Perspective

Exactly.  I was replying to 181's suggestion that enlarging the size of the districts automatically solves the problems created by the Power Rankings.   While I agree that larger districts are needed, you'll still have problems if you use a Power Ranking to break ties instead of some sort of on-the-field tie-breaker. 

Ray, I think you're right.   If things stay the way they are and University is a 1 seed but not the district champ and Osceola is an 8 seed, but a district champ, the Kowboys should host the 1-round game.  

Ray, I think you're right.   If things stay the way they are and University is a 1 seed but not the district champ and Osceola is an 8 seed, but a district champ, the Kowboys should host the 1-round game.  

Exactly.  I was replying to 181's suggestion that enlarging the size of the districts automatically solves the problems created by the Power Rankings.   While I agree that larger districts are needed, you'll still have problems if you use a Power Ranking to break ties instead of some sort of on-the-field tie-breaker. 

Based on my understanding of your example, PERFECTION does not exist.

Were disqualifications/ejections announced?  I'm pretty sure that fighting results in disqualification.  I guess it's up to the officials to determine at what point a situation escalates from 'post-play pushing and shoving' to fighting.  But if a player gets ejected for fighting, absent relief from the FHSAA Exec. Dir., that player is looking at a 5-game suspension.   And I think the same thing applies to any players who leave the bench to participate in an altercation.  There were several Lakeland players who did this.  They may have been subs or, by that point of the game, they may have been starters who already had been pulled from the game and given the rest of the night off.  Well, they may get the rest of the season off now.  No question that several players left the bench area.  And no question that multiple Lakeland players can be seen throwing punches.  All of those players could be done for the season.  With all that in mind, I'll return to the question I have raised multiple times:  why do guys on a football field throw punches at the heads/faces of guys wearing hard plastic helmets with face-masks? 

Truer words were never spoken!   
(Yeah, I know what you meant . . . and you're right). 

Bruh getting close to crossing the political line.  Please keep your personal politics on the sideline.  Obviously he doesn't like unlimited transfers because it becomes a free-for-all where students are no longer students but rent-a-players where funny business runs unabated.  It's now not uncommon where a kid transfers in the fall semester for football and then transfers elsewhere in the spring for a different sport.  School choice has always been about academics, not athletics.  These "school choices" are clearly for athletics, not academics.
I personally also don't like unlimited transfers but maybe a compromise is unlimited transfers to an equal or higher rated school so that it is still about academics?  Poorly rated schools who want transfers will then have to put all of their money into improving the academics of their school.

Lmao lol

Truer words were never spoken!   
(Yeah, I know what you meant . . . and you're right). 

Josh, I have not commented on this subject yet, in large part because I simply don't know much about the Sunshine State Athletic Association.   As best I can tell from the article you posted, however,the SSAA basically is set up so that every team in the SSAA gets to play in an "end-of-the-year" tournament, with a ranking system being used to 'group' teams together based on their performance over the course of the season.   But yet the SSAA refers to this arrangement as their "playoffs."  Candidly, the SSAA State Championship Bracket looks legit.  There are teams in this bracket that likely could compete in their respective divisions within the FHSAA if they chose to do so.  But the other brackets . . .  not so much so. 
I think the focus of this thread has been on the 'other' teams in the other nine brackets.  One of the two teams playing in the "SSAA Atlantic 1A Championship" Game - their term, not mine - will enter the game with an 0-8 record.   The SSAA Cup Bracket features four teams with a combined record of 1-28.  Yes, one win and 28 losses.   One of these four teams will get to call themselves 'champions.'  
I have no problem with schools participating in an association other than the FHSAA.  But when you release "playoff brackets" right before the FHSAA schools are about to head into post-season play (well, not all of the FHSAA schools, but only the ones who qualify for the playoffs), I think it's reasonable to expect a little criticism from the anti-participation trophy crowd.  Perhaps the arrangement would be better received if the SSAA dropped the "championship" and "playoff" terms from all the brackets other than the State Championship Bracket. 
Just my two cents.

I saw that play.  It was a punt (not a kickoff) and I wondered why that wouldn't be considered holding on the kicking team.  If the guys on the coverage squad were trying to push or block the return guy into the ball, that would be one thing (i.e., a legal thing), but if they try to grab him and drag him over to where the ball is, why wouldn't that be holding?  If it's not holding, then why wouldn't the kicking team get four guys to go pick up the smallest guy on the return team, carry him down the field to where the ball is resting, lower the guy until his body touches the ball, and then jump on the ball?

Freudian slip or intentional, that's hilarious! 

Josh, I have not commented on this subject yet, in large part because I simply don't know much about the Sunshine State Athletic Association.   As best I can tell from the article you posted, however,the SSAA basically is set up so that every team in the SSAA gets to play in an "end-of-the-year" tournament, with a ranking system being used to 'group' teams together based on their performance over the course of the season.   But yet the SSAA refers to this arrangement as their "playoffs."  Candidly, the SSAA State Championship Bracket looks legit.  There are teams in this bracket that likely could compete in their respective divisions within the FHSAA if they chose to do so.  But the other brackets . . .  not so much so. 
I think the focus of this thread has been on the 'other' teams in the other nine brackets.  One of the two teams playing in the "SSAA Atlantic 1A Championship" Game - their term, not mine - will enter the game with an 0-8 record.   The SSAA Cup Bracket features four teams with a combined record of 1-28.  Yes, one win and 28 losses.   One of these four teams will get to call themselves 'champions.'  
I have no problem with schools participating in an association other than the FHSAA.  But when you release "playoff brackets" right before the FHSAA schools are about to head into post-season play (well, not all of the FHSAA schools, but only the ones who qualify for the playoffs), I think it's reasonable to expect a little criticism from the anti-participation trophy crowd.  Perhaps the arrangement would be better received if the SSAA dropped the "championship" and "playoff" terms from all the brackets other than the State Championship Bracket. 
Just my two cents.

No player from Dillard we be getting punished being that we wasn’t the agressor. 
 
In regards to the incident the b.a player tried to force our player to the ball. When he saw he couldn’t achieve that he threw a punch which caused all hell to break loose. 

I saw that play.  It was a punt (not a kickoff) and I wondered why that wouldn't be considered holding on the kicking team.  If the guys on the coverage squad were trying to push or block the return guy into the ball, that would be one thing (i.e., a legal thing), but if they try to grab him and drag him over to where the ball is, why wouldn't that be holding?  If it's not holding, then why wouldn't the kicking team get four guys to go pick up the smallest guy on the return team, carry him down the field to where the ball is resting, lower the guy until his body touches the ball, and then jump on the ball?

I'm not sure how this makes sense.  A kickoff is a live ball; either team can recover it (assuming it traveled the necessary 10 yards).  A punt, on the other hand, would be different.  And if it were a punt, there's no reason why anyone from the receiving team needs to be anywhere close to the ball once the decision has been made not to field the punt and try to return it.  I never understand why someone from the return team feels the need to get up close to the ball and watch it roll while there are several members of the kicking team around the ball.  Nothing good can happen for the return team.  But I digress. 
The other thing I'll never fully understand is why guys on a football field throw punches at players that are wearing helmets.   Rarely, if ever, do you see guys throwing body shots when a melee break out; they're always swinging up high at a dude wearing a helmet with a facemask.  Now, the guys who grab the facemask and try to sling the other guy around/down, I kind of get that.  But taking a full-on swing with an unprotected hand making contact with a hard plastic design specifically to protect a person's head, I just don't get that.  But I digress again. 
Sorry the game ended the way it did, but ending early wasn't the worst thing that could happen to Dillard this week.

It would be funny if it were not tragic. If no district games, why bother with districts, then? Positive change is always good. Change for change sake without thinking things trough or if it's driven by political considerations, often is only leads to a worse situation.

Instead, we have a proposal by the FHSAA "Task Force" to do away with district games altogether.  Which means fewer common opponents (which the mathematicians say are needed to make computer rankings more accurate).  So the Power Rankings will be even worse than they are now!  Brilliant!

If you win your district, you should be able to host the first round playoff game.  Period. 
I know that the FHSAA rankings have not been updated yet, but here would be the situation in 4M, Region 2 if the season ended today:
The top three teams in the region are all in District 8 (Sumner, Riverview and Durant, in that order).  The 4 seed would be Olympia, the 5 seed Plant, the 6 seed Palm Harbor U, the 7 seed Plant City and the 8 seed Dr. Phillips.  As the top seed and district winner, Sumner would host Dr. Phillips, a district runner-up.  Fair enough.  The 2 seed and district runner-up, Riverview, would host the District 7 runner-up, Plant City.  Two non-district winners, higher seed hosts.  Again, fair enough.  In the 3 seed vs 6 seed match-up, the 6 seed and District 6 winner PHU, would host the 3 seed, Durant (another non-district winner).  Once again, fair.  Even though PHU is the lower seed, it hosts because it won its district.  But here's where it gets interesting:  the 4 seed and District 5 winner (Olympia) would face off against the 5 seed and District 7 winner (Plant).  Under the current system, and because they are both district winners, the 4 seed would host simply because they are percentage points ahead in a flawed ranking system.  Yet, the 5 seed would travel and the 6 seed would host.  Huh?
In my view, the FHSAA should go back to the system that was in place a few years ago:  The four district winners get the top 4 seeds (seeded per the flawed ranking system) and get to host the first round playoff game.  Then use the flawed ranking system to determine seeds 5 through 8.  Yes, there will be many time (perhaps more often than not) where the 5 seed (i.e., the best non-district winner in the region) beats the 4 seed (i.e., the worst district winner).  But the district winner should be rewarded with hosting at least one playoff game. 

If you win your district, you should be able to host the first round playoff game.  Period. 
I know that the FHSAA rankings have not been updated yet, but here would be the situation in 4M, Region 2 if the season ended today:
The top three teams in the region are all in District 8 (Sumner, Riverview and Durant, in that order).  The 4 seed would be Olympia, the 5 seed Plant, the 6 seed Palm Harbor U, the 7 seed Plant City and the 8 seed Dr. Phillips.  As the top seed and district winner, Sumner would host Dr. Phillips, a district runner-up.  Fair enough.  The 2 seed and district runner-up, Riverview, would host the District 7 runner-up, Plant City.  Two non-district winners, higher seed hosts.  Again, fair enough.  In the 3 seed vs 6 seed match-up, the 6 seed and District 6 winner PHU, would host the 3 seed, Durant (another non-district winner).  Once again, fair.  Even though PHU is the lower seed, it hosts because it won its district.  But here's where it gets interesting:  the 4 seed and District 5 winner (Olympia) would face off against the 5 seed and District 7 winner (Plant).  Under the current system, and because they are both district winners, the 4 seed would host simply because they are percentage points ahead in a flawed ranking system.  Yet, the 5 seed would travel and the 6 seed would host.  Huh?
In my view, the FHSAA should go back to the system that was in place a few years ago:  The four district winners get the top 4 seeds (seeded per the flawed ranking system) and get to host the first round playoff game.  Then use the flawed ranking system to determine seeds 5 through 8.  Yes, there will be many time (perhaps more often than not) where the 5 seed (i.e., the best non-district winner in the region) beats the 4 seed (i.e., the worst district winner).  But the district winner should be rewarded with hosting at least one playoff game. 

If you win your district, you should be able to host the first round playoff game.  Period. 
I know that the FHSAA rankings have not been updated yet, but here would be the situation in 4M, Region 2 if the season ended today:
The top three teams in the region are all in District 8 (Sumner, Riverview and Durant, in that order).  The 4 seed would be Olympia, the 5 seed Plant, the 6 seed Palm Harbor U, the 7 seed Plant City and the 8 seed Dr. Phillips.  As the top seed and district winner, Sumner would host Dr. Phillips, a district runner-up.  Fair enough.  The 2 seed and district runner-up, Riverview, would host the District 7 runner-up, Plant City.  Two non-district winners, higher seed hosts.  Again, fair enough.  In the 3 seed vs 6 seed match-up, the 6 seed and District 6 winner PHU, would host the 3 seed, Durant (another non-district winner).  Once again, fair.  Even though PHU is the lower seed, it hosts because it won its district.  But here's where it gets interesting:  the 4 seed and District 5 winner (Olympia) would face off against the 5 seed and District 7 winner (Plant).  Under the current system, and because they are both district winners, the 4 seed would host simply because they are percentage points ahead in a flawed ranking system.  Yet, the 5 seed would travel and the 6 seed would host.  Huh?
In my view, the FHSAA should go back to the system that was in place a few years ago:  The four district winners get the top 4 seeds (seeded per the flawed ranking system) and get to host the first round playoff game.  Then use the flawed ranking system to determine seeds 5 through 8.  Yes, there will be many time (perhaps more often than not) where the 5 seed (i.e., the best non-district winner in the region) beats the 4 seed (i.e., the worst district winner).  But the district winner should be rewarded with hosting at least one playoff game. 

Most definitely and horribly at that. Picked Bartram Trail due to how they played Mainland and we rudely put in my place lol

So, did anyone else miss the game that they recommended last week? 

Me too! Had Deland and switched to Orange City University