How Could a Relegation System Be Used in FL HS Football? An Example

[OldSchoolLion]

We've discussed the possibility of using a relegation system in the future, in which teams are demoted and promoted based on their performance.  The English Premier League, the NFL of soccer in England, uses such a system.  The League consists of 20 teams.  Each year, the bottom 3 teams move down to the Championship League(the second highest league behind the Premier League), and 3 teams from the Championship League move up.  

What could such a system look like in FL HS football?  Rather than relegate teams every year, it might be more feasible to do it every two years in conjunction with the reclassification cycle.  Let's assume that every 2 years we will relegate 10 teams each in classes 5A-8A and 5 teams each in classes 3A and 4A.  No teams would be relegated from 2A and 1A.  Over the years, in theory, 2A would get very weak, but at least the 40-or-so teams in this class would be at similar levels of competitiveness and have a foundation on which to build and advance to higher classes. 

Let's use 7A and 8A as an example to see how this could work.  Directly below are the teams with the worst 2-year, regular season records in 8A over the past 2 seasons.  Their new classification, after the recent reclassification by the FHSAA, is in parentheses after each team name.  As you'll see, some teams are already slated to move down or go independent, ie Varela and Winter Springs.  The 10 teams slated to stay in 8A are bolded below.  These 10 teams would be moved down to 7A as part of the relegation process, and replaced by 10 teams from 7A.   After the "switch," the FHSAA could then go about designating regions. 

Varela(Ind)   0-19

Winter Springs(7A) 1-20

Lake Worth(8A) 1-18

Flanagan(8A) 2-18

JI Leonard(8A) 3-17

Spanish River(8A)    3-16

Brooksville Central(5A) 3-15

Haines City(8A) 4-17

South Plantation(7A) 4-16

Cypress Creek(8A) 4-16

Killian(5A) 4-14

Coral Park(Ind) 5-16

Evans(8A) 5-16

Dr Krop(Ind) 5-16

Freedom(8A) 5-16

Miami Beach(7A) 5-16

Jupiter(8A) 6-15

Hialeah Gardens(Ind) 6-14

Timber Creek(8A) 6-14 

 

Directly below are the teams with the best 2-year, regular season records over the past 2 seasons slated to be in 7A after the recent reclassification.  The 10 bolded teams below would move up to 8A.  Wekiva and Atlantic were slated to move down to 7A from 8A, but they would stay in 8A and count as 2 of the 10 teams to move up from 7A.  Plant is already slated to move to 8A as part of the reclassification,  so we would not include them amongst the 10 to move up to 8A.  If you are worried about 7A becoming depleted, keep in mind that a number of very good teams slated to be in 6A after reclassification would be moving up to 7A as part of the relegation process, ie Miami Central, Columbia, Naples, etc. 

Lakeland(7A) 18-0

Venice(7A) 18-2

Wekiva(7A) 18-2

Plant(8A) 18-2

Plantation(7A) 18-2

Atlantic(7A) 17-2

St Thomas Aquinas(7A) 17-3

Dwyer(7A) 17-3

Tampa Bay Tech(7A) 16-4

Viera(7A) 14-4

Fletcher(7A) 14-6

 

So, after promoting the 10 teams from 7A mentioned above(bolded below), 8A could look like the following.  Not bad, huh?

Region 1

Wekiva

Apopka 

Winter Park 

Seminole 

Bartram Trail 

Mandarin 

Fletcher

 

Region 2

Lakeland 

Venice

Osceola 

Viera

Plant 

Tampa Bay Tech

Sarasota Riverview 

Dr Phillips 

 

Region 3

Vero Beach 

Deerfield Beach 

Palm Beach Central 

Atlantic

Dwyer

 

Region 4

Columbus 

South Dade 

Plantation

St Thomas Aquinas

Western 

Palmetto 

Coral Gables 

 

 

[gatorman-uf]

You know I am on board with this, I do think it would be every two years (solely so that it isn't a one year fluke situation), but I don't think you need to do re-alignment based on population if the relegation/promotion system worked. You would still do realignment due to the new teams move up and down to even out the districts, regions, etc, and I would suggest 10-16 teams as that is about one per district to move up. Any more than that and you risk elevating teams that are good, but not excellent.

[OldSchoolLion]

11 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

You know I am on board with this, I do think it would be every two years (solely so that it isn't a one year fluke situation), but I don't think you need to do re-alignment based on population if the relegation/promotion system worked. You would still do realignment due to the new teams move up and down to even out the districts, regions, etc, and I would suggest 10-16 teams as that is about one per district to move up. Any more than that and you risk elevating teams that are good, but not excellent.

My example was a hybrid.  One could be conservative and allow several cycles of the hybrid implementation before switching over completely.  That would allow ample time for migration of teams up and down classes so they have a chance to settle in a class where they truly belong in terms of competitiveness. 

Concerning new teams, here's a thought.  Have some quantitative means of defining a "big" new school and a "small" new school.  All "big" new schools start off in 5A or 6A and all "small" new schools start off in 2A or 3A.  There are very few examples of new schools coming out of the chute firing on all cylinders within their first couple of years of existence.  Even if a new school had a significantly higher student population than the teams against which it was competing in its first couple of years, their population size advantage would likely be outweighed or at least balanced by the handicap of being a new program.  If they were one of those rare precocious programs, they would move up after a couple of years.  I bet many would just stay put for at least 4 years before moving up in class.     

Pennsylvania is adding an interesting twist to this as part of their forthcoming "competition success formula."  Teams that do not go hog wild playing transfers will not be required to move up in class..only those who choose to play a certain number of transfers.  In a manner of speaking, they are going to reward those teams that are doing well without using an abundance of transfer players.  

 

 

[Hwy17]

9 hours ago, OldSchoolLion said:

My example was a hybrid.  One could be conservative and allow several cycles of the hybrid implementation before switching over completely.  That would allow ample time for migration of teams up and down classes so they have a chance to settle in a class where they truly belong in terms of competitiveness. 

Concerning new teams, here's a thought.  Have some quantitative means of defining a "big" new school and a "small" new school.  All "big" new schools start off in 5A or 6A and all "small" new schools start off in 2A or 3A.  There are very few examples of new schools coming out of the chute firing on all cylinders within their first couple of years of existence.  Even if a new school had a significantly higher student population than the teams against which it was competing in its first couple of years, their population size advantage would likely be outweighed or at least balanced by the handicap of being a new program.  If they were one of those rare precocious programs, they would move up after a couple of years.  I bet many would just stay put for at least 4 years before moving up in class.     

Pennsylvania is adding an interest twist to this as part of their forthcoming "competition success formula."  Teams that do not go hog wild playing transfers will not be required to move up in class..only those who choose to play a certain number of transfers.  In a manner of speaking, they are going to reward those teams that are doing well without using an abundance of transfer players.  

 

 

I really believe that the transfer issue has gotten out of hand and compromised the whole purpose of why we have classification in the first place .  While I can live with the occasional transfer or two, its when teams start getting multiple transfers.  I believe there should be a cap placed on the number of transfers allowed in, netted of course for transfers out.  For every net transfer in, a number, 50 for example, should be added to population count.   This idea of moving teams up or down based off success in my opinion might have the adverse effect of causing more transfers.  How will you determine that a program has finally reached the class it is suppose to "be in?"  Many public schools that I know and follow typically have a winning season most years, but other than a district title and maybe a playoff win, they aren't going to win a championship.  Now because they are "successful" because they win in a class they "belong in" we are going to move them up so they can play teams that are larger?  Doesn't make sense to me.  Its like saying that because D3 Mount Union College wins the championship for their class most years they should be playing Alabama or Clemson.  

[OldSchoolLion]

1 hour ago, Hwy17 said:

I really believe that the transfer issue has gotten out of hand and compromised the whole purpose of why we have classification in the first place .  While I can live with the occasional transfer or two, its when teams start getting multiple transfers.  I believe there should be a cap placed on the number of transfers allowed in, netted of course for transfers out.  For every net transfer in, a number, 50 for example, should be added to population count.   This idea of moving teams up or down based off success in my opinion might have the adverse effect of causing more transfers.  How will you determine that a program has finally reached the class it is suppose to "be in?"  Many public schools that I know and follow typically have a winning season most years, but other than a district title and maybe a playoff win, they aren't going to win a championship.  Now because they are "successful" because they win in a class they "belong in" we are going to move them up so they can play teams that are larger?  Doesn't make sense to me.  Its like saying that because D3 Mount Union College wins the championship for their class most years they should be playing Alabama or Clemson.  

With such a system, in theory, the class will keep getting tougher over time because better teams will be promoted into it and laggards will be relegated.  Over time, in theory, the teams at the middle of the pack today, will move toward the lower part of the pack over several relegation cycles, assuming they do not improve.  It's a bit like the strategy of forced rankings some companies use in their performance management systems, where they are constantly shedding themselves of the bottom 10 % of performers(great way to build morale!).

Using regular season records may not be an accurate reflection of this phenomenon, so another measure(s) might need to be used instead or in addition to.  For example, if a team scheduled a lot of weak opponents, they could still maintain a reasonably good regular season record, despite the fact that they are actually in the bottom quartile of the class in terms of overall talent.

In terms of where a school belongs... I don't think the main goal should necessarily be that one day a team rises to the top and is able to win championships.  Instead, I think the main goal should be to address the teams that are struggling and provide a reward, of sorts, for those teams that perform exceptionally well(if one would consider promotion to a higher class a reward)..  

That is key.  It is very prestigious to be in the Premier League in England.  Many teams would rather be middle of the pack in the Premier League than to be one of the best in the next league down.  I think it would be important to hype the fact of being in a higher class as a"prestige thing."  We seem to be pretty good at hyping things today LOL.  Heck, have a big ceremony and announce the teams that are being "promoted."  

In theory, if a team truly belongs in a certain class, after getting promoted, they will struggle and get relegated to the class where they "belong."  This is exactly what happens in the  English soccer league.  Some teams get promoted and thrive, so one could say they "belong" in the higher league.  Other teams get promoted and flounder, so they get put back in the class where they "belong."  Some teams always seem to be on the bubble, and have a history of moving back and forth between leagues.  As you can imagine, all of this relegation stuff is huge fodder for armchair coaches and provides a lot of intrigue each year.  In the beginning, it might seem very odd to some folks, but I think it could grow on them over time and they would enjoy predicting the teams that would get promoted and relegated each cycle, as they do in England.

Your example of Mount Union College playing Alabama....I hope you agree that a team moving from 6A to 7A is probably going to be nothing like Mount Union playing Alabama.  In fact, a move "up" could even make life easier for certain teams.  With as many classes as we have today, a jump from one class to another...I don't see it being terribly drastic.  If we had only 4 classes...maybe so.

Hope all that makes some sense!     

 

 

     

[badbird]

I’m not for it.  If you do a relegation system cut classes back to 4

[Perspective]

So, in the English soccer league, how does a team get better?  Presumably, by adding better players (although I'm sure some will argue that you make the same players better -- or worse --  by adding a different coach).  But, going with the assumption that the easiest way to make a team better is by adding better players, how does this translate to the Florida high school football? 

Clearly, just because more students are added to a school's population, that does not necessarily mean that the sports teams at that school will improve.  So, how can a high school football team in Florida get better over time? 

How are the players for English soccer teams selected?  Draft?  Free agents?  Trades?  None of those really apply to high school football . . . well, except maybe the 'free agents.'     Assuming that schools/teams bought into the whole 'prestige' concept, I could see schools crossing the lines in order to maintain a certain level.  Arguably, this happens already.  Would it happen more?  Should open recruiting be permitted under this system?  Again, I remain open to consideration of the relegation system, but I'm just wondering if a system designed for professionals will work for amateurs.  

[Hwy17]

33 minutes ago, OldSchoolLion said:

With such a system, in theory, the class will keep getting tougher over time because better teams will be promoted into it and laggards will be relegated.  Over time, in theory, the teams at the middle of the pack today, will move toward the lower part of the pack over several relegation cycles, assuming they do not improve.  It's a bit like the strategy of forced rankings some companies use in their performance management systems, where they are constantly shedding themselves of the bottom 10 % of performers(great way to build morale!).

Using regular season records may not be an accurate reflection of this phenomenon, so another measure(s) might need to be used instead or in addition to.  For example, if a team scheduled a lot of weak opponents, they could still maintain a reasonably good regular season record, despite the fact that they are actually in the bottom quartile of the class in terms of overall talent.

In terms of where a school belongs... I don't think the main goal should necessarily be that one day a team rises to the top and is able to win championships.  Instead, I think the main goal should be to address the teams that are struggling and provide a reward, of sorts, for those teams that perform exceptionally well(if one would consider promotion to a higher class a reward)..  

That is key.  It is very prestigious to be in the Premier League in England.  Many teams would rather be middle of the pack in the Premier League than to be one of the best in the next league down.  I think it would be important to hype the fact of being in a higher class as a"prestige thing."  We seem to be pretty good at hyping things today LOL.  Heck, have a big ceremony and announce the teams that are being "promoted."  

In theory, if a team truly belongs in a certain class, after getting promoted, they will struggle and get relegated to the class where they "belong."  This is exactly what happens in the  English soccer league.  Some teams get promoted and thrive, so one could say they "belong" in the higher league.  Other teams get promoted and flounder, so they get put back in the class where they "belong."  Some teams always seem to be on the bubble, and have a history of moving back and forth between leagues.  As you can imagine, all of this relegation stuff is huge fodder for armchair coaches and provides a lot of intrigue each year.  In the beginning, it might seem very odd to some folks, but I think it could grow on them over time and they would enjoy predicting the teams that would get promoted and relegated each cycle, as they do in England.

Your example of Mount Union College playing Alabama....I hope you agree that a team moving from 6A to 7A is probably going to be nothing like Mount Union playing Alabama.  In fact, a move "up" could even make life easier for certain teams.  With as many classes as we have today, a jump from one class to another...I don't see it being terribly drastic.  If we had only 4 classes...maybe so.

Hope all that makes some sense!     

 

 

     

Many things work "in theory" but the actual application gets you unintended consequences.  The point system used this past season is a good example of that.  

Some programs need to take responsibility for why it is they struggle in sports.  Some programs that I know have a culture of losing because either they schedule non-district games that they shouldn't, or because they can't seem to keep a coach, or because of a system of favoritism ingrained in the program, or a bad feeder system - or all the above.   Creating another gimmick to hopefully see a few programs do better isn't the job of the FHSAA.  Ensuring a level playing field is.  

Sure, some teams can play up a class, but should they be required to?  Mount Union could probably beat a lot of division 2 and maybe some FCS teams but should they be moved into those divisions just because they dominate division 3?  My team is 5a, and has won its district the last 3 years.  We struggle come playoff time.  And while I agree we might could have been district champs in some of the neighboring 6a districts, I don't think it is right that we get moved to 6a and play a 6a schedule or face 6a playoff teams.  

[OldSchoolLion]

1 hour ago, Hwy17 said:

Many things work "in theory" but the actual application gets you unintended consequences.  The point system used this past season is a good example of that.  

Some programs need to take responsibility for why it is they struggle in sports.  Some programs that I know have a culture of losing because either they schedule non-district games that they shouldn't, or because they can't seem to keep a coach, or because of a system of favoritism ingrained in the program, or a bad feeder system - or all the above.   Creating another gimmick to hopefully see a few programs do better isn't the job of the FHSAA.  Ensuring a level playing field is.  

Sure, some teams can play up a class, but should they be required to?  Mount Union could probably beat a lot of division 2 and maybe some FCS teams but should they be moved into those divisions just because they dominate division 3?  My team is 5a, and has won its district the last 3 years.  We struggle come playoff time.  And while I agree we might could have been district champs in some of the neighboring 6a districts, I don't think it is right that we get moved to 6a and play a 6a schedule or face 6a playoff teams.  

The problem is that over the past 25 years we stuck brand new schools in with tenured programs and they have years of losing under their belts and deeply entrenched cultures of losing.  And I 'm not talking just a few teams.  I'm talking 75-100-see my thread on this.  This is a systemic problem.  A very small percentage of teams that have opened over the past 25 years have been successful...a very disproportionate number.  That is a fact.  

Many of these programs are not scheduling over their heads and are struggling just in district play.   Look at some of the schedules of the teams in the aforementioned post and you'll see.  No doubt some of these programs can do some things to help themselves.  But there are so many for which I think it unreasonable to think they are going to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without any intervention, especially in today's world of transfers. 

It's no coincidence a number of newer Miami-Dade schools in upper classes just went independent.  Can you imagine what it is like to coach a new program against Miami-Dade competition?  Imagine what it's like trying to keep any decent players in a place like Miami when you have won 1 game in 3 years.  Easy for us to tell them just to "buck up buttercup." 

Our world was not in crisis because of the previous playoff system.  We implemented that "gimmick" to appease some folks, plain and simple.  At the end of the day, that playoff system is really only addressing a relative few number of bubble teams who had a gripe under the old system.  The problem I am discussing affects a lot of programs and it is not a "nice to" issue to address IMO.  Like I said in another post, we have to think outside the box. If a relegation system is not the best answer, fine.  But I don't think we can afford to be paralyzed by perfection or just back up and punt on this issue.  If we don't act, we are going to have another 75-100 teams in 25 years who cannot compete.   

Most importantly, I fear our current state of affairs is going to cause less and less "average" kids to be interested in coming out for football because they won't want to play for a terrible team and know they won't stand a chance of playing on the better teams.  In other words, just as our middle class is disappearing in America, I think we will see a disappearing middle class in high school football without intervention.   

[Hwy17]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolLion said:

The problem is that over the past 25 years we stuck brand new schools in with tenured programs and they have years of losing under their belts and deeply entrenched cultures of losing.  And I 'm not talking just a few teams.  I'm talking 75-100-see my thread on this.  This is a systemic problem.  A very small percentage of teams that have opened over the past 25 years have been successful...a very disproportionate number.  That is a fact.  

Many of these programs are not scheduling over their heads and are struggling just in district play.   Look at some of the schedules of the teams in the aforementioned post and you'll see.  No doubt some of these programs can do some things to help themselves.  But there are so many for which I think it unreasonable to think they are going to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without any intervention, especially in today's world of transfers. 

It's no coincidence a number of newer Miami-Dade schools in upper classes just went independent.  Can you imagine what it is like to coach a new program against Miami-Dade competition?  Imagine what it's like trying to keep any decent players in a place like Miami when you have won 1 game in 3 years.  Easy for us to tell them just to "buck up buttercup." 

Our world was not in crisis because of the previous playoff system.  We implemented that "gimmick" to appease some folks, plain and simple.  At the end of the day, that playoff system is really only addressing a relative few number of bubble teams who had a gripe under the old system.  The problem I am discussing affects a lot of programs and it is not a "nice to" issue to address IMO.  Like I said in another post, we have to think outside the box. If a relegation system is not the best answer, fine.  But I don't think we can afford to be paralyzed by perfection or just back up and punt on this issue.  If we don't act, we are going to have another 75-100 teams in 25 years who cannot compete.   

Most importantly, I fear our current state of affairs is going to cause less and less "average" kids to be interested in coming out for football because they won't want to play for a terrible team and know they won't stand a chance of playing on the better teams.  In other words, just as our middle class is disappearing in America, I think we will see a disappearing middle class in high school football without intervention.   

Going independent and getting a few winning seasons works.  Scheduling a couple of easy non-district games works.   It has been my observation that some of these programs who lose year in and year out are viewed as an "entry level" head coaching job and thus, become a revolving door.  I do feel that the transfer policies in place are being abused, which is why I feel that if a program is getting multiple transfers, then perhaps they should be forced up.  This past season we saw some programs that have the "loser" reputation produce some moderate success.  These programs tended to schedule easier non-district games, and either have some consistency of a head coach that has been there for a few years or if a new head coach, it was a long time assistant who knows the program.   The way I see it, if these programs can do it, so can the the they.  

[OldSchoolLion]

3 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

Going independent and getting a few winning seasons works.  Scheduling a couple of easy non-district games works.   It has been my observation that some of these programs who lose year in and year out are viewed as an "entry level" head coaching job and thus, become a revolving door.  I do feel that the transfer policies in place are being abused, which is why I feel that if a program is getting multiple transfers, then perhaps they should be forced up.  This past season we saw some programs that have the "loser" reputation produce some moderate success.  These programs tended to schedule easier non-district games, and either have some consistency of a head coach that has been there for a few years or if a new head coach, it was a long time assistant who knows the program.   The way I see it, if these programs can do it, so can the the they.  

I made a number of posts this past season about teams having surprising seasons...Riverdale, Golden Gate, Citrus River, Zephyrhills, Labelle.  These are teams that are not in metro areas and/or football hotbeds.  I think it is a lot easier to get a team turned around in area like that than a place like Miami-Dade or Broward County.  In a more rural area, the kids(and coaches) have limited places to go, and in certain areas of the state, ie the corridor north of Tampa, competition is not that tough. 

In a large metro area/football hotbed, the kids have so many choices of where to go.  Why would a good football player go to/stay at Tampa Leto, Orlando Colonial, Boca Raton Spanish River, or Westland in Miami(all teams with terrible records over the past decade) when they can go to multiple other high schools nearby with much better football programs?  

I recently made a thread about how so many of the public schools in Broward County get some of their best talent picked off regularly by the powerhouses there.  Am not saying it cannot be done, but I don't think it's completely fair to say that if a team in Fort Myers can get turned around, a school down the road from Cardinal Gibbons and St Thomas can do it it just as easily.  I think there are certainly a number of teams where some hard work would go a long way.  But hard work alone is not going to get the job done at one of the aforementioned weak programs. I bet there are some coaches who worked their tails off at those programs and still failed to get traction.  The hole is just so deep, and if the school is in one of the transfer-crazy places of the state, it's that much more difficult.    

 

[gatorman-uf]

21 hours ago, OldSchoolLion said:

Most importantly, I fear our current state of affairs is going to cause less and less "average" kids to be interested in coming out for football because they won't want to play for a terrible team and know they won't stand a chance of playing on the better teams.  In other words, just as our middle class is disappearing in America, I think we will see a disappearing middle class in high school football without intervention.   

This is why football coaches as a whole need to address the issue of "competitive" play in football. Allowing completely open scheduling doesn't go far enough as then people rail against a team for scheduling cupcakes, going 8-2, and being dominated in the first round of the playoffs. Open scheduling solves the issue where you don't have the issue of experienced team playing against a new squad, but it doesn't solves the issue of playoffs, as we are still basing playoffs on your schedule.

The reality is that the FHSAA has some obligation to continue to grow the sport and if they don't grow the sport than the sport will die. Today's students have 20 other activities that they can choose from and on some level football is the toughest. It is a sport that costs the most money to play, it requires the most physicality of all sports, and has the most long term health problems. Kids will play a sport if they think they have a chance to win. Go look back on some those amazingly long losing streaks and look at the number of players on those rosters. Kids do not want to play on uncompetitive teams. I am not talking about teams that lose, I am talking about teams that have running clocks or mercy rules in every game. In today's world, their time is just more valuable than that. 

The answer to the question of how do programs get better is by coaching, recruiting their hallways, but also competing against teams with the same talent level as them. Do you really think it is for the benefit of anyone for Raines to play the following schools in district play (Stanton, Paxon, Yulee)? How does that help any program? Instead, let teams face teams they can be competitive against that put the same motivation, money, community resources into.

Could a promotion/relegation encourage more players to transfer to high level schools? Sure, but would it be as big of a deal if you lost students to transferring, but every team you were playing against also was losing teams to transfers.   

[OldSchoolLion]

On 12/19/2018 at 11:52 AM, badbird said:

I’m not for it.  If you do a relegation system cut classes back to 4

I've always been against having so many classes.  However, everything I have heard is that the powers that be have no interest in reducing the number of classes.  So, my mindset today is that we need to look for solutions that will help us improve despite having so many classes.  In other words, I am making an assumption that what you suggest, ie "either or" (relegation system or class elimination) is not on the table for discussion.  

[OldSchoolLion]

On 12/19/2018 at 3:22 PM, Hwy17 said:

Going independent and getting a few winning seasons works.  Scheduling a couple of easy non-district games works.   It has been my observation that some of these programs who lose year in and year out are viewed as an "entry level" head coaching job and thus, become a revolving door.  I do feel that the transfer policies in place are being abused, which is why I feel that if a program is getting multiple transfers, then perhaps they should be forced up.  This past season we saw some programs that have the "loser" reputation produce some moderate success.  These programs tended to schedule easier non-district games, and either have some consistency of a head coach that has been there for a few years or if a new head coach, it was a long time assistant who knows the program.   The way I see it, if these programs can do it, so can the the they.  

One of the challenges I see is how to objectively determine if certain programs are truly improving.  Below are the first round playoff results of some teams that some folks might put in the "improving" category.  Based on their seasonal record and the fact they made the playoffs, one could say they are improving.  But are they really?  Maybe, maybe not. 

I like the eye test, but unless one happens to be a fan of one of these teams, there is a good chance that most of have not see these teams play recently, if ever.  And based on their playoff results below, they either had a really bad night or they are light years from being able to compete with the better teams in their respective classes.  I tend to believe it's the latter in most or all cases.

This is just an observation Hwy17.  It's not to call into question the bolded statement above.  What's my point?  I believe there is a huge gap between the "rich" and the "poor" in FL hs football, and the gap is widening.  Even some of the schools that appear to be getting a "little richer," may not be.  Richer relative to teams in their immediate area...possibly.  But for teams in "weaker" football areas, that may not be saying a whole lot. 

 

8A Gateway(1986)  48-6 loss to Vero Beach

7A Hagerty(2005) 48-7 loss to Lee

7A Wiregrass Ranch(2006) 43-7 loss to Lakeland 

7A Sickles(1997) 39-0 loss to Viera

7A West Broward(2008) 43-0 loss to Dwyer

7A Riverdale(1972) 45-8 loss to Bloomingdale

7A Fort Lauderdale(1899) 51-0 loss to St Thomas Aquinas

6A South Lake(1993) 54-0 loss to Armwood

6A Lake Weir(1955) 54-7 loss to Armwood

5A Desoto County 44-0 loss to Jesuit

5A Crystal River(1969) 35-0 loss to Zephyrhills

[gatorman-uf]

If we use the English Premiere League as our study (they have 20 teams, 3 get relegated), so with that in mind, we have 80 teams in classifications, so at the same ratio it is 12 teams.

In 8A (based solely on 2018 LazIndex), the following teams would move down:

1. Varela (Miami)
2. Miami Coral Park
3. Spanish River (Boca Raton)
4. Lake Worth
5. South Plantation (Plantation)
6. Cypress Creek
7. Freedom (Orlando)
8. John I. Leonard
9. Ferguson (Miami)
10. University (Orange City)
11. Winter Springs
12. Fort Pierce Central

Moving up to 8A from 7A:

1. Lakeland
2. St. Thomas
3. Venice
4. Columbia
5. Bloomingdale (Valrico)
6. Robert E. Lee (Jacksonville)
7. Edgwater
8. Plant
9. Dwyer
10. Braden River
11. Plant City
12. Viera

Moving Out of 7A to 6A:

1.  Reagan (Doral)
2. Windermere
3. West Boca Raton
4. Seminole (Seminole)
5. Bartow
6. Royal Palm Beach
7. Lakewood Ranch (Bradenton)
8. Miami Sunset
9. Leto (Tampa)
10. Celebration
11. Alonzo Mourning (North Miami)
12. Westland Hialeah

Moving up to 7A from 6A:

1. Miami Carol City
2. Miami Central
3. Armwood (Seffner)
4. Miami Northwestern
5. Vanguard (Ocala)
6. Naples
7. Navarre
8. Crestview
9. Chamberlain (Tampa)
10. Charlotte (Punta Gorda)
11. Heritage (Palm Bay)
12. Gainesville

 

Moving down from 6A to 5A:

1. Seabreeze (Daytona Beach)
2. Leesburg
3. Pasco (Dade City)
4. Estero
5. Osceola (Seminole)
6. Baker (Cape Coral)
7. Northeast (Oakland Park)
8. Englewood (Jacksonville)
9. East Lee County (Lehigh Acres)
10. Lake Region (Eagle Lake)
11. Okeechobee
12. Pine Ridge (Deltona)

 

Moving up from 5A to 6A

1. Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale)
2. Trinity Christian (Jacksonville)
3. Jesuit (Tampa)
4. Godby (Tallahassee)
5. American Heritage (Plantation)
6. Rockledge
7. North Marion (Citra)
8. Jones (Orlando)
9. Bolles (Jacksonville)
10. Hardee (Wauchula)
11. Wakulla (Crawfordville)
12. Nature Coast Tech (Brooksville)

Moving down from 5A to 4A (took half as many due to the Classification being half the size)

1. Belleview
2. Anclote (Holiday)
3. Hudson
4. Central (Brooksville)
5. Dunedin
6. Gulf (New Port Richey)

Moving up from 4A to 5A:

1. Raines (Jacksonville)
2. University School (Davie)
3. Cocoa
4. Glades Central (Belle Glade)
5. Washington (Miami)
6. Astronaut (Titusville)

Moving down from 4A to 3A

1. Interlachen
2. Walton (DeFuniak Springs)
3. Fernandina Beach
4. Wolfson (Jacksonville)
5. North Bay Haven (Panama City)
6. Umatilla

Moving up from 3A to 4A:

1. Chaminade (Hollywood)
2. Clearwater Central Catholic
3. King’s Academy (West Palm Beach)
4. American Heritage (Delray Beach)
5. Benjamin (Palm Beach Gardens)
6. Tampa Catholic

 

Honestly, how many of these teams aren't considered excellent in their own classifications over the past 2 years? How many of the teams moving down on the list would we NOT consider to be a homecoming opponent?

[OldSchoolLion]

1 hour ago, gatorman-uf said:

Honestly, how many of these teams aren't considered excellent in their own classifications over the past 2 years? How many of the teams moving down on the list would we NOT consider to be a homecoming opponent?

to build on what you have shared, gatorman.

...and in the following cycle after that, it is quite likely that many of the teams that moved up from 6A to 7A would then move up to 8A...the promotion from 7A to 8A could look something like this...

1. Miami Carol City
2. Miami Central
3. Armwood (Seffner)
4. Miami Northwestern
5. Vanguard (Ocala)
6. Naples
7. Navarre
8. Crestview
9. Bartram Trail
10. Tampa Bay Tech
11. Palmetto
12. Fletcher

...and yet the next cycle after that, moving up from 7A to 8A might be ... 

1. Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale)

2. Trinity Christian (Jacksonville)
3. Jesuit (Tampa)
4. Godby (Tallahassee)
5. American Heritage (Plantation)
6. Rockledge
7. North Marion (Citra)
8. Jones
9. Bolles
10. Chamberlain (Tampa)
11. Gainesville
12. Heritage

So, after 3 cycles of relegation/promotion, the 8A regions could look something like this below.  Wow!  Note that there are not too many "weak" teams left in 8A now.  The bottom 12 teams in 8A could well be on the same par as the top 12 in 7A at this point in time.  So, from this point forward, it's possible some of the top 12 teams in 7A and the bottom 12 teams in 8A could flip-flop in future cycles between 8A and 7A.  This is exactly what happens in the English soccer leagues.  At this point in time, the teams that are finishing 6-4 and 7-3 in the various classes are likely going to stay put in the classes they are in unless they have a substantial increase or decrease in performance.  The goal of the relegation is to ultimately get the top 80 teams in 8A, the next best 80 teams in 7A, and so on and so forth.  In that sense, competitiveness within each class is maximized.  One doesn't have the #1 team in the state playing the # 190 team in the state in a playoff game, as we might see in a class today. 

Region 1

Bartram Trail

Palm Coast

Bolles

Trinity Christian

Fletcher

Lee

Mandarin

Sandalwood

Columbia

Godby

Crestview

Navarre

Vanguard

North Marion

Gainesville

 

Region 2-21

Jones

Edgewater

Wekiva

Apopka

Winter Park

West Orange

Deland

Seminole

Osceola

Dr Phillips

Rockledge

Heritage

Viera

Lakeland

Armwood

Plant

Chamberlain

Jesuit

Tampa Bay Tech

Bloomingdale

Plant City

Region 3 

Palmetto

Braden River

Manatee

Sarasota Riverview

Venice

Naples

Centennial

Treasure Coast

Park Vista

Atlantic

Palm Beach Central

Dwyer

Wellington

Western

Deerfield Beach

Miramar

Cardinal Gibbons

St Thomas Aquinas

American Heritage Plantation

Plantation

Piper

 

Region 4
Carol City

Central

Northwestern

Columbus

South Dade

Palmetto

Southridge

Coral Gables

Belen Jesuit

North Miami

Hialeah

Homestead

American

North Miami Beach

Miami

Southwest

Braddock

Killian

Miami Beach

Coral Reef