One of the first thing that jumps out when you look at the Division II football playoff bracket is a little note in the section semifinal area.

It tells us that "if No. 2 seeded Rocklin and No. 3 Grant both reach that round, the game will be played a a neutral site."

That might be puzzling to most of us, as the higher seeded team is supposed to get a home game in that round. To the initial view, it would seem that Rocklin is possibly going to be denied a home game, but with the way it came down, that is not exactly true.

I contacted the section office for some clarification on this decision and I got some answers by section communications director, Will DeBoard.

"On Rocklin-Grant, this decision was strictly borne out of the fact that we had three 10-0 teams in the bracket, which means there could potentially be two 10-0 teams playing each other in the semifinals," DeBoard said. "On one side you had Rocklin, which went 10-0 against a tougher schedule. On the other is Grant, which is ranked considerably higher than Rocklin in pretty much every state ranking list. Grant is also ranked nationally and is the defending state open division champion. Moving Grant ahead of Rocklin in the seedings was a definite possibility, as was leaving Rocklin at two and Grant at three."

Faced with the primary guideline that strength-of-schedule would make Rocklin the higher seed, but with the option to make an adjustment based on Grant's rankings in various polls, section commissioner Pete Saco decided to contact the schools.

"Saturday afternoon, as we were hashing out the brackets, Pete (Saco) came up with the idea of holding that game at a neutral site, but he wanted to talk to both sides first," DeBoard said. "He got the Grant and Rocklin head coaches on a conference call and asked them – without telling them what seed they would be – if they would agree to holding this game, if it were to happen, at a neutral site. He assured them it would not be at one of their league opponents’ stadiums. They both agreed, as long as the game was played on artificial turf."

The stipulation to play the game on a turf field was requested by Greg Benzel and Mike Alberghini, and while the section agreed to work in that direction, Saco contacted us later to confirm that it is not guaranteed. They will try to put the game on a field with turf, but are not locked into that option.

In the end, it seems the desire to equalize the advantage for all three unbeaten teams in the field was the driver for the decision to make this a neutral site game, assuming the two teams win the games to make the matchup happen.

-kurtj@goldcountrymedia.com