It used to be that way.... There used to be a "Play In" Game for the open spot in both Nor Cal and So Cal.... But after 2 tremendous beat down of Folsom by DLS in those games, Folsom and the SJS section Commissioner lobbied the CIF to change the rules so the #2 team in Nor Cal wouldn't have to play DLS to go to the Open so Folsom and their Golden Boy QB Jake Browning wouldn't go all 3 years without playing in a SBG....

So now in Nor Cal the Open Rep is Chosen by Ranking, Committee etc.... It truly is a stupid format, their should be a true Nor Cal Championship game but there are 4 different Sections that would have to agree with it and it doesn't benefit any of them to make that happen because what they all want is to move as many teams as possible from their sections forward to Regional Play in games....

So cal is different because all the best teams and Leagues are in The Southern Section and the San Diego section doesn't care about plying in The Open game, they are happy with playing for D1AA against the SSD2 winner.... So it is cleaner down there...

AKA: The Folsom Rule

I thought you were better than this, but I was wrong.

Sense of entitlement... just like I said.

Question for some of you Cali guys. I notice some of the open section runner ups (Pittsburg, SM Serra) played an additional game this weekend. Why don't some of those winners (DLS, Folsom, Riordan) play to see who truly should play RSM for the state title?

Most of what you'll read here from others on this is urban legend.  There's no proof that the Folsom program had anything to do with this change.  The facts of the matter is that when this was put up for a vote, all 10 CIF sections voted to eliminate the Open regional game.  All 10, not just the SJS. 

For years, the SS had been trying to figure out how to place their top teams in one playoff division.  By switching to an in-year evaluation via calpreps/hsratings, they were finally able to do that.  By virtue of that, they also eliminated any possibility (or need) of an Open regional in SoCal.  SS D-I was obviously going to be a lot better than SS D-II, LA City Section teams can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, so that only leaves San Diego Section Open champ as a possible candidate.  Would the SDS choose to eliminate its top team by having them play the SS D-I winner or take their chances against SS D-II.  Easy answer, right?  Given the fact that not a single SDS team has challenged either Mater Dei or St. John Bosco in non-league, it's clear where their stance is.

Several sections have formatted their playoffs to get as many quality teams (or just teams, in general) to state bowl playoffs as possible.  The North Coast and Central Coast sections found a work around the rules to allow their respective #2 teams to advance.  The Sac-Joaquin eliminated a rule that forced traditional D-I league champs into the D-I playoffs (this applies D-II champ St. Mary's this year), and others have far too many divisions for the size of their sections (i.e., NCS, LACS, SDS, Central Section).

So, no, it wasn't one section (and certainly not one team) that thought this was a good idea.  Yes, the idea did originate from the SJS commissioner at the time, but all ideas have to start somewhere.  In fact, the concept of bringing back state playoffs also originated from the same SJS dude.

Many in NorCal still annually bitch about this and call for it to return at least in the north.  That, of course, would be ridiculous because it certainly isn't going to come back in the south and you can't have two sets of rules for a statewide system.  The three big NorCal sections clearly want no part of it, either.

As for Folsom, they've been eliminated in the D-1AA regional game pretty much as much as they've advanced from it.

Most of what you'll read here from others on this is urban legend.  There's no proof that the Folsom program had anything to do with this change.  The facts of the matter is that when this was put up for a vote, all 10 CIF sections voted to eliminate the Open regional game.  All 10, not just the SJS. 

For years, the SS had been trying to figure out how to place their top teams in one playoff division.  By switching to an in-year evaluation via calpreps/hsratings, they were finally able to do that.  By virtue of that, they also eliminated any possibility (or need) of an Open regional in SoCal.  SS D-I was obviously going to be a lot better than SS D-II, LA City Section teams can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, so that only leaves San Diego Section Open champ as a possible candidate.  Would the SDS choose to eliminate its top team by having them play the SS D-I winner or take their chances against SS D-II.  Easy answer, right?  Given the fact that not a single SDS team has challenged either Mater Dei or St. John Bosco in non-league, it's clear where their stance is.

Several sections have formatted their playoffs to get as many quality teams (or just teams, in general) to state bowl playoffs as possible.  The North Coast and Central Coast sections found a work around the rules to allow their respective #2 teams to advance.  The Sac-Joaquin eliminated a rule that forced traditional D-I league champs into the D-I playoffs (this applies D-II champ St. Mary's this year), and others have far too many divisions for the size of their sections (i.e., NCS, LACS, SDS, Central Section).

So, no, it wasn't one section (and certainly not one team) that thought this was a good idea.  Yes, the idea did originate from the SJS commissioner at the time, but all ideas have to start somewhere.  In fact, the concept of bringing back state playoffs also originated from the same SJS dude.

Many in NorCal still annually bitch about this and call for it to return at least in the north.  That, of course, would be ridiculous because it certainly isn't going to come back in the south and you can't have two sets of rules for a statewide system.  The three big NorCal sections clearly want no part of it, either.

As for Folsom, they've been eliminated in the D-1AA regional game pretty much as much as they've advanced from it.

When this rule was first announced  Cal-hi posted that the SJS commissioner told him it was for Folsom then he immediately took it down off the site.
 What do you mean you can't have two sets of rules for statewide playoffs? Is Pittsburg still playing after losing? Does any section in the south do this?

Most of what you'll read here from others on this is urban legend.  There's no proof that the Folsom program had anything to do with this change.  The facts of the matter is that when this was put up for a vote, all 10 CIF sections voted to eliminate the Open regional game.  All 10, not just the SJS. 

For years, the SS had been trying to figure out how to place their top teams in one playoff division.  By switching to an in-year evaluation via calpreps/hsratings, they were finally able to do that.  By virtue of that, they also eliminated any possibility (or need) of an Open regional in SoCal.  SS D-I was obviously going to be a lot better than SS D-II, LA City Section teams can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, so that only leaves San Diego Section Open champ as a possible candidate.  Would the SDS choose to eliminate its top team by having them play the SS D-I winner or take their chances against SS D-II.  Easy answer, right?  Given the fact that not a single SDS team has challenged either Mater Dei or St. John Bosco in non-league, it's clear where their stance is.

Several sections have formatted their playoffs to get as many quality teams (or just teams, in general) to state bowl playoffs as possible.  The North Coast and Central Coast sections found a work around the rules to allow their respective #2 teams to advance.  The Sac-Joaquin eliminated a rule that forced traditional D-I league champs into the D-I playoffs (this applies D-II champ St. Mary's this year), and others have far too many divisions for the size of their sections (i.e., NCS, LACS, SDS, Central Section).

So, no, it wasn't one section (and certainly not one team) that thought this was a good idea.  Yes, the idea did originate from the SJS commissioner at the time, but all ideas have to start somewhere.  In fact, the concept of bringing back state playoffs also originated from the same SJS dude.

Many in NorCal still annually bitch about this and call for it to return at least in the north.  That, of course, would be ridiculous because it certainly isn't going to come back in the south and you can't have two sets of rules for a statewide system.  The three big NorCal sections clearly want no part of it, either.

As for Folsom, they've been eliminated in the D-1AA regional game pretty much as much as they've advanced from it.

Dang why do you have to go and ruin a great legendary story with some truth. lol

When this rule was first announced  Cal-hi posted that the SJS commissioner told him it was for Folsom then he immediately took it down off the site.
 What do you mean you can't have two sets of rules for statewide playoffs? Is Pittsburg still playing after losing? Does any section in the south do this?

Totally forgot you frequent the NorCal board. lol. I totally forgot about all that went down back when the decision was made.  Every story has an origin and I am not 100% sure but pretty close that it started with Folsom and then the rest eventually started to agree for whatever their reasons were.  Still. I really wish it had not gone away. So many great matchups that could have been had. Hopefully they revert back and bring it back in.

Totally forgot you frequent the NorCal board. lol. I totally forgot about all that went down back when the decision was made.  Every story has an origin and I am not 100% sure but pretty close that it started with Folsom and then the rest eventually started to agree for whatever their reasons were.  Still. I really wish it had not gone away. So many great matchups that could have been had. Hopefully they revert back and bring it back in.

There was an Article posted Several times on the Old Nor Cal Boatd detailing it all.... It came from Folsom and The SJS commissioner "Who worked Closely Together to Come up with an Alternative Plan so the 2nd best team wouldn't be eliminated".... I believe that was the Quote.... Plus Folsoms Coaches, Administrators and Fans were quoted and it was Folsom fans calling the Section Commissioners office complaining.... Make no mistake, Folsom had their hands all over it.... 🤣

When this rule was first announced  Cal-hi posted that the SJS commissioner told him it was for Folsom then he immediately took it down off the site.
 What do you mean you can't have two sets of rules for statewide playoffs? Is Pittsburg still playing after losing? Does any section in the south do this?

Totally agree, if Nor Cal's sections can operate differently then why can't Nor Cal have a Play in game without So Cal Having one?.... And why are San Diego and LA City Section Playoffs different than the Southern Section....

The Bottom line is the Sections in Nor Cal just don't want it.... It's one less team one of the sections won't get into a Regional game and that's really the answer.... 🤣

[North Coast Section]

When this rule was first announced  Cal-hi posted that the SJS commissioner told him it was for Folsom then he immediately took it down off the site.
 What do you mean you can't have two sets of rules for statewide playoffs? Is Pittsburg still playing after losing? Does any section in the south do this?

Documentation or it didn't happen.

Even if it did, that doesn't mean that the Folsom program itself had anything to do with it.

As for the rule that North Coast Section has, that has no bearing on what the CIF sets up statewide. 

There was an Article posted Several times on the Old Nor Cal Boatd detailing it all.... It came from Folsom and The SJS commissioner "Who worked Closely Together to Come up with an Alternative Plan so the 2nd best team wouldn't be eliminated".... I believe that was the Quote.... Plus Folsoms Coaches, Administrators and Fans were quoted and it was Folsom fans calling the Section Commissioners office complaining.... Make no mistake, Folsom had their hands all over it.... 🤣

Again, documentation or it didn't happen.

[North Coast Section]

Documentation or it didn't happen.

Even if it did, that doesn't mean that the Folsom program itself had anything to do with it.

As for the rule that North Coast Section has, that has no bearing on what the CIF sets up statewide. 

Document that it didn't happen
Everyone knows why it happened
For some reason you feel a need to protect Folsom
Without the Folsom rule they most likely would not have been in any SBG at all

[North Coast Section]

Documentation or it didn't happen.

Even if it did, that doesn't mean that the Folsom program itself had anything to do with it.

As for the rule that North Coast Section has, that has no bearing on what the CIF sets up statewide. 

You know it was there, you read it just like everyone else did....

Also that rule the NORTH COAST Section has is the Same rule Your CENTRAL COAST Section has.... So Again, multiple sections have different rules.... 🤣

So Again, if the CIF allows different sections to have different rules for how teams move on, there is no reason that Nor Cal and So Cal can't have different rules for how the Open Rep is chosen due to the variability of the sections within the Regions....

The reason it won't happen is because the Sections in Nor Cal don't want it to happen....

[section]

You know it was there, you read it just like everyone else did....

Also that rule the NORTH COAST Section has is the Same rule Your CENTRAL COAST Section has.... So Again, multiple sections have different rules.... 🤣

So Again, if the CIF allows different sections to have different rules for how teams move on, there is no reason that Nor Cal and So Cal can't have different rules for how the Open Rep is chosen due to the variability of the sections within the Regions....

The reason it won't happen is because the Sections in Nor Cal don't want it to happen....

Does this really have to be spelled out for you?

Each section runs their own sectional playoffs in the manner they choose.

The CIF hosts the state playoffs and sets the rules for the state playoffs. 

As in, the sectional and state playoffs are not the same thing!

Document that it didn't happen

The burden of proof lies with those making the accusation.

Everyone knows why it happened

Certain populations also "know" that the lunar landing didn't happen.

But I guess the rest of us, for some reason, have a need to protect NASA.

For some reason you feel a need to protect Folsom

I'm a scientist.  I deal with facts, not hearsay.  I don't really particularly care for the program.  I hope Riordan clobbers them tomorrow night.

It's you guys that have a stick up your butts about them.

Without the Folsom rule they most likely would not have been in any SBG at all

Ignoring the fact that they had already participated in one before the regional games even existed.

The burden of proof lies with those making the accusation.

And you've claimed the rule has nothing to do with Folsom.Burdens in your court



I'm a scientist.  I deal with facts, not hearsay.  I don't really particularly care for the program.  I hope Riordan clobbers them tomorrow night.

It's you guys that have a stick up your butts about them.

Really? Because you have no proof the rule wasn't made for Folsom but you run with that narrative

Ignoring the fact that they had already participated in one before the regional games even existed.

Ok 1 SBG.No single team has benefited more than Folsom since the rule went into effect hence "the Folsom rule "