Perspective

So, let's break this down. Schools cannot control what their fans do, but schools can be punished if certain of their fans break the rules. Is this fair? I don't know. But it is the way the rules are written. If you start sending out text messages to kids suggesting they 'come play for Venice,' and you are not a representative of Venice's athletic interests, no one gets into trouble. Although you may lose a few friends in Lakeland. Can a kid who receives multiple text messages decide to selectively turn in certain teams, but not others? Yes. Does that happen? Not in my experience. To the contrary, kids/parents that have been a part of the shady underworld of high school recruiting/transferring tend to do whatever they can to stay quiet and under the radar for fear of getting caught in the punishment net. As I have said many times (not necessarily on this site), most kids who get contacted by other schools take it as a compliment. It makes them (and their parents) feel good. "Dang, look at all these other schools/coaches that want me/my son to come play for them. That's pretty cool. They're nice guys; why should I turn them in?" And if the kid or his parents are the ones reaching out to other schools to gauge any interest that other schools might have, well, those are going to be the last kids/parents to want to turn anyone in. With all due respect, it appears to me that you are trying to make the argument that the existing rules need to be changed. That may be true. But, as you have seen with NIL, once the camel gets his nose in the tent, the rest of the body is sure to follow. Or you can go with the Pandora's Box analogy. Either way, it'll get crazy.

I'm confused. Are we talking about the way it is or the way it should be? Here's what Policy 37.1.1 of the FHSAA Handbook says: "No school employee, athletic department staff member, representative of the school’s athletic interests or third parties, such as an independent person, business or organization, may make contact, either in person or through any form of written or electronic communication or through any third party, with a student, or any member of the student’s family, in an effort to pressure, urge or entice the student to attend a different school for the purpose of participating in interscholastic athletics." So, does this apply to a fan or a existing player player on team? Good question. Clearly the rule applies to an existing player on a team (see below) and it may apply to a fan if that fan falls within the definition of a "representative of a school's athletic interests." Here is how the FHSAA defines that term: 36.2.1.1 Representative of a School’s Athletic Interests. “Representative of a school’s athletic interests” refers to any independent person, business or organization that participates in, assists with and/or promotes that school’s interscholastic athletic program. This includes: (a) A student-athlete or other student participant in the athletic program at that school; (b) The parents, guardians or other family members of a student-athlete or other student participant in the athletic program at that school; (c) Immediate relatives of a coach or other member of the athletic department staff at that school; (d) A volunteer with that school’s athletic program; (e) A member of an athletic booster organization of that school; (f) A person, business or organization that makes financial or in-kind contributions to the athletic department or that is otherwise involved in promoting the school’s interscholastic athletic program. Whether it should be the rule is subject to debate, but as it stands now, if a kid from one team sends out a text, a DM, an email, a telegraph or a smoke signal to a kid at another school trying to persuade that kid to transfer, that's recruiting and that's illegal. Same thing if a coach does it. Same thing if a parent of a kid on the team does. Same thing if a dude who is a member of the booster club does it. Would it apply to a "fan?" I don't know; let's use someone like This_is_Dillard as an example? Clearly, he's an alum, but he doesn't have a kid at Dillard anymore (if my recollection is correct). If he's not a booster, not a volunteer and makes no financial or in-kind contributions to the team and is not involved in promoting the program, he may not qualify. Interesting question arises as to whether someone who comes on a message board and repeatedly posts positive things about his former school would qualify as a "promoter," thus making him a representative of the school's athletic interests. That's a grey area for me. As for the "photoshop" argument, that's what lawyers would call "an evidentiary issue." The entity investigating (i.e., the FHSAA) likely would have to subpoena phone records to find out what text messages were sent from what devices and who owned those devices. Photoshopped messages might be enough to start an investigation, but it likely would not stand up to evidentiary scrutiny if the issue gets raised. The tough issue would be if a text got sent and the person who allegedly sent it claims they were hacked or their phone was temporarily removed from their possession by some rogue texter trying to get a particular school in trouble. Again, we can debate all day long what the rules should be, and we can debate all day if the FHSAA does anything about the information once received, but like it or not, what the rules are is pretty clear.

And I'll make this comment as general as possible so that it's not directed to or at any person: if you're not willing to say something (i.e., turn in those that are clearly breaking the rules), then you really shouldn't bitch about it. If you think what's happening is wrong and you have the receipts to prove it (and you don't live in a glass house), speak out.

So take a screen shot of the text message and send it to the FHSAA. That's the only way you're going to put a stop to it. Yeah, you may burn a few bridges, but you may also put a stop to it.

If this doesn't define the word "irony," I don't know what does.

This might help: https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/sports/high-school/football/2024/07/10/booker-football-coach-scottie-littles-suspended-6-games-fined-for-recruiting-violation/73265547007/ Having read the article, I understand the improper contact charge, but I didn't see anything in there that smacks of impermissible benefits. That said, this is yet another example of how the FHSAA system works against the honest schools and coaches. Someone, anyone, sends something in to the FHSAA. Instead of investigating, they simply send it out to the school and say, "hey, do you know anything about this?" The school then reviews it internally (and perhaps only by school/athletic administration folks, such that the coach isn't even involved). If the school determines that there is a fire behind the smoke, it can then "self-report" the violation. Once the violation has been self-reported (which was the case in this matter, according to the article), the FHSAA hands down its sanction and because the self-report essentially acts as an admission of guilt, the FHSAA feels justified in throwing the book at the accused coach. In so doing, the FHSAA picks up an easy win and word spreads of the punishment, which then, presumably, has a chilling affect on other coaches across the state. This story has been told before.

Best Roll Call skit ever.

But yet MaxPreps can put out a power ranking now? Makes no sense.

I couldn't agree more. The official power rankings shouldn't come out until week 4 or 5 of the season.

According to MaxPreps, these are the most dominant programs in the last 20 years: 1. St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale), 1,127 State championships: 2008 (5A), 2010 (5A), 2012 (7A), 2013 (7A), 2014 (7A), 2015 (7A), 2016 (7A), 2019 (7A), 2020 (7A), 2021 (7A), 2022 (3M), 2023 (3M) State runner-up: 2004 (5A), 2005 (5A), 2006 (5A), 2018 (7A) State top 25: 2004 (12), 2005 (8), 2006 (8), 2007 (6), 2008 (1), 2009 (5), 2010 (1), 2011 (12), 2012 (4), 2013 (17), 2014 (1), 2015 (3), 2016 (2), 2017 (15), 2018 (3), 2019 (1), 2020 (2), 2021 (4), 2022 (3), 2023 (3) Nationally ranked: 2008 (1), 2010 (4), 2014 (8), 2015 (21), 2016 (7), 2019 (5), 2020 (14), 2021 (9), 2022 (6), 2023 (9) 2. Central (Miami), 818 State championships: 2010 (6A), 2012 (6A), 2013 (6A), 2014 (6A), 2015 (6A), 2019 (6A), 2020 (6A), 2021 (5A), 2022 (2M) State runner-up: 2011 (6A) State top 25: 2004 (25), 2009 (7), 2010 (3), 2011 (7), 2012 (1), 2013 (2), 2014 (3), 2015 (2), 2016 (13), 2017 (6), 2018 (5), 2019 (3), 2020 (4), 2021 (6), 2022 (1), 2023 (13) Nationally ranked: 2010 (15), 2012 (14), 2013 (8), 2014 (14), 2015 (14), 2019 (21), 2020 (18), 2021 (20), 2022 (2) 3. Booker T. Washington (Miami), 467 State championships: 2007 (4A), 2012 (4A), 2013 (4A), 2014 (4A), 2015 (4A), 2019 (4A) State runner-up: 2011 (4A) State top 25: 2004 (11), 2005 (10), 2006 (13), 2007 (1), 2011 (14), 2012 (2), 2013 (1), 2014 (2), 2015 (19), 2016 (17), 2019 (6) Nationally ranked: 2007 (25), 2012 (15), 2013 (4), 2014 (13) 4. Chaminade-Madonna (Hollywood), 435 State championships: 2005 (2A), 2017 (3A), 2018 (3A), 2019 (3A), 2021 (3A), 2022 (1M), 2023 (1M) State runner-up: 2016 (3A), 2020 (3A) State top 25: 2004 (7), 2005 (7), 2017 (7), 2018 (13), 2019 (13), 2020 (8), 2021 (5), 2022 (4), 2023 (2) Nationally ranked: 2021 (24), 2022 (10), 2023 (2) 5. Lakeland, 432 State championships: 2004 (5A), 2005 (5A), 2006 (5A), 2018 (7A), 2022 (4S), 2023 (4S) State runner-up: 2008 (5A) State top 25: 2004 (1), 2005 (1), 2006 (1), 2007 (15), 2008 (5), 2009 (11), 2010 (10), 2018 (2), 2019 (9), 2022 (5), 2023 (7) Nationally ranked: 2004 (22), 2005 (21), 2006 (21), 2018 (19), 2022 (14) 6. Armwood (Seffner), 410 State championships: 2004 (4A), 2011 (6A), 2013 (6A), 2014 (6A), 2015 (6A), 2017 (6A), 2018 (6A) State runner-up: 2005 (4A), 2010 (4A), 2013 (6A), 2014 (6A), 2015 (6A), 2017 (6A), 2018 (6A) State top 25: 2004 (3), 2005 (4), 2006 (9), 2007 (4), 2008 (9), 2009 (15), 2010 (5), 2011 (2), 2013 (12), 2014 (9), 2015 (10), 2016 (24), 2017 (5), 2018 (16), 2019 (7) Nationally ranked: 2009 (9) 7. American Heritage (Plantation), 406 State championships: 2013 (5A), 2014 (5A), 2016 (5A), 2017 (5A), 2020 (5A) State runner-up: 2015 (3A), 2022 (2M) State top 25: 2004 (24), 2013 (4), 2014 (5), 2015 (9), 2016 (4), 2017 (2), 2018 (17), 2019 (12), 2020 (5), 2021 (18), 2022 (7), 2023 (12) Nationally ranked: 2017 (6), 2020 (21), 2022 (12) 8. Cocoa, 389 State championships: 2009 (2A), 2010 (2A), 2016 (4A), 2022 (2S), 2023 (2S) State runner-up: 2017 (4A), 2018 (4A), 2021 (4A) State top 25: 2007 (20), 2008 (4), 2009 (2), 2010 (4), 2012 (16), 2016 (5), 2017 (12), 2020 (17), 2021 (9), 2022 (17), 2023 (4) Nationally ranked: 2009 (22), 2023 (17) 9. Northwestern (Miami), 341 State championships: 2006 (6A), 2007 (2), 2017 (6A), 2018 (6A), 2019 (5A) State runner-up: 2008 (6A) State top 25: 2006 (2), 2007 (2), 2008 (7), 2009 (17), 2010 (19), 2011 (19), 2012 (24), 2016 (6), 2017 (4), 2018 (9), 2019 (4), 2020 (12), 2021 (22), 2022 (13) Nationally ranked: 2019 (24) 10. Plant (Tampa), 331 State championships: 2006 (4A), 2008 (4A), 2009 (5A), 2011 (8A) State runner-up: 2010 (5A), 2016 (7A) State top 25: 2006 (3),2007 (14), 2008 (2), 2009 (3), 2010 (8), 2011 (3), 2012 (21), 2013 (14), 2016 (7), 2017 (20) Nationally ranked: 2009 (23), 2011 (13) 11. Trinity Christian Academy (Jacksonville), 253 State championships: 2010 (1A), 2013 (3A), 2014 (3A), 2015 (3A), 2016 (3A), 2020 (3A), 2021 (2A) State runner-up: 2009 (1A) State top 25: 2009 (25), 2010 (25), 2013 (10), 2014 (7), 2015 (5), 2016 (12), 2018 (14), 2020 (7) Nationally ranked: N/A 12. Columbus (Miami), 236 State championships: 2019 (8A), 2022 (4M), 2023 (4M) State runner-up: 2018 (8A) State top 25: 2007 (22), 2008 (23), 2010 (23), 2011 (24), 2014 (13), 2015 (6), 2018 (8), 2019 (10), 2020 (11), 2021 (20), 2022 (6), 2023 (8) Nationally ranked: 2022 (23) 13. Bolles (Jacksonville), 234 State championships: 2004 (3A), 2006 (2A), 2008 (2A), 2011 (4A) State runner-up: 2013 (4A), 2016 (4A), 2019 (4A), 2020 (4A) State top 25: 2004 (2), 2006 (6), 2008 (8), 2009 (12), 2011 (8), 2012 (22), 2014 (18), 2016 (19), 2020 (25) Nationally ranked: N/A 14. Madison County (Madison), 223 State championships: 2007 (2A), 2017 (1A), 2018 (1A), 2019 (1A), 2021 (1A) State runner-up: 2004 (2A), 2011 (3A), 2012 (3A), 2023 (1R) State top 25: 2004 (13), 2007 (8), 2010 (11), 2011 (16), 2012 (12), 2017 (19), 2018 (20) Nationally ranked: N/A 15. Apopka, 217 State championships: 2012 (8A), 2013 (8A), 2014 (8A) State runner-up: 2019 (8A), 2021 (8A), 2022 (4M) State top 25: 2007 (18), 2009 (13), 2012 (7), 2013 (6), 2014 (6), 2015 (25), 2019 (8), 2021 (8), 2022 (16) Nationally ranked: N/A 16. Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale), 187 State championships: 2018 (5A), 2020 (4A), 2021 (4A) State runner-up: N/A State top 25: 2016 (14), 2017 (10), 2018 (7), 2019 (18), 2020 (3), 2021 (7), 2022 (25) Nationally ranked: 2020 (22) 17. Venice, 183 State championships: 2017 (7A), 2021 (8A) State runner-up: 2022 (4S), 2023 (4S) State top 25: 2011 (20), 2016 (11), 2017 (3), 2018 (10), 2019 (23), 2020 (20), 2021 (1), 2022 (12), 2023 (11) Nationally ranked: N/A 18. Mainland (Daytona Beach), 176 State championships: 2023 (3S) State runner-up: 2022 (3S) State top 25: 2004 (5), 2006 (10), 2008 (15), 2011 (18), 2013 (8), 2014 (8), 2015 (11), 2016 (9), 2023 (6) Nationally ranked: N/A 19. Dwyer (Palm Beach Gardens), 169 State championships: 2009 (4A) State runner-up: 2013 (7A) State top 25: 2008 (13), 2009 (1), 2010 (20), 2011 (9), 2013 (3), 2016 (18) Nationally ranked: 2009 (4) 20. Manatee (Bradenton), 165 State championships: 2011 (7A) State runner-up: 2009 (5A) State top 25: 2009 (14), 2010 (9), 2011 (1), 2012 (5), 2013 (11), 2014 (24) Nationally ranked: 2011 (8) T-21. Carol City (Miami), 136 State championships: 2016 (6A) State runner-up: N/A State top 25: 2015 (17), 2016 (3), 2017 (16), 2018 (4) Nationally ranked: 2016 (10) T-21. Norland (Miami), 136 State championships: 2011 (5A) State runner-up: 2023 (2M) State top 25: 2010 (12), 2011 (4), 2022 (19), 2023 (5) Nationally ranked: 2011 (19) 23. Jefferson (Tampa), 129 State championships: 2010 (3A) State runner-up: 2004 (3A) State top 25: 2004 (10), 2005 (24), 2006 (19), 2009 (19), 2010 (2) Nationally ranked: 2010 (8) 24. St. Augustine, 128 State championships: 2005 (3A) State runner-up: 2007 (3A), 2023 (3S) State top 25: 2005 (2), 2006 (18), 2007 (9), 2008 (24), 2010 (13), 2017 (9), 2023 (19) Nationally ranked: N/A 25. American Heritage (Delray Beach), 126 State championships: 2007 (1A), 2009 (1A), 2011 (3A) State runner-up: 2010 (1A) State top 25: 2009 (21), 2011 (6), 2012 (10), 2014 (11) Nationally ranked: N/A Here's the link to the article, which also shows how the rankings were determined.

Isn't that illegal?

So, IMG is so loaded that a 5-star recruit isn't one of their top two WR's? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If I'm a college coach recruiting a kid and that kid left IMG, I'd dig deep to find out why. The kid would have to have a really good excuse. IMG is probably the closest thing to what things will be like for the kid when he arrives on a college campus.

From where?

Your post raises an interesting question: I'm just wondering, on average, and under the existing (or even past) playoff system, how many teams go into the playoffs undefeated, only to suffer a season-ending first loss at some point in the playoffs? Obviously, none of those teams would have a shot at redemption. Again, just wondering.