Football playoff changes on the discussion docket for football advisory committee

[gatorman-uf]

Here is a good question for all of you on here...what is wrong with rewarding teams for playing a tough schedule? If they play it and get rewarded for it, then let them in if it warrants. 0-10 wouldn't get in because they still need to have a way to position themselves to be in the Top 4 of their district. If they aren't, they aren't going no matter what points they got.

 

Flip it for a question, how does playing a tough schedule currently hurt a team? If you think you are a state caliber team, you will play games that are on that level. 

 

If you load up on cupcakes, come district games or regional playoff games you will get exposed. I don't see how this system even rewards playing a tough schedule. A 9-1 1A could play a 10-0 8A and both teams would benefit from it in terms of the standings, but in reality the game isn't that tough for the 8A most likely, but they would receive 13 points for the game (not bad when the most you can receive is 15). 

 

Again, I am not opposed to change, but this system doesn't fix the problems. 

 

Josh

Why only top 4? Proposal counts for Top 8 (besides 1A). Creekside is 7A and would make it under the current proposal. Explain to me how that makes sense under any logic.

 

The solution is several things.

1. Take the 4 year average of population, not a one year shot. 4 year averages don't allow teams to have 700 some years and then come reclassification time be lower. It also allows more stability in those numbers.

2. Each year add 25 to the population for a game in round 1, 50 round 2, etc (1A-4A exempt).

3. Reclassify based on added population and success on the field, so schools move up or down based both on population and on-field success. While Bishop Moore won the 5A state championship, would they win the 6A? Miami Central won 6A would they win 7A, who knows. 

[Joshua Wilson]

Let me ask you all which is how did you all feel when we only had 6 classifications. I can tell you for me my school is Miramar and we've had some bumps in the road, however 1st time going to states and won was in 6A. Now obviously having added two more classifications helped more teams make the playoffs. Just imagine if we still had 6 well wouldn't that have put both Central and Flanagan who both won states in the same class. I don't know if I'm making any sense but thought I'd give it.

 

Problem is you are thinking there was 6 classes when Miramar won it in 2009. Not the case. Florida HAS HAD EIGHT classes since 2005. The naming was different, but Florida has eight since that point (now 10 going on 11 years). We haven't had six classes since 2002-2003.

 

2003-2004 & 2004-2005 (We had 7 classes)

6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, 2B, 1A

 

This was when the FHSAA decided to split 2A and create a Class 2B

 

2005-2005 until 2010-2011 (8 classes but different naming format)

6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, 2B, 1A, 1B

 

FHSAA finally decided to split Class 1A and create a Class 1B

 

2011-2012 (8 classes still)

Just renamed the classes to a more conventional format

8A, 7A, 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, 1A

 

Going back to six classes in reality? Unlikely. Going back to 7 classes? I could see it.

 

One thing has to remain and that is Class 1A rural. Most I have talked to (Coaches and other sources close to the FHSAA), is that Rural 1A can't really be touched. It has worked out nicely. Now....the issue is to fix the rest of the system.