Does Florida need high school playoffs shakeup?

[gatorman-uf]

Article from the Orlando Sentinel... http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-proposal-0902-story.html

 

I agree that a system that takes into account more than school enrollment is necessary. I am not sure this is the system. I prefer a system where each round you advance in the playoffs a certain number or percentage of students is added to population. Additionally, for every consecutive year that you don't make it that your population is decreased by a certain number or percentage. Additionally, a cap of enrollment of 2700 for the purposes of classification would be necessary. I think that actually accomplishes the goal. In sports like Girls Volleyball and Boys Basketball, so many of the quality schools are smaller private schools. If those schools moved up in classification to play tougher competition, the better off everyone would be.

Or if we want a simple system, take the district record of each team over 2 years, take the best team move them up a classification. Take the worst team move them down. It would take 10 years for an 9A squad to move down to 5A. This does exactly what the FHSAA wants except that it does so over a gradual time.

I will also agree with Columbia Fan, they could shrink down to say 6 classifications (including 1A). Allow teams to play normal schedule. Take MaxPreps rankings of top 64 (before district tournaments) and pull those teams from districts and allow them to play in an OPEN class. Allow the remaining teams in 1A-6A to play to a state championship. Accomplishes same goal, keeps districts (which are important for coaches and players), removes the "elite teams" from crashing a cinderella's trip to the tournament. 

CORRECTION: 

Football is not included in the most recent proposals. Only all the other team sports.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-wambles-0904-story.html#

[OldSchoolLion]

 

26 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

Article from the Orlando Sentinel... http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-proposal-0902-story.html

 

I agree that a system that takes into account more than school enrollment is necessary. I am not sure this is the system. I prefer a system where each round you advance in the playoffs a certain number or percentage of students is added to population. Additionally, for every consecutive year that you don't make it that your population is decreased by a certain number or percentage. Additionally, a cap of enrollment of 2700 for the purposes of classification would be necessary. I think that actually accomplishes the goal. In sports like Girls Volleyball and Boys Basketball, so many of the quality schools are smaller private schools. If those schools moved up in classification to play tougher competition, the better off everyone would be.

Or if we want a simple system, take the district record of each team over 2 years, take the best team move them up a classification. Take the worst team move them down. It would take 10 years for an 9A squad to move down to 5A. This does exactly what the FHSAA wants except that it does so over a gradual time.

I will also agree with Columbia Fan, they could shrink down to say 6 classifications (including 1A). Allow teams to play normal schedule. Take MaxPreps rankings of top 64 (before district tournaments) and pull those teams from districts and allow them to play in an OPEN class. Allow the remaining teams in 1A-6A to play to a state championship. Accomplishes same goal, keeps districts (which are important for coaches and players), removes the "elite teams" from crashing a cinderella's trip to the tournament. 

...another variable for consideration....all of the newer schools and/or schools struggling to get adequate players to dress out to be competitive.  Should this somehow be part of the equation?  Last month I shared some information that demonstrated how so many schools that have opened over the past 25 years have struggled to get traction with their football programs...possibly because they have been thrown into the fire from the get-go.

...just food for thought

 

..

 

 

[nolebull813]

Or we could just remove 3 classes. Get rid of 2A. Almost every team in 2A is non competitive. Just really bad football schools. No one thinks teams like FAMU, Eagles View, St Francis, Marco Island Academy have a snowballs chance in hell at winning a title. 

There are only 40 teams in 2A. Make them apply to independent conferences like the SSAC, North Florida, etc. Go independent altogether. Or move up to 3A. They have 3 choices to make what's best for them.

That's one class down......

[nolebull813]

Combine the top 6 classes into 4 and bring back true district playoffs. Right now there this many teams in each class

3A - 38

4A - 47

5A - 81

6A - 81 

7A - 87

8A - 89

That's 423 teams. Divide that into 4 classes and you have 105 teams per class. 105 teams divided into 16 districts equals 6.6 teams per district. Or 6-7 depending on area. Hardly overcrowding. 

Then you can start the classes by enrollment. The 105 smallest would be the first class and on. 

Leave 1A alone, and do this for the 4 new classes and we can have 5 total classes for the state easy. And the playoffs would be competitive with only 2 teams making the playoffs from 6/7 team districts. Not a lot of garbage teams would make it 

[Zoe Boy]

9 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Article from the Orlando Sentinel... http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-proposal-0902-story.html

 

I agree that a system that takes into account more than school enrollment is necessary. I am not sure this is the system. I prefer a system where each round you advance in the playoffs a certain number or percentage of students is added to population. Additionally, for every consecutive year that you don't make it that your population is decreased by a certain number or percentage. Additionally, a cap of enrollment of 2700 for the purposes of classification would be necessary. I think that actually accomplishes the goal. In sports like Girls Volleyball and Boys Basketball, so many of the quality schools are smaller private schools. If those schools moved up in classification to play tougher competition, the better off everyone would be.

Or if we want a simple system, take the district record of each team over 2 years, take the best team move them up a classification. Take the worst team move them down. It would take 10 years for an 9A squad to move down to 5A. This does exactly what the FHSAA wants except that it does so over a gradual time.

I will also agree with Columbia Fan, they could shrink down to say 6 classifications (including 1A). Allow teams to play normal schedule. Take MaxPreps rankings of top 64 (before district tournaments) and pull those teams from districts and allow them to play in an OPEN class. Allow the remaining teams in 1A-6A to play to a state championship. Accomplishes same goal, keeps districts (which are important for coaches and players), removes the "elite teams" from crashing a cinderella's trip to the tournament. 

Oh ok hmmmmm so what will this incomplish? Mine as well make the elite teams play against the elite teams all year.. Have a separate district for them..

[Coach]

I really like the idea of having a 64-team "D1" for all the top teams in the state (for football). I liken it to the NCAA Tournament in which there are multiple conference champions playing for the one National Championship. It would also stop blowouts in the playoffs. Does it water down a State Championship in other classifications? I'm not sure of that. Think about the old-school college football days when one team claimed a title based on Coaches polls, AP Polls, BCS, etc. I think it might not be bad to allow other schools a shot to compete, even if it isn't at the top classification. I mean, do the FCS, DIII, or JUCO National Champions feel any less accomplished than a DI school? I don't think so. 

[gatorman-uf]

19 minutes ago, Zoe Boy said:

Oh ok hmmmmm so what will this incomplish? Mine as well make the elite teams play against the elite teams all year.. Have a separate district for them..

1) This applies to all team sports, not just football

2) The reason why you don't want a separate district/classification for them is that we don't know who is elite from the start for all sports. So this makes it so that a team that finally puts together that awesome group of kids gets a chance to compete against an awesome group of kids. It also prevents team from being in a low classification (getting several transfers in) and roughshodding over everyone in their lower classifications.

3) Football is and will always be its own animal. I wouldn't do the top 64 teams at the end of the season for them. They would be in that from the beginning. I would only do the top 64 though. I wouldn't extend it down to the next 64 and so on. I think district titles are still something to play for. 

4) As for classifications, yes, shrinking it down is necessary, but I am not sure it prevents blowouts. In 2016 and 2017 state championships (when we would expect competitive games), most of the other games were somewhat competitive in terms of a final score. Go back to 2015 though and only one game was competitive.  I think some of these things go in cycles. 

Football Answer:
Take largest 256 teams put them in 1 classification with 8 teams per district (32 districts). that leaves 168 teams. 
Divide remaining 168 teams into 3 equal size classes with 4 regions (so about 14 teams per region). Kids at 2A deserve a chance just as much as the kid at 8A to play for a state championship, no matter the quality of football.
Use current formula to determine who gets in. 

For our huge classifications, use district records to determine who gets in. Top 3 move on. Then either a) put the largest team from the district in class 6A Division 1, the 2nd biggest team from the district in class 6A Division 2, and the smallest team from the district in class 6A Division 3 (using seeding from playoff points) or b ) take all 256, rank them by size, take the biggest 32 regardless of district and put them in Division 1, next 32, in Division 2, and next in Division 3. 
 

Other Team Sports:
Shrink Classification down by 2 to 7
Keep Districts
Before District Tournaments take best 64 teams and put them in a playoff (first game to be played the Saturday night of District Tournaments, District Tournaments must finish on Friday or Saturday afternoon)
If a team makes the best 64, they must move up a classification the next year. So OCP no longer stays at 3A forever, time to move up a classification. 
Go to every year reclassification, football makes sense to be every 2 years due to home and away games. Other sports it does not due to almost all being home and away in the same season. 

[Hwy17]

My take on it is that with athletes being able to transfer at will, it compromised the whole purpose of classification.  If I had my way, there would be a cap placed on the number of transfers.  I would make an exception for transfers who move in from more than 30 miles away, and I would allow for a netting for transfers out.  So 6 transfer in, 3 transfer out, that's 3 transfer, one of the 3 was from more than 30 miles away, he's exempt, so a net of 2 transfers.  I would also have a deadline of June 30 to transfer.  If a program has more than the # allowed for its class, it would play up in classification to the appropriate number of transfers in.  Max any program can have would be 7 transfers. Classes would look something like this.

Class 1A:  Under 700 students; limit 3 transfers.

Class 2A:  701 - 1400 students, limit 4 transfers

Class 3A: 1401 to 2100 students. limit 5 transfers

Class 4A: 2101 to 2800 students, limit 6 transfers

Class 5A: 2801 and over: limit 7 transfers.

[gatorman-uf]

5 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

My take on it is that with athletes being able to transfer at will, it compromised the whole purpose of classification.  If I had my way, there would be a cap placed on the number of transfers.  I would make an exception for transfers who move in from more than 30 miles away, and I would allow for a netting for transfers out.  So 6 transfer in, 3 transfer out, that's 3 transfer, one of the 3 was from more than 30 miles away, he's exempt, so a net of 2 transfers.  I would also have a deadline of June 30 to transfer.  If a program has more than the # allowed for its class, it would play up in classification to the appropriate number of transfers in.  Max any program can have would be 7 transfers. Classes would look something like this.

Class 1A:  Under 700 students; limit 3 transfers.

Class 2A:  701 - 1400 students, limit 4 transfers

Class 3A: 1401 to 2100 students. limit 5 transfers

Class 4A: 2101 to 2800 students, limit 6 transfers

Class 5A: 2801 and over: limit 7 transfers.

Unfortunately limiting transfers will never fly with this meddling state legislature (we get what we vote for). I am not so sure, I want to limit them anyway. I want to limit recruiting my dads, moms, coaches, and hanger ons. I don't like transfers, but I was a transfer. I transferred to a private school from out of state. The school I transferred to had a history of transfers for my sport (and other sports, the Newspapers Players of the Year in Basketball and Soccer transferred in the same year as me). I didn't know. My mom put me in the school because of the academics. Additionally, another out-of-state student transferred in as well for my sport. Did this mean we were conspiring, plotting? Had the coach secretly recruited us from other states? No, we were average to slightly above average athletes. We just happened to end up at the same school in the same sport.

I know I wouldn't count in your transfer limits, I just want to get caught up in catching the numbers. What happens when transfer number 8 shows up? Do we tell him, no, you can't play football with us? Or if the 5* kid comes in as the 8th transfer, do we tell transfer #2, sorry, we need your spot for someone else. 

I do agree that transfers make classifications unworkable in the long run, which is again why as your team excels, it should be forced to move up in classification. 

[Hwy17]

27 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

Unfortunately limiting transfers will never fly with this meddling state legislature (we get what we vote for). I am not so sure, I want to limit them anyway. I want to limit recruiting my dads, moms, coaches, and hanger ons. I don't like transfers, but I was a transfer. I transferred to a private school from out of state. The school I transferred to had a history of transfers for my sport (and other sports, the Newspapers Players of the Year in Basketball and Soccer transferred in the same year as me). I didn't know. My mom put me in the school because of the academics. Additionally, another out-of-state student transferred in as well for my sport. Did this mean we were conspiring, plotting? Had the coach secretly recruited us from other states? No, we were average to slightly above average athletes. We just happened to end up at the same school in the same sport.

I know I wouldn't count in your transfer limits, I just want to get caught up in catching the numbers. What happens when transfer number 8 shows up? Do we tell him, no, you can't play football with us? Or if the 5* kid comes in as the 8th transfer, do we tell transfer #2, sorry, we need your spot for someone else. 

I do agree that transfers make classifications unworkable in the long run, which is again why as your team excels, it should be forced to move up in classification. 

That's exactly why I would do it this way.  Those from more than 30 miles would be exempt because that involves moving into that schools zone.  There is a deadline to transfer and a cap.  Somebody is going to have to make a hard decision on who to allow and who not to allow.  Is if fair, maybe not, but neither is life and let it be a learning lesson to transfer at risk. School choice was created for academics not athletics.  Heck, when they get ready to play college ball, they sign a letter of intent and colleges think nothing about pulling their offer at the last second.  NCAA also has a deadline to transfer and cap the number of scholarships offered by division. No different here.  

I have never had an issue with the 1 or 2 transfers that made a bona fide move to a new school.  But when a school gets multiple transfers in, especially when they don't have to move up, its not fair to the other schools in that class.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if it hadn't got so out of hand.  

 

[OldSchoolLion]

I have changed my tune a bit about transfers after diving into the details.  Even if it was fair game to modify, I question if it is worth the energy to manage transfers.  IMO, transfers are not making teams great.  They are making great teams greater.  Even if no transfers were happening, I believe most of the teams doing most of the winning now would still be at the top.

What needs attention are the programs that are floundering( and there are a ton of them), not the relatively few schools that are getting "richer" from transfers.  Taking away their transfers is not necessarily going to fix the parity problem long-term.  We have some schools that opened 20 years ago whose football programs don't appear to be much further along than when they opened up the doors.  Sure, they might lose a good athlete via a transfer, but if losing 1 or 2 players is causing a whole program to crater for the year, something much deeper is wrong.  A broader intervention than "fixing the transfer problem" is needed.  

With increasing concerns related to safety, we need a game that attracts "average-sized" kids, ie 150 pounds, to play.  If someone sent a 150-pound kid out on the mat to wrestle a 350-pounder, people would think it was crazy.  But there are some who want to throw the "overprotective parent" card on those who have the same concerns on the football field. 

In a relatively short-time frame we are seeing lineman weighing 100 pounds more.  This is a huge change in the game, yet we have done little to address the safety concerns.  I firmly believe some of these programs are floundering because good athletes that would have dressed out 30 years ago are not playing now.  ...not necessarily 3-star players, but kids good enough to make the team reasonably competitive. 

[Quelee]

Regional Playoff pairings bugs the hell out me. If we are going to have 32 teams...lets rank the top 32 teams and bracket them according to their ranking. I don't care if a team is in the panhandle has to travel to the Miami area to play or vice versa. I know money, logistics, missed class time, etc. are all arguments against it...but if this state want to see the best competition in later rounds and for title games, this is the way to go. 

[Hwy17]

2 hours ago, Quelee said:

Regional Playoff pairings bugs the hell out me. If we are going to have 32 teams...lets rank the top 32 teams and bracket them according to their ranking. I don't care if a team is in the panhandle has to travel to the Miami area to play or vice versa. I know money, logistics, missed class time, etc. are all arguments against it...but if this state want to see the best competition in later rounds and for title games, this is the way to go. 

I have see some early round playoff games that were more competitive than those in later rounds. Especially when we had district champ vs runner up format.

[Jambun82]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolLion said:

I have changed my tune a bit about transfers after diving into the details.  Even if it was fair game to modify, I question if it is worth the energy to manage transfers.  IMO, transfers are not making teams great.  They are making great teams greater.  Even if no transfers were happening, I believe most of the teams doing most of the winning now would still be at the top.

What needs attention are the programs that are floundering( and there are a ton of them), not the relatively few schools that are getting "richer" from transfers.  Taking away their transfers is not necessarily going to fix the parity problem long-term.  We have some schools that opened 20 years ago whose football programs don't appear to be much further along than when they opened up the doors.  Sure, they might lose a good athlete via a transfer, but if losing 1 or 2 players is causing a whole program to crater for the year, something much deeper is wrong.  A broader intervention than "fixing the transfer problem" is needed.  

With increasing concerns related to safety, we need a game that attracts "average-sized" kids, ie 150 pounds, to play.  If someone sent a 150-pound kid out on the mat to wrestle a 350-pounder, people would think it was crazy.  But there are some who want to throw the "overprotective parent" card on those who have the same concerns on the football field. 

In a relatively short-time frame we are seeing lineman weighing 100 pounds more.  This is a huge change in the game, yet we have done little to address the safety concerns.  I firmly believe some of these programs are floundering because good athletes that would have dressed out 30 years ago are not playing now.  ...not necessarily 3-star players, but kids good enough to make the team reasonably competitive. 

I believe that this is a great point about a big part of the problems with high school football in the state of Florida. A lot of posters on the message board are so obsessed with transfers, but there are many deeper issues than that. I worry about the quality of football across the state.

[Proseteye]

6 hours ago, OldSchoolLion said:

I have changed my tune a bit about transfers after diving into the details.  Even if it was fair game to modify, I question if it is worth the energy to manage transfers.  IMO, transfers are not making teams great.  They are making great teams greater.  Even if no transfers were happening, I believe most of the teams doing most of the winning now would still be at the top.

What needs attention are the programs that are floundering( and there are a ton of them), not the relatively few schools that are getting "richer" from transfers.  Taking away their transfers is not necessarily going to fix the parity problem long-term.  We have some schools that opened 20 years ago whose football programs don't appear to be much further along than when they opened up the doors.  Sure, they might lose a good athlete via a transfer, but if losing 1 or 2 players is causing a whole program to crater for the year, something much deeper is wrong.  A broader intervention than "fixing the transfer problem" is needed.  

With increasing concerns related to safety, we need a game that attracts "average-sized" kids, ie 150 pounds, to play.  If someone sent a 150-pound kid out on the mat to wrestle a 350-pounder, people would think it was crazy.  But there are some who want to throw the "overprotective parent" card on those who have the same concerns on the football field. 

In a relatively short-time frame we are seeing lineman weighing 100 pounds more.  This is a huge change in the game, yet we have done little to address the safety concerns.  I firmly believe some of these programs are floundering because good athletes that would have dressed out 30 years ago are not playing now.  ...not necessarily 3-star players, but kids good enough to make the team reasonably competitive. 

Have to disagree with you somewhat, Old School. A single D-1 player (let's just say exceptional player) can make the difference between an average team and a very good team. If pressed I could probably name 25 teams and a single player that made each one of those  teams exceptional. This is more evident in classes 1A through 5A where rosters tend to be small or at least smaller than 6A through 8A. Over the years I have witnessed many games where only one player made the difference. When that one player was injured or out of the lineup the entire team changed and quite often caused that team to lose. Add two or three D-1 (exceptional) players to the roster and you get a completely different team than the original team. That is the reason I am against transfers for athletic purposes only. As one of the posters stated The Florida Legislature allowed students to transfer to any school in the state at any time. This legislation was for ACADEMIC reasons only so that students who were languishing in academically poor schools would have the opportunity to attend a better school. They never envisioned students transferring at will for the purpose of sports only.

[OldSchoolLion]

2 minutes ago, Proseteye said:

Have to disagree with you somewhat, Old School. A single D-1 player (let's just say exceptional player) can make the difference between an average team and a very good team. If pressed I could probably name 25 teams and a single player that made each one of those  teams exceptional. This is more evident in classes 1A through 5A where rosters tend to be small or at least smaller than 6A through 8A. Over the years I have witnessed many games where only one player made the difference. When that one player was injured or out of the lineup the entire team changed and quite often caused that team to lose. Add two or three D-1 (exceptional) players to the roster and you get a completely different team than the original team. That is the reason I am against transfers for athletic purposes only. As one of the posters stated The Florida Legislature allowed students to transfer to any school in the state at any time. This legislation was for ACADEMIC reasons only so that students who were languishing in academically poor schools would have the opportunity to attend a better school. They never envisioned students transferring at will for the purpose of sports only.

Proseteye, I hope you agree that a 5-5 team does not become a state title contender with the addition of 1 superstar unless the competition in that classification is extremely weak.  Derrick Henry couldn't turn 4A Yulee into a contender, and what greater example is there of a superstar?   

Look at the numbers in the post below.  Assuming the 4-5 star players are the ones who could take over a game, I figure there might be 15-20 of those players transferring in a year.  The majority of those transfers are going to be in the highly populated areas...not rural areas where many of the schools in the smaller classes reside. So, the problem you mention, in the realm of all of the problems of hs football we could put energy into, is a minuscule one with a limited return-on-investment(ROI).  

The mindset of many recruits is do whatever necessary to get out of difficult life circumstances.  Preaching to them about the ethics of transferring is a waste of breath and putting rules in place will not be completely effective.  They will find a way to work the system and/or break rules with that level of desperation in their lives. 

We have glaring issues that dwarf the "problem" of transfers and limited resources, so we need to focus on the biggest ROI.  Transfers may be annoying, but they will not collapse the game.  Lack of participation, community support and negative public image will.  "Fighting transfers" is a no-win fight on many fronts.  We need to address the root cause issues driving the kids' perceived needs to move around this much, and that likely will involve some thinking outside the box.              

 

 

 

 

 

[Floridatech]

Y'all be trying to fix this dam playoff format every year SMH 

[Hwy17]

16 hours ago, OldSchoolLion said:

I have changed my tune a bit about transfers after diving into the details.  Even if it was fair game to modify, I question if it is worth the energy to manage transfers.  IMO, transfers are not making teams great.  They are making great teams greater.  Even if no transfers were happening, I believe most of the teams doing most of the winning now would still be at the top.

What needs attention are the programs that are floundering( and there are a ton of them), not the relatively few schools that are getting "richer" from transfers.  Taking away their transfers is not necessarily going to fix the parity problem long-term.  We have some schools that opened 20 years ago whose football programs don't appear to be much further along than when they opened up the doors.  Sure, they might lose a good athlete via a transfer, but if losing 1 or 2 players is causing a whole program to crater for the year, something much deeper is wrong.  A broader intervention than "fixing the transfer problem" is needed.  

With increasing concerns related to safety, we need a game that attracts "average-sized" kids, ie 150 pounds, to play.  If someone sent a 150-pound kid out on the mat to wrestle a 350-pounder, people would think it was crazy.  But there are some who want to throw the "overprotective parent" card on those who have the same concerns on the football field. 

In a relatively short-time frame we are seeing lineman weighing 100 pounds more.  This is a huge change in the game, yet we have done little to address the safety concerns.  I firmly believe some of these programs are floundering because good athletes that would have dressed out 30 years ago are not playing now.  ...not necessarily 3-star players, but kids good enough to make the team reasonably competitive. 

To your point, I've come to the opinion that transfers hurt metro area schools more so that rural areas.  The rural areas don't get as many transfers and when they do, its usually a bona fide move and maybe 1 or 2 transfers at that.  

[Hwy17]

Here's something else I've started to ponder when it comes to why some schools always seem to struggle in football, particularly new schools in more urban areas: Scheduling - Let's face it, you have to develop a culture of winning.  Lose a few games, and a team gets loses its confidence.  Consistently lose games, and you get an image of a loser that is hard to break.  When a new school opens, its admin and boosters are eager to take on the neighboring school they broke from, as well as other schools in the same county.  Some counties like Hillsborough and Polk don't want their public schools to travel due to budget limitations.  But often not, these schools aren't ready to jump in the fire like that.  They need to learn to compete with other new programs, establish a winning tradition, then take on more established ones.

Give an example: I remember when George Jenkins first opened.  This school has all the potential in the world, but it is sandwiched right between Bartow and Lakeland, who at the time where both powerhouses.   Lakeland still is, Bartow has dropped off, Polk county football was among the best in the state when Jenkins opened.  So Jenkins, eager to show it fits in with the big boys of Polk county plays the other Polk powerhouses and gets killed every week.  They got that loser image and its been hard to shake.  Same with Lake Region too. Tenroc is the latest school to open in Polk.  Jury still out.   Jenkins has gotten off to a good start this year, but that aside, they have been among the bottom feeders for a long time. 

Tell me what you guys think?

[gatorman-uf]

10 hours ago, Proseteye said:

Have to disagree with you somewhat, Old School. A single D-1 player (let's just say exceptional player) can make the difference between an average team and a very good team. If pressed I could probably name 25 teams and a single player that made each one of those  teams exceptional. This is more evident in classes 1A through 5A where rosters tend to be small or at least smaller than 6A through 8A. Over the years I have witnessed many games where only one player made the difference. When that one player was injured or out of the lineup the entire team changed and quite often caused that team to lose. Add two or three D-1 (exceptional) players to the roster and you get a completely different team than the original team. That is the reason I am against transfers for athletic purposes only. As one of the posters stated The Florida Legislature allowed students to transfer to any school in the state at any time. This legislation was for ACADEMIC reasons only so that students who were languishing in academically poor schools would have the opportunity to attend a better school. They never envisioned students transferring at will for the purpose of sports only.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect on that last part. The FHSAA explicitly told them this would lead to transfers for athletic purposes only. The response including from Mr. Baxley from Ocala was that we don't stop a kid from transferring because the band and music programs are better at another school why should we stop them if the reason they want to transfer is because of football. Sorry, but the state legislature (who have been controlled by the same party for 20 years) are the ones who allow transfers to transfer freely. 

 

[gatorman-uf]

CORRECTION: 

Football is not included in the most recent proposals. Only all the other team sports.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-wambles-0904-story.html#

[DisabledAccount]

51 minutes ago, Hwy17 said:

To your point, I've come to the opinion that transfers hurt metro area schools more so that rural areas.  The rural areas don't get as many transfers and when they do, its usually a bona fide move and maybe 1 or 2 transfers at that.  

Yeah because a school like Lee didn't benefit from Ed White and First Coast having trouble and within 2 years of those 2 falling off Lee was in final 4

 

Even though rural schools don't lose players as easily as urban schools the ones who benefit from transfers in urban areas are generally far bigger when it comes to benefiting from said transfers

[DisabledAccount]

10 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

CORRECTION: 

Football is not included in the most recent proposals. Only all the other team sports.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-wambles-0904-story.html#

I see there is a big meeting today about it

 

Any idea how the committee is reacting to the proposal?

[DisabledAccount]

15 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

Unfortunately, you are incorrect on that last part. The FHSAA explicitly told them this would lead to transfers for athletic purposes only. The response including from Mr. Baxley from Ocala was that we don't stop a kid from transferring because the band and music programs are better at another school why should we stop them if the reason they want to transfer is because of football. Sorry, but the state legislature (who have been controlled by the same party for 20 years) are the ones who allow transfers to transfer freely. 

 

The state has proven time and again that they don't give a damn about the school system

 

If they had better managed it from the start then people wouldn't need to transfer to a "better school"

[DisabledAccount]

On 9/4/2018 at 10:14 AM, Zoe Boy said:

Oh ok hmmmmm so what will this incomplish? Mine as well make the elite teams play against the elite teams all year.. Have a separate district for them..

The problem is you won't always know before the season who the elite teams are

 

Why does it make sense to set in advance only for a team to not be as good as in the past

 

That is why i suggested that they should set it at the end of the season so it is fluid year to year and gives us the best teams in the top 64 on year to year basis 

 

That's the only effective way you gonna have a competitive approach work is have it be year to year basis