THOUGHTS:

We’ve been going at this for over three weeks now, and we feel like it’s time to get a few things off our chests. We then bring you some suggestions based on what we’ve learned these past weeks in-hope that some middle ground has been reached while addressing the concerns and needs of both sides. First, it’s apparent that the luster of the postseason is just not what it should be in a state that provides the rest of the country with its premier talent–and the FHSAA is doing their best to fix it. Second, there was consensus that something needed to be done, perhaps not as wide-sweeping as proposed, but something needed to be done nonetheless. And lastly, there’s going to be some squabbles, but we have set out on a positive course of action through dialogue no matter if the criticism isn’t constructive, but rather it negative.

THE SUGGESTIONS:

1) Count the schools by their male student populations, not total populations, and determine if there is a need for 8 classes based on this new calculation in the first place. There is precedence for this since Ohio uses this system already for those wondering about the Title IX implications. There should also be strong consideration given to eliminating the double-count towards all-boys institutions thus properly classifying them by their size as well. Once the number of classifications is set, regardless of the way they are counted and if there ben is a need for eight–(if the suggested method cannot reach a majority opinion)–then reclassify the schools anyways to begin the 2018 season putting the Florida on the same track as other high-profile states thus making it easier to schedule 2-year home-and-home out-of-state games if teams so choose.

2) Keep the district and region formats, but allow exceptions for schools that lie within 5-7 miles of a neighboring county to schedule teams from across the border in non-district play or perhaps allow them to be a part of a district all to themselves. There are several teams that would stand to actually save money throughout the state using this approach due to all types of logistical reasons such as reduced travel, increased attendance (and gate over time) as well as create new neighborhood rivalries in addition to the existing ones that are already played.

3) Cap the districts at seven teams, and put the minimum at five teams that can form a district. Although it’s a valid argument that this “could” create uneven numbers of districts within the regions, it becomes quite apparent that if the “border rule” is applied many districts become much more balanced than first realized. Three-team districts were not needed in several instances especially when those instances’ occurred with teams within the same county.  If some common sense and basic map skills had even been applied, you can see it for yourselves. So, at the very least those districts must be eliminated along with nine-team districts and those cross-border districts should be capped at six teams with three teams representing each county.

4) If there is an absolute need for an eight-team district, split the district into two four-team divisions and instruct coaches to schedule a minimum of two cross-division games having a champion determined in week eleven. That gives coaches a minimum of six district games and a minimum of four non-district games used for the preservation of neighborhood rivalries or high-profile out-of-state, or premiere in-state games that are obviously out-of-district. Under the current format, an eight-team district means seven district games with just three non-dsitrict games that they may not even have a say in to begin with. In the event of identical division records to determine the divisional representative, you go to the points after week ten.

5) One of the common complaints during this process of gathering information and perspectives, was that the perennial losing teams will have an even harder time finding games than they already do outside of their mandatory district play. It’s recommended that teams have a minimum number of category one and category four teams on their schedule outside of their districts based on the previous years’ records, not their current ones–which is what the FHSAA’s proposal calls for in the determination of how points are gathered for the playoffs.

For instance, 7-team districts would have four non-dsitrict games to schedule. A minimum of one game should be against a category one team (8-2 or better from the previous season) and one game minimum versus a category four team (3-7 or worse) from the previous year. That would leave two other games for coaches to mix-and-match. If a team is in a five team district, that six games out, therefore a minimum of three games must be played against teams from those two categories to the choosing of the coaches whether two Cat-1’s and a Cat-4, or visa-versa. Some experience terrible luck such as 8-2 potential squads that for whatever reason such as transfers or injuries end up at 2-8. Sometimes teams bounce right back and those down seasons are rendered blips while others actually conquer the world one season then fall completely off. Using both previous season and current season as a sample-size gives somewhat of a better representation of the program.

6) District champions are guaranteed to make the playoffs, runner-ups are not. Seeds five through eight are determined by the points system. This virtually ensures (as long as the three-team and nine-team districts are kaput) teams that may have been grouped with insanely tough teams can still have a few “slip-ups” and possibly make it into the big dance with a record that isn’t at the insanely-tough-to-reach 8-2, 9-1 or 10-0 levels. Coaches and teams that swing-for-the-fences outside of their heavy-hitter lineups should be rewarded if successful. This also safeguards against teams that AVERAGE (not have one “bad” year) at 5-5 or below that back their way into the playoffs. There will be some exceptions at times like Tallahassee-Lincoln who would’ve been an 8-seed with a 4-6 record based on the heavyweights they took on this past season, but that’s fine. We’d rather than be an exception that the widespread rule that seen 1-2-3 win teams up-and-down the classes come postseason year-in and year-out.

7) Eliminate districts being paired up in the first two rounds and use the points system to determine the match-ups via seeding. This is based on the problem that seems to be plaguing the postseason where some of the best games we see come from first round match-ups. Some of the calculations we made in previous articles show that we would in-fact have district rematches in the first round, but instead of having those in the second round when the stakes should be higher, we don’t.

Rematches turn into cakewalks in some instances, and the games taking place in the opening rounds should now look much like other mass-participation tournaments where any potential mismatches come right off the bat. The added suspense is that this first-round match-up potentially features two teams from an elite district that could have three of the eight in the playoffs within the region. In a nutshell, 1 vs. 8 isn’t exactly a lay-up, nor is the next rounds’ match-up either. Teams would advance to the finals using the same amount of games, but using the seeding as the guide. Highest seed remaining is at home in each round. When it comes time for determining the host sites for the state semifinals, use the Region-1 vs. Region-2, R-3 vs. R-4 -format and alternate the years.

8) Eliminate the bonus points system, but in its proposed-state. There should be a bonus points system, but not one that potentially rewards a team for getting a win over a 1-2 win team a classification higher than them. Just as we are needing to safeguard against the lower teams being left out during scheduling, we should also safeguard that the big teams are going to have plenty of challengers. There should not be bonus points for simply beating a team based on the number of classes they are above, rather, there should be one bonus point for beating a team who has won better than 80-percent of their games over a five-year span.

Call it “elite points” or whatever. Five years winning at over 80-percent means you’re more than just a flash, and if a team wants to step in the arena and can knock you out, they should be rewarded. Also, there should be a half-point bonus for defeating a reigning state champion. We all know that in some cases, state champions go through tough times immediately following, but beating a state champion is beating a state champion. Most state champions don’t go from 14-1/15-0 to 5-5 or 4-6 overnight, so earning a half-point seems like a nice reward for knocking the kings off the mountain. In some cases, that half-point means everything in terms of seeding when you run the calculations, and they also could mean a lot given the fact that some teams like Aquinas, Central or Booker T. Washington would earn you 1.5 points because of their 5-year tracks and their totals–if and ONLY IF you were to beat them. The saving grace is that you get the same amount of points for a loss as you would defeating a 3-win team or less. Now’s the time to show them who is the Alpha and strap up.

So there you have it. We hope you have enjoyed this series on the FHSAA’s potential changes to the postseason and look forward to hearing the feedback on these suggestions plus find out if the FHSAA’s Board of Directors are going to be warm to the idea on June 14th in Gainesville when they meet.