Birmingham or Centennial?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
There was a flurry of activity through The Times’ message system when the subject of Birmingham’s 28-21 victory over Sherman Oaks Notre Dame came up Friday morning. First, it was about rankings. Then, at my nudging, it was about the Division I State Bowl Championship game.
A few scenarios were tossed around, including this one:
- Mater Dei beats Corona Centennial in a close game, then both run the table.
- Birmingham, which has lost to Crespi (which lost badly to Centennial) runs the table.
It was pointed out this was only Week 3. Since I’ve got a blog quota, I’ll take my subject matter anywhere I can get it, even if it’s 10 weeks too soon.
This means that the selection committee could have to choose between Birmingham, which would be riding a 13-game winning streak, and Centennial for the Division I berth.
The committee would be faced with the task of choosing an L.A. City team -- and we have to believe that the selection committee would love to have a City team -- or one from the Inland Empire that (thus far, anyway) has been nothing but impressive.
Unlike Riverside North, which went undefeated and was passed over in favor of once-beaten Canyon Country Canyon, Centennial has played a schedule worthy of vying for the state bowl title, and it has a strength-of-schedule advantage over Birmingham too.
If either Birmingham or Centennial were to be chosen to play the North representative, each would have strong rooting interests in the Pac-5 Division. Birmingham will/should be pulling for Notre Dame to win the championship, while Centennial will be pulling for Mater Dei or Crespi.
If Centennial beats Mater Dei and goes undefeated, the whole discussion should be moot.
There is one school of thought that the Pac-5 champion should be in the state bowl. But this year, it shouldn’t be automatic. Not if Birmingham and Centennial continue to win.
- Martin Henderson