Perspective

So, while it might be wrong, I would not blame the kid for taking the deal. However, I would hold "the rich local private school" responsible for blatantly breaking the rules.

Nolebull, so here's the scenario: A coach or a booster from a high school in Florida approaches a kid who plays football at a different school and offers that kid and/or that kid's parents a boatload of benefits (money, an apartment, or anything else that would, under existing rules, qualify as an "impermissible benefit"). Let's break this down: it's OK for the kid and his family to accept the impermissible benefits as long as they believe that they're making the 'best decision' for their family. And it's OK for the coach or booster to provide such impermissible benefits because that somehow improves the kid's chances of succeeding as an athlete and/or student. Wait, it's not just "OK" for the coach or booster to do that, they should be encouraged to do that because that's the only way they'll be able to keep up with all the other coaches and boosters that are breaking the rules by providing impermissible benefits to other kids. Have I got that right? Do you want to do away with all the rules involving recruiting, benefits, transferring, etc. or just keep the rules in place, but not enforce them? #Lordoftheflies

“Knowing that we are committing [rules] violations and nothing is being done set off alarms for me." Quote from the former (as of a week or so ago) baseball coach at the high school in question (in the article at the beginning of this thread). Admittedly, he was not one of the football coaches, but between he and his wife (who was the principal of the school), they seemed to have a lot of insider information. Note also, that he uses the word "we," referring to the school he was coaching. Do I have any direct knowledge of cheating? Nope. But when I see this much smoke, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some fire burning in there somewhere.

"Choosing to break the rules is not a coach philosophy; it's cheating." /s/ Annoyed and retired

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm OK with an open division, but the teams in the open division should be determined before the season starts and not at the end of the regular season just before the playoffs begin.

I think it was a coach from their own school (albeit from another sport) that was calling the school out.

Ironic. These days, it's usually the folks from other countries that are being told to 'go back to where they came from.'

In an effort to get this thread back on track, here's Tampa Plant's schedule for the 2024 season: 8/16 – vs. Lecanto (KOC) 8/23 – TBD (reports of a trip to Ireland have already been posted) 8/30 – vs. Gaither 9/6 – vs. Robinson 9/13 - @ Tampa Bay Tech 9/20 – vs. Sumner 9/27 – vs. Armwood* 10/4 – bye 10/10 - @ Wharton* 10/18 - @ Berkeley 10/25 - @ Sickles* 11/1 vs. Steinbrenner * - denotes District Game (6A Reg. 2, Dis. 8) The three-game stretch in the middle/end of September will likely determine what kind of team/season Plant has this coming season (TBT, Sumner and Armwood). The stretch in October will determine if they make the playoffs.

The difference that I see is that colleges and universities can recruit (in fact, they have to in order to be competitive). More importantly, the local car dealership can be loyal to a particular college or university and under new NIL rules, it can pay a student-athlete. As it stands now, that same car dealership can be loyal to a particular high school football team, but as soon as they start providing payments to players, they run afoul of the FHSAA rules prohibiting "impermissible benefits." This whole section would have to be changed: "37.2 IMPERMISSIBLE BENEFIT 37.2.1 General Regulation. 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 be involved, directly or indirectly, in giving an impermissible benefit to any student or any member of his/her family for the purpose of participating in interscholastic athletics, or to any student-athlete who already attends a school. 37.2.2 Specific Prohibitions. Specifically prohibited arrangements, assistance or benefits include, but are not limited to, the following: 37.2.2.1 School-based financial assistance of any kind that exceeds the amount for which a student has been approved by an independent financial needs assessment company that is recognized by the FHSAA or otherwise is in excess of any supplemental assistance provided by a school to each and every student who qualifies for financial assistance. 37.2.2.2 Cash or like items, such as credit cards, debit cards, gift cards, gift certificates, coupons, or vouchers. . . .." What's wrong with keeping high school sports purely amateur? Unlike colleges and universities, no one (including/especially the high schools) is really 'profiting' from the name, image or likeness of a high school athletes, are they? My kids played with some pretty high-profile guys, but I don't recall Dick's selling jerseys with their names printed on the back. Are high school football players from Florida going to start fleeing to other states to pick up a few grand? Perhaps a kid from the panhandle or Jacksonville might get pulled north to Georgia or Alabama for a few bucks, but I can't see any south Florida kids making the move north unless the money was huge (like a once-in-a-generation kid). Let NIL screw up the college game, but keep the high school game as pure as possible.

Unless and until the FHSAA changes the rules regarding recruiting, I don't see how you can possibly reconcile "allowing NIL deals" with "no recruiting." The only way that I can see it happening is if companies offering NIL deals offer the deals to players at multiple high schools. But, if you've got, let's say, a car dealership in Venice or Lakeland that only offers NIL deals to kids who attend Venice or Lakeland, that constitutes recruiting.

St. Somebody, I suspect.

Hey, why can't we just have the FHSAA and MaxPreps come up with a secret formula to rate all the teachers and then pay them based on that?

Nolebull, just out of curiosity, how many of these games are away games vs. a non-district opponent?

Understood. But how does this impact or affect the FHSAA's position on recruiting? Do the powers-to-be want schools to be able to recruit?

According to Raymond's X account, Raymond has official visits scheduled as follows: 3/7: USF 3/23: Syracuse 3/29: West Virginia 3/30: Rutgers 4/1: Venice High School (Note: 80% of this post is factually accurate)

Serious question (for everyone): I know the FHSAA had to back down on the school choice issue, but has the governor, the legislature or anyone else in Tallahassee explicitly or implicitly threatened the FHSAA for cracking down on recruiting? In other words, why can't the FHSAA be more proactive when it comes to investigating schools that recruit? If memory serves me correct, the FHSAA was very active a decade or so ago with respect to making sure kids went to the schools for which they were zoned (and making sure there were no apartment deals or other impermissible benefits). Why can't they do the same thing now with recruiting? Is someone putting pressure on them to turn a blind eye to recruiting? Who? And if you believe that to be the case, please be as factually detailed with your response as possible. Thanks.

I'm struggling to find the "Yeah, that's funny, but it's also really sad because it's true" emoji.

See, I knew not being able to play 8 home games this year would come back to haunt Venice.

Interesting. I look foward to hearing "the rest of the story" at some point in the future.

I just don't see you can reconcile NIL, on the one hand, and recruiting, on the other hand, in high school sports. Colleges are allowed to recruit. It's a major part of whether a team/coach is successful. And once a school has signaled its intent to recruit a particular player, the collective affiliated with that particular college or university can then step in and try to negotiate a NIL deal with the player being recruited. Somewhat oversimplified, but I think that's accurate. High schools are not allowed to recruit. If anyone associated with a school (coach, parent, booster, etc.) offers/promises to do anything for a prospective transfer student to lure that student to their school, that's recruiting. And, as the rules are currently written, that's illegal. Similarly, if anyone (most likely a parent or booster) does anything for a particular player that isn't done for all other students, that's considered to be an impermissible benefit. And that's also illegal. So, how do you re-write the rules to allow NIL without removing the "no recruiting" and "no impermissible benefits" sections of the rules? Almost by definition, anyone that forms a collective or who personally signs someone to an NIL deal would be considered "a representative of the school’s athletic interests." If you re-write all these rules to allow NIL, what will you be left with?

Sadly, NIL is about to ruin high school football in Florida | Commentary

nolebull, thank you for taking the time to post all of these. And, thank you to gatorman-uf for posting the coaching updates.

Four road games?!?! How is Venice going to make their numbers work??

Any time something is "all about perspective," I'm in favor of it! Joking aside, I'm OK with the idea of 'more football,' and completely agree that you can call the successful teams almost anything you want as long as you don't call them 'state champions.' Ironically, the concept is being tested in the rural areas, where kids are more likely to play multiple sports. This idea may actually get some push-back from high school basketball coaches in rural areas, as prolonged football seasons will keep kids off the basketball court that much longer.

Isn't this basically what the Sunshine State Athletic Association did at the end of this past season -- where every team participated in some form of post-season play and the teams were grouped together based on their records/rankings? I'm wondering if this is a proactive effort to keep football alive and kicking in the rural areas. Regardless, I'm not a fan of the 'bottom half' of any classification being able to compete for a "state championship."