Yes. JSerra has beaten Oaks 2 out of 3 times this year. They lost to Oaks once in golden goal overtime at South Coast.
I would do the same, except having HW over Loyola. Loyola and HW had a head to head record of 1-1, but HW lost to Mater Dei and Loyola beat Mater Dei. Loyola also finished higher in the South Coast Tournament and the North South Tournament. Loyola as well had multiple 1 goal overtime losses against top Socal and Norcal Teams (Jserra, Costa, De La Salle, etc.) that HW lost to by far more goals.
4 Likes
HW won the Mission League over Loyola.
1 Like
HW won once against Loyola in sudden death and lost once in regulation. Can’t say either is better from just that.
For what it’s worth, Loyola also beat HW in pre-season at the Newport Invite.
All of these are valid arguments and indicative of what should be some good, competitive games.
Wow, Laguna Beach got in as 8 th seed
On a side note, 5 out of 8 teams in Open are Public schools
10 Likes
Very interesting arrangement. You could lose two playoffs games and still emerge as the champion. You could go 1-2 in Pool Play, then go on a three game winning streak – win the cross-over, semi-final and final – and capture the title. Also, all teams get at least three games, and two teams could potentially play as many as six.
It’s confusing but I think I like it. I never liked the fact that an Open Division qualifier could be one-and-done.
1 Like
One can argue Loyola should have been the 8th seed especially considering their strength of schedule the entire year!
But new format will be a better one giving every team a fighting chance with multiple playoff games. Newport must be the clear favorite that might face SM or CDM in the finals!
1 Like
Correct, that 6 games scenario, could happen with the winner in that crossover game between 2nd in B vs 3rd in A, which could very well then win their semi, and meet Newport in Final. Very interesting back door opportunity
1 Like
i agree that Loyola should be 8
3 Likes
Last year, on the girls side, Open division was originally going to be played this way, and then they silently changed it, to where the winner of group A met the winner of group B in the finals
1 Like
Also because of this 6 gams scenario, Open Div starts before the other divisions this year, where in the past Open usually starts last, since it only went 3 rounds
Really like the new CIF Open format — great move giving teams more guaranteed games and making pool play more exciting. But if I’m getting this right, 2nd-place teams might end up facing their own pool winners again in the semis (like Oaks-Newport or CDM-SM), unless of course the 3rd-place team from the opposite pool pulls an upset. Would’ve been even better if it was a true crossover so everyone gets new matchups before the finals. That way, every advancing team gets a chance to play someone new, and the only possible repeat would be in the finals — where it truly feels earned. Hope that makes sense — just feels like a small tweak could make an already great format even better but love the step towards the right direction.
5 Likes
I thought the same thing when I saw the cross-over but looks like SS sided going with the likely 1v4 and 2v3 in the semis. Otherwise the 2 gets the 4th seed and 1 plays the 3rd, assuming chalk holds.
Great adjustment to the format and rewarding the Open teams with many more games. Good move.
1 Like
I like the pool play aspect of the Open Division, but isn’t there a flaw in the cross over? You can be the high seed in your pool, go undefeated in your pool, and then end of playing the team you just beat (who finished second in your pool) in the semis. There shouldn’t be a play-in in an eight team field. It actually cheapens the results of pool play.
Using the Open Division Pool A as an example (same holds true for Pool B). Newport could win all games in its pool, Oaks finishes 2nd and plays 3rd place in Pool B. Oaks wins and advances to the semis against….Newport, who beat them 7 days earlier.
Do a play-in for a field of 16. Otherwise, award points for wins, overtime wins, overtime losses and losses, and those with the high points meet in the finals.
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read CAWP’s post earlier; your comment is almost an exact duplicate sentiment of CAWP 
Totally agree though — love the new CIF Open format and the direction it’s heading, but there’s definitely a flaw in the crossover.
It could really come into play for Pool B where CDM and SM are so evenly matched. It’s tough for any team to beat the same opponent twice in a row, especially in the playoffs. Might be a real heartbreak brewing in Pool B!
I don’t really understand the need for pool play at this point in a season. Not only does it not make sense to me from a practical/logical standpoint, but also takes some of the excitement away.
I’m not surprised though. CIF has made some head scratching decisions in the last 10 or so years or so. Two examples that come to mind: the regional tournaments that make zero sense the way they’re structured. And the power ranking in San Diego, which from my understanding were only implemented to appease football. Water polo had to implement “the advisory committee” or whatever it’s called to reinstate manual input because the power ranking sucked.
What other sport uses pool play for the playoffs? All the major pro and college sports are single elimination playoffs right? Was the single elimination format more “broken” than this to the point it “needed” to be fixed? And there’s the caveat that Suncreen threw in there where teams may play the same team twice in the same playoffs? This isn’t JO’s; there are only 8 teams.
As an example to why this format lacks excitement in my opinion: Laguna Beach could beat Newport and still lose their pool. You’re telling me the 8 seed can beat the 1 seed in the playoffs and still go home? It doesn’t seem fun or reasonable. I think winner should move forward, loser is done.
Curious to hear from those who like this format as to why they like it. More games? Ok. Still, if I’m a low seed and win vs the higher seed, I’d rather just advance to the next round. If the higher seed loses, well, I don’t think they deserve a mulligan.
5 Likes