Yeah which is why im against it  Because that will lead to a further shift in the wrong direction 

I'm only familiar with RPA but I'm sure there must be others.  For those not familiar with RPA, they are a private school that enrolls high caliber athletes and their mission is to facilitate an environment that allows these athletes to train and focus on their sport while placing them as free agents at various high schools in the state but mostly in south florida.  The curriculum is very athlete friendly with mostly online courses through Dade County CC.  You can be a real student or a fake one, it's up to you.  All you have to do is maintain a 3.0 average which is very easy due to DCCC being weighted on the 5.0 scale since it's considered dual enrollment.  RPA intentionally does not field any sports teams to allow them to exploit Florida's rule where you can play at any school of your choice if your school (or home school) does not field a team.   Here's what I like about RPA: They do a great service for their athletes and the RPA owner is highly connected with college coaches They stress GPA >3.0 What I don't like about RPA: By far what I don't like is they are exploiting the rules which was intended as a small amount of students, not 100s of athletes from the same school They are a private school so they are exploiting the private school voucher program, costing us taxpayers significant $$$ Due to this abuse of the rules, some schools are loaded with RPA athletes.  No exaggeration, West Boca HS might have all 22 starters that don't even attend West Boca. It's not just West Boca.  Literally every bigtime school has many RPA athletes to fill their holes This is definitely not in the spirit of fair play, which is a key value in high school sport I think the FHSAA needs to review this exploit and close the loop hole tightly.  Maybe only allow a maximum of 5 athletes per team that don't attend your school?  Something must be done because not only is it not fair play, it's not fair to students at those schools who want to play but can't compete with D1 recruits constantly transferring in.

I was thinking it's an illegal touching penalty, but the receiving team gets the ball where it was touched. I saw the flag from the official closest to the play come out immediately when the PBC kid touched it. Did someone throw the beanbag? It's possible, because there was a big scramble for the football and maybe I didn't see it. They correctly gave the football to FPC at the PBC 47 where the player clearly touched it first. The offense and defense came on the field, the chains were set, and ready to go, but then PBC called a timeout, and everything went bizarro world from there. After the long discussion, they gave PBC the football, but not at their 47 (or even midfield, where it was actually recovered), but at their 35. I saw no other penalty flag, and didn't see the official signal a penalty that would have brought the ball back there. They couldn't have possibly handled this any worse than they did. I thought the FPC coach was going to have a stroke. Otherwise, I thought they called a nice game and did a good job of maintaining control in a game that was fairly chippy. No idea why that last sequence went down like it did. The only thing I can compare it to was a Virginia state semifinal game maybe 10 years ago. A team was punting from their own 8 with a little under a minute to go in the first half. It was 4th and 4. The punt return team was going for a block, and had two guys jump offsides. The HL threw the flag immediately. They gave the offsides signal, and walked the penalty off, which resulted in a first down. The offense and defense came on, and the offense was preparing to take a couple of knees to end the half. Then...there is a big discussion among the crew. It's a discussion that lasts maybe 5 minutes, and from where we were standing at the end zone fence, you could tell it was fairly heated. They reversed the call, saying that the punt team was in an illegal formation...even though the LJ or Head referee never threw a flag for it. They moved the ball back to the 4, and they partially blocked the punt, taking possession at the 9, and getting a TD with about 10 seconds to go. Did it affect the outcome? The team that had the punt blocked lost 24-21. 

Hey, that's how FHSAA likes it.  

It was interesting to watch the last FHSAA Board of Directors’ meeting and hear the Executive Director say that he would like to adopt some type of competitive equity model, if only the coaches would agree.  He specifically referenced the California model (which I think has some merit), where playoff brackets are based solely on end-of-regular season rankings.  For example, the highest ranked 16 teams in the rankings are placed in the Open Division.  The next 64 highest ranked teams (#17-80) are placed in Class 1, then the next 64 (#81-144) are placed in Class 2, and so on.  School enrollment doesn’t matter, records in previous years don’t matter, the number of transfers doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is how teams performed in that particular year so that teams are grouped with comparable teams for the playoffs. Again, many possible ways to get there, and no system is perfect.  But my question is why wouldn’t the majority of coaches be in favor of a competitive equity model of some kind?  My suspicion is either the coaches don’t see the big picture, or the FHSAA Football Advisory Committee is not representing the interests of the coaches, or the FHSAA Board of Directors has no interest in changing the status quo, regardless of input.