gatorman-uf

Take the 32 very best teams in Florida over the past four years, teams that are state champions or regional champions of this type. Those are the teams in 6A. Teams that were consistently 2nd or 3rd round teams; they become your 5A teams. Every two years, we would promote/relegate in football. You would take the 4 worst teams in 6A and send them down (teams 28-32), and we would move up the 4 very best teams from 5A or teams (33-36). So I am not sure how good teams would be promoted over elite teams. We are talking the 4 worst out of 32, and the 4 best of 32. So we aren't talking one good season will promote you up. And yes, large schools could move all the way down to 1A, but they are moving down to 1A because they aren't good. Take one of the worst 4A teams in the state (Jacksonville Englewood). They lost to Paxon, Wolfson, and Stanton. Three solely IB schools. Englewood isn't good. Do you really think the average 1A school would be scared to play them because they are a 4A or complain because they had to play them? Remember the purpose of promotion and relegation is get good schools playing good schools and bad schools playing bad schools. As teams diminish and rise, allowing them to face similar types of teams.

Biggest upset since Berkley Prep defeated Miami Norland? Did anybody really see this coming?

The easiest answer is to use a four-year rolling average of teams from the MaxPreps rankings (power points). That way, if a team in 3A has one excellent year, but three below-average years, they might move up, but they probably won't. If that same team is in the regional finals every year, despite not winning a state title, that consistency means they are ready to move up in my opinion. You are moving about 10% up and down, which means you have to be elite in your classification or at the bottom of your classification. Classes would become smaller at the top of the pyramid and larger at the bottom. Thus, to play with the elite teams, it is hard to get there. 32-32-64-64-128-128. The 128 team classifications would allow many of these SSIAA schools to face similar type programs. If a team is "recruiting" then their success will force them to move up and away from other teams who don't do that.

The fact that the FHSAA doesn't even consider a system based on rankings (and not school size) is beyond me. I have been proposing a promotion/relegation system for over 10 years, because the problems are plain enough. What strikes me as odd with the movement of teams out of the FHSAA is that it isn't just bad small publics, but rural schools as well. The rural schools that don't play Bolles or Chaminade-Madonna. Rural schools that are running from playing Hawthorne, Madison County, and Blountstown.

Andrew Thomas to Dixie County https://www.wcjb.com/2025/12/05/dixie-county-hires-andrew-thomas-head-football-coach-after-controversial-firing/

Keystone Heights. https://www.jacksonville.com/story/sports/high-school/football/2025/11/24/keystone-heights-football-coaching-change-steve-reynolds-out/87436494007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z115901p000350c000350d00----v115901b0059xxd005965&gca-ft=181&gca-ds=sophi

Wouldn't that be expected in any situation where we are seeding teams? Like the gap between a #1 and #8 is supposed to be big. If that continues in the 2nd round or the state finals, I think that is the bigger problem. And no, I am not suggesting that the system is good. For than 10 years, I have suggested that we do a classification system based on previous seasons' success rather than population.

I have not paid attention, but are you saying the FHSAA paid someone 250K to come up with that plan? Please tell me I am misreading that.

I don't care what we call the classifications, but the goal (at least in this thread) is to create competitive games. I don't think they're loser divisions. They are competitively balanced classifications. Call them 2A Champions, Silver, or Platinum, but the goal remains that classifications based purely on size don't work. Coaches currently don't love an OPEN division because it happens after the regular season. In other words, you have a great season, have high hopes of making it the final four for the first time in 25+ seasons, and now you are playing Chaminade Madonna and St Thomas Aquinas in Round 1 when you're championship-bound. If you know from the beginning that you will be in the 7A grouping, you have the ability to have realistic expectations of what your season might be. Yes, districts will be bigger and travel will increase (for 5A and 4A). For 3A and 2A classifications, district travel would decrease because we no longer have to worry about size. A 600-student school and a 2400-student school could both play in the same district, even though they wouldn't have in the past. And last year's 1-9 team could be 8-2. Schedules change, coaches change. The purpose of using a 4-year average (with reclassifications every 2 years) would be to allow teams to move up or down slowly. The idea that one bad season drops you several classes doesn't sit well. Maybe it was a fluke, perhaps the schedule was more demanding, or maybe it was injuries or graduation. So yeah, if everyone around you is doing well, you might have to drop to become more competitive. Or maybe you are a 5-5 team but have a magical run for 1 season —you wouldn't automatically move. It is a sustained imbalance that would move you up or down, not just one bad season. The problem with classifying based on transfers is that our wonderful state government doesn't care about transfers; they think transfers are perfectly fine and are great, as they believe in "school choice" at all costs. A system that would punish schools for getting transfers would probably not fly with them. Additionally, not all transfers are equal. If you get the 3rd string sophomore QB from the cross-town rival, he now counts towards that number. ______________ Promotion/Relegation allows schools and communities to choose how committed they are to a sport or how they want to build their team. If a school consistently has net transfers out, that sucks. But at least they play other schools that would also be net negatives. If you are a school that doesn't get transfers, that needs to be ok as well. If a school wants to get 22 transfers in so that they could move up classifications, let them.

My solution: Promotion/Relegation System Class 7A: Top 32 over the past 4 years (use MaxPreps/Laz, but not the FHSAA system), requires seven games against other 7A opponents. All teams make the playoffs Class 6A: Next 32 over the past 4 years (use MaxPreps/Laz, but not the FHSAA system), require seven games against other 7A opponents. All teams make the playoffs Class 5A: Next 64 teams, eight districts of 8 teams, top 4 district records make the playoffs. Class 4A: Next 64 teams, eight districts of 8 teams, top 4 district records make the playoffs. Class 3A: Next 128 teams, 16 districts of 8 teams, District Champ/Runner-up or District Champ and Wildcards Class 2A: Next 128 teams, 16 districts of 8 teams, District Champ/Runner-up or District Champ and Wildcards Class 1A: Rural The bottom 4, 4, 8, 8, and 16 teams move down from 7A-3A every 2 years based on their 4-year rolling average. The top 4, 8, and 16 teams move up from 6A to 2A every 2 years based on their 4-year rolling average. Size is not the most important factor; skill is. Allows teams of relative ability to play each other. Allows teams to still play local rivalry games, out-of-state games, or money games.

Simple Solution: Class 6A: Top 32 ranked teams (over the past 4 years according to MaxPreps) Class 5A: Next 32 ranked teams Teams must play 7 games (or 70%, whichever is lower) against teams in their classification. All 32 teams make the playoffs, seeded by the FHSAA. This allows teams to play a national schedule or just a couple of local moneymakers/rivalry games. Class 4A and 3A Next 64 and the Next 64 after that (Max Preps rank over 4 years) Put them in 8 districts of 8 teams, play 7 district games, and let the top 4 teams in each district advance to the playoffs. Class 2A and 1A (128 teams each, with 1A getting any teams beyond 128). 16 districts of 8 teams, top 1 or 2 (make the playoffs). Rural remains unchanged, but the FHSAA can put really bad large rural teams in. ___________________ Every two years, the worst 4 teams from 6A and 5A move down, the worst 8 teams from 4A and 3A move down, and the 16 teams from 2A move down. (4-year running average). Every two years, the best 4 teams from 5A and 4A move up, the best 8 teams from 3A and 2A move up, and the best 16 teams from 1A. _________________ This ensures a fair schedule for schools by playing teams of similar achievement level. It allows teams to develop into better teams and play teams at a higher level. It doesn't punish teams for one good season by making them move, but having multiple good seasons to move up. Teams can play other teams pursuing football in the same manner as they do. If you are the transfer portal school, you still get to be that school. If you are a school just trying to get the kids to line up correctly, then guess what, you will play similar schools. Coaches at these lower schools won't feel frustrated that the kids they developed, transfer, and play against them next season. I will acknowledge the largest logistical drawback to this would be when a Panhandle school makes it to 5A or 6A as finding 7 games will be hard.

This was discussed at length on the old FlaVarsity Board. The idea is that IMG is replicated, but it will be created in every state. Eventually, the STA, MNW, Cocoa, and Venice can't compete with that.

Dude, I usually post the average salaries per county on this board so that all coaches have accurate information. I also speak to my local teachers association's executive board and school board members about the pay of teachers, sponsors, and coaches on a regular basis. Also, as I pointed out when the article was originally posted, there is a teacher shortage in this state. There does not seem to be a coaching shortage. Coaches leaving for Georgia isn't the same as not being able to find a qualified replacement, which is found in many teaching positions in Florida. So, school boards are going to try to prioritize teacher pay first. A mandate from the Florida Department of Education will upset school boards as it will be another unfunded mandate from the state to do something. Governor DeSantis and the legislature promised that teachers would start at $47.5K, but for many school districts, they didn't provide enough money to make that happen (even after 4 years of it). If you begin mandating the numbers suggested by the article without providing additional pay (which is why you would need a bill), that money must come from somewhere. The school district will have to use money geared toward teacher pay/raises to pay for the mandate, which means you are telling the nice little kindergarten teacher she gets less of a raise so the football coach can get a 14K raise. See how well that will play in the communities as a whole.

I just wanted to bring this post back because of all the talk of the "Florida Coaches Coalition." Not a single bill was introduced to mandate higher coach pay (especially by Representative Adam Anderson, who was mentioned in the original article). But a bill about Hearing Aids and Sovereign Wealth Fund, we can get those from that mentioned State Representative.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the FHSAA set up a system that would encourage outstanding teams to play other outstanding teams and bad teams to play bad teams? If only someone could think of a system that did exactly that.