Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Posted
15 minutes ago, Dr. D said:

Saw this agenda item on the upcoming FHSAA Board of Directors meeting:

https://fhsaa.com/documents/2024/2/20/68_72.pdf

You've got to give an "A" for creativity.  And we would get even more "champions"!

 

7 minutes ago, Perspective said:

So, the Rural B State Champion would, at best, be the 17th best rural team in the state, huh?   Hmmmm.

Even if this works for the Rural class(es), I object strenuously to any such implementation in the other classes. So the intent is to have like 14-15 "state champs" with half of them coming from the lower echelons of each class? Or am I missing something? 

Posted

Isn't this basically what the Sunshine State Athletic Association did at the end of this past season -- where every team participated in some form of post-season play and the teams were grouped together based on their records/rankings?   

I'm wondering if this is a proactive effort to keep football alive and kicking in the rural areas.  Regardless, I'm not a fan of the 'bottom half' of any classification being able to compete for a "state championship."

Posted

I have said a million times that promotion/relegation system is the way to go, but I also understand that many communities/coaches don't understand the benefits of a system like that for the vast majority of programs. I feel like this is dipping their toe in the water of it to prove it is viable. 

One of my contentions is that pro/rel allows teams to be competitive against likewise teams (based on previous years). The "B" division essentially is that (except for that year). Now, would I call this specific group "state" champions, probably not, but that is the least of my concerns. If they are doing seeding, of course there is greater # of mismatches. That is why you are doing seeding, so that the #2 doesn't play the #1 seed in the first round. I don't think the goal is to get 64 teams per class into the playoffs, I think the goal is to show that we can make a competitive system based on MaxPreps rankings.

Now, I do like the idea of taking the rural class as a whole and making it just the North and South and removing regions as a whole. That is something @DisabledAccount aka ColumbiaFan often promoted.

Posted

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....

Posted
1 hour ago, CoachGraham said:

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.

Any time something is "all about perspective," I'm in favor of it!   :D

Joking aside, I'm OK with the idea of 'more football,' and completely agree that you can call the successful teams almost anything you want as long as you don't call them 'state champions.'    Ironically, the concept is being tested in the rural areas, where kids are more likely to play multiple sports.  This idea may actually get some push-back from high school basketball coaches in rural areas, as prolonged football seasons will keep kids off the basketball court that much longer. 

Posted

What would you call this? If they are not competing for state titles then what’s the point? Might as well just call them bowl games and be done with it. But to separate the classes at the end between the good and bad teams is a travesty. What this state needs is less playoff brackets not more.

Posted

I do like the mention of adapting the Georgia model of cross-region bracketing and think it would be worth considering for all classifications.  This would allow two teams from the same District/Region to meet in the state finals, rather than one team being eliminated in the Region finals.  If AHP and Norland (now both in District 4A-15) happen to be the two best teams in 4A this year, it would seem more desirable to have them meet in the state finals, or at least the state semi-finals.  The issue of travel has been pointed out as a deterrent to the Georgia model in Florida, but perhaps it could at least be utilized in a "North" and "South" bracket.   

Posted
On 2/21/2024 at 10:02 AM, nolebull813 said:

What would you call this? If they are not competing for state titles then what’s the point? Might as well just call them bowl games and be done with it. But to separate the classes at the end between the good and bad teams is a travesty. What this state needs is less playoff brackets not more.

Some schools never have a prayer of winning a state title, especially in today's age. Call them exhibition games for all I care. Just give them more games. More games, more money. More games, more exposure. As long as we don't confuse it for what it is not, I don't see an issue. 

Posted
On 2/21/2024 at 8:23 AM, CoachGraham said:

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....

I would not call any tournament under promotion/demotion model except the top a state champion. Call the rest anything you want. The goal is to provide the vast majority of student athlete's a good experience that help build character for the future and learn teamwork.  Its obvious with all the blowouts and the huge distance between the haves and have nots that the current system or even the metro system achieves what is best for the most students.  Teams want to have a fighting chance to at least compete in half their games and being a division with similar teams will help. The SAC calling a 3-7 team a state champion is pathetic. But I get why teams are moving to it or forming own associations.

 

 

 

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

    • 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.   
    • Yes of course big shot, how dare anyone try to help some young man out with a generous offer from his own pocket! Did the new pinstripe suits arrive yet from Brooks Brothers, F. Lee Bailey, Clarence Darrow Jr?!  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...