Hwy17
-
Posts
1,456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Posts posted by Hwy17
-
-
-
14 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:
The FHSAA is dealing with a political system that they should never have to deal with and yes that is a major problem, but there is little we, as high school sports fans/coaches/administrators, can do. While the promotion relegation might see some teams yo-yo up and down, I don't think it would be as much as you think as it is based on 4 years of data and not just one good year.
As for good teams becoming bottom feeders in the next, no I would expect a good 2A team to be good in 3A immediately, they increased the level of their competition. At the same time, those same teams will have years where their coaches move on, a new school opens, and a couple of 3* kids graduate. So maybe that team that got promoted from 2A has gotten some stability as they move up to 3A, but there are still going to be a couple of teams struggling.
I don't know, I just understand why a Chaminade, STA, Venice, Lakeland would want to play in the easy class when they can play in the tough class. Why do they think that 80% of the teams they face in their classification don't want to play them. My problem with an open division playoff, is that occasionally you have a special team that is 2-3 years in the making. You knew it when you watched them that they were going to be good in a couple of years. Now, that teams goes 10-0 and is ready to compete for the first time for a state championship and gets put into the open division playoff despite never being "that" team. I would rather the "open" division be something that you earn over an extended period of time.That's why I wouldn't move the top team up more than just one class than what they would be otherwise. Nor would I move the bottom team down more than one class than they would have been otherwise. Too bad you and I aren't having this conversation in person as I can offer you some good examples for where I'm seeing this at.
For the life of me why can't FHSAA adopt a policy that says a transfer would only be allowed to play JV their first year, exception for a senior, would be viewed as unreasonable or violation of state law?
-
All I can see as really occurring is that some really fine programs that aren't "elite" but having success in their current class becoming the new bottom feeders in a different class. So they move back down only to have those who replace them become the next group of bottom feeders. To be honest, the vast majority of schools are classified correctly, it's just a handful of offenders who have built their program around transfers who are controlling the system. FHSAA implementation a point system that was supposed to work. It didn't. Then we tried RPI. Then Metro/Suburban. Now they want to go back to traditional. All because of they are too afraid to implement a reasonable transfer policy for fear that the state legislature wouldn't like it.
-
10 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:
Again in my hypothetical: 6 classes (plus Rural)
I already posted in the original post, what would be 6A and 5A
Your specific question is about Southeast (Bradenton). They would be in Class 2A (16 districts of 8 teams, well a couple of districts with less as there only 125 teams). So yes, there would be schools with 2K plus and schools with less than 500, but again it is based on playing ability, not school size. School size has continually shown to not matter as much.
Below is an alphabetical list of the teams, but first here are the teams closest to SoutheastAlonso High School
Boca Ciega (Gulfport)
Booker High School
Chamberlain High School
Countryside (Clearwater)
Gibbs (St. Pete)
Hardee (Wauchula)
Jefferson High School
Lakewood Ranch
Lemon Bay (Englewood)
Lennard (Ruskin)
Northside Christian
Osceola (Seminole)
Palm Harbor University
St. Petersburg
Sickles High School
Robinson High School
Seffner Christian Academy- Alonso (Tampa)
- American (Hialeah)
- American Heritage (Delray Beach)
- Andrew Jackson (Jacksonville)
- Archbishop Carroll (Miami)
- Atlantic (Port Orange)
- Atlantic Coast (Jacksonville)
- Avant Garde Academy (Hollywood)
- Bayside (Palm Bay)
- Boca Ciega (Gulfport)
- Booker (Sarasota)
- Booker T. Washington (Pensacola)
- Boynton Beach
- Central (Fort Pierce)
- Chamberlain (Tampa)
- Clay (Green Cove Springs)
- Coral Gables
- Countryside (Clearwater)
- Cypress Bay (Weston)
- Cypress Creek (Wesley Chapel)
- Deltona
- Dr. Krop (Miami)
- Dwyer (Palm Beach Gardens)
- East River (Orlando)
- Eastside (Gainesville)
- Englewood (Jacksonville)
- Episcopal School of Jacksonville (Jacksonville)
- Eustis
- Evangelical Christian (Fort Myers)
- Flanagan (Pembroke Pines)
- Forest (Ocala)
- Forest Hill (West Palm Beach)
- Fort Meade
- Fort Walton Beach
- Foundation Academy (Winter Garden)
- Frostproof
- Gainesville
- George Jenkins (Lakeland)
- Gibbs (St. Petersburg)
- Glades Central (Belle Glade)
- Golden Gate (Naples)
- Goleman (Miami)
- Haines City
- Hardee (Wauchula)
- Harmony
- Hernando (Brooksville)
- Hialeah
- Hudson
- Immokalee
- Jackson (Miami)
- Jefferson (Tampa)
- Jupiter
- Kathleen (Lakeland)
- Key West
- Lakewood Ranch (Bradenton)
- Land O' Lakes
- LaSalle (Miami)
- Lecanto
- Leesburg
- Lemon Bay (Englewood)
- Lennard (Ruskin)
- Leon (Tallahassee)
- Lyman (Longwood)
- Maclay (Tallahassee)
- Marianna
- Matanzas (Palm Coast)
- Menendez (St. Augustine)
- Miami
- Middleburg
- Moore Haven
- Munroe (Quincy)
- Nature Coast Tech (Brooksville)
- New Smyrna Beach
- North Florida Christian (Tallahassee)
- North Miami
- Northside Christian (St. Petersburg)
- Orange Park
- Osceola (Seminole)
- P.K. Yonge (Gainesville)
- Palatka
- Palm Beach Lakes (West Palm Beach)
- Palm Harbor University (Palm Harbor)
- Palmetto Ridge (Naples)
- Park Vista (Lake Worth)
- Pine Crest (Fort Lauderdale)
- Piper (Sunrise)
- Port St. Lucie
- Ribault (Jacksonville)
- Ridge Community (Davenport)
- River Ridge (New Port Richey)
- Riverdale (Fort Myers)
- Riverview
- Robinson (Tampa)
- Saint Andrew's (Boca Raton)
- Santaluces (Lantana)
- Seabreeze (Daytona Beach)
- Seffner Christian (Seffner)
- Seminole Ridge (Loxahatchee)
- Sickles (Tampa)
- Somerset Academy Silver Palms (Miami)
- South Fork (Stuart)
- South Fort Myers (Fort Myers)
- South Miami (Miami)
- South Walton (Santa Rosa Beach)
- Southeast (Bradenton)
- St. Brendan (Miami)
- St. Cloud
- St. John Paul II (Tallahassee)
- St. Petersburg
- Tate (Cantonment)
- Taylor County (Perry)
- The First Academy (Orlando)
- The Villages Charter (The Villages)
- Tocoi Creek (St. Augustine)
- Tohopekaliga (Kissimmee)
- True North Classical Academy (Miami)
- Wellington
- West Boca Raton (Boca Raton)
- West Broward (Pembroke Pines)
- West Nassau (Callahan)
- West Port (Ocala)
- Westside (Jacksonville)
- Westwood (Fort Pierce)
- Yulee
-
Zephyrhills Christian Academy (Zephyrhills)
This is one of my concerns with the relegation system. I school with a larger population has an advantage over a smaller school. That's a fact that was determined years ago and why we had classes based on population. I don't know the situation going on at Southeast, whether it be poor coaching or kids leaving the program, but I'm sure they have way more talent walking the halls than say Moore Haven or Frostproof. Bartow for example is a larger school that was struggling and a coaching change turned around the program so that they are competitive now. They didn't have to drop a class to do it. And of course there is always the option of going independent or scheduling easier teams without dropping down. Most schools go through a cycle of bad year, decent year, good year, repeat. We just want a level playing field like existed for before. However the only way I see that happening would be 400+ schools to go independent all at once.
-
7 hours ago, Floridaatlantic1 said:
Sure. Just take a picture of all the state champions in the metro division and a few of the suburban rosters. and see how many players came from other schools or were supposed to go to other schools. They all recruit. Illegal thus a form of cheating. In order to be an elite team in Florida, you must get elite talent and the only way is to break the rule and recruit. Or you can bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and say that does not in our state.
Around the state how often does one school get the majority of its transfers from one particular rival, and the downturn of the later coincide with the rise of the former?
-
19 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:
That's essentially what I want to happen, but the problem with your place as a starting point is the a school like Chaminade-Madonna still is wrecking havoc in 3A instead of 2A and would take 3-4 more years to eventually get to the level that they should be at (assuming that you would allow a team to go to from 2A to 3A to 4A to etc). If not, all you really did is move the teams that most likely could beat a juggernaut 2A or 3A team out of the classification.
The other reason this system is imbalanced in terms of classification size is that the talent gap between 1-75 is too big vs the gap between say 320-448 (128 teams) is smaller because all of those teams struggle. Just to use my above classifications of a 1 vs 64 you are talking STA vs Dunbar (Ft Myers) vs if you shrink the gap it is STA vs Naples.
Your idea works if we didn't have years and years of data at our finger tips already, but we do and as such should use that data to make a better system.Do you have access to that data? I'd like to run a few different scenarios and see what it looks like. The old way of creating classes actually was to create 6 classes then cut the bottom 2 classes in half giving us a total of 8. I say create 7 full classes. Would Chaminade be 3a or 4a ? I don't know. One of my concerns is not so much as who's moving up as who would be moving down. Would a larger school like Bradenton Southeast that has been struggling in recent year get classified with schools half their size like Lake Placid or Labelle? Let's run the numbers and see.
-
My way of do it would be to create 7 classes the traditional way using population. Then create 4 regions, traditional method. Then using a power ranking system (I prefer LAZ index over Maxpreps but that's me) rank each team in each region based on the prior 4 years. I would weigh it so that the more recent year is weighted more than the previous year. The bottom team in each 7A region would go down to 6A. The top team in each 6A region moves up to 7A and the bottom team down to 5A; so on so forth. Nobody moves up or down more that 1 class. Likewise the 7 classes would all be around 75 schools apiece.
-
Desoto coach resigned on Wednesday after a 0-10 season.
-
19 hours ago, nolebull813 said:
Larger districts minimum. I like 8 teams. That way the runner up should deserve a spot. Unless you had the at large bids
3 hours ago, FSULOVER said:But there will always be things about ANY system people think are unfair. Take the 25 years between 1970-1994. Dade and Broward county teams each only won a handful of state titles during those years despite dwarfing most other counties. Despite their size, the class/playoff structure meant that only one team from a county would make a title game. People thought that was unfair. Many very good teams did not even make the playoffs.
Agree that open enrollment is a huge difference. But so is the mindset of people. If im not making the playoffs or winning, there must be something unfair with the system. Open enrollment itself is not the problem. The problem is the coaches and parents who allow kids to move without consequences like waiting a year before I let you play.
Who on here is familiar with the system used for the 1999 & 2000 seasons? I personally thought it was the best ever yet its been kicked to the curb and nearly forgotten about. Six classes (I would do seven now) with 3 districts per region. That meant districts typically had 5 or more teams. Districts Champions and runners-up automatically got in the playoffs. There were 2 at-large spots that the 2 with the best overall records but not a champ or runner-up got. Strength of schedule was used in event of a tie for the at large sports. Now of course I would probably go with 3 district Champs and 5 at large spots with more imphasis on strength of schedule. But still, that system worked well and produced some interesting playoff matches.
As for open enrollment: It's gotten completely out of control and needs some rules. I personally don't have a problem with a legitimate move into a new school zone. I feel that if a parent or guardian can show proof they moved into a new school zone, their student athlete should be allowed to play no matter what. However if they haven't moved and just decided I want to go somewhere else for whatever reason, then the student athlete should only be allowed to play JV their first season at the new school. I would consider an exception for seniors.
-
26 minutes ago, Joshua Wilson said:
The difference between 1989 and 2023 is this: OPEN ENROLLMENT... Yes open enrollment did not exist in 1989. You went to your home school. Hence there is a need to fix classifications now. It is not the same anymore.
The tops teams in the state during that time were small town programs.
-
2 hours ago, nolebull813 said:
That’s how it should be now.
What part? Larger districts or only district champion gets in the playoffs?
Playoffs were only 3 rounds. The main reason for expanding the playoffs was because a lot of really good teams were left out so district runner-ups got added in the early 90s. There is certain rival of ours that hates being reminded of the 1988 season.
-
On 10/7/2023 at 9:08 AM, FSULOVER said:Thought some of yall might find this interesting. Records of some teams from 1989. Everyone today so worried about equity. Used to have to pay your dues and accept your program might be down years at a time. Now people jumping off the cliff wanting to "fix" the playoff system to make things fair if things not going there way. There was a time when metro schools and privates did not dominate but they didnt bitch.Armwood 0-10Clearwater Central Catholic 2-8Cocoa 2-8Jesuit 4-6Lake Wales 4-6Mainland 0-10Miami Central 4-6Miami Norland 2-8Miami Northwestern 4-6Naples 1-8St Thomas 4-6
I was in 10th grade in 1989 and remember that season like it was yesterday. This was our district and records - 8 team district and only the district champ got to go to the playoffs. We had a 4 way tie that was determined by Kansas City tiebreaker.
Hardee 8-2
Desoto 8-2
Okeechobee 8-2
Avon Park 7-3
Sebring 6-4
Lake Wales 4-6
Haines City 2-8
Mulberry 1-9
Avon Park ended up winning the tiebreaker.
-
3 hours ago, Nulli Secundus said:
Thank you! See my post in the thread pertaining to Bartow.
-
14 minutes ago, nolebull813 said:
Not just Lakeland but they aren’t playing any good teams from anywhere. The only reason they won a title last year was because the FHSAA went from a state title format to an area title format. Lake Wales was the best of the suburbs.
7 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:That's probably true and they won a nail biter. I bet Dan would argue Mainland was the better team.
Exactly! Lake Wales benefited from the split. Now get this; if the current proposal goes through LW might benefit even more as maxpreps says they are #45 in the state meanwhile Mainland is in the top 32. LW would love that! Mainland, IMHO, gets screwed!
- nolebull813 and DarterBlue2
-
1
-
1
-
7 hours ago, SportsFan said:
My question for you @Hwy17 is this
- One school goes 10-0 and doesn't beat a single team above .500
- One school goes 8-2 facing 6 teams ranked top 25 in Florida and goes 4-2 in those games with both losses coming to teams inside the top 10
- Both have 4 team districts
Can you really make an argument that 10-0 team deserves a higher seeding, I'm not saying them missing the playoffs I'm talking just difference between 1 and 2 seed in regional play? If not how can we justify any school benefits by playing better teams
I don't disagree that in the above scenario that the 8-2 team shouldn't be the higher seed come playoffs. However my observation over the last several years would suggest that a team that plays that tough of a schedule and goes 8-2 most likely has something (a lot of transfers coming in) most other schools don't. Also they are likely one of those teams others avoid. Likewise, the 10-0 team, most likely didn't load up on easy teams for easy wins but rather has a traditional schedule playing neighboring schools that all happen to be lousy. I see it happening a lot. Lake Wales for example gets criticized for playing a "weak" schedule even though a lot of those games are neighboring schools and the understanding that who we play every year.
-
9 minutes ago, Nulli Secundus said:
C's get degrees. Do F's?
Under that system it would!
Makes you want to ask your Dr for his transcripts before having surgery
-
47 minutes ago, SportsFan said:
If that's not a district game they have no business scheduling them
I'm fine with a system punishing a team for scheduling a bad team they just needed to configure the points where they would get more points for a win than a loss but a team that plays bad teams all year should risk falling behind a team with 1 or 2 loss team who playing state ranked teams every week
And to your point. There really are only a few teams out there that "elite" or dominant every year. Most schools have a few good seasons followed by a down year or two. Likewise, most schools create their schedules for a two year cycle because that's how districts are done. When a school shows they're good most years,(this is especially true in the smaller classes), others don't want to play them. And the weaker teams usually stick to playing other weaker teams until they start winning. This makes for a catch 22. Here's some real examples: Clewiston, not really a weak team but because of past successes they find themselves playing a brutal schedule. North Port, years of being everyone's homecoming game has finally decided to play some teams they can actually win. Good for them! I suspect next season they'll have to schedule a little tougher. Same thing with Lemon Bay. Hardee, (my team) also playing a very weak schedule but as someone else pointed out to me, some of those weak teams had a winning season last year.
The point I'm getting at is this: While a promotion or relegation system sounds good, unless there is some measure to show that a team is vastly superior than the rest of their class I don't believe a team should be forced up because of a couple good years. And those who consistently struggle have the ability to schedule accordingly now. Strength of schedule sounds good but when you schedule a team that had a winning season and now they are winless your stuck.
-
On 10/11/2023 at 7:45 AM, nolebull813 said:
So basically it’s better to beat a bunch of duds than lose to powerhouses
12 hours ago, Longtime Observer said:Unquestionably. Let's not forget the impact of winning or losing on a team's psyche. Ditto the impact on fans' perceptions of the program. A school that wins all of its games, and just has a few internet bozos criticizing their strength of schedule, is MUCH better off than one who drops several games albeit against significantly better competition. I'm dead serious when I say that parents and community members (and even many players inside the locker room!) make virtually no distinction between the Armwood Hawks and the St. Joseph's Prep Hawks, or the Lakeland Christian Vikings and the Miami Norland Vikings. The *only* difference they recognize is whether the team won or lost the game. Better to win!
To both of your points, remember back a couple of seasons the system used awarded points based off strength of schedule, which sounded good. However as was pointed out, St. Pete Gibbs was awarded points for getting running clocked by Lakeland who in turned was penalized by the system for playing a winless team. As I said then, all that proved to me was Gibbs had no business playing Lakeland. Yet under that system it was better for a bad team to over schedule and get beat than to play teams along their own level. It's almost like telling a student who struggles with basic math to take calculus because an F in calculus is better than an A+ in basic math.
-
The next time I am having a bad day or just royally screw something up, I will replay the last seconds of this game to remind myself that whatever I've done can't be this dumb.
-
-
5 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:
If that's correct, you are punishing success. I could support an open division if: 1. It consisted of teams that wanted to play in a super division. 2. If it was created over several years within the context of a promotion and relegation system that ended, say, three or fours years in with the top 32 teams playing in a super division with half of them making the playoffs.
Imagine this: Let's say a really good program has been coming close but hasn't won a championship in their respective class yet. Then finally they got the team that just might win it, but by chance the computer ranks then 32 in the state. I for one would find that unfair. Especially if my team was 5a or 4a.
- KeemD321 and CocoaFranco
-
2
-
46 minutes ago, PinellasFB said:
I am still trying to understand how an open division works. Is this just for playoffs only? So if you are in 7A district 10, for example, and your power ranking is one of the top X teams in the state, then you are forced into the open playoffs and can't play for the 7A title?
That's how I read it
-
Avon Park might even be worse than Dixie Hollins or Dunedin. Hard to believe that they won back to back state championships in the 80s and were a strong program up until the early 2000s.
-
Here's how I would do it. Using the traditional approach, create 7 classes based on population. Following the traditional approach, create 4 regions in each class. Then, assign a weighted power ranking to each team based on the prior 4 seasons. The highest ranked team in each region moves up 1 class and the lowest ranked team goes down one class. Then make the districts. Repeat process ever year but no one plays up or down more than one class than what they would otherwise be in.
New FHSAA Classifications
in The Huddle
Posted
The only way this is ever going to get resolved is if 400+ schools announce that they are going independent at one time.