Even if they didn't, up 30+ Cordia should have pulled theirs. Coaches should not use kids to send messages especially when they are not involved.

 

Pull your starters, I'll pull mine. Maybe that is what Coach Rhodes thought bout it. I mean come on, LCC goes as far as sending letters to the KHSAA to get players ruled ineligible for this game and LCC had no problem beating little ole Cordia last season by 84 (49-133) when they were down. I would have done the same if I were Coach Rhodes JMO. Sounds like a little sour grapes because they host the region and dont get to play in it.

Actually, no, I don't have a problem with the Canadians finding a place to play. I mean, how dare those kids want more exposure and an opportunity to better themselves, right? Think about yourself at their age and what it would take to motivate you to leave familiar surroundings to go to another country to play a sport. More power to the kids if they are being properly taken care of (which means getting their education as well) and getting an opportunity to do what they think is in their best interest.

 

I think the biggest difference between the situations of these kids and those of what I think Spindoc means by ‘domestic’ transfers is that often times, the more contested cases involve a kid moving from one KHSAA member school to another and the previous school challenging it. Because both schools in the dispute are members of the same governing body, the issue becomes more complicated.

 

I don't know the specifics of any of the Cordia kids' situations, but it takes quite a bit of money and other resources to relocate simply to play a sport. There aren't many families that can deal with the burden of moving (buying/selling housing, leaving a job for a new one, having the money needed on hand to put down deposits on things like electric bills/open bank accounts while their other assets are tied up, etc.). I know that most aren’t actually implying this, but when reading some of the quotes, they come off as sounding as though the only legitimate transfers involve nuclear families who can afford to move, which isn’t really very fair to those who don’t have those luxuries.

 

Is it disappointing for kids who might have been a part of the team but now aren't because of this? Yes. Is that the end of the world? No.

 

 

I just feel like some of the worries that people have about the privates and recruiting seem overblown. At the end of the day, its a business, and consumers don't have incentive to go to events like the Sweet 16 unless they have some kind of investment or emotional attachment to a team (i.e., school spirit, hometown pride, whatever you want to call it). It's not a coincidence that the UHA/Lexington Catholic final in '92 was one of the lower gates of that era. Without having looked, I'm guessing that attendance was down last year as well.

 

IF the teams become what more and more people view as legions of mercenaries, attendance will suffer and something will likely be done to change the format. But, as long as schools are getting transfers that they mix in with their own students and integrating themselves into the school communities, there will still be some incentive to watch.

 

The fact that the product is better on the whole would offset, or even increase economic consumption (i.e., the overall economic consumption lost when a die-hard who solely supports teams that don't take transfers (read: the typical overmatched 14th Region team getting demolished in the 1st round) being replaced by one or two casual fans who would not come to the game unless it were to get a glimpse of the kid UK is recruiting while he's in high school). What likely won't happen, however, is that there is a point where the marginal cost of losing 'x' amount of traditional fans will be greater than the amount gained when 'y' number of casual fans replace them.

 

Finding more exposure is not the issue and you should know this. Recruiting in the state of Kentucky is way out of hand. Playing high school basketball used to really mean something. Now it is just a showcase...an extension of the AAU season.

Now it is just a showcase...an extension of the AAU season.

Well said.

 

I have no problem with these kids transferring to play. And I understand Joker's post entirely. It's nothing personal towards those kids at all. But the fact remains that there are rules in place for the "integrity" of the member schools and transfers of players to member schools. And when I say domestic transfers, I'm talking U.S. transfers, most of which are intrastate transfers obviously. As to the point of "only legitimate transfers involve nuclear families who can afford to move, which isn’t really very fair to those who don’t have those luxuries", I understand the reasoning for your statement, but the bylaw is clear. If you can't afford to move to a "better place" and opportunity as an entire family, it's easy. Don't move!!

 

This sounds like I'm harpooning the transfers from Canada, and that's not my intent. My issue is with the KHSAA and the random enforcement of rules. The political influence on rulings for transfers, which I know first hand, is astounding. There is no oversight for the KHSAA. Yes they are required to include language that after you exhaust all of your avenues within the organization, you are able to seek an injunction in the public court system. And ironically, after a stellar record on appeal, the KHSAA has now lost 2 cases recently(that I'm aware of) upon appeal and it seems that their stronghold on enforcement continues to weaken when legal avenues outside of their office in Lex are pursued.

 

It's my opinion that something has to change. Either the transfer rule needs to change or the enforcement needs to be uniform.

Really? You do not see a problem with all of these Canadians finding places to play? One happens to be an UK recruit coached by a former player? Pretty simple math to me.

Louisville, Lexington, and Scott Co. have been doing

 

it with exception for a very long time.....why bash little Cordia for joining the crowd.....don't be a hater!!!

Louisville, Lexington, and Scott Co. have been doing

 

it with exception for a very long time.....why bash little Cordia for joining the crowd.....don't be a hater!!!

With Canadians?

Congrats Cordia

Well said.

I have no problem with these kids transferring to play. And I understand Joker's post entirely. It's nothing personal towards those kids at all. But the fact remains that there are rules in place for the "integrity" of the member schools and transfers of players to member schools. And when I say domestic transfers, I'm talking U.S. transfers, most of which are intrastate transfers obviously. As to the point of "only legitimate transfers involve nuclear families who can afford to move, which isn’t really very fair to those who don’t have those luxuries", I understand the reasoning for your statement, but the bylaw is clear. If you can't afford to move to a "better place" and opportunity as an entire family, it's easy. Don't move!!

 

This sounds like I'm harpooning the transfers from Canada, and that's not my intent. My issue is with the KHSAA and the random enforcement of rules. The political influence on rulings for transfers, which I know first hand, is astounding. There is no oversight for the KHSAA. Yes they are required to include language that after you exhaust all of your avenues within the organization, you are able to seek an injunction in the public court system. And ironically, after a stellar record on appeal, the KHSAA has now lost 2 cases recently(that I'm aware of) upon appeal and it seems that their stronghold on enforcement continues to weaken when legal avenues outside of their office in Lex are pursued.

 

It's my opinion that something has to change. Either the transfer rule needs to change or the enforcement needs to be uniform.

 

 

Finding more exposure is not the issue and you should know this. Recruiting in the state of Kentucky is way out of hand. Playing high school basketball used to really mean something. Now it is just a showcase...an extension of the AAU season.

 

 

Spindoc, I think we agree on the bolded for certain, and that is the basis of both of our arguments, even if we MIGHT think that there are different ways to reach the same result. I agree that, if it is occurring, arbitrary enforcement of the rules should not be happening.

 

I guess where we differ is that I don't see a problem with international players coming in. A transfer is a transfer to me (i.e., going from your home school to a school one mile away is the same as going to one 1,000 miles away because things like finances, divorce, etc. don’t really give you much of a choice, but you are still a ‘transfer’, and until I know more about the specifics of your situation, I won’t judge).

 

To illustrate my point, I would say that it sounds ridiculous when substituting 'Canadians' with any race, religion, ethnic group, familial group, etc. when saying "local kids should be allowed to transfer, but 'x group' (i.e., x = ‘Mormons’, ‘Hindus’, ‘Asians’, ‘Australians’, ‘Whites’, ‘Blacks’, 'children with parents who've divorced', 'children of military families whose parents move often') shouldn't be allowed to because that's just soooo much different from when kids who are what I am familiar with want/need to transfer".

 

My main point of contention is that I just don't think it's fair to punish the kids due to circumstances beyond their control, which is what COULD essentially be happening in cases of non-custodial parents, wards of the state, etc. when an entire family cannot (feasibly) move, but the best interests of the kid could be served by allowing them to be eligible. I mean, it’s completely the kid’s own fault if their entire family cannot afford to move to a “better place”, right?

 

I’ve spent a semester studying abroad, and I know that when I was in high school, I wouldn’t have thought of leaving my hometown (mainly because in my adolescent mentality, I didn’t think a world existed outside of my high school), so I can’t judge a kid at that age who would up and go into such an unknown circumstance “just to play” a sport.

 

Given this, I think it’s laughable that someone would imply that exposure isn’t an issue for a kid who comes from a nation practically known for solely for hockey, so I’ll just leave it at that and not respond further since that discussion is probably pointless given each of our starting points. Since we both “should” know that AAU is the evaluation period that most college coaches give weight to, why would an extension of that season (and the extra exposure that comes with it) not be that much more valuable to a prospect? Hickory, it kind of seems like you are re-enforcing the point that I’m trying to make, so thanks.

Again, I don't think it matters if the transfers are from Canada, California, Cuba, or Clark County. A transfer is a transfer as long as it's legal.

I don't know what kind of setup Cordia has or the legal status of their Canadian transfers. I know that they have living complexes on their campus that at one time were dorms. Maybe the transfers have had their custodial status legally changed to someone in the Lotts Creek community. But for whatever reason, they are allowed to play.

Transfers have been happening in the mountains of southeast Kentucky for a long time, all the way back to Johnny Cox of state champion Hazard in 1955 who transferred from Fleming-Neon (but did sit out one year) and Shepard who played for the 1956 state champion Carr Creek team and had transferred from Kingdom Come (yes, there was a high school by that name at one time).

I hope it didn't come off as sounding like I was picking on them because they were Canadian. I don't care if they're from Qatar. My issue is that if they entire family doesn't move, then how do they come here under the letter of the bylaw and be eligible? Joker, it's not personal about the kid. Frankly, I can't blame them one bit for wanting to be exposed for all to see and evaluate them for a possible chance at a scholarship. We make it sound like they are being rescued from deplorable Canadian conditions. Maybe that's true, though I doubt that. Again, the issue remains, how are they applying for exception to the transfer rule? While the notion that they "should" be allowed is noble and perhaps not entirely misguided, they still have to meet certain standards under the membership of the KHSAA and it's bylaw to play at a school enrolled in it's membership. With that said, step back for a moment and think about the situation outlined above with kids moving from another country (or from the other side of the state for argument's sake) and living in dorms, is that not more of a college, prep school situation? While it's my opinion that we are headed to club basketball soon, and this situation would be the norm, I can't find anything in the bylaw 6 and it's exceptions that would make this move legal unless they are applying under some other method that I'm unaware of.

 

Joker, it's not a personal thing for me, but I would like to know how it's legal. And I'll say again, the bylaw is clear, if the entire family doesn't move it's not legitimate. We can feel sorry for their financial situation or something else, but the bylaw is very easy to understand in that regard.

 

BONA FIDE CHANGE IN RESIDENCE- The period of ineligibility

may be waived if there has been a bona fide change in residence by the parents and student that precedes a student’s change of schools. For purposes of this bylaw, a bonafide change of residence means the moving of the permanent residence of the entire family of the student and the student’s parents from one school district or defined school attendance area into another school district or defined school attendance area prior to a change in enrollment of the student. A student who becomes emancipated does not have a bona fide change of residence by virtue of his or her emancipation and change of residence for purposes of this bylaw.

Spindoc is right. The KHSAA bylaw rule is as clear as can be. I don't know how the Cordia transfers are eligible without their parents making the move with them. Maybe their parents don't have custody of them anymore and their custodial parents live in the Cordia community. Of course, that would take a lot of bending the rules for an end result. Manipulation might be a better term. But there have been all types of slight of hand maneuvering in the past all over the Commonwealth to get kids eligible.

I think the Professor is on to something. This almost has to be the method they have sought for waiver of the ineligibility period.

 

CHANGE OF CUSTODY- The KHSAA shall not recognize guardianship or similar arrangements made, for purposes of this bylaw. The period of ineligibility may be waived if it is shown that custody of the student has been taken from one or both parents and given to the other parent or a third person by a court of competent jurisdiction and under circumstances indicating: (1) the parent(s) are unfit or (2) the court finds that the health and welfare of the student would be better served by the change in custody.

 

Even still, difficult to prove.