Perspective

Agreed. That said, it would be interesting to know which category each opening falls into: A. Coach leaving for another high school football coaching position in Florida. B. Coach leaving for a high school football coaching job in another state. C. Coach resigned, retired or was fired (or not rehired) by the school. D. Other. (P.S., Gatorman-UF, I'm not asking you to go back through your list and designate which is which; you've done too much already . . . just responding to your "so many" comment and wondering if there's a common reason).

I'd say "yes." Remember, last year, when he moved from the west coast of Florida to the east coast, he left a team that he had guided to a state championship as a sophomore. A team that was good enough to win it's district this past year and win its first three playoff games by a combined score of 128-10, before getting beat by eventual state champs, the University of STA. This time around, he's leaving a team that went 6-5, tied for 2nd in the district and lost an opening round playoff game. And he's headed to a team that went 4-6, finished 4th in a 5-team district, did not make the playoffs, and lost their best player to graduation (a WR who committed to Ohio State). That said, I know very little about what Wiregrass Ranch has coming back and even less about what Merritt Island has coming back. Suffice to say, if the kid just wanted to play on a good team next season, there are plenty of teams in the Tampa Bay area that he could have gone to that likely will have better seasons than Wiregrass will.

I've found I get into fewer arguments when I answer my own questions.

I do not know the Knight family, but from what I understand, the move last year from Tampa to the Space Coast was prompted by a job situation with the father (transfer/promotion/new position . . . something like that). Yes, there was speculation that he might lose his job to the kid who was a freshman last year, but to my knowledge, that had not yet happened. So, it remains speculation. Similarly, the move back to the Tampa Bay area also has been prompted by the father's job situation (another transfer/promotion/new position . . . something like that). Early in my career, I worked with a bunch of bankers and such moves were not unusual in that industry. I don't know what line of work the father is in, or even if he has been staying with the same company. But I have known plenty of people who move away from an area (like Tampa Bay) only to decide the grass wasn't really greener elsewhere, and that they miss their friends, family, church, etc., so they return. Sometimes it would take 4-5 years; sometimes a year. Anyone on this board who has a son who has played sports would understand this: if your family had to move, you would look for the best opportunity for your son to succeed at his new school. You would balance out quality of school, the success/tradition of the particular athletic program your son wants to be involved with, etc. From an outsider's standpoint, that's how Luke Knight ended up at Merritt Island last year. Now, for reasons none of us fully know, the family is coming back to the Tampa Bay area. Did they sell their house a year ago? Did they buy a new house in Merritt Island? Or did they keep their Tampa house, rent it out and lease in MI? Who knows? I certainly don't. But, they've made the decision to return to Tampa. Now it gets interesting. Do you return to a school where you lead the team to a state championship as a sophomore? Football aside, would he even be able to return to Jesuit? I'll go out on a limb and take the position that while Jesuit typically/historically does not allow rising seniors to transfer in, they would have allowed this kid to re-enroll (call it the Pesansky Rule). But now we have to look at from the family's standpoint: how close was the kid to losing his starting job a year ago? Regardless, if you're Matt Thompson (Jesuit head coach), you either made the choice to move on to another guy or that choice was made for you. And that 'other guy' stepped in as a freshman and had success. And that kid is likely to end up a 4-year starter. As the head coach, do you want to bring back in the previous starter, bench your rising star (and possibly run the risk of losing him to informal high school transfer portal) or do you stick with stick with the taller, bigger, younger kid who has the potential to break all of Jesuit's career passing records by the time he graduates? I don't know if the dad spoke with Thompson or if they could just see the writing on the wall. And I think I saw something in the article (before the firewall and/or PDQ ad kept me from reading it all the way through) that indicated the kid would be playing on the same field that he played on in his youth football days. Nostalgia can be a strong motivating force sometimes. So, it looks to me like non-football forces brought the family back to the Tampa Bay area and the family did the same thing they did when those non-football forces took them to the Space Coast - they made a school decision that provided their son with the best opportunity to have success. Just my perspective.

Dang, that might put a dent in their recruiting budget.

Wait, are you being serious???? Venice is traveling to play an away game?

Gatorman-uf, I appreciate the coaching updates. Thank you.

Was any reason given for the decision to fire him?

Darter, you may very well be right . . . even though the five losses were against three state champions -- Chaminade-Madonna, Columbus, and Central (twice) and a runner-up (Homestead). The firewall is keeping me from reading the Miami Herald article, but it looks like Northwestern won the state title 3 of the 8 years that Edwards was the coach, but none of those titles came in the last three years. I guess that's just not good enough in a "what have you done for me lately" world. That said, NW didn't exactly fall off a cliff. I'm wondering if Edwards' disciplinary history had anything to do with it? Did someone put NW in a Michael Jordan-like box and tell the school that they either needed to let Edwards go or face further investigations/sanctions? Pure speculation on my part. What say the south Florida people on this board? Why was Edwards fired and who's going to replace him?

Primarily, upper body strength, right? What quality is needed most for the balance beam? Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a male gymnast perform on the beam? If males trained on the beam, would they be 'better' than females? Conversely, are there any of the "male apparatuses" that women could compete with men if women trained on them? Just curious. I guess I'm still trying to figure out if there are any athletic events in which females have an inherent advantage over males.

I saw on social media last night that long-time Miami Northwestern coach, Max Edwards, is out as the coach. There seemed to be some disagreement as to whether he left on his own volition or was fired. Either way, it'll be interesting to see the domino effect this has in South Florida.

Yes, I'm aware of both of those things. The question is whether it should be that way. As for gymnastics, I'm aware of the different apparatuses used by the men and the women, but have never taken the time to research how and why, for example, men use the high bar and women use the uneven parallel bars. Well, that give me something to do next time I have some spare time. I'll get back to you in a couple of years.

I can hardly wait... In the meantime, just to be clear, your position is as follows: in those situations where it can be scientifically determined that one classification of humans (I'll keep the aliens out of the discussion for now) has a "genetic and biological advantage" over another group, we shouldn't allow the advantaged group to participate with the disadvantaged group, as that would give the advantaged group an unfair advantage and deprive the disadvantaged group of succeeding. But the disadvantaged group can always compete with the advantaged group, even if that means that members of the advantaged group are precluded from participating. Did I say all of that right? (Yeah, I know the wheels are now spinning in your brain as you try to figure out where I'm going with all this).

Do you think there might be a few large-mouth bass swimming in this pond?

OK, let's mix this one up a little: Let's say you have a son and let's say that the genetics were somewhat cruel. As a result, he got his size from your wife's side of the family, where 5'6" is considered "tall." And even though he eats twice as much as you do (and that's saying something), he can't get the scales past 130. In short (pun intended), he's the antithesis of what you desire for a kid who wants to play high school football. And, to complete the genetic nightmare, he is not blessed with speed. However, because you put him in Kiddie Kickers when he was 4 years old, he learned how to kick a soccer ball and later learned how to kick a football. He's a rising junior, an above average kicker and based on the fact that the only other two kickers from last season have graduated, he's in line to be the starting kicker. With a little bit of extra training and a late growth spurt, the kid actually has a chance of getting a college scholarship (or at least a PWO spot at a good school). Now, it just so happens that Billy Booster (owner of Booster Ford, Booster Chevy and Booster Dodge) has a genetic dilemma of his own: the little girl that he thought would grow up to be the homecoming queen one day instead is built like a tractor and scares young children. Her best redeeming quality is that she is athletic and her sport of choice is soccer, where she likely will play D-1. She's also a rising junior. Billy's getting real tired of going to Wildcat football games on Friday night to support his alma mater and then waking up early Saturday morning to drive his daughter to another Club soccer tournament three hours away to play a team that's one town over. So, Billy convinces his daughter that she should play football in the fall to keep her in shape for soccer season in the winter. And while thunder thighs is fully capable of competing for a spot on the D-line, she and her dad agree that she should simply kick for the Wildcats. Billy arranges a private workout with the Wildcat head coach and while his daughter has a powerful right leg, she doesn't appear to have the accuracy needed to beat out your son. And the coach tells Billy that. Well, we all know someone like Billy. He doesn't want to take "no" for an answer. So he offers to supply the team with brand new uniforms - home and away - along with a great deal on a new F150, if the coach agrees to let his daughter be the starting kicker. Knowing that the team will likely go 5-5 for the eighth year in a row regardless of who the kicker is, the coach agrees. Everyone can see that your son is the better kicker and if Billy's child were a boy, it's likely nothing would be said and nothing would be done. But Billy's child is a girl and football is a boys sport, isn't it? Should Billy's girl be able to play football and possibly deprive your son of his chance to earn a scholarship? There's an old expression: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But that doesn't appear to be the case with the existing statute. Students are either male or female, based on their biological sex at birth (setting aside a higher-than-you-think percentage of babies that are born with both male and female sex organs). The statute goes on to say: "(b) Athletic teams or sports designated for males, men, or boys may be open to students of the female sex. (c) Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls may not be open to students of the male sex." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it: generally speaking, males are bigger, stronger, faster than females. That explains why we all tend to agree that a male who transitions into a female should not be allowed to compete with biological females. But, are there any sports where females have an advantage? Gymnastics, perhaps? If so, shouldn't the statute also preclude females who transition into males from competing in 'sports designated for males?'