I didn't say it never happened but majority of the time. I have no connection whatsoever. It just amazes me the lack of common sense sometimes.

 

You mean lack of aggreeing with your opinion? I wish kids had to go to school where they live too, but all that does is strengthen the parochials even more. If legislature is passed that also includes them, such as you must live in the parish and attend mass there, then sign me up, I'm all in.

Fair enough. It is not a matter of control yet a matter of logistics. It does not seem right that a kid, for example, through his junior year, has played for 3 different high schools. On a more personal level, if a kid feels as if he isn't getting "treated fairly", which could entail several things, what lesson is that kid learning? When life hits you and things get tough, quit and change? What happens when they have a bad day at their job? They should quit? Another point is that most kids are ok with where they play but when they are enticed to look at another school, this creates obvious issues.

So if you as an adult work for a crappy company with a jerk for a boss who didn't treat you fairly, and another job opportunity came up at a better company with a boss that wouldn't treat you like dirt, you are going to try and tell me that you wouldn't switch jobs? Let's get real here folks. People change jobs all the time for what they think are better opportunities. High school coaches change jobs all the time for more money, for better teaching positions, to work at schools with more administrative support for the sport they coach. Superintendents, Principals and teachers change jobs all the time. Nothing shackles them to one school. Nothing legally binds coaches to honor their "commitment" to their players or team beyond their one year contract. Why people think high school kids should be treated as indentured servants bound to some school for all of their high school career is beyond me. Heck, if anything, high school students should be able to transfer more freely than coaches, Superintendents, Principals and teachers get to change schools. A high school athlete pretty much has 4 short years of his life to play high school athletics, with a large majority of those athletes not going to have the opportunity to play college sports. If we really care about the kids, we should want them to be able to play where THEY want to play. And if that is for a different high school every year (which would happen very rarely even if it was permitted) so be it. But the simple fact is that those adults in favor of tighter restrictions on transfer aren't motivated by their concern of the kid transferring. The simple fact is that the restrictions on transfers have zero, nada, zilch to do what is in the best interest of the child transferring. It has nothing to do with that kid learning some life lesson. It has everything to do with adults being more interested in winning and losing. It has everything to do with school administrators wanting to protect their ADA money. It has everything to do with those not placing an emphasis on certain sports not wanting students to transfer to a school that is placing an emphasis on that sport. With two terms on the Board of Control under my belt, I've lived it; I've breathed it; I know it. Nothing makes me sicker than a coach that screams about transfers and the lack of school commitment from a kid that transfers and then the coach switches schools to take a better coaching job. When we require coaches to sit out a year from coaching if he/she wants to change schools, I'll be more supportive of the transfer rule. Until then, not a chance.Try to explain this one to me: we supposedly justify the expenditure of large sums of tax dollars on high school sports each and every year because we believe (or at least state) that athletics is a very important part of the educational process. Yet any transfer based in whole or part on athletic intent requires a 1 year of ineligibility. So the importance of athletics is not a valid reason to transfer but athletics are important enough to spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People can spin the inconsistency and lack of logic there any way they want to, but it makes no sense.

So if you as an adult work for a crappy company with a jerk for a boss who didn't treat you fairly, and another job opportunity came up at a better company with a boss that wouldn't treat you like dirt, you are going to try and tell me that you wouldn't switch jobs? Let's get real here folks. People change jobs all the time for what they think are better opportunities. High school coaches change jobs all the time for more money, for better teaching positions, to work at schools with more administrative support for the sport they coach. Superintendents, Principals and teachers change jobs all the time. Nothing shackles them to one school. Nothing legally binds coaches to honor their "commitment" to their players or team beyond their one year contract. Why people think high school kids should be treated as indentured servants bound to some school for all of their high school career is beyond me. Heck, if anything, high school students should be able to transfer more freely than coaches, Superintendents, Principals and teachers get to change schools. A high school athlete pretty much has 4 short years of his life to play high school athletics, with a large majority of those athletes not going to have the opportunity to play college sports. If we really care about the kids, we should want them to be able to play where THEY want to play. And if that is for a different high school every year (which would happen very rarely even if it was permitted) so be it. But the simple fact is that those adults in favor of tighter restrictions on transfer aren't motivated by their concern of the kid transferring. The simple fact is that the restrictions on transfers have zero, nada, zilch to do what is in the best interest of the child transferring. It has nothing to do with that kid learning some life lesson. It has everything to do with adults being more interested in winning and losing. It has everything to do with school administrators wanting to protect their ADA money. It has everything to do with those not placing an emphasis on certain sports not wanting students to transfer to a school that is placing an emphasis on that sport. With two terms on the Board of Control under my belt, I've lived it; I've breathed it; I know it. Nothing makes me sicker than a coach that screams about transfers and the lack of school commitment from a kid that transfers and then the coach switches schools to take a better coaching job. When we require coaches to sit out a year from coaching if he/she wants to change schools, I'll be more supportive of the transfer rule. Until then, not a chance.Try to explain this one to me: we supposedly justify the expenditure of large sums of tax dollars on high school sports each and every year because we believe (or at least state) that athletics is a very important part of the educational process. Yet any transfer based in whole or part on athletic intent requires a 1 year of ineligibility. So the importance of athletics is not a valid reason to transfer but athletics are important enough to spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People can spin the inconsistency and lack of logic there any way they want to, but it makes no sense.

 

Apples to oranges. Never understood why people compare kids transferring to coaches/administrators/etc to leaving. Not even close to the same. Playing high school sports is a privilege, not a right. Adults make decisions based on livelihood.

So if you as an adult work for a crappy company with a jerk for a boss who didn't treat you fairly, and another job opportunity came up at a better company with a boss that wouldn't treat you like dirt, you are going to try and tell me that you wouldn't switch jobs? Let's get real here folks. People change jobs all the time for what they think are better opportunities. High school coaches change jobs all the time for more money, for better teaching positions, to work at schools with more administrative support for the sport they coach. Superintendents, Principals and teachers change jobs all the time. Nothing shackles them to one school. Nothing legally binds coaches to honor their "commitment" to their players or team beyond their one year contract. Why people think high school kids should be treated as indentured servants bound to some school for all of their high school career is beyond me. Heck, if anything, high school students should be able to transfer more freely than coaches, Superintendents, Principals and teachers get to change schools. A high school athlete pretty much has 4 short years of his life to play high school athletics, with a large majority of those athletes not going to have the opportunity to play college sports. If we really care about the kids, we should want them to be able to play where THEY want to play. And if that is for a different high school every year (which would happen very rarely even if it was permitted) so be it. But the simple fact is that those adults in favor of tighter restrictions on transfer aren't motivated by their concern of the kid transferring. The simple fact is that the restrictions on transfers have zero, nada, zilch to do what is in the best interest of the child transferring. It has nothing to do with that kid learning some life lesson. It has everything to do with adults being more interested in winning and losing. It has everything to do with school administrators wanting to protect their ADA money. It has everything to do with those not placing an emphasis on certain sports not wanting students to transfer to a school that is placing an emphasis on that sport. With two terms on the Board of Control under my belt, I've lived it; I've breathed it; I know it. Nothing makes me sicker than a coach that screams about transfers and the lack of school commitment from a kid that transfers and then the coach switches schools to take a better coaching job. When we require coaches to sit out a year from coaching if he/she wants to change schools, I'll be more supportive of the transfer rule. Until then, not a chance.Try to explain this one to me: we supposedly justify the expenditure of large sums of tax dollars on high school sports each and every year because we believe (or at least state) that athletics is a very important part of the educational process. Yet any transfer based in whole or part on athletic intent requires a 1 year of ineligibility. So the importance of athletics is not a valid reason to transfer but athletics are important enough to spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People can spin the inconsistency and lack of logic there any way they want to, but it makes no sense.

 

Very good post. Agree with premise completely.

I have posted my opinion on this at length in other threads but here's the condensed version: Whatever they do, make it simple and easy to interpret e.g. any child may transfer up to one time per year without penalty. Or conversely, no one may transfer for any reason and play without sitting one year, etc. The thing about rules and laws is that someone must interpret and enforce whatever is written. IMO the KHSAA is woefully lacking in expertise and manpower to do either at this point. Just make whatever the rule is simple and to the point then there is no issue with interpretation or enforcement and no selective enforcement or taking advantage of loop holes.

I can empathize with your position that student athletes should not be coddled and they they need to be able to constructively accept correction and discipline. But there are also times when an athletically motivated transfer can be justified. An example would be being good enough to start on other teams, but relagated to JV because you have a superstar player in front of you.

 

What about the kid that has to sit the bench because of the kid that transferred. Now that kid has to transfer schools to get playing time. Then the kid that he took a spot from, he has to change schools.....................................Where does it stop? When that kid transfers in and takes your kids spot, are you going to be willing to pack and move so your child can have a starting spot?

In response to the posts about transferring to get a scholarship, how likely is a coach to recruit a player who transferred high schools every time something didnt go their way? Unless they are just an outstanding player (which isn't likely if they had to keep transferring), the coach is probably going to recruit the player he doesn't have to worry about packing up their stuff when they don't get their way or didn't get enough minutes.

Transferring won't make a difference one iota. Summer is where you get seen. And some kids play on multiple different teams over the course of their summers.

What school a athlete goes too won't get you looks from colleges it's how the player performs and the Coach and officals try to help promote his talents. transferring just shows you don't finish anything, and likely be viewed as someone that will leave if things don't go their way. JMO.

Transferring won't make a difference one iota. Summer is where you get seen. And some kids play on multiple different teams over the course of their summers.

 

This. Extremely common in basketball especially. Many of the top recruits play on more than one HS in their careers. They often transfer to play with AAU teammates. Chane Behanan(sp) is a local example. From Cincy to BG. Not unusual at all.

Think about what you just said. Seriously?

 

I did..and your point?

 

And yes kids should be able to transfer to any school they want without penalty.

What school a athlete goes too won't get you looks from colleges it's how the player performs and the Coach and officals try to help promote his talents. transferring just shows you don't finish anything, and likely be viewed as someone that will leave if things don't go their way. JMO.

College coaches worry about your grades, can you qualify, will they have to babysit you academically, and can you play. It doesn't matter if you to to Oak Hill or Rose Hill.

What does it really matter. Here in the mountains where I live kids transfer, parents or guardians get court injunctions, and they play without restrictions. Court injunctions have the KHSAA ina weak position when ruling on transfers. Commissioner Tackett has admitted this in newspaper interviews. At one time they had the power to penalizes the school with a fine and other means if the injunction was later overturned, but no longer have the power to do that.

So, transfer as many times as one wishes and let an injunction do the talking for you. No need to change any by-laws or rules.

There seems to be a lot more passion regarding basketball transfers than in other sports. Why?

There seems to be a lot more passion regarding basketball transfers than in other sports. Why?

 

Visibility and the greater ability for a single player to make an impact on a team.