I agree, the one year suspension is what we have know and it is accomplishing nothing. I think the two year suspension and defining a feeder program will level the playing field. It will definately make kids and parents think about transfering long and hard instead of just packing up and transfering schools.

You could not be more wrong. Even the one year varsity ban would apply, as I read news accounts, WHETHER OR NOT a student had played. That is significantly more far reaching than the existing rule which applies the restrictions only when a person had played varsity.

The KHSAA is dealing with issues they have no business. Deal with athletics. I don't think the BOE will ever allow these changes. If they do the courts will step in and over rule. This is a waste of time. The KHSAA needs to enforce the rules as written, not keep changing them.

The KHSAA is dealing with issues they have no business. Deal with athletics. I don't think the BOE will ever allow these changes. If they do the courts will step in and over rule. This is a waste of time. The KHSAA needs to enforce the rules as written, not keep changing them.

 

 

Uncle Jed, I know I am probably wasting my time posting this as I sincerely doubt you or the many other posters who feel the same way you do will believe me, but the KHSAA does aggressively enforce the rules that are written. An overwhelming number of transfers are declared ineligible (if anything, in my opinion more transfers that should be deemed eligible are actually deemed ineligible, with the Board of Control regularly overturning the hearing officers recommendations that the kids be eligible). There is a definite predisposition in my mind for the Board to not allow the transfers to be eligible as a result of the schools believing that too many transfers are for improper reasons. The pendelum has definitely swung from pretty much ok'ing all transfers to prohibiting almost all transfers. Allegations of recruiting and improper activity are investigated and if substantiated, are acted upon. Please understand that hunches, innuendos and hearsay rumors about improper activities aren't enough to result in sanctions against schools. I know it is in vogue to attack the KHSAA these days, and the KHSAA may have its faults (after all its comprised of human beings and none of us are perfect), but it is no where near the villian that a lot of people on here and out in the Commonwealth think it is. It definitely does NOT intentionally go about failing to enforce the rules.

 

Case in point: a whole lot of people felt that Highlands football championship of two years ago should have been taken away by the KHSAA or for that matter, Highlands should not have been even able to play in the championship game. And there were some members of the Board who felt just that way. A lot of people criticized the KHSAA for not taking the above actions. Unfortunately for those people, the KHSAA's Constitution and by-laws did not give the Board the authority to take the championship away or prevent them from playing in the championship game for playing an ineligible player. Nonetheless, people then and now continued to bust the KHSAA's chops for failing to take those actions. The KHSAA did impose the sanctions against Highlands that it could under the KHSAA's rules, and had the Mitchell's not ultimately prevailed in getting a permanent injunction that the Ct of Appeals refused to overrule because the issue was then moot, I believe the KHSAA would have imposed the additional sanction of forcing Highlands to reimburse the KHSAA for all the legal fees that the KHSAA had paid in the Mitchell case (which would have surely resulted in another lawsuit which in my opinion the KHSAA would have lost). Just my thoughts on the matter from a pretty informed position.

Leatherneck one of your all time best posts. You are 100% correct.

Sounds good in theory, except that the NFHS only admits one group per state, so by doing this particular split you are talking about, the private schools are high and dry, except for probably T and X who could exist as independent entities.

 

 

Right...that's why I said if, which as you clarified above, is not an option. I should have been more clear.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

First, very few if any of the 48 KHSAA private schools would be in a position to include dorms and give full rides.

 

Second, even including S. Indiana and WV border students there are not a lot of large numbers of out of state resident students at KY high schools. And there is no reason that a S. Indiana parish could not be defined as a feeder school for the Arch. of Lou. and that the legit WV relationship schools like Belfry have could not be continued without penalty.

 

Third, the choosing a middle school or grade school to be eligible in high school is a difficult concept for many (private and public) families to grasp. I would imagine it would be the focus of several lawsuits if not handled properly.

 

 

The dorms and full rides came in when the prop 20 issue came up and there were alot of post that said "we ought to split and build super teams, and build dorms and realy build a national powerhouse" so I thought I would restate their opinions.

 

there will be no out of state schools that will be considered feeder schools for any Kentucky school, the judge sort of combined prop three with both of these suggestions, if it is not not alot of kids then why have them.

 

As stated by numerous courts sports are a priveledge so they wont get into that swarm of bees. I just stateing what the judge said.

 

The question as two which is better prop 20 or the two year ban for private schools. Most AD's I talked to said the think that if they were at private schools they would perfer prop 20, I just want to see what everyone thought.

The dorms and full rides came in when the prop 20 issue came up and there were alot of post that said "we ought to split and build super teams, and build dorms and realy build a national powerhouse" so I thought I would restate their opinions.

 

there will be no out of state schools that will be considered feeder schools for any Kentucky school, the judge sort of combined prop three with both of these suggestions, if it is not not alot of kids then why have them.

 

As stated by numerous courts sports are a priveledge so they wont get into that swarm of bees. I just stateing what the judge said.

 

The question as two which is better prop 20 or the two year ban for private schools. Most AD's I talked to said the think that if they were at private schools they would perfer prop 20, I just want to see what everyone thought.

 

The "super team" concept was a knee-jerk reaction, and I doubt many took those comments seriously. It's great in theory, but in reality, roadblocks exist that would be difficult to ovecome for all but the Trinity's and X's in the state. Thankfully, the Trinity's and X's recognize that their smaller sister/brother schools would not benefit from such an attitude and are working to ensure that even the smallest private school is able to fulfill their mission statements.

The concept of a 'feeder school' is mostly coaches laying claim to kids. Many parents plan to go to public primary schools but go to private schools in high school, and many plan to go the other way.

 

Why should chidren whos parents planned to do this all along be penalized. The 2 year ban on a child is really a sports death sentence. And this 'compromise' is simple a trojan horse for coaches to get what they want - a defined pipeline of recruits. And Prop 20 is the smoke screen to make the tojan horse harder to find. It is certainly not benefiting the student/atheletes. Not in any way at all.

 

As a parent, the concept of banning children from participation does not make sense. It would interesting to know what actual parents of current middle schoolers were involved with this compromise. I bet not many, if any. Reasonable, caring parents would not support this outrage.

Very well said. I agree.

How about banning the coaches and A.D.'s for two years and leave the real participants alone??? I will go ahead and say it now and not wait for the howl. That would be an ignorant solution and if it is ignorant, then so is the banning of kids for two years. This morning is my TEED OFF day. It will take the week-end to get back down. I cannot conceive in my thinking what these "educated" members are putting together and passing it off as a solution that works. Do they all have a degree in "SNAKE-OILISM"? Are there that many out there that have swallowed this "mixture"? This committee is "choking on a gnat and trying to swallow a camel".

Another issue, if the private schools accepted Prop 20, they'd still have to be under the direction of the KHSAA if they wanted to play out of state teams.

 

The only way a split would be in any way beneficial would be if it were a full split, and if a recognized governing body were formed and joined the NHSAA. Even then, the benefits would be for only the larger private schools. The smaller (and majority) of private schools would be left behind.

Especially those small privates in an area with no one close to play

Especially those small privates in an area with no one close to play

The separate classifications is for post season only. As in football where the different classes can play whomever they want during the regular season, it would be the same for the public/privates. I would expect our school would continue to play Bishop Brossart and Saint Patrick during the regular season.

The separate classifications is for post season only. As in football where the different classes can play whomever they want during the regular season, it would be the same for the public/privates. I would expect our school would continue to play Bishop Brossart and Saint Patrick during the regular season.

Let's face one harsh reality. In any of the sports that are classified by size there won't be a post season to speak of. There are only two 4A football schools, two 3A track schools, two 3A cross country schools and two 3A football schools. Not having the playoffs would have cost Trinity $80,000 to $100,000 (my estimate) this past season. That is the reality of the situation. The effects of Prop 20 are so negative for the private schools that the private schools would be forced to fight in the courts and in the legislature. I believe that it is a matter of long term survival.

That is a powerful statement. And is a great question for the private supporters on here.

 

Which is better for private schools, Prop 20 or a 2-year ban?

 

The ban would only affect those players that are truly outstanding and would play on varsity level as a freshmen/sophomore. If they are not of that level, it really would not effect them UNLESS the ban is for all levels of play.

It won't just affect kids that could play varsity as a freshman or sophomore. I'm sure that there are plenty of kids that play for the "love of the game". I'll use my connection to Lex. Cath. as an example. There are plenty of what you would call "program guys" on the football team. Some may never play a major role on the field any of thier four years, but they feel as big a part of the sucess as a Justin Burke. On friday nights, everone dressed. Freshmen travelled on road trips, which not every high school football team does. Catholic always has some blowout games, and the coaches make sure that in these instances EVERYONE gets to play. Everyone gets a share of Friday Night Lights. So if a kid whose parents have to do everything they can to save up for a private education, and can only provide one for thier child in the high school years, and he is a "program guy"--- sorry kid, you didn't declare early enough. Seems to me to hurt the wrong people more than most think.

LBBC, kinda jumped ahead of myself with that post. Didn't pay attention to the big UNLESS. Just had to get that one off my chest.

Would the feeder plan only apply to private schools? A lot of students in the Ashland area attend middle school in one district, but transfer to a high school in another.