To make the implication that we can have a system that is fair to all kids is unrealistic and tends to be throwing gas on the fire.

 

The system in place now is unfair to a set of kids. The public compromise would be unfair to a set of kids. The private compromise would be unfair to a set of kids.

Please tell me what is unfair about each of the three proposals (status quo, public proposal, private proposal). That should make an interesting discussion.

That's what I contend is the ulterior motive behind the public school compromise proposals being so much more harsh and iron clad then the one sthe privates have submitted.

 

I really believe that some of the public school proponents (Wilson Sears at number 1) feel that some of the stipulations they are proposing will ultimately be rules illegal for the public schools to enforce and will be thrown out for the public schools.

 

If not then why has Sears made such a tremendous turn from his stance on the issue of ineligibility since the infamous TV debate?

I would contend that people are tired of rules set up that allow so much wiggle room that schools on every side find ways around them. If I was in charge, I would want to set the rules as iron clad as possible so that the wiggle room that some schools (both sides) seem to always find is as minimal as possible.

 

I would rather it be tight on both sides then us having to revisit this issue in 2-3 years because there was too many loopholes.

 

BTW, I think the rules should apply for the publics as well as the privates.

To make the implication that we can have a system that is fair to all kids is unrealistic and tends to be throwing gas on the fire.

 

The system in place now is unfair to a set of kids. The public compromise would be unfair to a set of kids. The private compromise would be unfair to a set of kids.

 

Then which would have the least negative impact on students in Kentucky.

 

I believe it would be the one put forth by the private schools.

Would you have a problem if the coaches of that public school decided to cut that player because they did not want to spend time developing the player they know will not be in their HS system while another kid who might have been was cut?

That issue has been adressed and ageed to by both sides. Kids playing up and moving to a different system for high school would be subject to the sanctions. I think that is a good idea.

Then which would have the least negative impact on students in Kentucky.

 

I believe it would be the one put forth by the private schools.

GREAT QUESTION.

 

And I am glad I am not going to have to be the one in court defending it.

I would contend that people are tired of rules set up that allow so much wiggle room that schools on every side find ways around them. If I was in charge, I would want to set the rules as iron clad as possible so that the wiggle room that some schools (both sides) seem to always find is as minimal as possible.

 

I would rather it be tight on both sides then us having to revisit this issue in 2-3 years because there was too many loopholes.

 

BTW, I think the rules should apply for the publics as well as the privates.

You and I disagree on the motives.

 

I still contend that the main reason behind Sears stance is an attempt to hurt private schools and I think he has demostreated this by his comments and outrageous claims.

GREAT QUESTION.

 

And I am glad I am not going to have to be the one in court defending it.

What do you think?

 

You have said how you feel that the situation as of now is unfair.

 

You have also said that you don't know what the best answer is.

 

What would you do if you had the power?

 

Instead of seeing questions what would you do to answer the questions?

Please tell me what is unfair about each of the three proposals (status quo, public proposal, private proposal). That should make an interesting discussion.

I think the status quo debate has been done once or twice before on here.

 

Not sure on the other two. I have not really made up my mind where I stand on the issue. But I am also realisitically enough to not believe that things change and someone somewhere won't be negatively affected by it.

 

I am having a problem seeing the negatives in the private's proposal. Also, not seeing a huge problem in the public's, if there is a appeal process.

That issue has been adressed and ageed to by both sides. Kids playing up and moving to a different system for high school would be subject to the sanctions. I think that is a good idea.

 

I think that eliminates a whole lot of problems BUT I still maintain that it is not a problem if students are not allowed to play up at all. I know Indiana does not let middle schools students play jhigh school sports at any level, what do other surrounding state do?

I think the status quo debate has been done once or twice before on here.

 

Not sure on the other two. I have not really made up my mind where I stand on the issue. But I am also realisitically enough to not believe that things change and someone somewhere won't be negatively affected by it.

 

I am having a problem seeing the negatives in the private's proposal. Also, not seeing a huge problem in the public's, if there is a appeal process.

Way to be very non-commital.

You and I disagree on the motives.

 

I still contend that the main reason behind Sears stance is an attempt to hurt private schools and I think he has demostreated this by his comments and outrageous claims.

I cannot speak for Sears. But I know hundreds of coaches and AD's that support this movement and can speak of the discussions that we have had on the matter. And that is NOT their motive.

 

The statement I hear more than any other statement from coaches is "I just want to compete evenly with them."

 

The truth or fiction in that statement has been debated before and does not need to be revisited. I just submit it because it is what I hear and have heard for the past 5 years.

Way to be very non-commital.

Not being non-commital. I have not had a chance to study and think of the proposals. I try to not rush to a judgement if possible.

That issue has been adressed and ageed to by both sides. Kids playing up and moving to a different system for high school would be subject to the sanctions. I think that is a good idea.

I am not talking about kids playing up. In my part of the world, MS girls basketball is played in the fall and in several schools, the MS coach is the HS varsity coach. Why would a HS varsity coach put 3 years, 6th, 7th and 8th grade, into a player, if they know for a FACT that that player will not be on their HS team. When they could have kept another kid and given that kid an opportunity to play and possibly grow as a player.

 

One of the two kids is getting cut or no playing time. ONE of the two kids is going to suffer.

What do you think?

 

You have said how you feel that the situation as of now is unfair.

 

You have also said that you don't know what the best answer is.

 

What would you do if you had the power?

 

Instead of seeing questions what would you do to answer the questions?

Must be the other thread going at the same time where I posted some questions that would help me answer your questions.

 

Too many threads on the same subject. I am getting confused.

I think the status quo debate has been done once or twice before on here.

 

Not sure on the other two. I have not really made up my mind where I stand on the issue. But I am also realisitically enough to not believe that things change and someone somewhere won't be negatively affected by it.

 

I am having a problem seeing the negatives in the private's proposal. Also, not seeing a huge problem in the public's, if there is a appeal process.

Quite honestly, I don't think that the status quo is at all unfair, at least between public and private. I think there is a lot of unfairness based on size, but that is a different issue.