^ that's where I went...luckily...but since I went to public grade school, I would still be ineligible.

Only under the public proposal. The private proposal would make you okay at any public school or Trinity.

Wouldn't it be easier to just make it a rule that private schools, when playing the publics, have to play all sports handcuffed? That would be a lot cheaper. Of course the private schools would have to buy their own sets of cuffs. If that doesn't get enough championship trophies in the vacant cases then we could cuff the hands behind the back. .... and if there still isn't enough titles on the gym banners we could bring out the blindfolds.

Wouldn't it be easier to just make it a rule that private schools, when playing the publics, have to play all sports handcuffed? That would be a lot cheaper. Of course the private schools would have to buy their own sets of cuffs. If that doesn't get enough championship trophies in the vacant cases then we could cuff the hands behind the back. .... and if there still isn't enough titles on the gym banners we could bring out the blindfolds.

 

I know this is meant in jest, but not helpful to the solution. I enjoy beating up on the private schools just as much as the publics.

Did anybody notice the Herald and Courier say different things about transfers/ineligiblity? The Herald says it applies to kids who have played varsity sports....maybe 8th graders who play up? Which way is it?

They still can but it gives the kid one year to get used to the new setting and establish good study habits and then a year of JV. I mean seriously how many times are Sophmores a crucial part of the Varsity squad anyway? There really is no reason for parents or a kid that is really going for educational reasons to get to upset.

Holmes High School last year? Won with 4 sophmores.

The loophole that privates should fear is an exemption rule for financial reasons. It will be a one way highway from privates to publics because they will say now they can not afford it.

I know there are extreme cases and Im OK with those BUT I think this will be abused like no other rule if it is put in

I wrote to Mr. Hall who wrote the CJ article to ask him if it went both way.

Below is his reply.

 

From: "C. Ray Hall"

Subject: RE: Does it go both ways?

 

The public side wants the penalty to apply both ways. You switch from a

public to a private high school in the 9th grade, you sit. Ditto if you

switch from a private to a public high school. No varsity till junior year.

And it isn't limited to switches involving public/private. The penalty would

apply to athletes who leave, say, one public school system for another

(without a bonafide family chance of residence). And it would apply to folks

who go to 7th and 8th grade at, say, St. Agnes and head off to high school

at Country Day (different school system).

The private side says it doesn't want anybody to have to sit, no matter

which way they go (though I'm not yet sure how definitively that notion is

going to be reflected in their proposal/counterproposal; it came up late

during yesterday's proceedings.)The private-school side it would be willing

to let its kids go to public schools and play immediately, even if kids

going the other way (from Jefferson County Public Schools, say, to St. X or

Trinity or Assumption) had to sit a while.

Regarding kids of school employees: I haven't heard this come up, so I don't

know that anybody envisions special provisions for such youngsters. If you

live in Christian County and go to a public middle school in Christian

County, and your mom works for Todd County Schools, that doesn't mean you

can go to Todd County High School and play immediately (unless there's been

some discussion I haven't heard at any of the meetings.) As things stand

today, it's all about where you spend the 7th and 8th grades. If you show up

for 9th grade at an unaffiliated high school, you're sitting (if the

public-school side gets its way). If mom dad, and your siblings could

demonstrate a bona fide move to Todd County, that would be a different

story; you could play immediately at Todd County.

One strong disclaimer here: It's all proposals so far, and by the time the

various review boards get through with the proposals, they may never become

rules.

 

So as I get it, the Public Schools want it both ways but the Catholic Schools don't want to hurt the kids in the Catholic grade school who leave to go public schools. I just hope it dosen't come back to bite the Caholic schools in the butt later......

I admire the private schools for proposing that the kids leaving Catholic schools not have to sit out, regardless of the reverse.

 

It's not all about championships to the T's & X's. It's about providing the kids with the best possible educational experience.

As I see it (and I am biased) the private schools are making a good faith effort to come to a compromise that they feel will help with the perceived problems while still allowing them to fulfill their missions. I see the private schools being willing to bear the brunt of the proposed changes in the best interests of the students. I see the public schools playing obstructionists.

 

Why?

 

1. Conspiracy Theory.

 

The public schools are pushing for the 2 year ban on all sports because they feel that it will not hold up in court to not allow a student to participate in publicly funded activities while it would in private schools because they are not publicly funded. I base this in part on the statements of Wilson Sears in the televised debate a few months ago. When Coach McKee was asked by Dr. Mullen if a period of ineligibility when changing schools systems would apply to kids going from private to public. Coach McKee said no and Mr. Sears said that they couldn't do that because legally they had to accept any student and allow them to partake of all school activities. Why the total change of heart and even the upgrading (at the time a 1 year sit out was being discussed) and why are the publics the ones that are pushing it even when it is applied to them? This leads to:

 

2. Wanting to make private schools less attractive

 

I honestly believe that Mr. Sears has as his ultimate intent hurting the private schools so that they are not as attractive an option to public schools. He grossly exaggerated the number of private schools in the state back at the start of this debate in October and plainly aid that he saw them as a threat to public schools. This becomes a huge factor if the two year ban is implemented and then ruled illegal at public schools.

^ that's where I went...luckily...but since I went to public grade school, I would still be ineligible.

 

Does the 20 mile rule mean the child has to live within 20 miles or attend a grade school within 20 miles? Big difference in Jefferson County/Oldham County/ Indiana.....?

Does the 20 mile rule mean the child has to live within 20 miles or attend a grade school within 20 miles? Big difference in Jefferson County/Oldham County/ Indiana.....?

I hate to answer my own post but I just heard from Mr. Hall, the Courier Journal reporter. There has been no definitive answer to this one. The original proposal (submitted by publics)was twenty miles from the middle schools to the high school, meaning a student could live cross town, attend a magnate middle school that's within 20 miles of Trinity and then attend Trinity without penalty! The "judge" declared "this is a new day" and all previous language in the proposals was non-binding. Everything is open for negotiation. The quickest any of this would take effect is the fall of 2007. Most likely, the stickier points would be implemented more gradually , if at all. That's one man's view of the meeting.

I would be happy with this. I believe the Louisville public schools could be happy especially since there would be no penalty to private school kids attending private grade schools and then opting to attend public high schools. That should have been the compromise the publics were looking for.

Holmes High School last year? Won with 4 sophmores.

Yeah but how many of them were from private schools in the 7th grade. That is my point. This rule really doesn't change much of the status quo.

 

 

Bottom line is that I am just glad they aren't splitting the playoffs. If the rules work both ways then what is going to end up happening( at least in Louisville) is the same stuff that goes on now, just earlier, the really young grade school stars will be identified and pushed to join a feeder school, IE Barrett, Meyzeek, Notre Dame, Ascension, whatever, of the route they are looking at for high school.

Again from Mr. Hall of CJ when asking about wether school emplyees children would be held to the same standards;

 

I doubt, given the current state of the proposals, that there would be any

special dispensation for such kids, unless the two local school boards

worked out an agreement allowing such movement. (The combatants in the

public-private debate express a strong deference to local control -

especially if the locals want to apply more stringent rules than those

contained in the proposals. If the locals want more lax rules, I'm not sure

if that would fly; the reformers might see it as athletic recruiting, which

they are trying to curb.)

 

Regardless of how the proposals are applied, I suspect there would be many

appeals from kids and parents for special consideration.

 

At yesterday's meeting, a private-school person asked, basically, what

happens if a father loses his job and the son who has gone to private school

for eight years must suddenly switch to public school for the ninth grade

because the family can no longer afford tuition? Tough luck, essentially,

was the reply from the other side: The kid sits.

(Though I should point that the fellow who said that would not be the final

authority.)

As I see it (and I am biased) the private schools are making a good faith effort to come to a compromise that they feel will help with the perceived problems while still allowing them to fulfill their missions. I see the private schools being willing to bear the brunt of the proposed changes in the best interests of the students. I see the public schools playing obstructionists.

 

Why?

 

1. Conspiracy Theory.

 

The public schools are pushing for the 2 year ban on all sports because they feel that it will not hold up in court to not allow a student to participate in publicly funded activities while it would in private schools because they are not publicly funded. I base this in part on the statements of Wilson Sears in the televised debate a few months ago. When Coach McKee was asked by Dr. Mullen if a period of ineligibility when changing schools systems would apply to kids going from private to public. Coach McKee said no and Mr. Sears said that they couldn't do that because legally they had to accept any student and allow them to partake of all school activities. Why the total change of heart and even the upgrading (at the time a 1 year sit out was being discussed) and why are the publics the ones that are pushing it even when it is applied to them? This leads to:

 

2. Wanting to make private schools less attractive

 

I honestly believe that Mr. Sears has as his ultimate intent hurting the private schools so that they are not as attractive an option to public schools. He grossly exaggerated the number of private schools in the state back at the start of this debate in October and plainly aid that he saw them as a threat to public schools. This becomes a huge factor if the two year ban is implemented and then ruled illegal at public schools.

 

Absolute agreement. Mr. Sears has trumped up supposed, unproven, unsubstanciated issues and turned them for his own purposes. The fact that he is so willing to hurt the youth of our state is troubling.

 

'Banning', 'sitting out', 'forcing' are words and actions that don't seem to bother Mr. Wilson and his followers. They really don't care if if applies to public or private schools. But to those of us that have been responsible for youth sports and enhancing opportunity for all of Kentucky's youth to engage and play in sports this whole approach is purely alien and repulsive. Mr. Wilson and his followers are not advocates for Kentucky's youth.

What Mr. Hall wrote, tells me a lot about what some/many of the Public Schools want!!!

 

What a shame.......I think it is time for the KHSAA to change it's mission statement.....