I would encourage people to look at SB538 and how it applies to coaches' salaries. It does not set a minimum salary (as the Coaches' Coalition has repeatedly advocated); it simply takes the power to negotiate stipends away from the unions and gives it unilaterally to school boards. School boards MAY (not required to) set coaching stipends at whatever they want while negotiating with the coach, without regard to the union contract.  If (and when) this passes, it will not solve the problem systematically. While doing this, school boards will also be able to completely eliminate all other stipends, because, god forbid, the cross-country coach gets paid. (k) Athletic coach compensation.—The district school board may, at its sole discretion, determine and approve the compensation of any person employed as an athletic coach, assistant coach, or athletic program supervisor, regardless of whether such individual is classified as instructional personnel. Compensation may exceed any salary schedule, supplement, or stipend otherwise prescribed and may be paid in any form or amount deemed appropriate by the district school board, including, but not limited to, salaries, stipends, bonuses, performance-based incentives, and hourly or per601 assignment pay. Such compensation is considered part of the coach’s total compensation. The limitations on supplemental pay applicable to instructional personnel under this section or any other law do not apply to compensation provided under this paragraph.

Coaches want to play similar type teams (regardless of size). No school wants to play in a running clock game. Coaches want to play competitive games and know that the team they are playing against is following the same general rules as they are.  Also the BEST teams are going to have to make a sacrifice here if they want the FHSAA to continue, they are going to be willing to only have 1 state championship team between them. The FHSAA must seriously consider a promotion/relegation system if it does not plan to implement a private/public separation. I don't understand the drawback of looking at the past 4 years of data and classifying the top 32 teams, then 32, 64, 64, 128, 128. The 64-team classes are divided into 8 districts with 8 teams, and the 128-team classes are divided into 16 districts with 8 teams. If the classes are based on recent ability, they should be relatively similar in ability and thus competitive. Even if a below-average metro area team loses a kid to a powerhouse school, it isn't as much of a concern because you wouldn't be playing that team in districts or playoffs, and likely the other schools in your district are facing the same thing.

Is Monds expected back? If nothing else, I've learned to not count on who is going to be on a roster until the season kicks off. 

I get it. Lake Howell got 11 football transfers and didn’t make the playoffs and lost to garbage teams including a team so bad that if I showed you film you would bet the house that they were a JV team. Not an exaggeration.    And when teams like STA, Chaminade AHP etc get 11 transfers they are all  division 1 prospects with offers already in hand.    so it’s night and day.    but Lake Howell is in a metro area. So even if you separated metro and suburban, it still wouldn’t fix the problem that yes everyone can get transfers, but not everyone can get blue chip D1 transfers consistently 

I don't think you realize how many teams get 5-7 transfers. That would be a crazy number of schools. The difference is the top schools are getting stars where average and bad schools just get somebodies random friend, a kid who moves, a bench player whose uncle told him he should start etc. 100s of transfers never get reported because they aren't good. No way to fairly tell the difference to break it up that way. You would just be reading a numbered printout to break them up.