honkers. Tulelake defeated Weed, 5-1, on Tuesday to advance to the semi-finals. The Bears are the Shasta Cascade League Champions, and the Honkers are the Evergreen League champions.

Matheus Lopes put the Bears on the board against Trinity in the 11th minute, with an assist from Nils Allmang. Allmang made it 2-0 at the 39-minute mark, off an assist from Mariah Althaus-Cressman. That’s where the score stood at the intermission.

Seventeen minutes into the second half, Lopes notched his second goal of the game, making the final score 3-0.

Matt Higer recorded the win for the Bears, stopping both shots he faced.

All photos by Howard Albecker. Thanks Howard!

Hey Trinity! We’ want you to know that SiskiyouYouth.com likes covering your high school. If you like the coverage, let us know.

If you have a business and would like to sponsor Trinity Wolves coverage, we’d love to have you. A few sponsors from Weaverville would mean more stories, photos, and videos for the Wolves, as well as eligibility for SiskiyouYouth.com scholarships.

FORT JONES – The Trinity Wolves fell behind the Etna Lions, 1-0, mid-way through the first half of Thursday’s soccer match, but three straight goals off the foot of Shawn Wills led the Wolves to a come from behind win 3-1.

Etna struck first in the 21st minute, when Tyler Murphy broke past a defender and the goalkeeper, and took a tough angle shot that rolled along the goal line, until Izzy Del Carlo knocked it home.

Trinity answered just two minutes later on a seeing-eye shot by Wills, tying the match 1-1. Wills scored again three minutes later, at the 26-minute mark, giving the Wolves the lead, 2-1. Kody Bigham assisted on both of Wills tallies.

In the 67th minute, Wills banged in a shot off the far goal post to complete his hat trick, and make the final score, 3-1.

Trinity (4-3) continues Shasta Cascade League play next Thursday, when the Wolves host Fall River.

Etna (1-6-1) is at Mt. Shasta on Thursday.

Photos by Yreka Coach Pam Borg

Etna’s John Whelan had the top individual varsity finish for a Siskiyou County runner at the Bill Springhorn Classic cross country meet, held last Friday at Shasta College in Redding. Whelan, a junior, finished 3rd in the 3-mile course in a time of 15:27. Yreka’s Eric Neill and Timmy Williams crossed the finish line 4th and 5th.

Yreka’s Cade Parker (in center of photo above) won the boys 2-mile frosh race (11.52 – a course record). Fellow Miners Matt Jochim and Brenden Berry finished 2nd and 3rd.

Dakota Cash from Yreka was the top female Siskiyou County varsity runner, finishing 11th in the girls 3-mile (20:26). Trinity’s Kyra Gutermuth was 10th (20:13).

Mt. Shasta’s Kelsie Titus was second (14:28) in the girls JV 2-mile race.

In the team competition, the Yreka varsity boys finished 2nd to Chico. Mt. Shasta’s varsity girls were 5th. Yreka’s frosh boys placed 1st.

For complete results go to athletic.net

Coach Borg’s report for Yreka is below

We had our first meet of the season, the Bill Springhorn Classic, on Friday and I must say we did pretty well. Our Frosh boys did amazing as they won their division. Cade Parker set the (frosh) course record of 11:52. Matt Jochim finished 2nd in 11:55, Brenden Berry was 3rd 12:10. Matt Ward followed closely in 5th 12:24, and Storm Oliver was 11th in 12:52. They ran aggressively as a team and dominated the race scoring just 20 pts to Chico’s 36 and KU 76.

The JV girls race was led by Freshman, Zoe Restine,who finished 9th in 15:22, Anne Nielsen was 20th in 16:11. The JV girls finished 5th overall. JV boys raced well to finish in 3rd place behind Enterprise and Chico. Newcomer Chris Ogren and Emmett Sams were our 1-2 runners for the Miners, placing 12th and 13th respectively, in a time of 12:17 and 12:30, then Mitch Johnson 22nd in 12:57. The Varsity girls were 6th with Dakota Cash placing 11th in 20:26 and Michaela Justice 19th 20:59. Freshman Kendall Nielsen ran a great race in her varsity debut, finishing 49th in 23:30. Eric Neill (4th) and Timmy Williams (5th) led the Varsity boys to a 2nd place finish, only 6pts away from beating large school Chico HS. New Yreka HS student-athlete, Christian Wichmann ran a strong race finishing just ahead of teammate David Neill, where they placed 21st and 22nd overall.

Next Saturday is our home Invitaional ( Yreka Elks Invite) and we are looking forward to another strong showing from our team.

The Trinity Lady Wolves junior varsity squad won the JV version of the Miner Mountain Blast on Saturday, in Yreka. Phoenix was 2nd, Hidden Valley-1 was third, Hidden Valley 2 was fourth.

Yreka and Mt. Shasta also made the cut from pool play to bracket play. Other teams participating were Etna, Henley, and Del Norte.

Tourney MVP: Bradlee Plotzke, Trinity

All-Tourney:

Danielle Duncan, Trinity

Molly Scheen, Phoenix

Erica Marshall, Phoenix

Meghan Combe, Hidden Valley-1

Sam Popes, Hidden Valley-2

Amber Andrighetto, Yreka

The Yreka Lady Miners varsity volleyball team took second at the Miner Mountain Blast volleyball tournament on Saturday. Yreka was the top seed in their pool, winning all eight sets–two each against Del Norte, Etna, Phoenix and Rogue River.

In bracket play, the Lady Miners defeated Henley in the semi-final, 2-1 (17-25, 25-18, 15-6). Henley had defeated Mt. Shasta to earn their way into the semi-final match. The Henley Lady Hornets finished third in the tourney, with their only other loss coming in pool play against eventual champion Hidden Valley.

Yreka then faced the Hidden Valley Lady Mustangs in the championship match, falling 2-0 (14-25, 15-25). The Lady Mustangs earned their way to the championship match by winning their pool by sweeping Henley, Mt. Shasta and Trinity, and then defeating Del Norte in a semi-final match. Del Norte finished fourth, not staying to play the third place match against Henley.

The Etna Lady Lions and Mt. Shasta Lady Bears also advanced from pool play to bracket play. Etna was eliminated by Del Norte, and Mt. Shasta fell to Henley.

Tournament MVP: Bailey Bars, Hidden Valley

All-Tourney

Skyler Fate, Hidden Valley

Alexis Yaple, Yreka

Chelsea White, Yreka

Ellie Morgan, Henley

#1 from Henley (They left before awards were given out)

Marina Gutleben, Etna

Yreka varsity volleyball team. Back row (l-r): Justine Cota, Alexis Yaple, Coach Scott Eastman, Kayla Stonier, Emily Andrus. Front row: Mackenzie Allen, Krista Freeze, Lacie Landrum, Chelsea White, Angela Henson, Ashley Ensminger

Photo by Michelle Freeze

WEAVERVILLE – The last three games between the Yreka Miners and Trinity Wolves were tightly contested. Friday night’s season opener for both squads was a no-doubter, as the Wolves rang up 30 points to the Miners’ zip.

Trinity scored on a 4-yard TD run by Luke Curran , with 2:21 left in the first quarter. Thomas Wagner added the extra point to make it 7-0.

Curran notched his second TD of the night on a 2-yard run, with 7:43 left in the first half.

A 72-yard pass play from Austin Weinzinger to Cody Higgins set the Wolves up with a first-and-goal from the Miner 10-yard-line late in the half. The Miner defense, however, stiffened and forced Trinity to settle for a 27-yard field goal by Wagner with 1:42 left in the second quarter, sending the squads to the intermission, with Trinity up 16-0.

Trinity’s Andrew Berry made it 22-0 on a 5-yard run. With Wagner’s PAT. It was 23-0 with 7:45 left in the third quarter.

Weinzinger hit Kean Everest for a 25-yard TD strike with 3:27 to play in the game. Wagner added the PAT to close out the scoring, 30-0.

The Miners moved the ball well at times, mostly through the air, but were unable to find pay dirt.

Yreka (0-1) travels to Mt. Shasta (0-1) to take on the Bears next Friday. Mt. Shasta fell to Modoc, 27-6 in its season opener. Trinity (1-0) goes to Central Valley next Friday. CV was idle this week.

Nice job ladies!