Quantcast
Jump to content

Re-Classification


gatorman-uf
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-survey-0902-20210901-ayishbqatngldcybxvhkucjvqy-story.html

"Those choices were:

  • Divide teams by student enrollment counts, the long-standing FHSAA method.
  • Classify based on county population, which could mean a Metro division for schools in Orlando, Miami, Tampa, etc., and a Suburban division for teams in less populated areas. They would go along with the existing Rural division, which was created in 2011 for small-town schools with less than 600 students.
  • Align teams based on their competitive level, utilizing a power ranking system."

The FHSAA sent out a survey to athletic director and coaches and asked them which one of the above would they prefer when doing re-classification. I do not get a vote on this, but I really hope they choose method 3. I have long advocated for a promotion and relegation type system where good teams, no matter the size, move up, and poor teams move down. My idea would be that a 2A football would take 12 years to move up to 8A based on 2 year re-classifications. Sadly, I think the FHSAA will simply just put all the good teams move up all at once, which will be too big of a shock to the system. Other sports team I would be every year, so 6 years for a 2A basketball to end up in 8A. 

Individual sports (Track, Cross Country, Golf, Swimming, Wrestling, etc) should be done on participation (FACA survery asked about that) and power ranking. I am sure there are enough technical wizards who could look at a returning team of cross country and figure out how much they improve from year to year on average and figure out a ranking system. 

______________________________ 
On a complete side note, a lot of newspapers have been running subscription services for $1 for 6 months, with a cancel anytime. Best couple of bucks I have spent. I was tired of being stuck behind paywalls or subscribers only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


gatorman, on your above side note, I'd like to see a digital  "Gannett Florida Special" offered. They currently own 17(?) daily Florida newspapers from Palm Beach to the panhandle. The printing sites have been cosolidated and many print deadlines push way up (10pm). Daytona paper is printed in Lakeland and trucked over. I pay $59 a years for the local digital daily. It would be great to have access to those other 16 at my finger tips. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 8:36 PM, gatorman-uf said:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-survey-0902-20210901-ayishbqatngldcybxvhkucjvqy-story.html

"Those choices were:

  • Divide teams by student enrollment counts, the long-standing FHSAA method.
  • Classify based on county population, which could mean a Metro division for schools in Orlando, Miami, Tampa, etc., and a Suburban division for teams in less populated areas. They would go along with the existing Rural division, which was created in 2011 for small-town schools with less than 600 students.
  • Align teams based on their competitive level, utilizing a power ranking system."

The FHSAA sent out a survey to athletic director and coaches and asked them which one of the above would they prefer when doing re-classification. I do not get a vote on this, but I really hope they choose method 3. I have long advocated for a promotion and relegation type system where good teams, no matter the size, move up, and poor teams move down. My idea would be that a 2A football would take 12 years to move up to 8A based on 2 year re-classifications. Sadly, I think the FHSAA will simply just put all the good teams move up all at once, which will be too big of a shock to the system. Other sports team I would be every year, so 6 years for a 2A basketball to end up in 8A. 

Individual sports (Track, Cross Country, Golf, Swimming, Wrestling, etc) should be done on participation (FACA survery asked about that) and power ranking. I am sure there are enough technical wizards who could look at a returning team of cross country and figure out how much they improve from year to year on average and figure out a ranking system. 

______________________________ 
On a complete side note, a lot of newspapers have been running subscription services for $1 for 6 months, with a cancel anytime. Best couple of bucks I have spent. I was tired of being stuck behind paywalls or subscribers only.

I hope they go for option 2 

 

I have said for a while that the divide is between rural and urban and with open transfer rules your basically having an entire county as the talent pool with the winning teams getting all the studs 

 

I even drew up how it would look and it fixed a lot of complaints that people have with the current system but knowing the "traditionalists" in this state they won't change a thing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 8:36 PM, gatorman-uf said:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/os-sp-hs-fhsaa-survey-0902-20210901-ayishbqatngldcybxvhkucjvqy-story.html

"Those choices were:

  • Divide teams by student enrollment counts, the long-standing FHSAA method.
  • Classify based on county population, which could mean a Metro division for schools in Orlando, Miami, Tampa, etc., and a Suburban division for teams in less populated areas. They would go along with the existing Rural division, which was created in 2011 for small-town schools with less than 600 students.
  • Align teams based on their competitive level, utilizing a power ranking system."

The FHSAA sent out a survey to athletic director and coaches and asked them which one of the above would they prefer when doing re-classification. I do not get a vote on this, but I really hope they choose method 3. I have long advocated for a promotion and relegation type system where good teams, no matter the size, move up, and poor teams move down. My idea would be that a 2A football would take 12 years to move up to 8A based on 2 year re-classifications. Sadly, I think the FHSAA will simply just put all the good teams move up all at once, which will be too big of a shock to the system. Other sports team I would be every year, so 6 years for a 2A basketball to end up in 8A. 

Individual sports (Track, Cross Country, Golf, Swimming, Wrestling, etc) should be done on participation (FACA survery asked about that) and power ranking. I am sure there are enough technical wizards who could look at a returning team of cross country and figure out how much they improve from year to year on average and figure out a ranking system. 

______________________________ 
On a complete side note, a lot of newspapers have been running subscription services for $1 for 6 months, with a cancel anytime. Best couple of bucks I have spent. I was tired of being stuck behind paywalls or subscribers only.

I would like option 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 12:53 PM, Dan in Daytona said:

gatorman, on your above side note, I'd like to see a digital  "Gannett Florida Special" offered. They currently own 17(?) daily Florida newspapers from Palm Beach to the panhandle. The printing sites have been cosolidated and many print deadlines push way up (10pm). Daytona paper is printed in Lakeland and trucked over. I pay $59 a years for the local digital daily. It would be great to have access to those other 16 at my finger tips. 

(Bad-Curse-Negative-Words) Gannett.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand option 2.  People are so focused upon the handful of schools that get all the transfers they have lost sight of the entire rest of the city schools that dont receive any transfers.  These schools that lose transfers greatly outnumber the few schools that concentrate all of the talent.  If they get lumped into the metro divisions, which I assume are going to contain all of the powerful teams that receive the transfers, it wont be fair either.  The current system is not perfect but its better than this proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PinellasFB said:

I'm trying to understand option 2.  People are so focused upon the handful of schools that get all the transfers they have lost sight of the entire rest of the city schools that dont receive any transfers.  These schools that lose transfers greatly outnumber the few schools that concentrate all of the talent.  If they get lumped into the metro divisions, which I assume are going to contain all of the powerful teams that receive the transfers, it wont be fair either.  The current system is not perfect but its better than this proposal.

10 years ago Lee was a school that was getting fed on by schools like First Coast and Ed White for transfers 

 

Now they are snatching players left and right from teams in 3 counties

 

 

 

The point is a team can go from losing players from other schools to gaining it in not too much time but the one constant is any metro school public or private has an advantage of talent over smaller areas so having teams in similar talent pools bunched together will improve the competitive balance because the teams we think are gonna continue to struggle will be the one handing out beatings to other teams 5 years from now 

 

If a team first constraints on becoming the best in their metro then it's a good progression, it's not like we are expecting Leto to compete with Miami Central but then again the current system isn't exactly helping them anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PinellasFB said:

I'm trying to understand option 2.  People are so focused upon the handful of schools that get all the transfers they have lost sight of the entire rest of the city schools that dont receive any transfers.  These schools that lose transfers greatly outnumber the few schools that concentrate all of the talent.  If they get lumped into the metro divisions, which I assume are going to contain all of the powerful teams that receive the transfers, it wont be fair either.  The current system is not perfect but its better than this proposal.

Agree. All 3 options suck because none address the real issue, transfers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

Agree. All 3 options suck because none address the real issue, transfers.

We have to acknowledge certain things, our state legislature wants transfers. They want choice, whether it is for public schools, private schools, or charter schools. They have unequivocally stated they believe in parental/student choice even if that means transferring for athletic reasons. They will pull out the tired trope of not stopping the violinist or chorus member or auto mechanic student being able to choose so why stop the football or baseball player.

Once, we acknowledge that, we have to move on from transfers to recruiting, which is technically different. The FHSAA should be able to work with the Department of Education to suspend people for a specific period of time for recruiting. 

Now, we have acknowledged transfers, we punish the coaches who recruit. We go with option 3. 
Option 3 says if transfers happen, so be it. Put those schools together into one classification and let them compete.
Using the LAZINDEX, these are the top 48 teams over the past 20 years. If we did this for all classifications, now all of a sudden, population size doesn't matter, geography doesn't matter, but the ability to put a winning team on the field matters. Is 20 years a little too long, probably, but better than a one year snap shot. Imagine a classification of 8 districts/6 teams per district (only 9 game schedule with 10th game being play-in). All 48 make the playoffs, with district champion and runner-ups getting automatic byes. While we might quibble about certain teams being included and not being included, I think most of the teams that we consider to be state contenders year in and year out are on the list. 

1    St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale)
2    Miami Central
3    Armwood (Seffner)
4    Miami Northwestern
5    Lakeland
6    Washington (Miami)
7    Bolles (Jacksonville)
8    Madison County (Madison)
9    Mainland (Daytona Beach)
10    Apopka
11    Lincoln (Tallahassee)
12    Manatee (Bradenton)
13    Naples
14    Christopher Columbus (Miami)
15    Venice
16    Columbia (Lake City)
17    Cocoa
18    Trinity Christian (Jacksonville)
19    Niceville
20    American Heritage (Plantation)
21    Miami Carol City
22    Glades Central (Belle Glade)
23    St. Augustine
24    Dwyer (Palm Beach Gardens)
25    Godby (Tallahassee)
26    Hillsborough (Tampa)
27    Plant (Tampa)
28    Deerfield Beach
29    Palm Bay (Melbourne)
30    Pine Forest (Pensacola)
31    Jefferson (Tampa)
32    Osceola (Kissimmee)
33    Lake Gibson (Lakeland)
34    Vero Beach
35    Dr. Phillips (Orlando)
36    Raines (Jacksonville)
37    Miramar
38    Plantation
39    Edgewater (Orlando)
40    Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale)
41    Jesuit (Tampa)
42    Chaminade (Hollywood)
43    Miami Southridge
44    Fletcher (Neptune Beach)
45    Bartram Trail (St. Johns)
46    Pace
47    Dillard (Fort Lauderdale)
48    Atlantic (Delray Beach)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 12:15 PM, gatorman-uf said:

We have to acknowledge certain things, our state legislature wants transfers. They want choice, whether it is for public schools, private schools, or charter schools. They have unequivocally stated they believe in parental/student choice even if that means transferring for athletic reasons. They will pull out the tired trope of not stopping the violinist or chorus member or auto mechanic student being able to choose so why stop the football or baseball player.

Once, we acknowledge that, we have to move on from transfers to recruiting, which is technically different. The FHSAA should be able to work with the Department of Education to suspend people for a specific period of time for recruiting. 

Now, we have acknowledged transfers, we punish the coaches who recruit. We go with option 3. 
Option 3 says if transfers happen, so be it. Put those schools together into one classification and let them compete.
Using the LAZINDEX, these are the top 48 teams over the past 20 years. If we did this for all classifications, now all of a sudden, population size doesn't matter, geography doesn't matter, but the ability to put a winning team on the field matters. Is 20 years a little too long, probably, but better than a one year snap shot. Imagine a classification of 8 districts/6 teams per district (only 9 game schedule with 10th game being play-in). All 48 make the playoffs, with district champion and runner-ups getting automatic byes. While we might quibble about certain teams being included and not being included, I think most of the teams that we consider to be state contenders year in and year out are on the list. 

1    St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale)
2    Miami Central
3    Armwood (Seffner)
4    Miami Northwestern
5    Lakeland
6    Washington (Miami)
7    Bolles (Jacksonville)
8    Madison County (Madison)
9    Mainland (Daytona Beach)
10    Apopka
11    Lincoln (Tallahassee)
12    Manatee (Bradenton)
13    Naples
14    Christopher Columbus (Miami)
15    Venice
16    Columbia (Lake City)
17    Cocoa
18    Trinity Christian (Jacksonville)
19    Niceville
20    American Heritage (Plantation)
21    Miami Carol City
22    Glades Central (Belle Glade)
23    St. Augustine
24    Dwyer (Palm Beach Gardens)
25    Godby (Tallahassee)
26    Hillsborough (Tampa)
27    Plant (Tampa)
28    Deerfield Beach
29    Palm Bay (Melbourne)
30    Pine Forest (Pensacola)
31    Jefferson (Tampa)
32    Osceola (Kissimmee)
33    Lake Gibson (Lakeland)
34    Vero Beach
35    Dr. Phillips (Orlando)
36    Raines (Jacksonville)
37    Miramar
38    Plantation
39    Edgewater (Orlando)
40    Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale)
41    Jesuit (Tampa)
42    Chaminade (Hollywood)
43    Miami Southridge
44    Fletcher (Neptune Beach)
45    Bartram Trail (St. Johns)
46    Pace
47    Dillard (Fort Lauderdale)
48    Atlantic (Delray Beach)
 

What do you say to limiting the class to six classes, and that's it. There has to be a better way of having better playoff games, and state final games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SubZero said:

What do you say to limiting the class to six classes, and that's it. There has to be a better way of having better playoff games, and state final games. 

Six classes I like, but two for privates and four for publics.  For publics return to previous transfer rules with one year waiting period unless family moves into the geographical area zoned for that school;  then the athlete could play right away.  Privates do what they have always done regarding transfer rules so they could be on equal footing.  Their can still be competition between public and private based on scheduling desires by individual schools during regular season; coaches discretion.  Playoffs would separate the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ray Icaza said:

Six classes I like, but two for privates and four for publics.  For publics return to previous transfer rules with one year waiting period unless family moves into the geographical area zoned for that school;  then the athlete could play right away.  Privates do what they have always done regarding transfer rules so they could be on equal footing.  Their can still be competition between public and private based on scheduling desires by individual schools during regular season; coaches discretion.  Playoffs would separate the two.

Stiff penalties for those found violating the rules like what happened to Lakeland in 2011 prior to the open transfer rule being instituted.  Then it was $10K per players found guilty of this policy, payable by the school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray Icaza said:

Stiff penalties for those found violating the rules like what happened to Lakeland in 2011 prior to the open transfer rule being instituted.  Then it was $10K per players found guilty of this policy, payable by the school.

Ray, I'm not disagreeing with you at all (at least not yet  :P), but I do have a couple of questions that seemed to pop up "back in the day" when it was the way it was.   

1.  Regarding the requirement that a family move into a specific geographical area for a particular school, how do you deal with non-traditional families?  What if a kid has one parent in one school district and another parent in a different school district and the two parents share custody?  Presumably, the kid could pick?   What if the kid has no parents at all?  Or what if the kid doesn't have a father and his mother is in jail? 

On the other end of the spectrum, what about a situation where the family has the financial ability to rent an apartment "in the district," but no one really lives there (or maybe the kid sleeps there a few times a week)?  Is that good enough?  (That was the issue that got Armwood in a little trouble a few years back).   What about the classic "Blind Side" scenario, where a family of means is willing to "take in" a kid who doesn't have a pot to pee in, conveniently providing the kid with the means to attend the high school in their district that their kids also attend? 

2.  Who is in charge of monitoring or investigating or "clearing" where a kid lives?  I can tell you from experience that when you put school personnel in charge, it's a lot like asking the fox to guard the hen-house.   Some won't do a thing, some will do a drive-by and if they see a car in the driveway, that's good enough, while others will show up at 5:30 in the morning to see who's actually living in the house or apartment.  In other words, those who do the best job of making sure the kids really live in the district get penalized the most when it comes time for deciding who is eligible and who is not.  But, by the same token, they typically don't run the risk of seeing a successful playoff run thwarted by forfeits. 

I know I'm throwing a lot out there, but I just recall these being some of the issues that schools faced a decade ago when where you lived determined where you had to go.  Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Ray, I'm not disagreeing with you at all (at least not yet  :P), but I do have a couple of questions that seemed to pop up "back in the day" when it was the way it was.   

1.  Regarding the requirement that a family move into a specific geographical area for a particular school, how do you deal with non-traditional families?  What if a kid has one parent in one school district and another parent in a different school district and the two parents share custody?  Presumably, the kid could pick?   What if the kid has no parents at all?  Or what if the kid doesn't have a father and his mother is in jail? 

On the other end of the spectrum, what about a situation where the family has the financial ability to rent an apartment "in the district," but no one really lives there (or maybe the kid sleeps there a few times a week)?  Is that good enough?  (That was the issue that got Armwood in a little trouble a few years back).   What about the classic "Blind Side" scenario, where a family of means is willing to "take in" a kid who doesn't have a pot to pee in, conveniently providing the kid with the means to attend the high school in their district that their kids also attend? 

2.  Who is in charge of monitoring or investigating or "clearing" where a kid lives?  I can tell you from experience that when you put school personnel in charge, it's a lot like asking the fox to guard the hen-house.   Some won't do a thing, some will do a drive-by and if they see a car in the driveway, that's good enough, while others will show up at 5:30 in the morning to see who's actually living in the house or apartment.  In other words, those who do the best job of making sure the kids really live in the district get penalized the most when it comes time for deciding who is eligible and who is not.  But, by the same token, they typically don't run the risk of seeing a successful playoff run thwarted by forfeits. 

I know I'm throwing a lot out there, but I just recall these being some of the issues that schools faced a decade ago when where you lived determined where you had to go.  Any thoughts?

To your first question of parents living in separate school zones I would think it would be perfectly legal for them to choose which school they want him attending.  That circumstance would not contribute to multiple transfers to one school year in and year out to the point of a competitive advantage.

The other examples you give show obvious intent to circumvent the rules;  CHEATING, RECRUITING.  As you correctly point out reporting/catching them and enforcement become a challenge.  Threat of heavy fines, coaches firing or disbarment, loss of teaching certificate hopefully will keep most honest.  One's that will do it regardless are usually repeat offenders and disregard the consequences.  It will take neighboring coaches, parents, administrators, reporters, basically a community effort to root these people out. 

Our school had this same scenario where our basketball coach moved a kid up from Miami in the mid 80's, had him live with a booster and found his Mom a local job.  I no longer worked or coached at OHS as I took a more lucrative job in the private sector but continued being a booster just like I am to this day.  I along with others made our feelings known, we want to win but not by cheating.  This coach had inherited a great team that won a state title in previous years when he took the OHS job and wasn't going to have the horses going forward so decided this was a way to maintain his winning ways.  I didn't report him, but enough noise was made that the word leaked out and the FHSAA came down on our school and the coach.  Our world has changed alot since then so other areas may value winning more than sportsmanship or integrity and will just choose to look the other way.  So yeah, that will be the challenge with any changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 12:15 PM, gatorman-uf said:

We have to acknowledge certain things, our state legislature wants transfers. They want choice, whether it is for public schools, private schools, or charter schools. They have unequivocally stated they believe in parental/student choice even if that means transferring for athletic reasons. They will pull out the tired trope of not stopping the violinist or chorus member or auto mechanic student being able to choose so why stop the football or baseball player.

Once, we acknowledge that, we have to move on from transfers to recruiting, which is technically different. The FHSAA should be able to work with the Department of Education to suspend people for a specific period of time for recruiting. 

Now, we have acknowledged transfers, we punish the coaches who recruit. We go with option 3. 
Option 3 says if transfers happen, so be it. Put those schools together into one classification and let them compete.
Using the LAZINDEX, these are the top 48 teams over the past 20 years. If we did this for all classifications, now all of a sudden, population size doesn't matter, geography doesn't matter, but the ability to put a winning team on the field matters. Is 20 years a little too long, probably, but better than a one year snap shot. Imagine a classification of 8 districts/6 teams per district (only 9 game schedule with 10th game being play-in). All 48 make the playoffs, with district champion and runner-ups getting automatic byes. While we might quibble about certain teams being included and not being included, I think most of the teams that we consider to be state contenders year in and year out are on the list. 

1    St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale)
2    Miami Central
3    Armwood (Seffner)
4    Miami Northwestern
5    Lakeland
6    Washington (Miami)
7    Bolles (Jacksonville)
8    Madison County (Madison)
9    Mainland (Daytona Beach)
10    Apopka
11    Lincoln (Tallahassee)
12    Manatee (Bradenton)
13    Naples
14    Christopher Columbus (Miami)
15    Venice
16    Columbia (Lake City)
17    Cocoa
18    Trinity Christian (Jacksonville)
19    Niceville
20    American Heritage (Plantation)
21    Miami Carol City
22    Glades Central (Belle Glade)
23    St. Augustine
24    Dwyer (Palm Beach Gardens)
25    Godby (Tallahassee)
26    Hillsborough (Tampa)
27    Plant (Tampa)
28    Deerfield Beach
29    Palm Bay (Melbourne)
30    Pine Forest (Pensacola)
31    Jefferson (Tampa)
32    Osceola (Kissimmee)
33    Lake Gibson (Lakeland)
34    Vero Beach
35    Dr. Phillips (Orlando)
36    Raines (Jacksonville)
37    Miramar
38    Plantation
39    Edgewater (Orlando)
40    Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale)
41    Jesuit (Tampa)
42    Chaminade (Hollywood)
43    Miami Southridge
44    Fletcher (Neptune Beach)
45    Bartram Trail (St. Johns)
46    Pace
47    Dillard (Fort Lauderdale)
48    Atlantic (Delray Beach)
 

Madison competing in the same class as STA? Get real!  That's like saying Mount Union College should be in the SEC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

Ray, I'm not disagreeing with you at all (at least not yet  :P), but I do have a couple of questions that seemed to pop up "back in the day" when it was the way it was.   

1.  Regarding the requirement that a family move into a specific geographical area for a particular school, how do you deal with non-traditional families?  What if a kid has one parent in one school district and another parent in a different school district and the two parents share custody?  Presumably, the kid could pick?   What if the kid has no parents at all?  Or what if the kid doesn't have a father and his mother is in jail? 

On the other end of the spectrum, what about a situation where the family has the financial ability to rent an apartment "in the district," but no one really lives there (or maybe the kid sleeps there a few times a week)?  Is that good enough?  (That was the issue that got Armwood in a little trouble a few years back).   What about the classic "Blind Side" scenario, where a family of means is willing to "take in" a kid who doesn't have a pot to pee in, conveniently providing the kid with the means to attend the high school in their district that their kids also attend? 

2.  Who is in charge of monitoring or investigating or "clearing" where a kid lives?  I can tell you from experience that when you put school personnel in charge, it's a lot like asking the fox to guard the hen-house.   Some won't do a thing, some will do a drive-by and if they see a car in the driveway, that's good enough, while others will show up at 5:30 in the morning to see who's actually living in the house or apartment.  In other words, those who do the best job of making sure the kids really live in the district get penalized the most when it comes time for deciding who is eligible and who is not.  But, by the same token, they typically don't run the risk of seeing a successful playoff run thwarted by forfeits. 

I know I'm throwing a lot out there, but I just recall these being some of the issues that schools faced a decade ago when where you lived determined where you had to go.  Any thoughts?

Not to mention the fact that Florida has a right to privacy law as well as an anti-stalking law.  FHSAA is lucky they haven't been sued the way they handled some of those past investigations.  Think twice before you go snooping around someone's home or interrogate a minor without their legal guardian present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

Madison competing in the same class as STA? Get real!  That's like saying Mount Union College should be in the SEC.

If I were a Madison county guy I would say a more favorable comparison would be not Mount Union College but let's say ETSU in the SEC.  I think they just beat Vanderbilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SubZero said:

What do you say to limiting the class to six classes, and that's it. There has to be a better way of having better playoff games, and state final games. 

That is fine, but doesn't solve the problem. We have uncompetitive districts and classifications (and not just in football). We have schools in several teams sports that run roughshod over any district foes and won't have a competitive game until the regional finals. At the same time, we have teams for various reasons that are so bad that they need to be in a district/classification that allows them to be competitive or they will eventually dump the team. 

Look I am all for competition and I don't think teams should run from competition. But we all know there are teams in our areas that if they get their kids lined up correctly that it should be considered a win. If they can put together a JV and Varsity squad, we should consider it a successful season. Letting them get brutalized by an obviously superior team because it is a district game, seems silly.

As for separate classes for private and public school, not going to happen. The state legislature has already said so. Again, the FHSAA might "run" high school athletics, but ultimately the state legislature has the big stick on this issue. Florida also doesn't have numerous large schools, so basically you would have a class of 10 large teams and a class of 60 small schools. We have to stop thinking that the state legislature is going to allow us to treat private school differently than public schools. They aren't. (I want to say something political here, but will pass).

As for Madison County vs STA, I give Madison zero chance in 10 games. But that is the beauty of a relegation/promotion system. Maybe Madison can't cut in that top 48, maybe the teams are too big, too much depth. So Madison drops a classification and a team with better depth and skill moves up. The beauty is the system self-regulates, if a team doesn't recruit and has a couple of down years, they move down a classification until the right coach and right team comes along and they can move back up a level.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

That is fine, but doesn't solve the problem. We have uncompetitive districts and classifications (and not just in football). We have schools in several teams sports that run roughshod over any district foes and won't have a competitive game until the regional finals. At the same time, we have teams for various reasons that are so bad that they need to be in a district/classification that allows them to be competitive or they will eventually dump the team. 

Look I am all for competition and I don't think teams should run from competition. But we all know there are teams in our areas that if they get their kids lined up correctly that it should be considered a win. If they can put together a JV and Varsity squad, we should consider it a successful season. Letting them get brutalized by an obviously superior team because it is a district game, seems silly.

As for separate classes for private and public school, not going to happen. The state legislature has already said so. Again, the FHSAA might "run" high school athletics, but ultimately the state legislature has the big stick on this issue. Florida also doesn't have numerous large schools, so basically you would have a class of 10 large teams and a class of 60 small schools. We have to stop thinking that the state legislature is going to allow us to treat private school differently than public schools. They aren't. (I want to say something political here, but will pass).

As for Madison County vs STA, I give Madison zero chance in 10 games. But that is the beauty of a relegation/promotion system. Maybe Madison can't cut in that top 48, maybe the teams are too big, too much depth. So Madison drops a classification and a team with better depth and skill moves up. The beauty is the system self-regulates, if a team doesn't recruit and has a couple of down years, they move down a classification until the right coach and right team comes along and they can move back up a level.

 

I continue to be intrigued by the relegation/promotion system, but I can't help but think there is a serious difference between professional soccer teams and high school football teams.  Soccer clubs are more likely to maintain a consistent roster over time.  Sure, they'll lose a player here and gain a player there, but it's pretty much the same club from one year to the next (until the owner decides to take the plunge and go sign Messi).   My biggest concern with the system being applied to high school football is similar to the discussion we've had regarding ranking -- more often than not, teams are ranked based on what they did last year, not what they're projected to do this year.  

So, as I understand the relegation/promotion process, here's how it would play out.  Mythical High School would be in a particular class.  Then, over a period of a year or two, the right kids would all come together for a magical senior year, where the MHS Unicorns make a run at the state title.  Whether they win it or not, their record for that year is the best in school history.  Let's say the Unicorns finish 14-2, losing a close game in the state finals.   Anybody who knows anything about high school football knows that all of MHS' star players will graduate and the team will regress back to mediocrity the following year -- if they stay in the same class.  But, because they won so many games, they get moved up a class, where they promptly get smacked down and are lucky to win two games.  As a result, the handful of rising stars from the JV team decide they don't want to be part of a losing team, so they jump ship and transfer, making it hard for MHS to even stay mediocre the next few seasons. 

In short, with rare exceptions where a "program" exists that continues to attract talent year in and year out, success in high school football is cyclical and my concern is that the relegation/promotion system would always be a year or two behind a team's actual talent and could very well cause a team to lose what little talent they have waiting in the wings. 

Help me understand how the system accounts for determining where a team should be this year as opposed to where they should have been last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Perspective said:

I continue to be intrigued by the relegation/promotion system, but I can't help but think there is a serious difference between professional soccer teams and high school football teams.  Soccer clubs are more likely to maintain a consistent roster over time.  Sure, they'll lose a player here and gain a player there, but it's pretty much the same club from one year to the next (until the owner decides to take the plunge and go sign Messi).   My biggest concern with the system being applied to high school football is similar to the discussion we've had regarding ranking -- more often than not, teams are ranked based on what they did last year, not what they're projected to do this year.  

So, as I understand the relegation/promotion process, here's how it would play out.  Mythical High School would be in a particular class.  Then, over a period of a year or two, the right kids would all come together for a magical senior year, where the MHS Unicorns make a run at the state title.  Whether they win it or not, their record for that year is the best in school history.  Let's say the Unicorns finish 14-2, losing a close game in the state finals.   Anybody who knows anything about high school football knows that all of MHS' star players will graduate and the team will regress back to mediocrity the following year -- if they stay in the same class.  But, because they won so many games, they get moved up a class, where they promptly get smacked down and are lucky to win two games.  As a result, the handful of rising stars from the JV team decide they don't want to be part of a losing team, so they jump ship and transfer, making it hard for MHS to even stay mediocre the next few seasons. 

In short, with rare exceptions where a "program" exists that continues to attract talent year in and year out, success in high school football is cyclical and my concern is that the relegation/promotion system would always be a year or two behind a team's actual talent and could very well cause a team to lose what little talent they have waiting in the wings. 

Help me understand how the system accounts for determining where a team should be this year as opposed to where they should have been last year. 

Give it up. I've been telling @gatorman-uf this for years now. He's convinced and no changing his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reasoning for splitting privates and publics is a simple one.  As Gatorman has aptly pointed out, the legislature is in charge and want school choice, which I am a big fan of; be it a charter school, different public school, parochial, private, etc...  What we must realize that these "Transfers" are to improve the education of one's child, something everyone should support.  Second part of the argument is that these types of "Transfers" are overwhelmingly done because of the failures of our public schools.  There are exceptions within each county as my kids decided to move cross county to be zoned for Harmony HS (public school) as it was the highest rate high school in our county and that's were a couple of my grandkids went.  So choice was important.  The final piece that to me is indisputable is the fact the vast majority transferring to the privates do it for education; yes they also get athletes, but as a percentage of enrollment it is low so restricting them is a non-starter.  The other indisputable fact is the vast majority transferring to publics is for sports, not education.  Whether zoned or not that should be available to every reside, transfer for education.  To limit the sports side transfers, make them wait a year to participate if not zoned for that school.  Guess this is why I am hung up on the separate classifications for publics and privates, they are different animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

 Guess this is why I am hung up on the separate classifications for publics and privates, they are different animals.

Ray, I could give you a long summation of why your argument about private schools transfers doesn't hold up from personal experience, but let me state, the state of Florida will not allow it. Additionally, when you start looking at "large school" privates, there aren't enough to create a real classification. Below are the largest private schools (sorry if I missed some). Honestly that feels kind of small for a classification, after that you start getting into private schools that couldn't compete with the JVs of these schools.  Again, I don't have a problem with the separation, but you aren't going to get it pass the state legislature. 

  1. 8A: Columbus (3518) (doubled due to all boys)
  2. 7A: St. Thomas Aquinas (1994)
  3. 6A: Belen Jesuit
  4. 6A: Jesuit (Tampa)
  5. 5A: Bishop Moore
  6. 5A: American Heritage (Plantation)
  7. 5A: St. Brendan
  8. 4A: Bolles (787)
  9. 4A: American Heritage (Delray Beach) (1026)
  10. 4A: Calvary Christian (782)
  11. 4A: Cardinal Gibbons (1102)
  12. 4A: Gulliver Prep (944)
  13. 4A: Immaculata-La Salle (872)
  14. 4A: Monsignor Pace (833)
  15. 4A: North Broward Prep (892)
  16. 4A: Pine Crest (857)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

Give it up. I've been telling @gatorman-uf this for years now. He's convinced and no changing his mind.

You have. I proposed since back in my FlaVarsity Days, ran the spread sheets, showed what classes would like. I get it. Population size is easier and in theory fairest, but the problem is we know that it doesn't produce a great system. It produces lopsided results that nobody (winner or loser) is interested. 
 

9 hours ago, Perspective said:

So, as I understand the relegation/promotion process, here's how it would play out.  Mythical High School would be in a particular class.  Then, over a period of a year or two, the right kids would all come together for a magical senior year, where the MHS Unicorns make a run at the state title.  Whether they win it or not, their record for that year is the best in school history.  Let's say the Unicorns finish 14-2, losing a close game in the state finals.   Anybody who knows anything about high school football knows that all of MHS' star players will graduate and the team will regress back to mediocrity the following year -- if they stay in the same class.  But, because they won so many games, they get moved up a class, where they promptly get smacked down and are lucky to win two games.  As a result, the handful of rising stars from the JV team decide they don't want to be part of a losing team, so they jump ship and transfer, making it hard for MHS to even stay mediocre the next few seasons. 

In short, with rare exceptions where a "program" exists that continues to attract talent year in and year out, success in high school football is cyclical and my concern is that the relegation/promotion system would always be a year or two behind a team's actual talent and could very well cause a team to lose what little talent they have waiting in the wings. 

Help me understand how the system accounts for determining where a team should be this year as opposed to where they should have been last year. 

For programs like football, I am generally in favor of the promotion/relegation power points being over a rolling 4-5 year period rather than one year (the original article makes it sound like 1 year, which would do exactly what you say). Other sports, I could make the argument that roster/coach turnover is much greater and thus teams improve much quicker than in football. 

But if the Unicorns, go 5-5, 5-5, 8-4 (2nd round), (14-1) they might move up, but if they went from 8-4, 8-4, 12-2, and 14-1. They might be more likely to move up and that is ok. I am positive that team would still be competitive in the higher class, would they be dominating, maybe not and again that is ok. 

My idea of a promotion/relegation system is only a handful of teams would change in a given year (10% up, 10% down in each classification so about 8-9 schools in each direction.) It would take a long time for a 3A school to get to 8A, and even if the Unicorns move up the next, there will still be bad schools in their new classification as there will be schools who were bad, just not bad enough to move down. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schools go through cyclical change. They get in good talent, good coaches. They get principals who care about sports and ones who can't stand it. Our current system of only using population doesn't recognize that. It states you have a population, you must be equal with every other school who is similar in size to you. This does not recognize any long term trends in the programs or changes, it says the only real resource that schools have is the number of students. It doesn't look at on-field success, coaching turnover, community support.

Simple example from the North Central Florida area. Gainesville area high schools (Santa Fe, Gainesville, Buchholz, PK Yonge, and recently Newberry) have been for the last 20 years, very good at volleyball. They have a tremendous junior club program that basically all these girls play in (similar programs exist in Orlando/Tampa). Unfortunately for Columbia High School, they are often the same size as GHS or Buchholz and as a result, Columbia struggles against them 9when districts were required). This isn't be throwing shade at Columbia, but rather acknowledging that they should never be placed in a district/classification with teams who have had consistent success (despite being relatively the same size).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...