TO BE OR NOT TO BE HOME
In the politically-correct world that we live in, I'd thought I'd share a thought on what seems to be the politically-correct CIF playoffs.
The system is the way it is, but does anyone else ever find it amusing that teams that earn top-four seeds have to, more times than not, go on the road to face a lesser opponent in the second, quarterfinal and perhaps even the semifinals?
What does being a No. 1 seed get you? Sometimes a first-round bye, but mostly a cupcake in the first round.
Isn't it about time that teams with better records get rewarded throughout the playoffs?
For example; Muir, a No. 2 seed in the Division I-A girls basketball playoffs, traveled to Cerritos and Riverside King before facing Mira Costa in the semifinals at Pasadena High School.
In other words, the Mustangs got to play one game on their home floor the entire playoffs. Even better, had Mira Costa gotten upset by Canyon Springs, the Mustangs would have had to travel again.
In girls soccer, Maranatha had to go on the road to play against Torrance, a team with a lesser record. On a field that looked like a tornado ripped through leaving little grass and mostly mud, and with intense coastal winds, the Minutemen got blown out of the postseason.
Some sports, it doesn't matter who the home team is, but I think it's time to reward the top teams and give the teams with either the best record or the best league finish, the home game.
5 Comments
Leave a comment
About this blog
|
|
Melendez worked as a correspondent for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune for three years and later landed a job as a freelance writer at the Los Angeles Times before accepting an offer at The Orange County Register covering high schools. Melendez covered Major League Soccer at The Register for three years before being promoted to report on the Lakers, Angels and Dodgers for the Web. Melendez also worked for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Fresno Bee, Oakland Tribune and The Boston Globe. E-mail opinions, suggestions and tips to miguel.melendez@sgvn.com. |
To expand on what goteamgo said, Verbum Dei played 3 straight playoff games in 2006 at Centennial High. They beat TC, then Duarte, then La Salle. Coin flips went in Verbum Dei's favor that year.
That being said, I know that they outplayed TC. I personally saw them just walk all over Duarte, and was also at the La Salle game, where Verbum Dei played well enough to win. The field was in good shape, and the Verbum Dei fans were not a problem at all.
goteamgo,
That is an even blatant example of things not making sense.
Gotmego: That's the perfect example.
I agree - winning or winning league does not seem to give you a reward. Also, what is the definition of "neutral field"? If a school does not have an on-campus stadium, then every field is a neutral field?
When La Salle had their run to the CIF finals in 2006, they played Verbum Dei, who finished second in league behind La Salle, and who La Salle defeated during the season. Under the CIF rules, the game was to be played at a "neutral field" of Verbum Dei's choosing. VD has no on campus stadium, so the game was played at Centennial High, which just happens to be where they play their home games. That was my first year in high school football, and I am still trying to figure that out.
Tough topic...why should the better teams get an easier road to the championship? Why isn't every game played at a neutral location? Logistical nightmare? Probably.
There should definitely be more equity in road vs home games, though. I think when Monrovia football played at Paso Robles in the 1998 CIF championship it was Paso's third game on their HOME field. Our AD should have put his foot down and demanded more neutrality, at least at some other field up north. I think individuals forfeit forfeit a lot of negotiating power because of the tradition of abiding by the CIF's decisions.