2016 CIF-SS Football Division Playoff Groupings

vaun

The CIF Southern Section released its new playoff division groupings for the 2016 football season Thursday. Below is where area teams were placed.
The CIF-SS also released playoff groupings for girls volleyball, boys water polo and girls tennis.
HERE’S THE FULL STORY: Arguably the most important news of the season came early for local high school football teams on Friday when the CIF Southern Section released its playoff groupings for the upcoming season two months sooner than expected.Originally, teams thought they’d be getting their divisional assignments in August, but given that this is the first year CIF-SS is using a playoff groupings system that uses competitive equity as its only deciding factor, the Southern Section felt it necessary to get the jump on any potential mistakes.“The sooner it’s out there, the more time we have until August to fix anything we don’t know of,” CIF-SS Director of Information Thom Simmons said. “We feel pretty confident that we have with football is going to be the final version. But I can’t say that until August, when, via the bylaws, we stated we will be releasing the final version.”
DIVISION 1
Bishop Amat
DIVISION 2
La Habra
DIVISION 3
St. Francis
La Serna
La Mirada
DIVISION 4
Charter Oak
Glendora
Damien
DIVISION 5
Sonora
DIVISION 6
West Covina
San Marino
Bonita
Los Altos
DIVISION 7
Diamond Ranch
South Hills
Monrovia
St. Paul
DIVISION 8
San Dimas
Northview
DIVISION 9
La Salle
El Rancho
Maranatha
California
Muir
Diamond Bar
DIVISION 10
Whittier
Santa Fe
Pasadena Poly
South Pasadena
DIVISION 11
Pioneer
Covina
Pasadena
Montebello
Arcadia
Rosemead
DIVISION 12
Schurr
Walnut
La Canada
Arroyo
Baldwin Park
Whittier Christian
Bassett
DIVISION 13
Rio Hondo Prep
Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary
Rowland
Temple City
Azusa
El Monte
La Puente
Nogales
Alhambra
South El Monte
HH Wilson
Southlands Christian
Gabrielino
Blair
Mountain View
Sierra Vista
San Gabriel
Gladstone
Duarte
Bosco Tech
Keppel
Workman
Marshall

Facebook Twitter Plusone Digg Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email
  • OnBLUE

    Division 1 football says goodbye to SO Notre Dame, Crespi, Oaks Christian, Norco, Redlands East Valley, and St. Bonaventure. It says hello to Rancho Cucamonga and Upland. I’m not sure how I feel about this…hmmm…

    • Valley Athletics

      Strength of preseason schedule , strength of league and final rankings by cal preps have to do a lot with placement . Playing top division 1 teams and losing gives you more points than beating average middle of the road D-2 teams . Oaks played teams like Venice and Birmingham . Plus there league was weak .Amats schedule will keep them in D-1 even with a Bad record .

  • SGV Football Historian

    Division 13 makes no sense. Full of “schools on the mend” (not sure how else to put that), but 84 teams for 16 spots. Other divisions have 22 Teams for 16 spots…not sure I quite get it. I really don’t care if they broke that up again three times. Why not? Who cares if another team wins the Division XIII AA Title? More money for CIF and a few more champions….Look at the breakdown here. That bracket may not have a winning record qualify. Team X Wins a CIF Title going 5 and 9 on the season? It is already a problem at that level of play anyway. The rest of the field looks reasonable although I just DO NOT LIKE that the divisions are not balanced in terms of number of teams.

    • Wells

      SGV — A team must still qualify for the playoffs by finishing in the top half of their league. In essence, CIF is saying that they do not think that very many of those teams will even qualify for the playoffs.

      It is very possible that the 84 teams might be reduced to less than 16 automatic qualifiers once the season is over.

      • SGV Football Historian

        I get that….it will be interesting to see how many will meet the criteria…

        • Wells

          It surely will be interesting. CIF is taking an educated risk. Most of those teams rarely have a chance at the playoffs. What if 30 teams all qualify and they can only take 16 of them? A huge flaw in this new system (designed to correct previous flaws) would be identified in year #1.

          • SGV Football Historian

            That was my point/thoughts initially. Not that I have the time to research, but may at some point look at those teams to see how many would have qualified. Good times….

          • Wells

            Even for a “Historian,” checking the league records of 80+ teams is a daunting task.

            I would have favored more regional championships. This new system did nothing to help schools avoid long bus rides through Friday traffic.

          • old, fat, blind REF

            the idea of regional champs would be great, but where do you draw the line at making someone play UP?

          • Wells

            I happen to think that there are far to many different skill levels. However, there are some teams that are very solid teams that have no business playing against much stronger opponents.

            Currently, there are 13 divisions. There can be an open division — the best 16 teams from the entire section. Then, create six geographic boundaries. Within each boundary have a large (or stronger) school champion and a small school champion. Divide the two sections by enrollment. If a school chooses to play up, or CIF deems that the school must play up based upon past performance, then they play in the better division within the geographic boundary.

            I know fans would like the idea of a more geographic division since there are built in rivalries. As a coach, I like it since we played in a division one year where we could have traveled to Indio on Tuesday then Santa Maria on Thursday. It didn’t make much sense.

  • GO BIG BLUE

    Need a current picture. Someone from 2016