Ray Icaza

Just to be clear, no one was suggesting to base teachers pay on a poll of students.  To think that would be "Simple-minded" as you previously suggested.  It was simply an observation on the fact that they have that ability to discern, yet the administrator responsible and being compensated for their performance can't or won't.  Seems like an oxymoron to me as does the fact most school districts somehow manage to figure out among the thousands of teachers and dozens of separate schools who the "Teacher of the Year" is.  The criteria used in this selection process could be used to rate teachers on a three-tier system of above average, average and below average with corresponding compensation.  One can come up with all kinds of reasons why it won't work, but it really boils down to the union and teachers themselves.  With regards to the coaches pay, I recently read another article in the Orlando Sentinel written by sportswriter Chris Hays that this proposal isn't being considered in this years legislative agenda but not until next year.  He does accurately point out that one of the biggest obstacles to overcome is the teachers themselves not wanting to have said coaches compensated properly for the extra work. He states that they would revolt.  Sad when you think about it as for years I sit in the stands to many athletic events for OHS and rarely see teachers there to support one of their students or even their school at these activities.  Seems like at too many schools whatever we are doing today certainly isn't working.  

Just to be clear, no one was suggesting to base teachers pay on a poll of students.  To think that would be "Simple-minded" as you previously suggested.  It was simply an observation on the fact that they have that ability to discern, yet the administrator responsible and being compensated for their performance can't or won't.  Seems like an oxymoron to me as does the fact most school districts somehow manage to figure out among the thousands of teachers and dozens of separate schools who the "Teacher of the Year" is.  The criteria used in this selection process could be used to rate teachers on a three-tier system of above average, average and below average with corresponding compensation.  One can come up with all kinds of reasons why it won't work, but it really boils down to the union and teachers themselves.  With regards to the coaches pay, I recently read another article in the Orlando Sentinel written by sportswriter Chris Hays that this proposal isn't being considered in this years legislative agenda but not until next year.  He does accurately point out that one of the biggest obstacles to overcome is the teachers themselves not wanting to have said coaches compensated properly for the extra work. He states that they would revolt.  Sad when you think about it as for years I sit in the stands to many athletic events for OHS and rarely see teachers there to support one of their students or even their school at these activities.  Seems like at too many schools whatever we are doing today certainly isn't working.  

When I attended school back in the mid 60's as a student we knew who were good teachers and who weren't.  When I taught from '74 to '81 that was still true as even the faculty themselves knew.  I believe that to be true today (as I have worked as a Sub in recent years) with the only difference I have observed with the passage of time is a higher percentage fall into the lower tier.  As a sub, you can generally get a feel how well a classroom is managed as you fill in for those 6 or 7 periods throughout the day.   No one is claiming the process would be easy, but I harken back to my childhood as JFK famously told us we were going to the moon, not because it was easy but because it was hard.  We can respectfully disagree whether this can be done, but that disagreement doesn't merit your claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about.  The fact remains that the job performance in every metric as a nation in K-12 has fallen steadily over decades despite the amount we spend per child compared to other countries.  Nothing in my posts on this thread has anything to do with politics, simply wanting just pay for coaches and what they do as well as a way to keep high performing teachers. 

Too bad we can't find a way to install a merit based system into these type of municipal/state employees pay plan as some teachers should be making six figures while sadly others are overpaid; same disparity is evident in firefighters, law enforcement, etc... regarding job performance.  The private sector as a general rule is merit based and while I believed the same could be done at school, most administrators had the same lame excuse.  It was too subjective to determine good teachers from bad, yet the students can tell you but the administrator can not? .....  PITIFULL!!   Earlier comments about starting teachers pay in FL getting a bump is correct as they earn more than those in adjoining states, but the pay is pretty much the same at 15 and 30 years for FL, GA, AL, SC, etc...  Coaching stipends is a whole nother issue when compared with other states.   This pretty much sums up why I left the teaching/coaching profession after 7 years and joined the private sector.  Merit (job performance) should mean something. 

The same argument for teachers/coaches can be made for nurses, law enforcement, and other first responders, etc.  None of them are paid what they are "worth".  From an economic standpoint, no one would willingly pay someone more to do a job when someone will do the same job for less (i.e. supply and demand).  As long as enough people are willing to work for current wages in these fields, in many cases out of the goodness of their heart or at significant personal financial sacrifice, the government and corporations see no need to raise wages.  Unfortunately, the nonmonetary, societal benefit that individuals in these fields provide is often not recognized (coming from the spouse of a 35+ year educator).  When we wake up one day and have a drastic shortage of workers in these fields, our society will be in big trouble, let alone high school football.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/high-school/2024/03/09/possible-bill-would-mean-big-raise-for-florida-high-school-coaches/72896876007/]
 
underpaid teachers, underpaid coaches, why in the world would this pass?  
anyone want to make some extra money, start a high school coaches moving company.  get a couple uhual trucks and make a ton of money driving to georgia weekly.
will be interesting to see if this thing were to pass, 

Unfortunately, Paul Harvey nor his ilk are no longer with us. 

Looks like Venice couldn’t match Booker’s offer 

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

Tremendous travesty without a doubt.  I spoke about this possibility a couple of years ago when I initially joined this forum and sadly it is coming to fruition and I was hoping so much to be wrong. 

Tremendous travesty without a doubt.  I spoke about this possibility a couple of years ago when I initially joined this forum and sadly it is coming to fruition and I was hoping so much to be wrong. 

Tremendous travesty without a doubt.  I spoke about this possibility a couple of years ago when I initially joined this forum and sadly it is coming to fruition and I was hoping so much to be wrong. 

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

Good luck to the high school coaches out there. Your gonna need it. Sheesh

Nole bull and the rest of South Fl are just like you said scared of IMG because they just have more talent and they acquire it the same way more players to choose from. They’re like a bully pick on the county 100 times smaller but with somebody who has more players to choose don’t let them in.

I don't hate this as a concept if you just look at it as just "more football" for kids/coaches/fans.
 
I personally wouldn't hate having a "B" bracket so long as the winner of said bracket is not considered a state champion...because they're not. But more football isn't a bad thing, it is just all about perspective. You cannot call these teams state champions. 
 
I am concerned this is just a cash grab from the FHSAA though. If they can "prove" that it works in the rural divisions, then they can have more football games at the higher levels of classification and rake in the money....

8-16 sounds about right. It would remove all the real powerhouse teams while not forcing some very good, but not great teams, into a group with the best of the best where they would have little chance of ever winning it all. 

A 32 team open division would destroy the credibility and water down the other classes. An 8 team open division would put the super teams in one division while maintaining some competitiveness in the other classes. 

6-8  teams that recruit seems a tad bit low. Come on. That might make up the teams that recruit in Dade and Broward county alone. The real number of football factories that recruit is is closer to 24-32. Take out top 24-32 and let them beat each other up since they disregard the FHSAA rules anyway

First off, comparing high school athletics to college is an apple to an orange. Colleges are supposed to recruit as they offer scholarships for coming to play for them.  
Secondly, the purpose of school choice was started for academic purposes, so parents can find the best option for their children.  I personally support the concept, but what we see happening with athletics wasn't what school choice was intended for. 
As I stated earlier, I have no problem with a transfer when there is indeed a legitimate move. But what I have observed is certain schools poaching players from neighboring schools through one tactic or another. 

You are correct.  But here's the point that I think is being made.    'Back then' the teams in the metro areas were, in theory, constrained by district boundaries.   A kid could only go to Central if they lived in the Central district (again, in theory).   So, Central's talent pool was limited to the kids who lived in the Central district.   Just like Pahokee's talent pool was limited to the kids who lived in Pahokee's district.   Now, with school choice, and as a practical matter, Pahokee's talent pool (and the talent pool of all the other rural schools) is essentially still limited to the kids who live in that relatively-sparse geographic area.  Contrast that with Central, who now has the ability to legally pull in any kid from Dade County.  Yes, they are competing against other schools, like Northwestern, for that top talent, but recent history seems to suggest that only a small handful of teams are going to end up with the vast majority of the top talent. 
To oversimplify, if one rural high school football team has a thousand kids to pick from (including gamers, trombone players, theater buffs, etc.) and a metro high school football team has a hundred thousand kids to pick from (because district lines really don't matter any more), which team is more likely to end up with a group of thirty talented football players?  Now, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a rural team, like Pahokee, could beat the bottom-feeder teams in the metro area, because all the talented kids from those metro teams ended up at the super-power de jure.  But when it comes time for playoffs, the rural team likely won't stand a chance against the metro power. 
And, yes, there will be exceptions along the way, but for the most part, the numbers won't lie. 

You gotta admit, they have figured out that the QB is the lynchpin for a championship run.

Those talking about an "OPEN DIVISION" comprised of 24-32 teams are overlooking reality.  As I have previously stated, it is my view that the top 10% FL HS teams (roughly 50 teams) tend to follow the rules with a few exceptions.  However, when we zero in on the top 1% (roughly 6-8 teams) of FL HS teams they most certainly "RECRUIT".  Thus, I fully agree with your take on an open division comprised of only those 8 teams, as only one of them would win the championship each and every year leaving the other 40 odd excellent programs to continually be second fiddles despite doing everything right.  Also fully support having districts comprised of a minimum of 5-6 teams with fewer classifications. 

Those talking about an "OPEN DIVISION" comprised of 24-32 teams are overlooking reality.  As I have previously stated, it is my view that the top 10% FL HS teams (roughly 50 teams) tend to follow the rules with a few exceptions.  However, when we zero in on the top 1% (roughly 6-8 teams) of FL HS teams they most certainly "RECRUIT".  Thus, I fully agree with your take on an open division comprised of only those 8 teams, as only one of them would win the championship each and every year leaving the other 40 odd excellent programs to continually be second fiddles despite doing everything right.  Also fully support having districts comprised of a minimum of 5-6 teams with fewer classifications. 

Those talking about an "OPEN DIVISION" comprised of 24-32 teams are overlooking reality.  As I have previously stated, it is my view that the top 10% FL HS teams (roughly 50 teams) tend to follow the rules with a few exceptions.  However, when we zero in on the top 1% (roughly 6-8 teams) of FL HS teams they most certainly "RECRUIT".  Thus, I fully agree with your take on an open division comprised of only those 8 teams, as only one of them would win the championship each and every year leaving the other 40 odd excellent programs to continually be second fiddles despite doing everything right.  Also fully support having districts comprised of a minimum of 5-6 teams with fewer classifications.