gatorman-uf

Teams often try to sign home and away games because they want to get the gate. Some schools make enough money from home games that they are willing to pay people to come to their schools. Some schools make very little money from homes games and are willing to travel if they receive a certain amount (usually has to cover the cost of travel and more than the gate they would have made from home). For Example: Team A: Possible gate revenue per game of $2,000, Costs of $1,000 per game (referees, security, lights, rental/upkeep of field, gate keepers), a Profit of $1,000 Team B (home): Possible gate revenue per game of $10,000, Costs of $1,000 per game, Profit of $9,000 Team B (road): Possible gate revenue ($0), Possible Costs of $1000, Profit of $-1000 If Team A + B have a contract to play 2 games, as long as Team B pays Team A a $1000 more than than the travel costs, then Team A actually comes out ahead financially and Team B comes out ahead as well because instead of losing $1,000 to travel to Team A, they would game $9,000 minus travel and the $1,000. As for who pays the most, Lakeland used to pay for many South Florida teams to come up several years ago if I remember correctly.

Sportsnut, Thank you that is what I was wondering.

Sportsnut, I get the social norms reasons, I was just curious if there was an actual rule against it. As for location, I do think FAU or FIU's stadium would be perfect in size. UCF's is a little big. Daytona Beach's 9K is about right if they added temporary seating, but there have been issues before with Daytona. Citrus Bowl, Everbank, and Raymond James all have the same issues of too big. Perhaps Orlando City Soccer could add temporary goalposts as their stadium is about the right size as well. The problem the FHSAA is facing in all of their championships is there is no bang for your buck. There is no ability to watch all the games without going broke. We have tried to go bigger and bigger when perhaps simpler will do. If you really like Basketball it is hard to watch all the state championships, same thing applies to baseball, soccer, or softball as well.

I was curious, if there is a rule against championships from being scheduled on a Sunday. I know that in certain situations championship games for baseball/softball have been played on Sundays due to weather conditions. I was curious if there is an FHSAA rule against scheduled games on those days. In my mind there is, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe it's me, but I wish the FHSAA would try and have all of the games in one weekend. Friday: 12 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm Saturday: 12 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm Sunday: 2 pm and 6 pm I wish they would do a one day ticket for $15 and allow re-entry the same way that Disney does. The overall attendance of state championships has been below 30K since 2011 and has been above 40K since it has held in Miami and there were several South Florida teams in the state championship that year. At some point, the FHSAA has to figure out how to better accommodate fans. I don't think going earlier to Thursday is the answer, I think moving them to a Sunday would help.

Unfortunately, you can never get the Top 4 teams unless you are seeding the entire state and re-seeding after every round. In 7A this year, the state championship was decided once Dwyer lost to STA. No proposed or current system is going to fix that. I would suggest that though for the most part, the championships get more right than they get wrong. Take a quick look through the playoff brackets: In 1A, Trenton only somewhat struggled with Madison County. A game that was played in the state semi-finals. Not the finals, but unless you are moving teams across the brackets, then it can't be helped. In 2A, University Christian dominated everyone except North Florida Christian, a team they met in the regional finals. Again unless you are moving teams across the brackets, then it can't be helped. In 3A, we ended up with Trinity vs American Heritage, couldn't ask for better marquee names despite the eventual blowout. In 4A, Raines vs BTW, couldn't ask for a better game. In 5A, Bishop Moore vs Wakulla, a great game. Maybe a couple of teams could be better fitted. In 6A, Armwood vs Central. Who else? Nobody came close to either team despite the end being a blowout in 7A, Dwyer vs STA would be a great matchup, but again unless you are seeding the entire state no way to avoid this game. Maybe by one round, but the result would be the same. In 8A, Maybe Dr. Phillips puts up a better match-up but who else when you look at the final scores. Overall, I think we got the best teams in the state championship or near it and the few times when the game came earlier (1A, 2A, 7A) nobody's proposal of seeding fixes it.

Joshua, Enrollment #s mean very little when one large freshman class moves you up a whole class and then leaves when you actually have to start playing games with those students. We already have differing populations playing each. It essentially happening with "school choice" and magnet program and private schools competing against public schools and the rest of the free agency of athletes. Even the most honest public schools probably have at least a couple of kids that are zoned for another school or possibly district. (Not counting 1A schools because most of the time there is no place to move from). Again I am not saying that anybody has to like 3 team or even 4 team districts, but to me the idea that I get into the playoffs based on something as a coach/player I can't control frustrates me. Also ask yourself about a school like Creekside, a school that went 0-10 last year. A team that basically would be a drain on anybody's schedule even if you win. Schools like Nease, Ponte Vedra, and Bartram Trail are not going to drop Creekside for any reason. It's a gate game, it's a low cost travel game, and the county athletic director is going to mandate it. So basically you punish those teams because a team around them is bad. Again, if I am coach, all I can control is my team. How well the teams on my schedule perform I have no control of. Imagine Gainesville High School. They schedule First Coast (Jacksonville) as an out of district game. A regional finalist the year before, multiple playoff and Category 1 seasons. This should be a good game for Gainesville. Gainesville wins thinking that will be some big points for them as the year goes on. Instead First Coast spirals to a 2-7 season making your win almost worthless. This system hurts Gainesville for not being to predict how bad First Coast was going to be. I just don't think you will get buy in from coaches/players when you have to tell them that their success/seeding is going to depend on something that they have no control over. ---- As for boys/girls enrollment numbers, my two guesses is that it wouldn't make much of a difference as most schools have the ratio of male/female except for private all boy/girl schools and the FHSAA already doubles their enrollment. My second guess is that football is technically open to all genders (see Bolles and their kicker this year). While a boys soccer team would be closed to females, because there would be a girls soccer team. If you want to fix student population numbers, do them by 4 year averages instead of 1 year numbers, it allows more stability and more honesty in a year by year basis. __ I don't think you guys will get fantastic school vs fantastic school. For example, Santa Fe High School, a regional finalist in 4A was 6-3. Not bad, not great. What motivation would SF have in playing Trenton? A team a mere 30 minutes from them. Under the proposed system if SF loses, they gain 36 points against a 9-0, not much advantage. Under the current system, why wouldn't SF play Trenton? If SF loses, it doesn't hurt their playoff chances. If they win, they get to say they beat a good team. For Trenton, they play a solid team from nearby, win or lose it doesn't hurt their playoff chances. ----- Question: District 1 had a 3 way shootout for champ/runner-up and Lincoln won out. As shown by your point totals, Lincoln would be considered the best team of the group. But you realize of course, that Lincoln could easily have lost the shootout (which wouldn't be reflected in the point systems) and then not made the playoffs despite the system showing they were the best of the 3 teams. ----- Final note, whoever ran the simulation has some things wrong on it. Columbia lost to Escambia (point only show wins) and First Coast was 2-7 meaning the most they could receive was 41 points, this makes their average 45.3 and not 47.

HWY17, You are right the 3 team districts are horrible but I blame the FHSAA for that. They are a reflection of 8 classes. 89 Schools in 8A, divided by 16 districts averages 5.5 teams a district. Some districts are going to have 4, some will have 7 depending on geography. 86 Schools in 7A, divided by 16 districts averages 5.3 teams a district. Some districts are going to have 4, some will have 7 depending on geography (2 3 team districts) 79 Schools in 6A, divided by 16 districts averages 4.9 teams a district. No 3 team districts 82 Schools in 5A, divided by 16 districts averages 5.1 teams a district. 3 3-team districts. The pattern continues. The simple way to fix it if they don't want to shrink classifications is shrink districts down to 12. 89/12 means that you average 7 teams a district. This would create 2 wildcard teams per region. -Set simple rules for wildcards, must have a winning district record and winning overall record. This makes it easier. -Allow coaches of non-playoff teams in region to anonymously vote on who gets in. Why non-playoff teams? They have no bone in this fight, playoff teams shouldn't choose who they get to face. -Seeding rotates Year 1 A. Champ of District 1 faces Wildcard #2, B. Champ of District 2 faces Wildcard #1 C. Champ of 3 faces Runner-up from District 1 D. Runner up from District 2 faces Runner-up District 3 2nd Round Winner of A plays Winner D Winner of B plays Winner C Year 2 A. Champ of District 2 faces Wildcard #2, B. Champ of District 3 faces Wildcard #1 C. Champ of District 1 faces Runner-up from District 2 D. Runner up from District 3 faces Runner-up District 1 2nd Round Winner of A plays Winner D Winner of B plays Winner C Year 3 A. Champ of District 3 faces Wildcard #2, B. Champ of District 1 faces Wildcard #1 C. Champ of District 2 faces Runner-up from District 3 D. Runner up from District 1 faces Runner-up District 2 2nd Round Winner of A plays Winner D Winner of B plays Winner C This ensure that no team faces the runner-up from their own district until the finals. It also ensures that each district has a chance of the easiest schedule once. Again the easiest answer is to shrink the classifications and then use a weighting system on past performance to move teams up or down.

Can't get caught on one specific incident. Switch the situations for a second, if Columbia had lost against Lincoln but still won the other games. They head into the playoffs as an 8-2 team vs a 5-5 Lincoln team. Your logic says that Lincoln gets to host, because they won the game. It also is rare that teams play other teams from the district that they could play in the playoffs for this exact reason. Look the current system basically says that if you are a district champion that you get to host a game (a good thing) It says if you are the runner-up you have a more challenging schedule because you are runner-up (a good thing as it rewards a district championship). At the same point and time, while it didn't work in this simulation, this potentially makes a first round and 2nd round game that requires travel from Tallahassee to Orlando, where our current schedule would only require that travel once and only if teams from District 1 and 4 advance to the regional finals. People are willing to make longer trips the higher the stakes of the game. Again the current system isn't perfect because there are too many classifications, teams are spread too far out. The simple solution comes back to reduce classifications to 6 total. Almost every problem that you guys have with the current system is traced back to having too many classes. You want to prevent a 1-9 team from making the playoffs, make their district bigger, sure a 4-6 still could get in, but it is less likely. If you want to use power points, use power points as a way of making more competitive classifications. A promotion/relegation system that doesn't rely on attendance only but how successful your program is as well.

FHSAA Responds http://www.fhsaa.org/sites/default/files/orig_uploads/News/fhsaa_statement_january_27_2016.pdf

Seriously, way too complicated. Not even worth the time and energy that this requires. Fans need something that they can understand when they look in the paper or online. This will confuse the hell out of everyone. You won't even know how you are doing until week 11. I guess they realized their first idea was dumb (Creekside becoming a playoff team) in the simulation. Again, maybe I don't see how the system is broken to begin with. 7 of the 8 teams that made the playoffs under the current system, still made the playoffs under this "better version" As for seeding, I don't see why we need. Is it unfortunate that a match-up like Dwyer and STA happens in the 2nd round? Yes. If we seeded, it would happen in the 3rd round. Not much better. My biggest problem is that shit happens. Teams that you schedule thinking they are tough, end up losing the star QB or star RB or the head coach quits/gets fired and they are rebuilding. As a coach, you can't control how good your opponent is. God forbid your 4A opponent plays a really tough schedule against local 8A schools and goes 5-5. Oh well, yeah that team is good enough to win regionals, but their record shows them as mediocre. If you don't think stat boys of the world will know how to game the system with in a year, you are crazy. Again, tell me why the current system is worse than this? What does this actually improve for the fan or school or community? Does it keep the 1-9 teams out sure, but at what cost? A system that is so incomprehensible that fans will not be able to follow along. A simpler way to keep bad teams out is to SHRINK the CLASSES. Somehow, Mr. Beasley hasn't suggested.

I understand not praying over the loud speaker (Cambridge or University) as they are not the "hosts" of the game. The FHSAA and the City of Orlando are. But if the team prayed after the game, before the game, or if a local pastor led the fans in prayer before/during/after the game, I don't see the issue. If the music was loud, oh well. I am curious what the FHSAA did to stop the prayer. Also expect some bill to be proposed in the state legislature because of this.

Many times it can be the fact that your team isn't ready to participate in district competitions, in the case of Glades Day, many of the teams that they would normally play against have a full schedule due to playing in a conference that only plays teams in conference. As a result, local competitive games are hard to come by for them. Glades Day follows Jupiter Christian (another 2000s powerhouse) in choosing to become independent. Many of the schools located in independent are extremely small schools that while "private" are not trying to be the next St Thomas Aquinas, but believe in the value of athletic competitions without having to sell your soul. They have found like minded schools and can play each other into a championship for an 8 or 11 game schedule. While one of the reasons for the creation of the "Rural" Classification was a dislike of playing certain urban private schools, the reality is that these private schools (that have chosen to go to conferences) actually share many of the same features as the rural schools.

Joshua, I get what your saying about 500 and maybe 400 is more reasonable. I would also say that the fact that St. Francis and Oak Hall are not in 2A is ridiculous. But if you look at the independents there were 40 teams that played independent football this past year were under the 290 mark of 2A (another 3 were under 300). That is an entire class of schools that could play football against similar type small non-Trinity Christian teams that already are fleeing. Honestly, I don't think they are ever coming back. And why would they? They aren't the Trinity Christian's, Bolles, or STAs. For many they look at athletics differently than them. They can play 10 games without having to worry about ever playing "football" schools. I go back to the idea that if you move a school like Trinity Christian up because of their success and move teams down because of their lack of success than things would balance out and people will feel competitive. Trinity's population is 468, with 250 for the 2014 state championship appearance, another 250 for the 2015 state championship appearance a school like Trinity would have a population of 968 which moves them up to 4A and most likely in a district with Bolles, Raines and potentially playing a school like Booker T Washington for the state championship.

If the point is to get the best teams, then I like the idea of only 3 districts per class (even if we kept 8 classes, it increases the size of the districts as well allows the runner-up to make the district), additionally now you allow for some flexibility. I would suggest the best district winning % should be used for the tie breaker rather than overall record. As for seeding, seeding would be done based on district records, but no team could play a fellow district team in round 1 and district champions are seeded 1-3, runner-up 4-6, and wildcards 7-8.

HWY17, That is my point, I don't want to reward OR punish teams for their out of district games. Your out of district games are designed to meet numerous needs: gate, rivalries, travel, level of competition, etc. Not every team schedules those games for the same reason and as a result teams end up unbalanced schedules in terms of difficulty. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is something teams have little control over. But if your rival is a state caliber team than why continue to play that game if a loss is going to push you out of the playoffs. Bad teams happen, good teams happen, but rewarding teams for something they can't control seems silly. I would continue to suggest that shrinking the # of classes is an easier and more consistent solution than having a committee of some sort decide if a runner-up team earns a spot.

HWY17, You are still rewarding an 8-2 team that plays cupcakes vs the 6-4 that plays a tough schedule. At no point in the simulation run for 1-7A did a team with a lower winning record get in unless they had faced the team in a head to head match-up. As a coach, you want your team to be in competitive games. If I am a weak team that is still in the building process, I want to play other rebuilding teams. If my rebuilding goes quicker than I expected and I end up 8-2 is that better than the team that played a tough schedule ended up 6-4. I don't know, but to base playoff decisions off what teams were willing to face another team seams silly. Shrink the classes down to 6. Don't tough 1A. Hard cap of 500 for 2A. 3A 500-1100 new 4A-6A. I like the idea of some seeding in the regional level, if only to allow district runner-ups and district champions to play for regional championship. Those who propose just doing North and South and then seeding, you are suggesting panhandle teams having to travel to tampa or even as far Sebring for a first round playoff game (or vice versa). I would guess that have neighboring districts play each other in the first two rounds not only saves money but encourages more people to travel to the games because of the closeness. ----- After we have done 1A-6A for two years, allow for population increases based on wins and loses in the playoffs. If your team qualifies for the playoffs, then the FHSAA adds 50 to your population, each round another 50 is added. So a team that plays for the state championship we add 250 to their average population and if your play for the state championship twice then we add 500 to your population. 500 would be the most that we add to any school's population. For every consecutive year that you fail to make the playoffs, we minus an additional 50 from your population. So a school that averages 1800 students that fails to make the playoffs for 8 straight years, we minus (8 x 50) or 400 from your population so their population would be 1400 instead of 1800, which allows them to play in a more competitive classification and district. If you make the playoffs, then the number starts all over again and you reset at your original average.

I hate the idea that wins out of district matter. I know, we hate the Eastsides of the world making it. I do too, but giving teams with a "good record" isn't the answer either. All you are rewarding is playing a cupcake schedule. And as I have pointed out on another thread, playing a "hard" schedule should not automatically allow you to get to the playoffs either (Creekside for example in the simulation that I ran). Again, I keep asking but how is the system currently broken? Pardon my ignorance, but how many teams got a spot that you would suggest they didn't deserve? 3 maybe 4 teams per class from what I can tell. So out 192 teams maybe 12-15 undeserving teams got in. By undeserving, I mean a team with a losing record, not a runner-up team that was 6-4 but there was an 8-2 in the same region. The beauty of the current system is that you control your own destiny. A team has certain games it has to win and if they win those games they move on. 3 team districts are caused by several factors, including too many classifications. Let's start with eliminating that first. Let's not allow teams to move from one district to another or one classification to another to move into the easier classification. Take a 4 year average rather than a 1 year snapshot. numbers fluctuating by even 50 here and there can cause a team to move up or down despite it being a one year abnormal occurrence. If you just took 5A-8A, added up the teams and divided by 3 instead of 4. You get 112 teams per classification, which means an average of 7 teams per district. Don't touch 1A, but expand the population of 2A to 500 students that adds 10 teams (from 3A) and makes the classification 44 teams divided by 8 districts, average of 5.5 teams per district. Make the remaining 3A teams join with 4A, making a class of 58 teams, divided by 8 districts get you 7 teams per district. Additionally, this trims the state championships down to 6 games. All 6 of them could be played in one weekend, 3 games on Friday and Saturday. 1A (1-600ish) 40 schools 2A (1-500) 44 schools new 3A (501-1,114) 58 schools new 4A-6A (112 each) How is that not an easier solution that still remains objective, fair, easily understood, allows teams to control their own destiny, and not penalize a team for losing tough out of district games or reward teams for playing cupcake schedules?

Flip it for a question, how does playing a tough schedule currently hurt a team? If you think you are a state caliber team, you will play games that are on that level. If you load up on cupcakes, come district games or regional playoff games you will get exposed. I don't see how this system even rewards playing a tough schedule. A 9-1 1A could play a 10-0 8A and both teams would benefit from it in terms of the standings, but in reality the game isn't that tough for the 8A most likely, but they would receive 13 points for the game (not bad when the most you can receive is 15). Again, I am not opposed to change, but this system doesn't fix the problems. Josh Why only top 4? Proposal counts for Top 8 (besides 1A). Creekside is 7A and would make it under the current proposal. Explain to me how that makes sense under any logic. The solution is several things. 1. Take the 4 year average of population, not a one year shot. 4 year averages don't allow teams to have 700 some years and then come reclassification time be lower. It also allows more stability in those numbers. 2. Each year add 25 to the population for a game in round 1, 50 round 2, etc (1A-4A exempt). 3. Reclassify based on added population and success on the field, so schools move up or down based both on population and on-field success. While Bishop Moore won the 5A state championship, would they win the 6A? Miami Central won 6A would they win 7A, who knows.

Joshua, Fine... Only the last 8 games, but I implore you to look at the number 7 seed. That would be Creekside, a team that had ZERO wins!!!! ZERO wins, your proposed system allows them to get into the PLAYOFFS!!!! Seriously, this is the best you got? What is wrong with the old system? Yes it has flaws (too small of districts, teams trying to change out of tough districts, etc). But just like College Football, part of the job of the AD, Coaches, Booster club is to sell the program to the community to get people excited. 1. Buchholz (Gainesville) - X (9-1) 2. Columbia (Lake City) 3. Lincoln (Tallahassee) - X 4. Hagerty (Oviedo) 5. Bartram Trail (St. Johns) 7-3 6. Ocoee 7. Creekside (St. Johns) 8. Edgewater (Orlando) - X Gainesville is most likely never going to play Oak Hall (Gainesville), nor should they. But if Oak Hall can win 8 games against similar competition and Gainesville can win 8 games against usual competition, it actually makes sense for both teams to face each other even if Oak Hall loses. They would gain 10 points, Gainesville would gain 12 (out of a possible 15 max). But is this really a game that anybody wants to see? No, but the system that is proposed would make a game like this more feasible to attain the playoffs.

Lincoln's Schedule: 1. Camden County (9 Wins), Bigger School Loss (2 points) 11 points 2. Columbia (9 Wins), Same Size or Smaller School Loss (1 points) 10 Points 3. Manatee (8 Wins), Bigger School Loss (2 points) 10 points 4. BYE 5. Rickards (7 wins) Same Size or Smaller School Loss (1 points) 8 Points 6. Chiles (6 wins) Same Size or Smaller School Loss (1 points) 7 Points 7. Niceville (8 wins) Same Size or Smaller School Loss (1 points) 9 Points 8. Leon (5 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 9 points 9. TCA (10 wins) Same Size or Smaller School Loss (1 points) 11 Points 10. University (8 wins) Bigger School Win (5 points) 13 points 11. Godby (3 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 7 points Columbia's Schedule 1. Gainesville (6 wins), Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 10 points 2. Lincoln (4 wins), Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 8 points 3. Buchholz (9 wins), Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 13 points 4. Lee (7 wins), Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 11 points 5. Escambia (6 wins) Same Size or Smaller School Loss (1 points) 7 Points 6. BYE 7. Bolles (8 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 12 points 8. ACHS (6 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 10 points 9. Fletcher (5 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 9 points 10. First Coast (2 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 6 points 11. Suwannee (7 wins) Same Size School or Small School Win (4 points) 11 points Lincoln: 98 points Columbia: 97 Points The saddest part is that in losing to Columbia, Lincoln gained 10 points, Columbia only gained 8 points. So in winning, Columbia didn't really gain anything.

I don't like it. I think the average fan understands district standings more than they will ever understand power points. Power Points mean you have to root for your opponents to do well and as a fan I don't necessarily want to do that. Also Power Points take control out of the team's hands and put it into the type of opponent you faced. For example, a coach schedules 5 middle of the road teams that his team will be competitive in, 2 "tough" games, and 3 easy games. The team goes 8-2, but the 5 middle of the road team turn out to be pushovers this year, or schedule really hard and their record ends up be 2-8. I like our system of you win and you are in. I don't think this system will get what they are hoping for. I would rather see teams with success have population added to them (1A-3A exempted) and forced to play up once they have success. I ran a simulation of Class 7A, Region 1 with the idea that all the games counted (just made it easier to figure things out). Here are the Top 8 Teams in order. 1. Lincoln (4-6) 2. Columbia (9-1) 3. Bartram Trail (7-3) 4. Buchholz (9-1) 5. Edgewater (7-3) 6. Ocoee (6-4) 7. Atlantic Coast (6-4) 8. Robert E. Lee (7-3) Some weird things happen 6 of the 8 listed were already the playoff teams (Ocoee and ACHS) being new additions while Chiles and Hagerty dropped. Hagerty beat both Edgewater and Ocoee and still didn't make it. Oakleaf, an 8-2 team (a team the Laz Index has in the Top 8 of the region) finishes 13. A winless Creedside team, finishes 1 point of 8th place, tied for 9th. If this really is the best system, we can come up with we are in trouble. Additionally the fact that Lincoln, a 4-6 team would be the #1 seed is mind blowing. Columbia beat them in the regular season and post-season but this new system would reward Lincoln with the #1 seed. Make districts bigger by eliminating a classification.

If the argument is that Madison is too big because it isn't "rural" enough, damn... I have driven through Fort White, Lake Butler, and Baldwin. They are all smaller than Madison, so why is this a problem?