Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
47 minutes ago, SportsFan said:

If that's not a district game they have no business scheduling them 

I'm fine with a system punishing a team for scheduling a bad team they just needed to configure the points where they would get more points for a win than a loss but a team that plays bad teams all year should risk falling behind a team with 1 or 2 loss team who playing state ranked teams every week

And to your point. There really are only a few teams out there that "elite" or dominant every year.  Most schools have a few good seasons followed by a down year or two.  Likewise, most schools create their schedules for a two year cycle because that's how districts are done. When a school shows they're good most years,(this is especially true in the smaller classes), others don't want to play them. And the weaker teams usually stick to playing other weaker teams until they start winning.  This makes for a catch 22.  Here's some real examples: Clewiston, not really a weak team but because of past successes they find themselves playing a brutal schedule.  North Port, years of being everyone's homecoming game has finally decided to play some teams they can actually win. Good for them! I suspect next season they'll have to schedule a little tougher.  Same thing with Lemon Bay.  Hardee, (my team) also playing a very weak schedule but as someone else pointed out to me, some of those weak teams had a winning season last year.  

The point I'm getting at is this: While a promotion or relegation system sounds good,  unless there is some measure to show that a team is vastly superior than the rest of their class I don't believe a team should be forced up because of a couple good years. And those who consistently struggle have the ability to schedule accordingly now.  Strength of schedule sounds good but when you schedule a team that had a winning season and now they are winless your stuck.


Posted
2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

 

To both of your points, remember back a couple of seasons the system used awarded points based off strength of schedule, which sounded good. However as was pointed out, St. Pete Gibbs was awarded points for getting running clocked by Lakeland who in turned was penalized by the system for playing a winless team. As I said then, all that proved to me was Gibbs had no business playing Lakeland.  Yet under that system it was better for a bad team to over schedule and get beat than to play teams along their own level.  It's almost like telling a student who struggles with basic math to take calculus because an F in calculus is better than an A+ in basic math

C's get degrees.  Do F's?:lol:

Posted
1 hour ago, Hwy17 said:

And to your point. There really are only a few teams out there that "elite" or dominant every year.  Most schools have a few good seasons followed by a down year or two.  Likewise, most schools create their schedules for a two year cycle because that's how districts are done. When a school shows they're good most years,(this is especially true in the smaller classes), others don't want to play them. And the weaker teams usually stick to playing other weaker teams until they start winning.  This makes for a catch 22.  Here's some real examples: Clewiston, not really a weak team but because of past successes they find themselves playing a brutal schedule.  North Port, years of being everyone's homecoming game has finally decided to play some teams they can actually win. Good for them! I suspect next season they'll have to schedule a little tougher.  Same thing with Lemon Bay.  Hardee, (my team) also playing a very weak schedule but as someone else pointed out to me, some of those weak teams had a winning season last year.  

The point I'm getting at is this: While a promotion or relegation system sounds good,  unless there is some measure to show that a team is vastly superior than the rest of their class I don't believe a team should be forced up because of a couple good years. And those who consistently struggle have the ability to schedule accordingly now.  Strength of schedule sounds good but when you schedule a team that had a winning season and now they are winless your stuck.

It's one thing if you schedule someone like a Buchholz or Bolles or Osceola or Rockledge and they have a down year 

At least you can say they were a team that should be a good game regardless, but are you really trying to say that Lakeland scheduled St Pete Gibbs expecting them to be a good game? 

I get where you're going with it and I agree in theory but I still feel like teams shouldn't be punished because certain teams in the same region refuse to play a school so they are forced to play state ranked teams and yet the team who won't play will play an easy schedule and claim they should be in the playoffs over the other team when they have no interest in playing said team and aggressively avoided any attempt to play 

If we allow a system where you don't have to even play your district opponents during the season you open up a situation where a team could be the best team in the district but will miss the playoffs because nobody else in the district would play them 

It works in other sports because they have district tournaments at the end of the regular season but it won't work for football

Posted

My question for you @Hwy17 is this 

- One school goes 10-0 and doesn't beat a single team above .500

- One school goes 8-2 facing 6 teams ranked top 25 in Florida and goes 4-2 in those games with both losses coming to teams inside the top 10 

- Both have 4 team districts 

Can you really make an argument that 10-0 team deserves a higher seeding, I'm not saying them missing the playoffs I'm talking just difference between 1 and 2 seed in regional play? If not how can we justify any school benefits by playing better teams 

Posted
7 hours ago, SportsFan said:

My question for you @Hwy17 is this 

- One school goes 10-0 and doesn't beat a single team above .500

- One school goes 8-2 facing 6 teams ranked top 25 in Florida and goes 4-2 in those games with both losses coming to teams inside the top 10 

- Both have 4 team districts 

Can you really make an argument that 10-0 team deserves a higher seeding, I'm not saying them missing the playoffs I'm talking just difference between 1 and 2 seed in regional play? If not how can we justify any school benefits by playing better teams 

I don't disagree that in the above scenario that the 8-2 team shouldn't be the higher seed come playoffs.  However my observation over the last several years would suggest that a team that plays that tough of a schedule and goes 8-2 most likely has something (a lot of transfers coming in) most other schools don't.  Also they are likely one of those teams others avoid. Likewise, the 10-0 team, most likely didn't load up on easy teams for easy wins but rather has a traditional schedule playing neighboring schools that all happen to be lousy.  I see it happening a lot. Lake Wales for example gets criticized for playing a "weak" schedule even though a lot of those games are neighboring schools and the understanding that who we play every year. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Hwy17 said:

I don't disagree that in the above scenario that the 8-2 team shouldn't be the higher seed come playoffs.  However my observation over the last several years would suggest that a team that plays that tough of a schedule and goes 8-2 most likely has something (a lot of transfers coming in) most other schools don't.  Also they are likely one of those teams others avoid. Likewise, the 10-0 team, most likely didn't load up on easy teams for easy wins but rather has a traditional schedule playing neighboring schools that all happen to be lousy.  I see it happening a lot. Lake Wales for example gets criticized for playing a "weak" schedule even though a lot of those games are neighboring schools and the understanding that who we play every year. 

I think Lake Wales takes a lot of heat for their schedule because they aren't playing Lakeland every year even though that's probably the team who would compete with them most years 

Posted
15 hours ago, SportsFan said:

I think Lake Wales takes a lot of heat for their schedule because they aren't playing Lakeland every year even though that's probably the team who would compete with them most years 

Not just Lakeland but they aren’t playing any good teams from anywhere. The only reason they won a title last year was because the FHSAA went from a state title format to an area title format. Lake Wales was the best of the suburbs. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, nolebull813 said:

Not just Lakeland but they aren’t playing any good teams from anywhere. The only reason they won a title last year was because the FHSAA went from a state title format to an area title format. Lake Wales was the best of the suburbs. 

That's probably true and they won a nail biter. I bet Dan would argue Mainland was the better team. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, nolebull813 said:

Not just Lakeland but they aren’t playing any good teams from anywhere. The only reason they won a title last year was because the FHSAA went from a state title format to an area title format. Lake Wales was the best of the suburbs. 

 

7 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:

That's probably true and they won a nail biter. I bet Dan would argue Mainland was the better team. 

Exactly! Lake Wales benefited from the split.  Now get this; if the current proposal goes through LW might benefit even more as maxpreps says they are #45 in the state meanwhile Mainland is in the top 32. LW would love that! Mainland, IMHO, gets screwed!

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...


  • Posts

    • Larry Blustein podcast link talking about this event: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/south-florida-high-school-sports-radio/id993198627?i=1000717251522
    • I suddenly wish Bridgewater had known he was breaking the rules and kept it on the DL.  He obviously cares a lot about that program and those kids.  Hate to see a guy who cares like that get taken down while the true cheaters are out there doing their thing.
    • Yes, the free market should be allowed to draw the lines between amateurism and professionalism. The beauty of playing strictly for the love of the game will certainly be allowed to persist. And, kids and adults alike play A LOT of games for fun as it is. See adult rec leagues, intramurals etc. This includes those who've been able to become wealthy through playing the sport as well!  I think that, eventually, people like most all of us are going to recognize that it is preposterous to have teenagers getting paid to play high school sports, and/or get a free college education along with the extra compensation. Most of us have been fans of the game and of the school, not the "star" athletes. In the long run, I don't think there will be much of a market for paid teenager athletes. But, if someone is willing to part with their $ to allow a kid to be less poor, and that means that School A easily crushes the competition, I don't think that's a bad thing. It IS a thing that will cause a great many people to lose interest. And that will in turn diminish the market, which will of course mean kids aren't making any money anyway. At issue, as I keep harping on, is the fact that the "big time" sports world where NIL money is available is an entirely different, beast of an animal that K-12 schools and even universities are not equipped to manage. Nor should they be. Big time, for profit sports should be separated from schools. The mission of the two entities is competely misaligned. 
    • It is somewhat understandable for a guy who's passionate about the sport, and who reached very close to the pinnacle of it, to be dismissive of the many dimwits making the rules who have none of the above characteristics. And, he may also be considering the possibility that calling attention to the (perhaps) absurd nature of the rules and/or the dearth of funding in high school football may be worth it in the big picture. He's almost certainly going to have the opportunity to coach at the higher levels, and is not likely to be at Norhwestern for very long, anyway. He may make a bigger impact long-term/big picture doing this sort of thing than just winning a couple state titles and jetting.
    • I think the argument is this:  if 'free adults are allowed to give gifts to poor kids who happen to be good at sports,' we move from an amateur environment into a professional environment.   Historically, high school sports, college sports and even the Olympics were reserved solely for amateur athletes.  Within the last couple of decades, the barriers for professionals started to erode for the Olympics.   You may recall that Jim Thorpe won gold medals in track in the 1912 Olympics, but was stripped of those medals because he had played minor league (or "semipro") baseball prior to participating in the Olympics.   Ultimately, those medals were restored a few years ago.  The USA Olympic basketball team used to be comprised only of college players.  Now, it's all pros (with one or two college stars).  Within the last 5-10 years, NIL changes have permitted college athletes to receive compensation. Before then, the rules in place for decades allowed college student-athletes to receive room, board and tuition.  The $100 post-game handshakes from alums in the locker room and brown paper bags filled with money - although they happened everywhere - were illegal (and arguably still are; they just don't happen as much because the athletes can receive money legally through NIL). The NIL world is quickly filtering down to the high school level.  However, the rules in most all states, and certainly in Florida, are rooted in the concept that only amateur athletes can compete in high school sports.   And if you allow athletes to receive gifts, or otherwise compensate them or their families, such athletes are no longer considered amateurs.   Simply put, the rules has always been that if you get compensated to do play a sport, you are considered a professional.  And professionals cannot participate in amateur sports.  Again, the rules in place (FHSAA Rules) are rooted in a clear distinction between amateur sports and professional sports.  There was a clear line that is slowly becoming more and more blurred. If you want the argument as to why the rule makes sense, I think it is this:   there is a certain beauty in amateur sports, knowing that everyone who is playing is playing for the love of the game and not for money.  Everything changes once you start compensating athletes.  As I have stated before, the concept of compensation is a slippery slope.  What do you allow and what don't you?   FHSAA rules prohibiting impermissible benefits were written before Uber even existed. But the rule is pretty clear:  if you give something to football players that you don't give to all other students, that's an impermissible benefit - especially if the benefit is given to entice a kid to come to your school.   If you allow schools/coaches/alums to compensate kids to play sports, then you take away the somewhat-level playing field.  And, over time, certain schools will dominate high school sports because they will have the financial wherewithal to attract the most talented athletes.  While this might be good for the handful of select, talented athletes, everyone else suffers.   I guess the real question is whether we just want to eliminate the distinction between amateur athletics and professional athletics altogether and simply allow the free-market system to play out for all athletes and all schools?  If you're inclined to answer this question with a "yes," I have only six words for you:  be careful what you wish for.   
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...