My reply with quote button is not working, so:History, if you are stating that any player can transfer freely without penalty even if the player does not comply with one of the transfer rule exceptions, you misinterpreted my post badly. I'll boil down my post so it is clear for you and everyone else:A. the public does not and cannot know all the facts due to privacy laws. The KHSAA doesn't write the privacy laws or necessary have to agree with them. But they have to comply with them. Do you think your analogizing a kid's eligibility decision with a decision to go to war is proof that some folks get too wrapped up over high school sports? World of difference between the two in my opinion.B. there used to be a strong bias against transfers, even when there was solid evidence that the transfer complied with one of the exceptions. In my opinion, the BOC was often wrong to ignore that evidence. C. currently, there is I believe a philosophy at the KHSAA that, if there is evidence that a transfer complies with one of the exceptions and the KHSAA does not determine that the evidence presented by the transfer (which satisfied the exception) was false or that there was athletic intent, the kid will get to play.The KHSAA still does an investigation. They are not turning a blind eye to recruiting, false information, etc.Coaches that recruit, as you encourage them to do, better do it very carefully or they and their school will be, and should be, penalized. Severely.Stinkboy, you are correct about each BOC member having one vote. My observations were not in hindsight. I regularly voted for a kid to be eligible and was outvoted. I'm a lawyer. Trained to ascertain facts and apply the law. The KHSAA's hearing officers are lawyers, likewise trained to ascertain the facts and apply the law. The BOC all too frequently paid no attention to either my assessment, or much more importantly, their own hearing officer's assessment. They did so in my opinion because they had an unfair bias against transfers being eligible. Under the current procedure, the KHSAA administration follows the recommendation of their paid hearing officers much more frequently (as they should in my opinion). For those that either don't know or have forgotten, the BOC used to have the final say or vote on eligibility matters. They no longer do and are removed from the eligibility process. The KHSAA administration now has the final say. It is a much fairer system now.

 

Let's ask a more pointed question...while you were on the BOC...can you say how many transfers came up before the board in a given year, and how many were denied? Numerically or percentage wise.

 

How do you believe this has changed since your departure from the board?

 

My take is that I cannot think of one case lately in Northern Kentucky where a transfer has been denied, and certainly one school in Covington has had many folks transfer both in and out. Same school has an AD that is on the BOC and was when you were on it too. Just wondering if this could play a part in the decisions?? Call me cynical and certainly not one with the hands on, in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the KHSAA, but everyone sees something has changed over the past few years. If transfers are not going to be challenged, or relatively easily allowed because of any number of reasons, including good attorney work by the transfer students family, then why not just allow transfers to occur for any student at any time? Wouldn't this still allow the bellyaching, but without blame towards the KHSAA?

Let's ask a more pointed question...while you were on the BOC...can you say how many transfers came up before the board in a given year, and how many were denied? Numerically or percentage wise.

 

How do you believe this has changed since your departure from the board?

 

My take is that I cannot think of one case lately in Northern Kentucky where a transfer has been denied, and certainly one school in Covington has had many folks transfer both in and out. Same school has an AD that is on the BOC and was when you were on it too. Just wondering if this could play a part in the decisions?? Call me cynical and certainly not one with the hands on, in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the KHSAA, but everyone sees something has changed over the past few years. If transfers are not going to be challenged, or relatively easily allowed because of any number of reasons, including good attorney work by the transfer students family, then why not just allow transfers to occur for any student at any time? Wouldn't this still allow the bellyaching, but without blame towards the KHSAA?

 

I'm not going to go as far as to say transfers are not challenged or are relatively easily allowed. At least that wasn't my observation when I was on the BOC even after the change in process or the change in philosophy from when there was a bias against transfers. It was my observation that the KHSAA still carefully investigated all transfers; it just didn't have a pronounced bias against transfers. But I've been off the BOC for about 2 years now. So I can't say with certainty what the mentality is today. However, based upon what I know of the administrators involved in the eligibility process (primarily Bilberry, Collins and Tackett) I would be very surprised if any shenanigans were going on, or any favoritism was being shown to Holmes because Steidl is on the BOC. I honestly would be very surprised. Steidl and I rarely, and I mean rarely, saw eye to eye on anything and I'd say it's safe to say neither one of us is in the other's fan club, so I have no reason to cut him any slack. If I had evidence that he was influencing the administrators decisions, I'd cry it from on high.

 

I don't have the percentages or numbers of when I was on the BOC. They are out there somewhere I believe, but I don't know them. I think it would be safe to say that the percentage of transfers being declared eligible have increased since we changed the process and eliminated the BOC from voting on eligibility determinations. Personally, I think that is a good thing for the reasons I've stated in prior posts about BOC bias.

 

I've always been in favor of eliminating the rule. If a kid is enrolled at a school on the first day of the school year, that's where he or she gets to play that year. I acknowledge that some parents/kids would abuse the rule. But I've never been one to penalize the 90% to catch the 10%.

I'm not going to go as far as to say transfers are not challenged or are relatively easily allowed. At least that wasn't my observation when I was on the BOC even after the change in process or the change in philosophy from when there was a bias against transfers. It was my observation that the KHSAA still carefully investigated all transfers; it just didn't have a pronounced bias against transfers. But I've been off the BOC for about 2 years now. So I can't say with certainty what the mentality is today. However, based upon what I know of the administrators involved in the eligibility process (primarily Bilberry, Collins and Tackett) I would be very surprised if any shenanigans were going on, or any favoritism was being shown to Holmes because Steidl is on the BOC. I honestly would be very surprised. Steidl and I rarely, and I mean rarely, saw eye to eye on anything and I'd say it's safe to say neither one of us is in the other's fan club, so I have no reason to cut him any slack. If I had evidence that he was influencing the administrators decisions, I'd cry it from on high.

 

I don't have the percentages or numbers of when I was on the BOC. They are out there somewhere I believe, but I don't know them. I think it would be safe to say that the percentage of transfers being declared eligible have increased since we changed the process and eliminated the BOC from voting on eligibility determinations. Personally, I think that is a good thing for the reasons I've stated in prior posts about BOC bias.

 

I've always been in favor of eliminating the rule. If a kid is enrolled at a school on the first day of the school year, that's where he or she gets to play that year. I acknowledge that some parents/kids would abuse the rule. But I've never been one to penalize the 90% to catch the 10%.

 

 

Great line right here.