Dr. D

I think there were 14 privates in 2A. And Edison was the only public in 1A.

Here are the number of privates schools in the 32-team playoff brackets (16 teams in Rural): 7A - 1 6A - 0 5A - 1 4A - 4 3A - 3 Rural - 0 So the mathematical odds favor public schools winning 6 classifications at a minimum. Public schools are underperforming if they only win 5 championships, all things being equal between public and private schools. And if all things were equal, the odds of STA winning 7 straight championships is roughly 1 in 2.8 trillion. Shocker... all things are not equal. Private schools may not be stealing titles, but they are continually defying the odds, either by random luck or some systemic advantage.

With the exodus of smaller schools to the SSAA, as well as the expansion of the Rural classification, 1A has essentially become a private school classification (FAMU High is the only public school that I can identify in 1A). The smaller public schools will definitely face an uphill battle in the new 2A. The pendulum starts to swing back to the public schools in the new 3A. Pending any adjustments in the appeal period.

To answer your question, FHSAA policies state that schools may be placed in the Rural classification if they are located in geographic areas as determined by the Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI; Florida statute 288.0656), population density by zip code, and median family income by zip code. The Rural classification is limited to the lowest 40 populated schools that meet these criteria and commit to the Rural classification in the sport of football. Other states have wrestled with the public-private disparity. In Tennessee, private schools are placed in separate classifications and playoff brackets from public schools. In Georgia, public and private schools are placed in the same classifications, but private and public schools in the lowest 3 classifications are placed in separate playoff brackets.

6 classifications + Rural. Available here: https://fhsaa.com/news/2025/12/8/football-classifications-available-for-2026-27-2027-28.aspx

The matchups for the championship games are set, and one could argue that there are a few minor surprises, but nothing shocking. The team I know the least about is West Broward. I notice their record in the last 5 years has progressed: 4-5, 6-5, 7-4, 9-4, and 11-2 this year. Wondering if anyone has seen them this year or is familiar with them, and can comment as to whether they have done it the “right” way, or some other secret to their success. Thanks.

Rooting for all the Florida teams as there are sure to be lots of Florida kids on their rosters. But probably lots of Florida kids on out-of-state rosters as well. Awesome that these opportunities exist for those that can’t find a spot in Division 1. Play great at the lower levels and move up through the portal or stay for 4 years and get a college education.

It was interesting to watch the last FHSAA Board of Directors’ meeting and hear the Executive Director say that he would like to adopt some type of competitive equity model, if only the coaches would agree. He specifically referenced the California model (which I think has some merit), where playoff brackets are based solely on end-of-regular season rankings. For example, the highest ranked 16 teams in the rankings are placed in the Open Division. The next 64 highest ranked teams (#17-80) are placed in Class 1, then the next 64 (#81-144) are placed in Class 2, and so on. School enrollment doesn’t matter, records in previous years don’t matter, the number of transfers doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is how teams performed in that particular year so that teams are grouped with comparable teams for the playoffs. Again, many possible ways to get there, and no system is perfect. But my question is why wouldn’t the majority of coaches be in favor of a competitive equity model of some kind? My suspicion is either the coaches don’t see the big picture, or the FHSAA Football Advisory Committee is not representing the interests of the coaches, or the FHSAA Board of Directors has no interest in changing the status quo, regardless of input.

Yes, that’s exactly what you would expect in Classes with widely disparate talent levels. Just as is often seen in the opening round of NCAA March Madness. And if one finds that desirable or entertaining, then so be it. My point is that there are a multitude of ways to potentially provide more equitable competition in the regular season and playoffs. For all the whining, the Metro-Suburban set-up provided more competitive playoffs. Other methods (as you point out) have been proposed on these pages. But perhaps I am in the minority view, and the status quo is acceptable to those involved.

There were 120 first round games played in the 8 FHSAA classifications this weekend. The median (50% higher/50% lower) margin of victory was 28 points. 52 games (43%) were decided by 35+ points (running clock). Only 31 games (26%) were decided by 14 points or less. Other than a handful of competitive games, it was another round of lopsided games and blowouts. Yes, sign me up for more of the same in the next reclassification cycle. Sheesh!

1) I will defer to the mathematicians/statisticians on this board as to whether including margin of victory (up to a point; running clock – 35 points) provides more accuracy/validity in computer rankings 2) I am not convinced that RPI can adequately differentiate between a 10-0 Armwood and a 10-0 Baker 3) I am not convinced that anyone can establish the “right” weighting of the RPI variables, either statistically or by one’s own opinion.

The RPI is a simplistic, arbitrary rating system that ignores margin of victory, ignores quality of opponents, and has no “right” balance. What is the proper weighting of a team’s winning percentage, its opponents’ winning percentage, and its opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage? 25-50-25? 40-40-20? Your “right” balance is likely different than someone else’s “right” balance, and there is no statistically valid method of assigning weights to those 3 variables; it is totally arbitrary. And basic algebra demonstrates that one can get different results by changing the weighting of the variables when presented with the same data. I am no fan of MaxPreps rankings, but the RPI is not the answer. The one advantage the RPI has over MaxPreps is transparency, but that hardly makes up for its deficiencies

All this talk about computer rankings makes me grateful that we have games this week and can settle things on the field, where football is meant to be judged, not in some computer closet in El Dorado Hills, California. On the realignment front, one needs to look no further than neighboring Georgia, where the GHSA has released its realignment, to see how to do it right: https://www.ghsa.net/sites/default/files/documents/reclassification/GHSA_Proposed_Region_Alignment_for_2026-2028_11-10-2025.pdf Beautiful 6/7/8/9-team regions (i.e. “districts” in Florida language) with round-robin play, to determine a true, well-earned championship. I am hoping that the FHSAA will do away with the ridiculous 2/3/4-team districts when the realignment results are released. Even though everyone seems married to computer rankings, maybe the computer savants herein could confirm that larger districts would at least produce better computer rankings due to the larger number of common opponents. Anyway, let’s hope that the FHSAA gets this right, although that may be expecting too much. And good luck to your favorite team!

I looked back to last year and 4 of the top 8 teams in the end-of-regular-season rankings won state titles -- Venice, C-M, West Boca Raton, and AH-P. I would put this year's over/under at 2 for state titles out of the current group.

1) If the judge can look past this incredibly shallow legal ploy, he/she could certainly find a way to wedge TFA into the bracket. 2) Why don't you tell us how you really feel?