Perspective

So, where is the video of the actual altercation?

If your goal is to win a state title (which can be a goal for STA or AHP, but not for IMG), then it makes sense to play quality opponents, especially early in the season. Iron sharpens iron. However, if you want a shot at a mythical national championship, you've got to be very careful about who you play and when you play them. You simply cannot afford a single loss (or perhaps even a really close win). One stumble and *poof* national championship hopes go down the drain. It looks like the IMG/AHP match-up is a kick-off classic. Under the right circumstances, I can see STA agreeing to play IMG in a future KOC game, but both teams may have too much to lose to play a regular season game. As for this year, an AHP loss won't affect their chances of winning a state title. But if IMG were to lose, even in a pre-season game, they're going to have a tough time staying in the top 20 nationally -- and even if they stay in the top 20, they can run the table and probably won't be able to move all the way into the number one spot by season's end.

It's just a matter of time. Columbia, you list some good ones, but I would have a hard time listing public schools for several reasons - most notably the economics involved.

Great questions, Gatorman. I'm not sure I can give you definitive answers, but I'll definitely join the conversation because it's an important topic. While I believe that coaches should be paid more (as should teachers), the Adam Smith in me understands, generally, how a free market system works. If there is always a new crop of "young promising coaches" willing to fill the void, either to make whatever [additional] money they can or in hopes of kick-starting a career in coaching, it's hard for the employer to justify paying more . . . unless the employer (i.e., the various school districts around the state) are willing to pay more for experience, commitment and quality. I've noticed the same thing you have. The other/additional factor that you did not specifically mention has to do with where the coaches are in their life. Coaches who start out single then get married. A couple of years later, if that, their wives have babies. Perhaps it's the pressure to bring home more money or the legitimate desire on the part of the coaches to spend more time with their own kids than somebody else's kids, but I've seen more than one or two coaches make the decision to 'go in a different direction' and give up the coaching. And then there's the handful of coaches that also have teaching jobs, who may be pulling down $50K if you combine their teacher's salary, their coaching stipend, and any extra money they may earn. If they are successful (and don't wait too long), they may have the opportunity to step up to the collegiate ranks and easily double or triple their income. Tough to say 'no' to those offers. Again, I don't have any immediate solutions - other than increase their pay across the board. If you have kids who are playing (or who have played sports), you'd probably vote in favor of this proposal. But, if you have kids who don't play sports, you may not be as inclined to support such a position. Again, great questions.

Here's a link to a pretty solid/insightful article: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31477534/tampering-arrived-college-football-looks-nba-free-agency In many respects, and while there isn't a formal transfer portal for high school kids (at least not yet), the similarities between college and high school are remarkable. And as you read through the article, mentally substitute "high school" for "college" and "FHSAA" for "NCAA" and you have a pretty good description of what's going on at the prep level.

Then I suspect their morning commute to school just got a little longer.

As the crow flies, the two schools are about 30 miles apart. But, if memory serves me correct, there is only one public high school in Hardee County. So, kids who live in the eastern part of the county could easily live as close, if not closer, to Sebring High School than Hardee High School. That said, I was not aware that kids could cross county lines to attend a public school in a neighboring county as part of the whole school choice thing. I could understand why a tax-paying landowner in Highlands County might raise a stink about Sebring High School using his tax dollars to educate kids from Hardee County . . . unless, of course, the kids are really good in football, in which case he'll probably just keep his mouth shut.

Guys, I'm not shy about calling out the FHSAA when they've done something wrong but, in my opinion, you can't blame the "transfer" thing on them. That blame needs to be placed squarely on the state legislature. I'm pretty sure I've posted the whole back-story on this site before, but the bottom line is that a state rep from Lakeland got all bent out of shape that the FHSAA wasn't allowing kids to transfer into her beloved Lakeland High School (or, if they did transfer in, they had to sit out a season). So, she introduced legislation, and the legislature passed a law, that basically allows any kid in a particular county to attend any school in that county for any reason whatsoever as long as there is room at the school they want to attend. In short, the Florida Legislature forced this issue down the throats of the FHSAA. They even threatened to cut off funding for the FHSAA if the FHSAA didn't rewrite their rules and policies to conform with the new law. Individual counties in the state can still restrict transfers into its schools when those schools are at or above capacity (or perhaps even within a certain percentage or number of capacity). I'll give you an example from Hillsborough County: Plant has been at or over capacity for over a decade. With a couple of very fact-specific exceptions (that have to be approved by all the powers-to-be), a kid in Hillsborough County cannot attend Plant unless they live in the Plant district. On the other hand, Armwood is not at capacity. Therefore, any kid in Hillsborough County can choose to attend Armwood and play sports there if they want to. The only caveat is that if the kid lives out of the district, he has to provide for his own transportation to and from school. Now I'll shift from the "news" section to the "editorial" section. Because of what happened a few years back, in my opinion, the FHSAA basically had their mojo taken away from them (refer to the Austin Powers movies). As a result, in my opinion, they have been very, very timid when it comes to policing alleged recruiting violations. For the most part, they don't have anyone on staff initiating investigations; they only investigate if another member school files a complaint. Combine that with the "honor among thieves" mentality that exists among high school coaches and athletic directors (many of whom are or used to be coaches), and you end up with a policy manual that has no teeth and a group of people that are willing to look the other way for fear that their indiscretions might get revealed. But I'll leave the rest of this part of the conversation for another day. For now, just know that the FHSAA could be doing more about the recruiting problems, but may be hesitant to do so because of how they got b!tch-slapped around by your elected officials in Tallahassee a few years ago.

It's between Pensacola and Key West.

Uh, oh. Jesse's getting ready to open up a can of whoop-ass.

ColumbiaFan, I'm just curious . . . did some kid who went to Lee steal your lunch money every day when you were younger? Four things in life I can guaranty: 1. Death; 2. Taxes; 3. Jesse will find a way to bring Madison into the conversation; and 4. In any topic involving Jacksonville schools, transfers, or recruiting, you'll find a way to take a shot at Lee. It's like it's personal or something. Just curious.

Jambun, I thought the coaches tell the officials throughout each game what they think of the calls being made.

Now, see, Jambun, we're not that far apart on this topic after all. Here's the way I look at it, if Johnny lives in the northeast part of town, but yet he and his family are aware of the storied tradition of Southwest High School, and they believe Johnny's talents and skill set would be a good fit at SHS (and are willing to drive Johnny to and from SHS every day), I don't really have a problem with Johnny making the decision to attend SHS. Personally, I'd prefer that decision get made before Johnny ever steps foot onto the Northeast High School campus (and certainly before Johnny ever puts on a NHS jersey), but I recognize there may be circumstances in which a transfer might be appropriate (especially if Johnny is a QB or a kicker). What I don't want to see is the coach from SHS calling up Johnny and his parents trying to convince them that SHS would be the better place for Johnny to showcase his talents. I don't want the SHS coach making that call when Johnny's in the 8th grade and I certainly don't want to see that call being made once Johnny starts attending NHS. In short, if a kid and/or his family decide on their own that they want to explore/pursue other options, I'm OK with that. I just don't think we want to open up Pandora's Box by allowing schools/coaches to engage in a targeted campaign to try and convince particular kids and their families that their school is the better option.

No worries, Jambun. I was just stating my personal opinion on the issue of recruiting and where I "draw the line" just reflects my personal beliefs on the subject. I understand that reasonable people can have very different opinions on this issue and can agree to disagree. I just happen to believe that if you allow any kind of recruiting, you open up Pandora's Box to all kinds of issues and problems. In my mind, this will lead to regional "super teams" . . . at least as long as the head coach and/or coaching staff stay at a particular school. Recent changes have already contributed to this. If recruiting is allowed, that could further tilt the balance of power which, in turn, could adversely affect the overall health of the sport. While you might not be enamored with the idea of kids growing up in the same neighborhood coming together in high school to win a state championship, I like it . . . perhaps because I've seen it. To the contrary, I really don't like the idea of a kid transferring from one school to the next to the next and to the next because the grass looks greener somewhere else and some other coach whispers sweet nothings in his ear to get him to make the move because that coach needs a back-up plan in case one of his kids gets snatched up by some other school. I realize the Kyle Trask story is an anomaly, but I love that story of perseverance and reward. Again, reasonable people can agree to disagree on this issue. My opinion doesn't make me right or wrong. It just makes it mine.

Why, are you trying to 'recruit' me?

I make a distinction between "marketing" and "recruiting." Personally, I have no problem with schools doing open houses, group tours, etc. with the ability to emphasize, instead of ignore, athletics. If Public High School wants to have an open house and invite any kid in the county to attend, I'm fine with that. And, quite frankly, the only schools that likely will object are the ones that don't have the resources to do even that or the private schools that are already doing it. As part of "marketing," schools also could tout their athletic programs via social media - which they already do to a certain extent. But, they could take it a step further in my mind. I do have a problem with recruiting by schools and coaches. I recognize the practical reality of trying to police kids talking up their program/coaches with their peers. I look at recruiting as an effort by a school or coach to target a specific kid who is not otherwise zoned to attend that particular school. That's where I draw the line.

Reluctantly, I agree with your assessment, Darter.

Not to get off-topic, and definitely not to turn this into a political discussion, but isn't this exactly what the NCAA is doing to states that pass legislation that runs counter to their policies (i.e., transgender participation, etc.)?

Jambun, that's a bold statement. I'd love to hear you expound on this. How should the rules be changed? Should all schools/coaches be able to openly recruit? On-campus visits for 8th graders? On-campus visits for kids playing at other schools? Can a coach from one team go to a game between two other neighboring schools when his team has an off week and then talk to kids who just played in the game as they are walking off the field? Can a school set up a booth at a 7-on-7 tournament and give away free Gatorade and Power Bars to kids from other teams? Will high school kids be on social media bragging about their "offers" from all the various high schools in their area (or the area in the next county or state over)? Colleges have a difficult enough time monitoring the recruiting process. It occurs to me that the issue will simply go from "are they really recruiting?" to "are they following the recruiting rules?" There will be guys out there that will always try to push the envelope (and who will cross the line) in order to get an advantage. Would open recruiting benefit "wealthy schools?" Won't this further exacerbate the "haves and the have nots" disparity we've already started to see? While I have my own opinion on the matter, I'm willing to keep an open mind. But before we open Pandora's Box, I think it's worth having the discussion of what the Wild, Wild West will look like if all schools, coaches and players are allowed to openly recruit.

This may be the single most confusing sentence I've seen posted on this site by someone not named Jesse. Are you saying that this is the way things ought to be or the way things are? If the latter, it is 100% in violation of FHSAA rules. So, either the rules need to change or the behavior needs to change. Otherwise, the schools (including coaches, players and boosters) who follow the rules get penalized and get their butts kicked by the schools that are not following the rules. There needs to be a level playing field.

Is "talent acquisition" code for recruiting? It's one thing to have a program that attracts kids from other schools, but the choice of words used here suggests something else is happening. No dog in the fight; just curious.

With the NCAA granting current college kids an extra year of eligibility, how many high school athletes in this year's graduating class are feeling the squeeze and not getting the offers that they would have received in the past? Thinking all sports, not just football. I know of a couple of basketball players and one or two baseball players that likely would have received multiple offers in any other year, but coaches are holding back offers, in large part because they don't even know if they'll have scholarships available. Anyone else got a war story? What are kids doing? A post-grad year? A gap year? A year or two of community college in hopes of transferring into a D1 school once the logjam of players clears out?

I think someone already alluded to this, but things have gotten interesting up in Valdosta: https://usatodayhss.com/2021/valdosta-high-school-football-postseason-ban-fine-rush-propst-jake-garcia If you have a few minutes to spare, track down the YouTube recording of the conversation between the coach and the whistle-blowing booster.

Thanks, SportsNut. You actually confirmed for me one point that I intentionally glossed over in my original post: coaches are an integral part of the process. I'm guessing there is a correlation between coaches who participate in the process and the kids who are selected. Coaches who actively promote their kids are more like to reap the reward of seeing their kids named all-state. Without knowing anything more than what I currently know, I'm guessing that the coaches at Venice, Jesuit and Niceville (just to name a few) fall into that "active promoter" category. Again, consistent with my original theme, this is an observation, not a criticism. As a player or a parent, I would certainly want to play (or have my kid play) for a coach who is going the extra mile to promote his players.

Advance warning: this will be a long post. First and foremost, I want to give a shout-out to Josh (and any helpers he may have had) for creating the all-state teams. It no doubt takes a tremendous amount of time. I’m somewhat curious of the process: does he create his own list of candidates and then whittle it down? Does he solicit and/or accept nominations? Does he watch film on all of the nominees? Regardless of the process, I know it’s incredibly time-consuming and often time a thankless job. So, with that in mind, this post is not intended to criticize the selections or the selection process. Let me say that again: this post is not a criticism of which players got selected and which players did not (although I was left wondering how Armwood’s mountain-of-a-man Desmond Watson (DL), a UF commit, was not first, second, or third-team or even honorable mention selection in 6A, but I’ll just let that one sit here). You must be wondering now “if Perspective’s not here to bitch about the selections, what’s the purpose of his post?” Truth is, I’m not 100% sure. It’s more about my observations. It seemed to me that a very small number of schools within each classification dominated the all-state honors. (Another caveat: I didn’t look at 1A at all – sorry Madison and Jesse – and I didn’t look past Hialeah Champagnet Catholic in 2A). I realize this is a chicken-and-egg situation: are the players receiving the honors because their teams had great seasons or did the teams have great seasons because the players are so good. And, I suspect, for the most part, the answer to both questions is “yes.” But, I also always hear coaches saying that it doesn’t matter where a kid plays; if he has talent, he’ll be found. Generally, this applies to scholarships. But it doesn’t appear to apply to all-state honors. General comment: for 5A through 8A, this site selected a first-team offense and defense, a second-team offense and defense, and a third-team offense and defense. Within each group, the offense has 17 players selected (including 2 QB’s, a kicker and an “Athlete”) and the defense had 17 selected (including a punter and an “Athlete”). The site also selected numerous “honorable mention” selections. For 1A through 4A, no third team offense or defense was selected, which I get – fewer teams, fewer players. I used to be able to find the classifications from past years on fhsaa.org. Now that the site has “moved” to fhsaa.com, I can’t seem to find past year’s classifications. The only one available is for 2020-21. And this excludes all the Broward public schools and most of the Miami-Dade schools. But kids from these schools were considered for all-state honors. Notwithstanding the south-state opt-outs, 8A had 48 teams, 7A had 56 teams, 6A had 74, 5A had 69, 4A had 30 and 3A had 40. For the teams in 5A through 8A, let’s assume each team, on average, had 45 players on the roster (I suspect many had more than that, but I know several had fewer). If that’s the case, approximately 2,160 kids played football for teams in the 8A classification; 2,500 played for 7A teams, 3,300 played for 6A teams, 3,100 for 5A teams, 1,350 for 4A teams and 1,800 for 3A teams. Again, it is important to remember that these numbers do not include the vast majority of kids from Broward and Miami-Dade counties. That’s a lot of kids! So, with the above in mind, here are some of my observations: 8A: (Sanford) Seminole, Bartram Trail, Miami Columbus, Vero and Deerfield stand out. Seminole had six kids selected (including 3 first-teamers); Bartram Trail had 6 (including a total of 5 on first and second-team offense – did they ever have to punt?); Miami Columbus lead the way with 8 players on the list (including 4 first-teamers and 3 second-teamers); Vero had a total of 7 (including 3 first-teamers); and Deerfield had a total of 7 (including 5 first-teamers, 4 of which were on the defense side of the ball – how did anyone score on them this year?). Sum: 34 of the kids (probably around 25% of the total list) came from 5 schools. And because the Miami-Dade and Broward kids were included in the process, it’s not just 5 of 48 schools, but more like 5 of 60-something schools. 7A: The upper echelon of 7A can be divided up into two groups: St. Thomas Aquinas, Niceville and Venice, in the top half and Buchholz, Bloomingdale and Edgewater are in the second half. STA picked up 10 selections, including 6 first-teamers, while Niceville (4 first-teamers) and Venice (5 first-teamers) each had 12 kids selected. That’s 34 kids from 3 schools! Buchholz had 5 (including 3 on first-team offense), as did Edgewater, while Bloomingdale had 6 (including 3 on first-team O). Another way of looking at 7A: 12 of the 17 players selected to the first-team offense came from 5 schools and 9 of the 17 players on first-team defense came from the same 5 schools. That’s 21 out of 34 first-teamers from 5 of 56 schools (plus how many other schools from Miami-Dade and Broward). 6A: Three teams dominated: Miami Central with 13 (6 on 1st team O; 4 on 1st team D), Lake Minneola with 10 (including 3 first-teamers) and Lake Gibson with 9 (of which 5 were first-team). Remember, 6A had a bunch of teams: 74. And while Miami Central opted to participate in the state playoff series, most Miami-Dade/Broward schools did not (but their kids were still considered). So, from more than 74 teams, 3 teams landed a total of 32 kids on the all-state list! 5A: Of the 69 total teams (not including M-D/B), Plantation American Heritage landed 12 kids on the list (including an astonishing 11 on first team (4 on O; 7 on D). Jesuit was just behind, spreading out their 11 kids, placing at least one kid in each of the 7 categories (1st O, 1st D, 2nd O, 2nd D, 3rd O, 3rd D and Honorable Mention). 2 of the 69 schools accounted for 23 kids on the list! 4A: Cardinal Gibbons (10 total, but 9 on 1st team), Bolles (13 total; 6 on 1st team) and Belle Glades Central (12 total) dominated this group of more than 30 schools. 3 teams with 35 selections. 3A: Jacksonville Trinity Christian lead the way with 11 (5 on 1st team), Hollywood Chaminade-Madonna was close behind with 10 (including 5 on 1st team D) and Ocala Trinity Catholic had 7 (of which 4 were 1st team O). Hmm, can you imagine combining OTC’s offense with Chaminade’s defense? Of more than 40 schools, 28 all-state players came from 3 schools. 2A: All I noticed on this group was that Hialeah Champagnet Catholic had 10 kids on the list, 6 of whom were 1st team. So, what do you make of all of this? Has it always been this way? I don’t think so . . . at least not to this same degree. Does the Covid pandemic have anything to do with the selections this year? Or is this just further evidence that kids are “migrating” to essentially form geographic all-star teams? If so, is this good for Florida high school football? Haves and Have Nots? Or, is this just a case of kids at lower-echelon schools are being overlooked by sports pundits who simply don’t have the time to study tape on all the kids and all the schools? How much of the selection was based on MaxPreps stats? Are certain kids getting noticed because their coaches are more diligent in recording and updating the stats? Are some coaches taking, um, liberties with the stat books? Are really good players playing at schools with bad records getting lost in the shuffle? By the way, here’s what this site says about the selection process: “Publisher Joshua Wilson along with the consideration of information received from coaches, statistics on MaxPreps, and consultation of all-area/all-county teams as published by various media outlets from around the state.” Any thoughts on all of this? Where is this leading us? What does this say about the state of high school football in our state? Do you have to play on a championship-caliber team in order to get recognized? Will colleges and universities still find a way to find the kids who were shunned? Why does Perspective ask so many dang questions? Ball’s in your court.