Should These Schools Be Moved in Classification? Does This Make Sense to You?

[peezy28]

On 12/20/2018 at 8:52 AM, h8r said:

you know the reason why, but the PC keyboard strokes limiting the real answer.....

because their best kids goto freedom, and then their best kids go to DP/boone/anywhere but freedom and watch (for the most part).

and

the culture at CC is not 1 of a football program powerhouse, similar to freedom, colonial, university.  all 4 populations are very similar, as are the players in which make up the football programs.  there will be years of 4,5,6,7 wins, but never a dist title and deep playoff run.

2000boys, yep, less than 100 in the football program, yep.  why?  football isnt as important as wearing fresh sneakers, some great clothes, the honda civics with gross sounding mufflers.  LOL.  you know what im talking about.

Must be referring to a Spanish dominant student population base correct?

[OldSchoolLion]

On 12/20/2018 at 10:43 AM, Hwy17 said:

15 wins over two years is the standard?  So a program like Charlotte, who has a winning season every year and typically wins its district but never goes past the regional final needs to move up to 7a because 6a is too easy for them?  Hardee who has won its district 3 years straight but can't get win a playoff game for some reason needs to move up to 6a from 5a?  Lake Wales, who actually was playing up a class, got left out of the of the playoffs in 2017 despite a 7-3 record but goes 10-2 in 2018 needs to be in 7a?  Braden River, who also fields a great program needs to move up to 8a, despite losing students even though they haven't got past the 2nd round in two years and has never been to the finals?

Think about the effect of your proposal just to help a few newer or struggling programs.  Is this fair to us?

 

 

I've never said a relegation system structured as in the example I provided is the best answer.  I've admitted that using seasonal records alone may not be most effective.  In fact, I've never said a relegation system of any sort is the best answer.  I have said we need to do something and cannot afford to continue on the path we are going, ie using population as the sole means of leveling the playing the field.  So, if a relegation system is not the ideal answer and you have a better one, please share.  Otherwise, please get to work coming up with one, because the problem we have will get worse. 

There is compelling evidence to substantiate this that I have researched and shared.  This is not just to help a "few" new or struggling programs.  There are many struggling programs.  Look at all of the blowouts we still have in the first round...teams that have been around 15-25 years who still cannot figure out how to be remotely competitive in a playoff game in the class they have been assigned.  Then we have teams who appear to be thriving, but really aren't, ie "powerhouse" programs dressing out 40 players who are likely are a few transfers away from mediocrity, ie Chaminade.   

More so than ever before, fewer teams are dominating.  Proportionately speaking, that's a fact.  IMO, part of the problem is that too many people are thinking about "me" and "us," and not the greater good.  "We need more classes, we need more teams in the playoffs, we need a playoff system so I don't get screwed out of a playoff spot, etc etc"  "We shouldn't try this because it might impact us in a negative way." 

In my mind, the question should not be "Is this fair to us?"  Life ain't fair and it's getting even more unfair as we evolve.  If our position is that we balk at anything that could potentially impact us negatively, let's pull down the shades and turns the lights out because there will be no answers that can ever accomplish  that.  The ultimate question should be, "Is this in the best interest of FL hs football."  I see more and more people putting stakes in the ground refusing to compromise.

In the example I provided, I'm not suggesting promoting teams that will go from 8-2 to 2-8 as a result of the move.  Now THAT would be unfair.  Maybe a team goes from 8-2 to 7-3 or 6-4.  Is that really the end of the world for "me" if it helps the greater good?  And maybe it teaches the kids about the rewards of challenging themselves as much as possible, even if the end results don't look quite as good. 

And here's an irony.  In some cases, moving up in class could actually create an easier path for some teams.  If Charlotte moved "up" to 7A region 3, they would be moving to one of the weakest regions in the upper classes.  Remember that the top 10 teams in the class they would be moving to would be moving out as a part of the relegation process.  That means that Lakeland, Venice, Wekiva, Plant, Plantation, Atlantic, St Thomas Aquinas, Dwyer, Tampa Bay Tech, Viera and Fletcher would all move up to 8A in the example I provided.  Now that's a MUCH easier 7A they would be moving to.  

What if Hardee got promoted to the new 6A region 3?  There are only 3 really good teams in that region now..Charlotte, Braden River and Jefferson.  And some or all of those 3 teams would get promoted to 7A as part of the relegation process.  So, Hardee would not be moving to a particularly difficult region if they got promoted. 

And what if Lake Wales got promoted to 7A region 2?  That region would lose Lakeland, Viera, and Tampa Bay Tech, who would get promoted to 8A as part of the relegation process.  All of a sudden that region is not looking very tough.    

All that said, at least in the early years of the process, teams that get promoted are not going to be thrown into the fire, because as they move up, the best teams in the class they are moving to will be promoted.  But even if they were moving up to a higher class and they lost more, couldn't that be looked at in a "positive" way?  As I said in my original post, a key would be to make it a big deal when teams got promoted...a source of pride to say they are competing in a higher class...even if their end-of-season results aren't quite as good.  I think that's a great lesson for the kids.  Better to compete against the best and lose than to hedge one's bets to claim you are a "winner."    

 

  

 

  

 

[OldSchoolLion]

On 12/20/2018 at 10:43 AM, Hwy17 said:

15 wins over two years is the standard?  So a program like Charlotte, who has a winning season every year and typically wins its district but never goes past the regional final needs to move up to 7a because 6a is too easy for them?  Hardee who has won its district 3 years straight but can't get win a playoff game for some reason needs to move up to 6a from 5a?  Lake Wales, who actually was playing up a class, got left out of the of the playoffs in 2017 despite a 7-3 record but goes 10-2 in 2018 needs to be in 7a?  Braden River, who also fields a great program needs to move up to 8a, despite losing students even though they haven't got past the 2nd round in two years and has never been to the finals?

Think about the effect of your proposal just to help a few newer or struggling programs.  Is this fair to us?

 

 

Over the past two seasons, Bartow(7A) is 3-18.  13 of their 18 losses were by 30 or more points.  This year they were one of the worst teams in 7A, finishing 0-10 and being outscored, on average, 47-7 .  They have not had a winning season since 2009.  They were moved up to 7A from 6A in 2013 and have been backsliding ever since. 

As you well know, this is not a historically terrible team.  They have won 3 state titles and made a 3A state semi in 2006.  It seems as if ever since they got put in the uppermost classes they have struggled (they used to play in the middle classes). If I could know that moving them down in class would help them get on their feet, I would be all for it.  What's the greater evil?...allowing a program like this to continue digging itself into an even deeper hole that will be difficult/impossible for a new coach to dig out of, or forcing some high-performing teams teams to move up in class and potentially be more challenged?

The sad part is that there are a number of examples of teams like Bartow.  In some cases, these struggling teams are actually being moved up in class.  I can't debate what's fair/unfair, because that is very subjective.  But I can say fairly objectively when a team is clearly outclassed by teams in its own district.  Bartow has lost by 30 or more points to its district opponents over the past two seasons. 

I am not asking for a team to get slaughtered in another team's place.  There is not a big enough difference in the classes such that a team that is top 10 in class will start getting blasted when they move up a class.  Highly doubt that.  And again, if relegation isn't the best way, fine.  But something needs to change. 

 

 

 

[Hwy17]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolLion said:

I've never said a relegation system structured as in the example I provided is the best answer.  I've admitted that using seasonal records alone may not be most effective.  In fact, I've never said a relegation system of any sort is the best answer.  I have said we need to do something and cannot afford to continue on the path we are going, ie using population as the sole means of leveling the playing the field.  So, if a relegation system is not the ideal answer and you have a better one, please share.  Otherwise, please get to work coming up with one, because the problem we have will get worse. 

There is compelling evidence to substantiate this that I have researched and shared.  This is not just to help a "few" new or struggling programs.  There are many struggling programs.  Look at all of the blowouts we still have in the first round...teams that have been around 15-25 years who still cannot figure out how to be remotely competitive in a playoff game in the class they have been assigned.  Then we have teams who appear to be thriving, but really aren't, ie "powerhouse" programs dressing out 40 players who are likely are a few transfers away from mediocrity, ie Chaminade.   

More so than ever before, fewer teams are dominating.  Proportionately speaking, that's a fact.  IMO, part of the problem is that too many people are thinking about "me" and "us," and not the greater good.  "We need more classes, we need more teams in the playoffs, we need a playoff system so I don't get screwed out of a playoff spot, etc etc"  "We shouldn't try this because it might impact us in a negative way." 

In my mind, the question should not be "Is this fair to us?"  Life ain't fair and it's getting even more unfair as we evolve.  If our position is that we balk at anything that could potentially impact us negatively, let's pull down the shades and turns the lights out because there will be no answers that can ever accomplish  that.  The ultimate question should be, "Is this in the best interest of FL hs football."  I see more and more people putting stakes in the ground refusing to compromise.

In the example I provided, I'm not suggesting promoting teams that will go from 8-2 to 2-8 as a result of the move.  Now THAT would be unfair.  Maybe a team goes from 8-2 to 7-3 or 6-4.  Is that really the end of the world for "me" if it helps the greater good?  And maybe it teaches the kids about the rewards of challenging themselves as much as possible, even if the end results don't look quite as good. 

And here's an irony.  In some cases, moving up in class could actually create an easier path for some teams.  If Charlotte moved "up" to 7A region 3, they would be moving to one of the weakest regions in the upper classes.  Remember that the top 10 teams in the class they would be moving to would be moving out as a part of the relegation process.  That means that Lakeland, Venice, Wekiva, Plant, Plantation, Atlantic, St Thomas Aquinas, Dwyer, Tampa Bay Tech, Viera and Fletcher would all move up to 8A in the example I provided.  Now that's a MUCH easier 7A they would be moving to.  

What if Hardee got promoted to the new 6A region 3?  There are only 3 really good teams in that region now..Charlotte, Braden River and Jefferson.  And some or all of those 3 teams would get promoted to 7A as part of the relegation process.  So, Hardee would not be moving to a particularly difficult region if they got promoted. 

And what if Lake Wales got promoted to 7A region 2?  That region would lose Lakeland, Viera, and Tampa Bay Tech, who would get promoted to 8A as part of the relegation process.  All of a sudden that region is not looking very tough.    

All that said, at least in the early years of the process, teams that get promoted are not going to be thrown into the fire, because as they move up, the best teams in the class they are moving to will be promoted.  But even if they were moving up to a higher class and they lost more, couldn't that be looked at in a "positive" way?  As I said in my original post, a key would be to make it a big deal when teams got promoted...a source of pride to say they are competing in a higher class...even if their end-of-season results aren't quite as good.  I think that's a great lesson for the kids.  Better to compete against the best and lose than to hedge one's bets to claim you are a "winner."    

 

  

 

  

 

1.  So, if a relegation system is not the ideal answer and you have a better one, please share.  Otherwise, please get to work coming up with one, because the problem we have will get worse.   -  I did.  Put a cap on the total number of transfers a program can take in.  I've mentioned this a couple of times, including this tread.  Before this willy-nilly transfer policy came about we didn't have as bad of a problem as we do now.  I support school choice for academic reasons, and can even tolerate a few transfers but this has gotten out of hand.  Isn't there a thread about Mandarin?  God forbid some rural school in the middle state gets a lot of transfers in and wins a title. Somebody's head would roll!

2. In my mind, the question should not be "Is this fair to us?" : IMO, part of the problem is that too many people are thinking about "me" and "us," and not the greater good: The ultimate question should be, "Is this in the best interest of FL hs football."  - As nice as this sounds life has taught me that others don't have my best interest; I've have my best interest.  The best way to help the greater good is for us all to do what is good for ourselves and not to rely on someone else.  

3. In the example I provided, I'm not suggesting promoting teams that will go from 8-2 to 2-8 as a result of the move.  Now THAT would be unfair.  Maybe a team goes from 8-2 to 7-3 or 6-4.  Is that really the end of the world for "me" if it helps the greater good?  And maybe it teaches the kids about the rewards of challenging themselves as much as possible, even if the end results don't look quite as good.  -  We all want to be successful and be the best we can be, not strive for average.  But I have to ask, what's wrong with being good in the class you are currently in?  We all work hard to win.  We may not go all the way to a championship, but we have good teams.  Now we are being considered too good? In some cases, moving up in class could actually create an easier path for some teams.  - Seriously, I though you said we are suppose to teach the kids about the rewards of challenging themselves?  Are they not challenged now?  With this logic, lets just go to one class.  All that said, at least in the early years of the process, teams that get promoted are not going to be thrown into the fire, because as they move up, the best teams in the class they are moving to will be promoted.  But even if they were moving up to a higher class and they lost more, couldn't that be looked at in a "positive" way?  -  In short - No!

 

 

[Hwy17]

14 minutes ago, OldSchoolLion said:

Over the past two seasons, Bartow(7A) is 3-18.  13 of their 18 losses were by 30 or more points.  This year they were one of the worst teams in 7A, finishing 0-10 and being outscored, on average, 47-7 .  They have not had a winning season since 2009.  They were moved up to 7A from 6A in 2013 and have been backsliding ever since. 

As you well know, this is not a historically terrible team.  They have won 3 state titles and made a 3A state semi in 2006.  It seems as if ever since they got put in the uppermost classes they have struggled (they used to play in the middle classes). If I could know that moving them down in class would help them get on their feet, I would be all for it.  What's the greater evil?...allowing a program like this to continue digging itself into an even deeper hole that will be difficult/impossible for a new coach to dig out of, or forcing some high-performing teams teams to move up in class and potentially be more challenged?

The sad part is that there are a number of examples of teams like Bartow.  In some cases, these struggling teams are actually being moved up in class.  I can't debate what's fair/unfair, because that is very subjective.  But I can say fairly objectively when a team is clearly outclassed by teams in its own district.  Bartow has lost by 30 or more points to its district opponents over the past two seasons. 

I am not asking for a team to get slaughtered in another team's place.  There is not a big enough difference in the classes such that a team that is top 10 in class will start getting blasted when they move up a class.  Highly doubt that.  And again, if relegation isn't the best way, fine.  But something needs to change. 

 

 

 

I can say for a fact that Bartow's struggles are internal and not something anyone other that Bartow can fix.  Its not a lack of talent.  Their players are just as big, fast and skilled as any of the other teams we faced on our schedule and in some respects, more so.  

Just as I was told, Hardee need to work harder and get better, so does Bartow, Lakewood Ranch, Lake Region, Nort Port, Lemon Bay, and others.  

[OldSchoolLion]

2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

1.  So, if a relegation system is not the ideal answer and you have a better one, please share.  Otherwise, please get to work coming up with one, because the problem we have will get worse.   -  I did.  Put a cap on the total number of transfers a program can take in.  I've mentioned this a couple of times, including this tread.  Before this willy-nilly transfer policy came about we didn't have as bad of a problem as we do now.  I support school choice for academic reasons, and can even tolerate a few transfers but this has gotten out of hand.  Isn't there a thread about Mandarin?  God forbid some rural school in the middle state gets a lot of transfers in and wins a title. Somebody's head would roll!

2. In my mind, the question should not be "Is this fair to us?" : IMO, part of the problem is that too many people are thinking about "me" and "us," and not the greater good: The ultimate question should be, "Is this in the best interest of FL hs football."  - As nice as this sounds life has taught me that others don't have my best interest; I've have my best interest.  The best way to help the greater good is for us all to do what is good for ourselves and not to rely on someone else.  

3. In the example I provided, I'm not suggesting promoting teams that will go from 8-2 to 2-8 as a result of the move.  Now THAT would be unfair.  Maybe a team goes from 8-2 to 7-3 or 6-4.  Is that really the end of the world for "me" if it helps the greater good?  And maybe it teaches the kids about the rewards of challenging themselves as much as possible, even if the end results don't look quite as good.  -  We all want to be successful and be the best we can be, not strive for average.  But I have to ask, what's wrong with being good in the class you are currently in?  We all work hard to win.  We may not go all the way to a championship, but we have good teams.  Now we are being considered too good? In some cases, moving up in class could actually create an easier path for some teams.  - Seriously, I though you said we are suppose to teach the kids about the rewards of challenging themselves?  Are they not challenged now?  With this logic, lets just go to one class.  All that said, at least in the early years of the process, teams that get promoted are not going to be thrown into the fire, because as they move up, the best teams in the class they are moving to will be promoted.  But even if they were moving up to a higher class and they lost more, couldn't that be looked at in a "positive" way?  -  In short - No!

 

 

1. The solution I am referring to is something that is potentially within our realm of control within the FHSAA/football community.  "Fixing" the transfer issue is not completely within our realm of control.  If addressing transfers is the only viable option for improving our current situation, we could be waiting a long time, if not forever, for things to change.  I am just trying to be practical here and face reality, which is that transfers as we know it are likely not going away.   If by capping transfers you are referring to something like what Pennsylvania is doing, then yes, that is something we could implement without legislative intervention.

2. Assuming it's a fair playing field and everyone's in the right class to begin with, I agree it's simply a matter of helping one's self.  When things in life are within my realm of control, tell me to work harder all you want.  But we have introduced numerous variables that are outside the control of coaches/players, and that have caused an increasing lack of balance in competitiveness. 

We have stuck some white belts, ie brand new programs, in with some black belts and telling them to try harder is silly.  A white belt should not be fighting a black belt, period amen.  I know some coaches/players who are trying their butts off.  Fort Lauderdale High has a good coach(who I did a thread about) who has been there for years and worked his tail off.  Despite their best season in ages, they got beaten by St Thomas 51-0 in a playoff game.  So, doing something to change that situation is a handout for Fort Lauderdale and the answer for Fort Lauderdale is to "try harder?"  And we have numerous mismatches in the state like this now because,bottom line, we don't have certain teams grouped according to their talent level. Hey, I'm Old School, but even this dinosaur can see that,and telling some folks just to "try harder" alone is not going to get us very far.    

3. I am not sure you understand how the relegation process works.  The idea is not to promote "good" teams.  The idea is to promote "excellent" teams(relative to their current competition).   And we can define "excellent" however we like.  There are "good"teams in the English soccer leagues that have rarely, if ever, been promoted.  If we wanted to be ultra-conservative, we could promote the top 5% of teams in each class every two years.  Then we are talking 4 teams promoted every two years.  These are going to be the true state title contenders...the "Venice's" the " Miami Central's" etc...not the Lake Wales"" or the the " Hardee's"of the world(no offense intended, either).  If we did what I just described, there are many "good" teams that would likely stay put in their existing class for a long time without ever being promoted.

I agree, it's silly to say that moving up in class should make things easier.  And that's why we need a process change.  It should not be that way.  Moving up in class, IMO, should mean things get harder, relatively speaking.  .  And why are things silly now?  Because we classify teams based on populations and outdated views of competitiveness.  A relegation process would gradually shift teams to classes where they "belong" and better balance the competition.  It works in theory and in practice. But there certainly could be other ways as well.

As far as your last comment, ie "In short, no."  ....I'm afraid that's why some teams who could clearly move up in class today don't. They  would rather have a good record and beat inferior competition rather than challenge themselves and lose a few more games.  I have lived in very rural places in multiple states.  One place makes Hardee County look like a booming metropolis.  So, I understand small-town politics very well.  A big problem I experienced in each one of those places was a fear of stretching boundaries....an inferiority complex and an insatiable desire to o show the rest of the world they were winners.  The folks I knew would rather be a big fish in a little pond than a scrappy, little fish in a big pond.  

My best lessons in life were learned through my failures, not my victories.  I know a coach from 50 years ago who never won a state title in FL because he played up in class and would have it no other way.  His teams were David vs Goliath.  He could have easily won multiple state titles had he played in the class he was slated.  He had guts...something I see missing with some coaches/administrations today.  That's my value set..don't be afraid to fail.  To each his own.

[OldSchoolLion]

 

From 2011-2017, Poinciana played in 5A.  Last year they went independent.  They are listed to play in 7A next year.  Since 2000, they are 17-161(thanks to Nolebull for the data).  The school is predominantly Hispanic(65%).

Shouldn't there be a mechanism to allow a team like this to play in the classes without putting them in 7A? This team was routinely demolished against 5A opponents.  Is a school with a record like this going to dig itself out of the hole by simply "trying harder?"

1993 1-9
1994 2-8 
1995 4-6
1996 5-5 
1997 1-9 
1998 1-9
1999 5-5 
2000 6-5  
2001 1-9 
2002 0-10
2003 0-10 
2004 1-8 
2005 1-9 
2006 0-10 
2007 1-9
2008 1-9 
2009 2-8 
2010 0-10
2011 2-8
2012 1-8

2013 1-9

2014 1-9 
2015 0-10 
2016 1-9 
2017 2-8

2018 2-8

17-161

 

[Phfootball9]

Oldschool in the thread you basically take a pass on addressing the the transfer issue. Well it is the problem. It causes the disconnect to Community that is the real problem. Look it really is not hard to figure out the normal distribution of talent in Florida students. Add x number of students to a schools pop report for every transfer period. Don't make exceptions and then you don't have to weed out the bs. All the recruiters would end up together.  The schools that don't or can't recruit end up with a more even playing field.

[OldSchoolLion]

4 minutes ago, Phfootball9 said:

Oldschool in the thread you basically take a pass on addressing the the transfer issue. Well it is the problem. It causes the disconnect to Community that is the real problem. Look it really is not hard to figure out the normal distribution of talent in Florida students. Add x number of students to a schools pop report for every transfer period. Don't make exceptions and then you don't have to weed out the bs. All the recruiters would end up together.  The schools that don't or can't recruit end up with a more even playing field.

I wish I had an answer for the transfer issue, but fixing that issue on a macro level is not completely within my realm of control.  I've shared on the forum what Pennsylvania is going to do, which I find interesting.

We are missing data to properly evaluate exactly how much transfers impact competitiveness.  I hear lots of opinions based upon perceptions and not facts.  I am not denying there is impact, and in some cases the effect can be profound.  But some opinions blow the transfer picture out of proportion, ie the powerhouse teams around the state reload every year with many(ie 10) FBS-level transfers.  That's simply not true in most cases.  We are passing judgment on what we hear on the net, which only tells part of the story. 

Even if we implemented what you suggest, as long as we are using student populations to place schools in classes, we will have substantial imbalances.  We have schools in the upper classes now who, to be honest, are downright terrible.  As long as they are there, we will see blowouts in district play and , in some cases, in early rounds of the playoffs.  Based upon what you said above, certain schools would move up in class, but there needs to be a mechanism for moving schools down in class as well.  Otherwise, you could end up with extremely top-heavy classes. 

For every powerhouse program that gets all of the press that we love to hate, ie transfers, there are 5 schools that are struggling for various reasons, some of which may have nothing to do with transfers.  For example, a number of predominantly Hispanic schools in the state have struggled, likely because their population is not as in tune to football.  So, some outreach to the Hispanic community could possibly help.

I'd rather we focus our energy on figuring out how to make programs more competitive rather than trying to impose a lot of rules to manage the relatively few schools who are relying heavily on transfers to succeed.  I think there would be better return on such an effort.  That's not to say we could not try some things to help manage the transfer issue.  I'm simply a bit skeptical how successful that will be in solving all of our issues today, which are quite complex. 

[Phfootball9]

The fact that the schools moving up would make schools move down. BTW there are schools that would move up a lot more than one class. 8 a would have all the recruiters . We had schools that had 20+ transfers in the finals. These schools need to compete with each other. I am not looking for equal results, I am for a level playing field. We don't have a aqua playing field currently.

 

Heck on this board and others there are post about players transfering. Almost like signing day announcements. Let them fight it out amongst each other. I even think you could solve the private situation in this manner.

 

 

 

 

[OldSchoolLion]

 

11 minutes ago, Phfootball9 said:

The fact that the schools moving up would make schools move down. BTW there are schools that would move up a lot more than one class. 8 a would have all the recruiters . We had schools that had 20+ transfers in the finals. These schools need to compete with each other. I am not looking for equal results, I am for a level playing field. We don't have a aqua playing field currently.

 

Heck on this board and others there are post about players transfering. Almost like signing day announcements. Let them fight it out amongst each other. I even think you could solve the private situation in this manner.

 

 

 

 

Without hard facts, it's hard to know how to plan.  There are so many questions.

How many schools get transfers that play football..what percentage?  It could be a much bigger number than we think.  How many schools typically lose transfers each year?  Does anyone really know the answers or are we just making assumptions?

How many teams get more than 5 transfers per year?  Do 5 no-name, undersized freshman transfers who happen to play football count in the same way as 5, 3/4-star seniors who transfer to a school?  Just because a kid transfers does not mean he has much talent.  So, does a certain coach refuse to allow certain transfers any playing time, even though they are obvious scrubs, simply because it could count against his transfer numbers?  

How do we define a "recruiter?"  Are we really after the team who gets a few freshman football players who transfer in and are we going to treat them the same as everyone else?  For all we know, there could be tons of schools that fit into this category.  If a team loses 7 transfers in a season and gets 4 transfers, are they still considered a "recruiter?  In certain metro areas, this may be the norm, ie player swapping, and a school is almost forced to play transfers or risk getting depleted over a period of years.  Do we really understand how much of this player swapping goes on?   

You state there were teams with 20+ transfers.  To me, there is a huge difference between a team that has 20 senior transfers versus 20 transfers of various ages.  If 10 of those transfers came in their sophomore year and played three years, that's very different than 10 kids who transferred in for just their senior year.  To say a school has 20 transfers is a bit misleading without specifying the circumstances.  It sounds very extraordinary, but maybe it is not as unusual as we think.  Maybe only 5 of those transfers are FBS-level quality. 

Bottom line, we do not have our arms around the problem.  Labeling schools as recruiters simply because they get a certain number of transfers is inappropriate without a greater understanding of all the circumstances.  12 starters transfer in one year...sure.  12 players over 3 years..not so sure.