FHSAA proposal would overhaul football classifications for 2026–28, drawing concern from coaches and ADs

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — The Florida High School Athletic Association’s proposed overhaul of its football classification system for the 2026–27 and 2027–28 school years is setting off strong reactions across the state.

Presented on Wednesday during an FHSAA Board of Directors informational workshop, Executive Director Craig Damon outlined a plan to reduce football to five classifications plus Rural and introduce a two-week district tournament format to determine playoff berths.

While FHSAA officials framed the proposal as a way to simplify scheduling, reduce travel, and restore late-season excitement, coaches and administrators said the plan fails to fix long-standing inequities tied to enrollment-based placement and opaque ranking systems.

---

Background: How the Current System Works

Florida’s current football model features seven classifications plus Rural, a system adopted in 2022 after the end of the Metro/Suburban split. That model was designed to simplify statewide competition and reduce confusion from the previous setup, but wide enrollment gaps and travel demands have remained.

Under the existing structure, 87.5 percent of schools have been able to schedule at least seven non-district games, but nearly one-third of all districts still include only two or three teams — leaving large portions of the schedule to be filled independently.

---

What the Proposal Would Do

Under proposed Policy 12.3.1, the association would eliminate the current 7A–1A structure and shift to 5A–1A plus Rural — six total divisions.

Schools committing to the State Series would be ranked by student enrollment. The smallest school in each group sets the class cutoff, which then stays locked for two years.

The Rural classification remains but adjusts its footprint to reflect today’s participation numbers. FHSAA slides presented Wednesday show 38 schools in the Rural division, even though the policy text lists a minimum of 24 and a baseline of 32. Officials said the larger figure represents expected participants based on current eligibility and REDI criteria.

---

Projected Breakdown by Class

Class	Total Schools	Lowest Enrollment	Highest Enrollment
5A	136	2,102	4,627
4A	136	1,503	2,085
3A	74	1,000	1,492
2A	55	508	996
1A	49	44	492
Rural	38	111	693
Independent	54	—	—

That brings the total number of football-playing programs under the FHSAA umbrella to 542, not 772. The higher figure includes middle schools, JV-only teams and schools without football.

The Rural division represents about 7 percent of active football programs statewide, while 5A and 4A together make up more than half of all FHSAA football membership.

If approved Monday, the new classification system would take effect beginning with the 2026 football season and run through the 2027–28 cycle. Schools would be reclassified using October 2025 enrollment reports, with new districts finalized by spring 2026.

---

How the District Tournament Would Work

The most notable change comes in Policy 13.3.1, which replaces traditional district schedules with post-regular-season district tournaments.

• Weeks 1–9: Teams schedule up to eight games of their choosing.
• After Week 9: The top four teams in each district, based on the official FHSAA/MaxPreps rankings, qualify for the district bracket.
• Week 10: No. 1 hosts No. 4 and No. 2 hosts No. 3.
• Week 11: Winners meet for the District Championship; semifinal losers play each other.
• Non-qualifiers may still schedule independent games.

District champions automatically advance to the State Series; remaining playoff berths are filled by power ranking.

FHSAA officials said this structure will “bring back meaning to the district championship” while preserving scheduling freedom early in the season.

---

Concerns About District Size

For many athletic directors, district size is the proposal’s biggest weakness.

“You want some bigger districts, especially if we’re going to play the district tournament, so to speak, at the end. You can’t do that with two or three teams in a district,” said Wewahitchka athletic director Bobby Johns.

That concern has been echoed by coaches across classifications, who worry that smaller districts could lead to byes or uneven competition within the new two-week tournament structure.

---

Rodgers: Everything Should Be Decided on the Field

Bradford head football coach Jamie Rodgers said via text message that he is not in favor of the current proposal.

“Can’t take 32 when only 40 teams are in the whole class,” Rodgers wrote. “We have to have some people at the committee meeting. I don’t like this proposal.”

Rodgers said his preferred structure would feature 8–10 team districts, with the top four advancing to the playoffs.

“Everything is decided on the field,” he said.

Rodgers’ reaction reflects a growing sentiment among coaches who feel that any new format must prioritize on-field results rather than rankings or uneven class sizes.

---

What Schools Told the FHSAA

According to internal survey results shared at the workshop:

• 85 percent of schools want to keep districts in some form.
• 78 percent favor required contests or structured postseason play within districts.
• District champions should continue to qualify automatically for the playoffs.
• Schools value scheduling autonomy during the regular season.
• Travel reduction and late-season excitement rank among the highest priorities.

The association described its plan as “a hybrid between scheduling freedom and competitive accountability.”

---

Financial Impact

A new Policy 9.10.1.1 would allow district-tournament games to remain financially independent, meaning no percentage of gate revenue would go to the FHSAA. The host and visiting schools would manage profits and expenses locally.

FHSAA’s existing 25 percent cut would still apply to regional and state-semifinal rounds, but the change is intended to keep more dollars at the local level, especially for small or rural schools that depend on football gates to sustain entire athletic budgets.

---

FHSAA’s Case for the Plan

Damon told board members the model promotes geographically practical districts for 5A through 1A and Rural schools, cutting travel and reviving regional rivalries.

The policy also gives the Executive Director discretion to move geographically isolated schools up or down one class to reduce travel.

Yet even some board members questioned whether cutting classes and shifting boundaries truly delivers competitive balance.

While a few board members pressed for clarification on district sizes, class cutoffs, and playoff logistics, several others remained quiet throughout the discussion. The lack of questions from many on the board raised eyebrows among attendees who expected deeper scrutiny ahead of Monday’s scheduled vote.

---

Kenna: Not All Schools Are Created Equal

“1A is beating 7A, 2A is beating 5A,” said FHSAA Board Member Thomas Kenna, challenging the continued reliance on enrollment as the sole measure for classification. “Not all schools are created equal.”

Kenna’s remarks drew nods from several administrators and reflected a growing view among coaches that the state’s biggest inequities now stem from school-choice transfers, resource disparities, and private-school dominance, not raw enrollment counts.

---

Coaches’ Coalition Report Adds Context

A separate executive report released this week by the Florida Coaches Coalition (FCC) and FloridaHSFootball.com, based on responses from 111 head coaches statewide (18.4 percent participation), reinforced the concerns raised by Kenna, Johns, and Rodgers.

Key Findings:

• Competitive imbalance ranked as the No. 1 problem, with coaches calling the current enrollment model outdated and inequitable.
• Performance-based placement or a competitive-balance system was the most requested reform (40 percent).
• District restructuring and travel reduction ranked second (25 percent).
• Transparency in the MaxPreps ranking system followed at 18 percent.
• Coaches supported an Open Division only if it is earned or optional, not mandated.
• Nearly half reported high concern about how rankings affect playoff access.
• Most emphasized that football’s revenue supports all sports; poor classification choices hurt entire programs.

“Smaller schools are fighting battles we were never built for,” one 2A coach said. “When football loses money, every sport on campus feels it,” added a 7A coach.

The report, co-authored by Dr. Andrew Ramjit, FCC Executive Director, and Joshua Wilson, Publisher of FloridaHSFootball.com, calls for reforms that blend competitive equity, transparency, and fiscal stability rather than another purely enrollment-driven realignment.

---

Damon: Ranking Formula Could Change Too

Beyond classifications, Damon acknowledged that the FHSAA’s rating formula, currently powered by MaxPreps, may also be up for revision.

“Our plan is, once we get classifications done, to get together with football coaches at the advisory committee meeting and some others and come up with what we want in our ranking,” Damon said.

That means any new classification model could eventually pair with a revised playoff ranking system, another key demand from the coaching community.

---

Impact of SSAA and Program Shifts

The proposal could also be influenced by schools that choose to compete outside of the FHSAA. The Sunshine State Athletic Association (SSAA) has grown in recent years, adding schools seeking smaller divisions or reduced travel.

That number could continue to change before the 2026–27 cycle. One current Rural program, Dixie County, has already announced it will join the SSAA’s Atlantic League beginning in 2026 — a move that highlights how fluid Florida’s football landscape remains.

Because of those transitions, the total count of participating schools in each classification could fluctuate before realignment is finalized.

---

What Happens Next

Wednesday’s session was an informational workshop, allowing the FHSAA staff to present models and receive feedback before any official vote.

The FHSAA Board of Directors is expected to vote on the proposal at its Monday, Nov. 3, meeting in Gainesville. While the plan could be adopted as presented, board members may still add amendments or defer the decision until a later date.

However, the Board currently has no further meetings scheduled until Feb. 22–23, 2026, meaning a delay could push any classification changes back another full cycle.

The additional Florida Coaches Coalition–FloridaHSFootball.com survey report has also been sent to the FHSAA Board of Directors for review ahead of that meeting.

The FHSAA did not take public comment during Wednesday’s workshop, but several coaches and administrators told FloridaHSFootball.com afterward that the proposal moves too quickly without addressing the core issue of competitive balance.

Whether the plan ultimately simplifies football or deepens existing divides will depend on what version of fairness the Board decides to pursue.

For now, Florida high school football finds itself once again in transition — torn between simplicity on paper and equity on the field.