Why would the private schools counter the 2 year ban from athletics proposal with a 1 year ban(varsity only)? How many Freshman started for Highlands, Trinity, X, Beechwood, Dayton, Leslie County, NCC?

My guess is ZERO! Maybe 1 or 2.

If the private schools really wanted to work on this, they would have countered with 1 year ban(Freshman, JV, Varsity)

 

The thing that you are either forgetting, or choosing to disregard, is that this is not a football issue only. Although it is extremely rare for a frosh to play football on the varsity level, I know that quite a few frosh started for or get significant minutes playing varsity in Volleyball, basketball (boys and girls), track, cross country, golf, etc. at these schools. Why would anyone, including school administrators, want to take away half of a student/athlete's total eligibility?

The thing that you are either forgetting, or choosing to disregard, is that this is not a football issue only. Although it is extremely rare for a frosh to play football on the varsity level, I know that quite a few frosh started for or get significant minutes playing varsity in Volleyball, basketball (boys and girls), track, cross country, golf, etc. at these schools. Why would anyone, including school administrators, want to take away half of a student/athlete's total eligibility?

Girls state golf championship was won by a young lady who is a freshmen at Scott County High School.

Heres the answer. They need a multiplier. In football they need at least 5 classes. They need a no tolerance rule on recruiting. You are found guilty of illegal recruiting you are done coaching in Kentucky. The two year ban is a good thing. The privates are trying to get around it by saying one year ban from varsity only which wouldn't affect them at all considering hardly any freshmen get playing time at those schools.

They don't inforce the rules. thats the main problem. You turn something in and they tell you they will get to it but don't. Or they demand proof. coaches aren't stupid enough to write hand written letters to recruits. Others know that since they have money the KHSAA won't touch them.

How does a multiplier help in Kentucky? No classes in anything but football and track, and everybody's least favorite two all-boys schools (in this argument) would be in the largest class no matter what the multiplier is. And if someone isn't willing to sign their name, the KHSAA shouldn't look into it. Period. And I suppose you don't want proof of violations, just the fact that someone said it happened? That will work and hold up a while. Real answers folks, that's what's needed. Someone out here in BGP land is smart enough to find an answer that is workable for all, and if you do, send it to Bridget Devries at the KHSAA in Lexington.

So what's your answer, oh ye with the big cahoneys? Awful easy to sit there and say someone else should figure it out, but what's the answer? If splitting the membership has already been determined to be a flawed objective, what's the answer?

 

It doesn't really matter what I think, it is what the majority of the state's public schools wanted in the beginning and the KHSAA decided to shoot it down, so in my eyes that is no governing.

Heres the answer. They need a multiplier. In football they need at least 5 classes. They need a no tolerance rule on recruiting. You are found guilty of illegal recruiting you are done coaching in Kentucky. The two year ban is a good thing. The privates are trying to get around it by saying one year ban from varsity only which wouldn't affect them at all considering hardly any freshmen get playing time at those schools.

They don't inforce the rules. thats the main problem. You turn something in and they tell you they will get to it but don't. Or they demand proof. coaches aren't stupid enough to write hand written letters to recruits. Others know that since they have money the KHSAA won't touch them.

 

 

thoman, I agree with a lot of what you posted, however sophomores at those schools rarely get any playing time, or at least any meaningful playing time, at the varsity level. I think the one year rule should not be limited to just varsity play. I think it should be a one year ban from any participation in sports at any level. The intended effect of the sit out period is to provide a deterrent to the kid thinking about transferring for athletic purposes. And if the kid is a good athlete, which is really the only kids the public schools are concerned about when you really get down to it, not being able to participate at all in any sport on any level for a year, is a big deterrent. Most good athletes are good because they love athletics, they love to compete, they love to participate. Tell them you are going to take that away from them, on any level, and you have a pretty good deterrent in my opinion. Furthermore, if one year is not enough of a deterrent as some claim, please explain why the KHSAA's current rule concerning transfers is one year sit out period and not two years? And I think the empirical evidence would indicate that most folks must think the one year period for transfers is a pretty big deterrent: if not, we would not see so many people fighting the KHSAA over its transfer decisions. Telling a kid he or she cannot participate in sports for a year is a big, a very big deterrent in my mind. Two years is simply being vindictive and, unless all the talk about how important athletics is in the educational process is a bunch of horse manure, will be quite harmful to a lot of kids.

 

And prior to the 6th grade is way too early to be making the decision as to what high school you are going to attend. Its like telling a freshman in high school he has to decide what college he is going to attend before he commences his sophomore year. Which is simply silly; no make that stupid. I think a more practical approach is to establish feeder schools as has been discussed. If you are not going to attend the high school that your grade school feeds, you must declare in writing before the 8th grade begins the other high school that you will attend. If you don't make such a declaration, you must attend the high school your grade school feeds, or you sit out of all athletics at all levels for one year. If you make a written declaration as set forth above and attend some other high school than the one declared, you sit out of all athletics at any level for one year. Requiring kids and their parents to make that decision one year ahead of time makes a lot more sense than three years ahead of time. And I seriously doubt that except for rare cases (and its assinine to make rules based on rare cases) that much illegal recruiting, if it happens at all, happens in the 7th grade or earlier.

It doesn't really matter what I think, it is what the majority of the state's public schools wanted in the beginning and the KHSAA decided to shoot it down, so in my eyes that is no governing.

If its been said once, its been said too many times. In this country majority rule is balanced by minority rights. There is a Supreme Court to ensure that this happens whenever the Legislatures and Executives pass or enact laws that are not constitutional, and the Boards of Education and Control have acted in a similar way.