I was excited and proud for my home state in 2006 when the
California Interscholastic Federation revived the state football
championships after a 79-year hiatus. It was far too late for me to
take part in them, not that my team would have had much of a chance
coming from a public high school in Orange County that started guys
like me. But it was nice knowing some lucky kids would.
I was excited and proud for my home state in 2006 when the California Interscholastic Federation revived the state football championships after a 79-year hiatus.
It was far too late for me to take part in them, not that my team would have had much of a chance coming from a public high school in Orange County that started guys like me. But it was nice knowing some lucky kids would.
California should have a state champion in football. The fact that it didn’t between 1927-2006 made me envious of all my friends growing up in Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania — heck, even New Hampshire.
We used to argue over which state had the best high school football. Their teams’ biggest goal was state. Mine was a section of a state; one of 10 to be exact, and a small one at that. Actually, it was one of five divisions in 10 sections of a state. So even if you were the best, you were one in 50 … in California.
Forget it.
The satisfaction I felt in 2006 washed over me again April 29 when the CIF Federated Council approved expanding its playoffs again to include regional championships. Starting in 2012, invites to the state bowl games will be decided by the players unlike the existing process, which relies on a 10-person selection committee. The Northern and Southern regional champions in each division will square off for a trip to state.
By doing this, the CIF has created the optimal postseason format for a state as large and compartmentalized as California.
I am as much in favor of and opposed to the current format as I am for the Bowl Championship Series. For all the good it brings to California high school football, it does leave open the argument it caters to traditional powers in metropolitan parts of the state — Los Angeles, San Diego, the Bay Area, Sacramento.
Or as CIF executive director Marie Ishida told the Oakland Tribune:
“The committee realized, and I think some of the commissioners realized that there are certain sections and maybe certain parts of our state that may never get the opportunity to be in a bowl game unless they play their way in, simply because of where they are located and who surrounds them.”
The downside to the new regional system is the possibility of teams playing as many as 16 games (like the Raiders and 49ers), a move that will likely draw criticism at a time when NFL players and owners are adamantly opposed to expanding their regular season out of concern for players’ long-term well being.
Serious injuries happen at all levels of the game. Should high school players be at risk to them for 16 games a year? That debate can be quelled simply by shortening non-league play. What matters is the rest of the season, the race for conference, section, region and state titles.
And that every kid can be lucky enough to play for them.
