Jump to content

Metro vs Non Metro


badbird
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looks like it has a great chance of passing.  I'm not a fan of it and think it's dumb.  Just because a team is in a metro area doesn't mean they have an advantage.  There are tons of metro schools that suck.  Only way to do this right is and make it competitive is to move people up and down based off performance.  This will be another failed attempt by the FHSAA to fix the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


13 minutes ago, badbird said:

Looks like it has a great chance of passing.  I'm not a fan of it and think it's dumb.  Just because a team is in a metro area doesn't mean they have an advantage.  There are tons of metro schools that suck.  Only way to do this right is and make it competitive is to move people up and down based off performance.  This will be another failed attempt by the FHSAA to fix the problem.

EXACTLY!  People think the results are lopsided now.  It's about to get worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nulli Secundus said:

EXACTLY!  People think the results are lopsided now.  It's about to get worse.  

Nulli do you think they are scared to hurt peoples feeling by moving them up or down?  It's the only logical choice to keep it competitive.   To me it seems like Rural teams complaining again and going to get their way.   .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badbird said:

Looks like it has a great chance of passing.  I'm not a fan of it and think it's dumb.  Just because a team is in a metro area doesn't mean they have an advantage.  There are tons of metro schools that suck.  Only way to do this right is and make it competitive is to move people up and down based off performance.  This will be another failed attempt by the FHSAA to fix the problem.

Wow, didn't think it would go through when it was presented at the FACA. I did hear a lot of coaches speaking favorably about it. Guess I'm gonna have to get use to a suburban lifestyle LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, badbird said:

Nulli do you think they are scared to hurt peoples feeling by moving them up or down?  It's the only logical choice to keep it competitive.   To me it seems like Rural teams complaining again and going to get their way.   .  

They are trying to make everyone happy and on this earth, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make everyone happy. The FHSAA needs to make a stance and not be afraid to have a uniform system across the board. I too believe that teams should be promoted/demoted based on performance and classification SHOULD NOT be population based.  That may have worked back in the day but with the current state of affairs, that practice is antiquated.  Champions should move up, struggling programs should move down and realignment should be done on a yearly basis. 

Very simple concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nulli Secundus said:

 

They are trying to make everyone happy and on this earth, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make everyone happy. The FHSAA needs to make a stance and not be afraid to have a uniform system across the board. I too believe that teams should be promoted/demoted based on performance and classification SHOULD NOT be population based.  That may have worked back in the day but with the current state of affairs, that practice is antiquated.  Champions should move up, struggling programs should move down and realignment should be done on a yearly basis. 

Very simple concept.

I like that idea. There has to be a way to make it more level across the board. I would break the state into the Rural/1A class, then 5 others:

5A - Teams who have made the playoffs for the last 4 years in a row, split into districts (or regions)

4A - 3 out of 4 years...

3A - 2 out of 4 years...

2A - 1 berth in the last four years...

1A - everyone else, they play an open, regional-style schedule, top 6 make it like current 1-4A.

 

Some classes would be bigger/smaller than others, but teams could move up and down easily, especially if all classes have a regional schedule/reclassification is done annually. And, while you wouldn't have districts, there would be a "6 region game requirement" but they can be any week.

 

Or something like that. Anything is better than grouping schools by population and proximity because some schools will NEVER have a chance to compete. 

Also, the kids (who this is supposed to be about) don't care who they play. They just want to play ball. Why is it so complicated lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Coach said:

I like that idea. There has to be a way to make it more level across the board. I would break the state into the Rural/1A class, then 5 others:

5A - Teams who have made the playoffs for the last 4 years in a row, split into districts (or regions)

4A - 3 out of 4 years...

3A - 2 out of 4 years...

2A - 1 berth in the last four years...

1A - everyone else, they play an open, regional-style schedule, top 6 make it like current 1-4A.

 

Some classes would be bigger/smaller than others, but teams could move up and down easily, especially if all classes have a regional schedule/reclassification is done annually. And, while you wouldn't have districts, there would be a "6 region game requirement" but they can be any week.

 

Or something like that. Anything is better than grouping schools by population and proximity because some schools will NEVER have a chance to compete. 

Also, the kids (who this is supposed to be about) don't care who they play. They just want to play ball. Why is it so complicated lol

Thank you!  Your idea is similar so naturally I can get on board with that.  Mine idea would be:

Reducing number of classes from 8 to 6. 

6A - Old 8A
5A - Old 7A
4A - Old 6A
3A - Old 5A
2A - Old 4A & 3A
1A - Old 2A & 1A

Top 16 teams (~20%) in each class get promoted which would be state semi-finalists on up.  Bottom 16 teams (~20%) in each class get demoted based on record (and RPI used as tie breaker). 

Agreed.  I hope I'm wrong about this new proposal but I think it's not going to yield the results people think it will.  There will be some big winners and some bigger losers if this comes to pass.  Just my opinion.  At the end of the day, this is about the kids and competitive play which the idea above would normalize over time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts on the subject:

1.  Always, always, always follow the money.   For football classification purposes, you have to consider gate money and travel money.  Also, some counties (Hillsborough, for example) are both very territorial and very egalitarian.  They want to control all the county money and be able to distribute it equally to all the public schools in the county.  For that reason, the county AD's office controls the scheduling of games and, with rare exception, unless a team's opponent is a district opponent, they don't let the schools in Hillsborough County cross county lines to play non-district games. 

2.  The FHSAA Board of Directors is composed of a bunch of people with very diverse backgrounds.   There are folks from rural schools and folks from metro schools; folks from public schools and folks from private schools; folks from 'rich' schools and folks from 'poor' schools.  Dr. Seuss would have a field day writing a book about the people who comprise the board.   In many respects, it's a good thing, as all the different voices get heard.   But, when it comes time to making philosophical decisions about how to structure things like football, it's very difficult to get a consensus.  And, thus, we're stuck with trying to turn a battleship.  It's a slow process.   The board rep from the private school in South Florida whose school is good at golf and tennis has a vastly different philosophical approach to sports than does the board member from a rural public school in the panhandle. 

3.  By the time the FHSAA board members finally start to understand the big picture, their term is up and they get replaced by somebody new and the whole process starts over again.  Which, to a certain extent, benefits the administrative personnel in Gainesville who are not elected by anyone.  Unfortunately, bureaucrats are notorious for plodding along and keeping things they way they've always been.  But when they do make changes, it's often-times done at the urging of a vocal minority and folks who have an agenda.  I'm not sure how to change this mentality.  

Just my two cents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

3.  By the time the FHSAA board members finally start to understand the big picture, their term is up and they get replaced by somebody new and the whole process starts over again.  Which, to a certain extent, benefits the administrative personnel in Gainesville who are not elected by anyone.  Unfortunately, bureaucrats are notorious for plodding along and keeping things they way they've always been.  But when they do make changes, it's often-times done at the urging of a vocal minority and folks who have an agenda.  I'm not sure how to change this mentality.  

Sounds Sisyphean to me ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say this on the topic because I read a quote from a coach saying look at 1A and how great that is. As competitive balance is the main reason for the metro/suburban debate. But Madison County has won 4 out of 7 State Championships since they've been in 1A. In 5 playoff games this past season against 1A teams Madison only gave up 18 points! The 3 loses Madison has to 1A teams is 2015 against Trenton, 2016 against Pahokee and 2020 against Hawthorne. Trenton got in trouble for recruiting during those years. Hawthorne the last few years has gotten in more transfer than many private schools. Is that what they're telling 1A schools they have to do to win? Makes me sick listening to these coaches saying 1A has it right when they clearly don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, smashmouth80 said:

I just wanted to say this on the topic because I read a quote from a coach saying look at 1A and how great that is. As competitive balance is the main reason for the metro/suburban debate. But Madison County has won 4 out of 7 State Championships since they've been in 1A. In 5 playoff games this past season against 1A teams Madison only gave up 18 points! The 3 loses Madison has to 1A teams is 2015 against Trenton, 2016 against Pahokee and 2020 against Hawthorne. Trenton got in trouble for recruiting during those years. Hawthorne the last few years has gotten in more transfer than many private schools. Is that what they're telling 1A schools they have to do to win? Makes me sick listening to these coaches saying 1A has it right when they clearly don't. 

2015 trenton was something serious.  No.3 small school according to maxpreps. No. 7 in Florida and 87 in America.  They best player got all America and is now in the CFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these band aids the FHSAA keeps coming up with are truly a joke.  They readily admit with the changes they pass that free movement of players causes the competitive imbalance, with Metro population density benefitting the most due to sheer numbers of top quality players.  Even though they know the root problem, they turn a blind eye to the obvious fix of turning back the clock to pre 2011 when they opened the flood gates.   This new idea will just create a two-tier system of competitive imbalance rather than one.  Regardless of which group you are in, the haves will still benefit while the have nots will continue to flounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

All these band aids the FHSAA keeps coming up with are truly a joke.  They readily admit with the changes they pass that free movement of players causes the competitive imbalance, with Metro population density benefitting the most due to sheer numbers of top quality players.  Even though they know the root problem, they turn a blind eye to the obvious fix of turning back the clock to pre 2011 when they opened the flood gates.   This new idea will just create a two-tier system of competitive imbalance rather than one.  Regardless of which group you are in, the haves will still benefit while the have nots will continue to flounder.

Ray, as I have stated before, I think the decision to allow kids to roam freely from school-to-school was first made by the state legislature and basically forced down the FHSAA's throat.   The FHSAA must now figure out how to maintain/create competitive balance given the hand they have been dealt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Perspective said:

Ray, as I have stated before, I think the decision to allow kids to roam freely from school-to-school was first made by the state legislature and basically forced down the FHSAA's throat.   The FHSAA must now figure out how to maintain/create competitive balance given the hand they have been dealt. 

Yes, you have been very clear on how this all came to pass and I am grateful for the education providing hard facts.  If they want to solve it then they should go make their case to the current legislature as I am sure 80% of coaches would be glad to contact their local representative to bend their ear to correct the problem.   Here our local sports reporter has already interviewed local coaches and their perspective probably mirrors those of other "Suburban" coaches throughout the state.  The vast majority of coaches in our county say it will not fix the problem;  it doesn't hurt my alma mater as they don't bleed players every year as several others do.  Head coach at Lake Nona in an adjacent county recently resigned and got immediately hired as new HC for Toho HS.  Will be interested to see if any players follow as though in different counties the two schools are separated by less than 10 miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

metro doesnt help some of those teams.  look at orlando/orange county, sanford/seminole county.  

suburban doesnt help some of the osceola, lake, brevard teams making the playoffs either.

school choice is the issue. period, its just now recruiting is legal, where before it wasnt, but still done yearly. 

fix that, and balance to the state occurs.  sorta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, h8r said:

metro doesnt help some of those teams.  look at orlando/orange county, sanford/seminole county.  

suburban doesnt help some of the osceola, lake, brevard teams making the playoffs either.

school choice is the issue. period, its just now recruiting is legal, where before it wasnt, but still done yearly. 

fix that, and balance to the state occurs.  sorta

100%, the problem is clear and you can leave school choice for an education available to everyone at both public and private.  Just restrict students not zoned for that school to sit out a year for HS sports.  It won't fix the problem completely as some schools will choose to gamble not getting caught but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

100%, the problem is clear and you can leave school choice for an education available to everyone at both public and private.  Just restrict students not zoned for that school to sit out a year for HS sports.  It won't fix the problem completely as some schools will choose to gamble not getting caught but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

i 100% agree.  those kids that transfer cannot do any extracurriculars, as you couldnt just say sports someone would flip their grits over that.  no theater, no dance, no football, no band, no, no, no.  you live by your high school go there and stfu, or move, legally, and no forged lease papers that you can find forms on the internet for and fill out.....

yes, I have seen that before.....

kids going past 3 hs to go play sports is ridiculous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2022 at 10:02 AM, badbird said:

Looks like it has a great chance of passing.  I'm not a fan of it and think it's dumb.  Just because a team is in a metro area doesn't mean they have an advantage.  There are tons of metro schools that suck.  Only way to do this right is and make it competitive is to move people up and down based off performance.  This will be another failed attempt by the FHSAA to fix the problem.

Just another example of the FHSAA sticking a bandaid on a broken bone and hoping it fixes itself. Cut down from 8 to 6 classes and put the big schools with the big schools and the small schools in the lower classifications. Otherwise you have Madison County, a school with almost 4A numbers competing with schools that can barely field a football team. Same can be said for Hallandale in 5A having to compete with Miami Central and Northwestern. Utter rubbish. The FHSAA needs to burn down the house they’ve constructed and rebuild it from scratch. Otherwise, no meaningful change will come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, VeniceIndiansFootball said:

Just another example of the FHSAA sticking a bandaid on a broken bone and hoping it fixes itself. Cut down from 8 to 6 classes and put the big schools with the big schools and the small schools in the lower classifications. Otherwise you have Madison County, a school with almost 4A numbers competing with schools that can barely field a football team. Same can be said for Hallandale in 5A having to compete with Miami Central and Northwestern. Utter rubbish. The FHSAA needs to burn down the house they’ve constructed and rebuild it from scratch. Otherwise, no meaningful change will come.

Those schools choose to not participate. Plenty of guys in 1A schools. I would agree if it was like 100 kids total in schools. But it's 300 to 400. That's more than enough for 50 guys per 1a schools. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Those schools choose to not participate. Plenty of guys in 1A schools. I would agree if it was like 100 kids total in schools. But it's 300 to 400. That's more than enough for 50 guys per 1a schools. 

Jesse you're right a school of 400 if they had their program going right could have around 50 players. The problem is Madison will have 100 at the same rate. My point was just when the people on these committees keep pointing to 1A for competitive balance and make sure to say nothing is happening to 1A. I just don't think that's correct. Madison has dominated and the only teams able to challenge them have gotten in a ton of transfers. I don't think they have 1A right is what I would say. I like what some of the other posters have said about if you win you move up and if you're a losing program you move down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two issues with this dumb idea.  You will get the same five teams winning the suburban divisions and the metro. Just look at some possible breakdowns and same teams will win so you are not solving the problem.  The best teams need to move up and bad teams move down to create super divisions at top is only way for true balance. Also. Now you are squeezing all the metro teams into four divisions and suburban into five so now you have huge enrollment differences between teams so the gap will be even worse in the for many teams who will have no chance to compete.   Some teams will have almost double the enrollment of other teams. Blow this idea up and research real way to make the game better . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this proposal due to stop recruiting? Nothing, there are some teams in suburban divisions who recruit big time and are dominant in their districts and regions. They will destroy the competition in most of the divisions and have huge blowouts just like now.  Then what about metro schools who don’t recruit. This idea makes them lambs for slaughter as they will never win any district games and get a running clock in most of the games. This idea does not solve any problem but will create all new ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share




  • Posts

    • With me you know that you will always get a solid, straight answer that you can take to the bank and exchange for cash! In fact, it is same to assume that most message board posters would agree with the quote "That Jambun82 knows what he is talking about" You're welcome for that Perspective.  
    • Thanks Jambun (and thanks for the correction on PF vs UNS).  But, I guess it's like my Momma always told me:  "Officials are like a box of chocolates . . . you never know what you're going to get."  
    • Perspective, the foul would be an Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty, not a Personal Foul penalty. Obviously, every official has a different level of tolerance for an objection to a call by a coach or player. The NFHS rules states that a UNS Conduct foul by a non-player includes, but is not limited to, disrespectfully addressing or trying to influence a decision by an official. That is very broad, as you would already know in legalize terms. Certain Coaches reputation procedes them, and the language used by the coach has an effect obviously. Good Head Coaches will instruct their assistant coaches not to voice any objections or complaints to the officials, and a good sideline official will mention to the Head Coach in the pregame that he/she only wants to communicate with the Head Coach. I suppose that the situation comes down to the individual officials tolerance level, with good officials realizing and respecting that Coaches spend all week preparing for a emotional game where circumstances will come up where leeway should be given, and not everything is black and white. It is a fine balancing act.  
    • Jambun, I had to laugh when I read the phrase that the team who got penalized for the PF "must have voiced some sort of objection."   So, with that in mind, and recognizing that all officials have different tolerance levels, what's the general rule of thumb for when words and/or actions rise to the level of a personal foul?   Clearly, coaches voice their displeasure with calls (and non-calls) all the time without triggering a PF.  What's the trigger?   Curse words?  Volume level?  Continuing beyond a certain point (i.e., after the official looks over and says "that's enough, Coach")?  Do you/officials tend to give a coach a little more leeway if you/they start having reservations about the call in dispute? Last, and looking at it from the other side of the issue, what's the most effective way a coach can communicate to an official that he 'respectfully disagrees' with the call that just got made/missed?   
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...