Football Advisory Committee items

[Dr. D]

Passing on information from the January meetings of the Football Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Athletic Directors Advisory Committee (ADAC).  The most important items:

1) Adding a 5th Suburban Division: endorsed by FAC; not endorsed by ADAC

2) Adding a 5th Metro Division: endorsed by FAC; endorsed by ADAC

3) Increase size of districts/reduce number of districts: endorsed by FAC; not endorsed by ADAC

4) Incorporate margin of victory into Power Rankings, capped at 16 points: endorsed by FAC; endorsed by ADAC

Remember, these are only recommendations to the Board of Directors, not policy decisions.

Summary:  There continues to be significant concern with the number and size of districts from coaches, athletic directors, etc. across the state.  There is a discussion item on the upcoming FHSAA Board of Directors meeting regarding the Metro and Suburban classifications, specifically that member schools have expressed concern about small districts (as little as 2 to 3 teams), schools moving into the SSAC, schools having difficulty finding 10 games, etc.  These are all observations that have been discussed on this board so they are not a surprise, but getting a consensus on potential solutions going forward should be interesting.  On the bright side, it looks like margin of victory will be included in some way into the Power Rankings.  More detailed information is available on pages 4-5 and 37-45 of the attached link: Florida High School Athletic Association (fhsaa.com)

[Nulli Secundus]

1 hour ago, Dr. D said:

Passing on information from the January meetings of the Football Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Athletic Directors Advisory Committee (ADAC).  The most important items:

1) Adding a 5th Suburban Division: endorsed by FAC; not endorsed by ADAC

2) Adding a 5th Metro Division: endorsed by FAC; endorsed by ADAC

3) Increase size of districts/reduce number of districts: endorsed by FAC; not endorsed by ADAC

4) Incorporate margin of victory into Power Rankings, capped at 16 points: endorsed by FAC; endorsed by ADAC

Remember, these are only recommendations to the Board of Directors, not policy decisions.

Summary:  There continues to be significant concern with the number and size of districts from coaches, athletic directors, etc. across the state.  There is a discussion item on the upcoming FHSAA Board of Directors meeting regarding the Metro and Suburban classifications, specifically that member schools have expressed concern about small districts (as little as 2 to 3 teams), schools moving into the SSAC, schools having difficulty finding 10 games, etc.  These are all observations that have been discussed on this board so they are not a surprise, but getting a consensus on potential solutions going forward should be interesting.  On the bright side, it looks like margin of victory will be included in some way into the Power Rankings.  More detailed information is available on pages 4-5 and 37-45 of the attached link: Florida High School Athletic Association (fhsaa.com)

Thank you for the update!

[LakelandGator]

3 hours ago, Dr. D said:

 

Summary:  There continues to be significant concern with the number and size of districts from coaches, athletic directors, etc. across the state.  There is a discussion item on the upcoming FHSAA Board of Directors meeting regarding the Metro and Suburban classifications, specifically that member schools have expressed concern about small districts (as little as 2 to 3 teams), schools moving into the SSAC, schools having difficulty finding 10 games, etc.  

The SSAC has become a serious threat to the FHSAA and that's a good thing.

[gatorman-uf]

3 hours ago, LakelandGator said:

The SSAC has become a serious threat to the FHSAA and that's a good thing.

Is it a serious threat? I mean, I have no problem with it, but it doesn't seem like any school that we consider a traditional power is there. It mostly seems like teams that would be in the lowest classification of my proposed pyramid promotion/relegation system.

[Joshua Wilson]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:08 PM, Dr. D said:

Passing on information from the January meetings of the Football Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Athletic Directors Advisory Committee (ADAC).  The most important items:

1) Adding a 5th Suburban Division: endorsed by FAC; not endorsed by ADAC

2) Adding a 5th Metro Division: endorsed by FAC; endorsed by ADAC

3) Increase size of districts/reduce number of districts: endorsed by FAC; not endorsed by ADAC

4) Incorporate margin of victory into Power Rankings, capped at 16 points: endorsed by FAC; endorsed by ADAC

Remember, these are only recommendations to the Board of Directors, not policy decisions.

Summary:  There continues to be significant concern with the number and size of districts from coaches, athletic directors, etc. across the state.  There is a discussion item on the upcoming FHSAA Board of Directors meeting regarding the Metro and Suburban classifications, specifically that member schools have expressed concern about small districts (as little as 2 to 3 teams), schools moving into the SSAC, schools having difficulty finding 10 games, etc.  These are all observations that have been discussed on this board so they are not a surprise, but getting a consensus on potential solutions going forward should be interesting.  On the bright side, it looks like margin of victory will be included in some way into the Power Rankings.  More detailed information is available on pages 4-5 and 37-45 of the attached link: Florida High School Athletic Association (fhsaa.com)

And all of these recommendations will take two-years before anything can be implemented. They will have to have another read by both the Football Advisory and ADAC in 2024 before they go to the board for an official vote, if they make it that far.

[DarterBlue2]

I hope we don't have an expansion of classifications. Doing so will further water down the value of a state championship in the future. 

[Dr. D]

19 hours ago, Joshua Wilson said:

And all of these recommendations will take two-years before anything can be implemented. They will have to have another read by both the Football Advisory and ADAC in 2024 before they go to the board for an official vote, if they make it that far.

True, this is generally a two-year process.  And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Board of Directors does have the ability to fast-track an item if they are so inclined.  For example, the change from the RPI to the Power Rankings was first proposed by the FAC in January 2022, and approved by the Board as a fast-track item in time for the 2022 season.  I would not expect a change in the classification structure this coming season, as it is the second year of the 2-year cycle.  But theoretically the Board could adopt the margin of victory recommendation into the Power Rankings, if they were so inclined, although that doesn't appear to be the case.  Interested to see what comes of the Metro-Suburban discussion at the February 26 BoD meeting:  Florida High School Athletic Association (fhsaa.com)

[LakelandGator]

On 2/16/2023 at 9:52 PM, gatorman-uf said:

Is it a serious threat? I mean, I have no problem with it, but it doesn't seem like any school that we consider a traditional power is there. 

Glades Day is a 7x Champ, Jupiter Christian is a 2x champ, NSU was a 3A Champ, Oxbridge and Warner Christian were powerhouses at one time.

The SSAC will have 10 new member schools next year and the FHSAA has growing dissent that will probably get worse.

Keep an eye on the SSAC over the next 5 years.

 

 

 

[Hwy17]

20 hours ago, LakelandGator said:

Glades Day is a 7x Champ, Jupiter Christian is a 2x champ, NSU was a 3A Champ, Oxbridge and Warner Christian were powerhouses at one time.

The SSAC will have 10 new member schools next year and the FHSAA has growing dissent that will probably get worse.

Keep an eye on the SSAC over the next 5 years.

 

 

 

Failure by the FHSAA to really address the issues of smaller schools is why the SSAC is growing.  Sorta like NAIA is becoming a better option for smaller colleges than NCAA.

[Hwy17]

I heard that there is a bill in the state legislature that if passed would make FHSAA a 9 member board appointed by the governor.

[LakelandGator]

2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

Failure by the FHSAA to really address the issues of smaller schools is why the SSAC is growing.  Sorta like NAIA is becoming a better option for smaller colleges than NCAA.

100% agree with 17

[LakelandGator]

2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

I heard that there is a bill in the state legislature that if passed would make FHSAA a 9 member board appointed by the governor.

The individual that was elected governor wanted the FHSAA to keep record of HS girls menstrual cycle, and they association voted 15-2 against that barbaric suggestion. So being a demi-god like figure, he and his 'ol boys are going take over the FHSAA and do as they please.

[Perspective]

45 minutes ago, LakelandGator said:

100% agree with 17

Just out of curiosity, for both you and Hwy17, what are the issues that are unique to smaller schools that the FHSAA has refused or been reluctant to address? 

[Perspective]

44 minutes ago, LakelandGator said:

The individual that was elected governor wanted the FHSAA to keep record of HS girls menstrual cycle, and they association voted 15-2 against that barbaric suggestion. So being a demi-god like figure, he and his 'ol boys are going take over the FHSAA and do as they please.

Since the "other thread" has disappeared, I'll ask this rhetorical question here:   I can understand how and why democrats and republicans might disagree on certain issues.  I eat breakfast every Thursday morning with a group of guys who tend to identify with one of the parties more so than I do.   Sometimes it makes for lively discussion and debate; sometimes we have to just "let it go" in order to maintain friendships.   But, for the most part, we generally agree on sports issues.  So, here's my question:  why does the FHSAA need to be political?   Should it be?  Sure, if the current bill passes, the existing Governor will have the opportunity to appoint the nine members of the FHSAA Board.  But as soon as a Governor from the other party takes office, he or she will have the right, over a three-year period, to replace all of the Board members, at which time any politically-motivated actions can be reversed/undone.   Which gets me back to my question:  why should the FHSAA be a "political" organization?   Can't we keep politics out of sports?  

[Ray Icaza]

56 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Since the "other thread" has disappeared, I'll ask this rhetorical question here:   I can understand how and why democrats and republicans might disagree on certain issues.  I eat breakfast every Thursday morning with a group of guys who tend to identify with one of the parties more so than I do.   Sometimes it makes for lively discussion and debate; sometimes we have to just "let it go" in order to maintain friendships.   But, for the most part, we generally agree on sports issues.  So, here's my question:  why does the FHSAA need to be political?   Should it be?  Sure, if the current bill passes, the existing Governor will have the opportunity to appoint the nine members of the FHSAA Board.  But as soon as a Governor from the other party takes office, he or she will have the right, over a three-year period, to replace all of the Board members, at which time any politically-motivated actions can be reversed/undone.   Which gets me back to my question:  why should the FHSAA be a "political" organization?   Can't we keep politics out of sports?  

Any organization would be wise to keep politics out of the equation.  Common sense dictates that our country is pretty much divided 50/50.  Why would any organization, company, ESPN, NFL, etc. choose to alienate half it's potential viewers/customers/fans??  Someone brought up the Disney dispute which is a perfect example of stupidity by management to get involved in politics regardless of "Principle".  Half of your potential customers will disagree with the stance regardless the side it falls on.  Laissez-faire is the best policy.  Even my former employer at Starling Chevrolet clearly understood that as he refused allowing political signs on our dealership property regardless if he supported the candidate for that very reason.  That was true for the 30 plus years I worked there.  Hence the drop in viewership over the years for sport networks and leagues in general.  Obviously, reasoning has gone out the window as I can't fathom another explanation.

 

[LakelandGator]

52 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Which gets me back to my question:  why should the FHSAA be a "political" organization?   Can't we keep politics out of sports?  

This sounds like a rhetorical question, and with that being said, "Yes let's  keep politics out of HS sports"

The FHSAA is not perfect by a longgggg shot. They need to stay on top of the ever changing landscape and make the needed changes for the member schools, but it is still a much better answer than any politician controlling the narrative. Especially one trying to settle a score or get his little feelings hurt when things don't go his way.

And let's be clear here, I'm talking about republican and democrat politicians.

[Perspective]

I'm concerned that the current administration has cast a very big net trying to address all things school-related (Charter schools, AP classes, CRT, etc.) and now sports has gotten caught up in that net.   We can argue until we're all blue in the face about the issues that truly involve in-school education (on another site, perhaps  ), but why drag athletics into the mix?  What are the proponents of the current bill trying to accomplish?  Seriously, what's motivating the need/desire for changing how the FHSAA Board is established?  If it's not broke, no need to fix it.   If certain policies need to be tweaked, then tweak them.  But why turn this historically apolitical entity into a political one whose policies and positions will change after every election?

[Ray Icaza]

28 minutes ago, Perspective said:

I'm concerned that the current administration has cast a very big net trying to address all things school-related (Charter schools, AP classes, CRT, etc.) and now sports has gotten caught up in that net.   We can argue until we're all blue in the face about the issues that truly involve in-school education (on another site, perhaps  ), but why drag athletics into the mix?  What are the proponents of the current bill trying to accomplish?  Seriously, what's motivating the need/desire for changing how the FHSAA Board is established?  If it's not broke, no need to fix it.   If certain policies need to be tweaked, then tweak them.  But why turn this historically apolitical entity into a political one who's policies and positions will change after every election?

I agree, it should be apolitical but nothing is anymore.  But to answer the crux of your question I will ask a follow up question.  Who created the transfer mess in the first place?   The state legislature in their wisdom.  The FHSAA is powerless as I have heard folks on this site on both sides repeatedly state.  So the question I would ask is who has the power to fix it?   At least in my eyes if the aforementioned premise is correct, the answer is obvious.  So all I am suggesting is "Give Peace a Chance".

[Perspective]

12 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

I agree, it should be apolitical but nothing is anymore.  But to answer the crux of your question I will ask a follow up question.  Who created the transfer mess in the first place?   The state legislature in their wisdom.  The FHSAA is powerless as I have heard folks on this site on both sides repeatedly state.  So the question I would ask is who has the power to fix it?   At least in my eyes if the aforementioned premise is correct, the answer is obvious.  So all I am suggesting is "Give Peace a Chance".

Ray, I appreciate your position, but let me make sure I've got this fairy tale story straight: 

Once upon a time, someone had a problem with the FHSAA, so they introduced legislation to change the way things worked in terms of who gets to go to what school.  And they were successful in convincing the king to turn the legislation into law.  And the new law essentially took away certain powers previously vested in the FHSAA.  A few years passed, and not the least bit surprising to many of the people who live in the kingdom, the new rule created more problems than it solved.   So, now, the very group that created the problems in the first place, the legislature, has decided to change the laws again -- only this time, instead of simply changing the rules again (perhaps a battle they don't think they can win), they want to make the FHSAA fully subservient and relatively powerless by letting the king choose the lords who get to make the rules that the FHSAA (and any other similar organization that wants to oversee jousting tournaments and such) has to follow.    

I'm all about giving peace a chance, but something tells me that this story isn't going to have a 'happily ever after' ending.   

[LakelandGator]

2 hours ago, Perspective said:

I'm concerned that the current administration has cast a very big net trying to address all things school-related (Charter schools, AP classes, CRT, etc.) and now sports has gotten caught up in that net.   We can argue until we're all blue in the face about the issues that truly involve in-school education (on another site, perhaps  ), but why drag athletics into the mix?  What are the proponents of the current bill trying to accomplish?  Seriously, what's motivating the need/desire for changing how the FHSAA Board is established?  If it's not broke, no need to fix it.   If certain policies need to be tweaked, then tweak them.  But why turn this historically apolitical entity into a political one who's policies and positions will change after every election?

We agree on pretty everything here, which may be a first. 

Do you follow Plant basketball as well? They travel over here tonight to face nationally ranked Winter Haven in the boys playoffs Round 2.

 

 

 

[nolebull813]

5 hours ago, LakelandGator said:

The individual that was elected governor wanted the FHSAA to keep record of HS girls menstrual cycle, and they association voted 15-2 against that barbaric suggestion. So being a demi-god like figure, he and his 'ol boys are going take over the FHSAA and do as they please.

Dudes should not be competing with girls. It’s to make sure confused boys who say they are girls can’t compete with real girls. 

[LakelandGator]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

I'm all about giving peace a chance, but something tells me that this story isn't going to have a 'happily ever after' ending.   

It won't have an happy ending and he's purposely avoiding the "real" reason we are even having this discussion.

[LakelandGator]

Just now, nolebull813 said:

Dudes should not be competing with girls. It’s to make sure confused boys who say they are girls can’t compete with real girls. 

No shi** Einstein.

How many "dudes" in the state are competing with girls?

[nolebull813]

4 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

Any organization would be wise to keep politics out of the equation.  Common sense dictates that our country is pretty much divided 50/50.  Why would any organization, company, ESPN, NFL, etc. choose to alienate half it's potential viewers/customers/fans??  Someone brought up the Disney dispute which is a perfect example of stupidity by management to get involved in politics regardless of "Principle".  Half of your potential customers will disagree with the stance regardless the side it falls on.  Laissez-faire is the best policy.  Even my former employer at Starling Chevrolet clearly understood that as he refused allowing political signs on our dealership property regardless if he supported the candidate for that very reason.  That was true for the 30 plus years I worked there.  Hence the drop in viewership over the years for sport networks and leagues in general.  Obviously, reasoning has gone out the window as I can't fathom another explanation.

 

 Not to get sidetracked but I just wanted to point out that I believe Disney made a decision to go for a lack of a better word “woke” in hopes of attracting a new market demographic. And they thought that the new customers would outweigh all the ones who were backstabbed by their political stances and direction of the company. They whiffed big time on that guess. 
 

The FHSAA is charting that territory in the sense they are trying to appease some beta males who hate competition and the men who teach hard work are gonna get so fed up with it there will be a split. The fact that they would even entertain 10 classes should cause for the alarms to sound 

[nolebull813]

3 minutes ago, LakelandGator said:

No shi** Einstein.

How many "dudes" in the state are competing with girls?

Hopefully none thanks to our Gov.  We don’t ever want that NCAA swimming debacle where a Sarasota native woman was robbed of a national title by some piece of crap dude!!