It works this way in Ohio.

All the more reason we should do it differently.

I look at it this way...every head coach wants to win. Therefore will play the girls that give them the best chance to do that. If she's a middle school kid or a senior it should not matter.

All the more reason we should do it differently.

I look at it this way...every head coach wants to win. Therefore will play the girls that give them the best chance to do that. If she's a middle school kid or a senior it should not matter.

 

So lets look at it this way, do we have High Schools that grade their coaches on wins and losses? Meaning if they lose over time, would they be let go? If we say yes, how can we say you can't use every kid in your district to put the best team on the field? OR you lose your job!

Most coaches get canned for not getting the best out of what they got, not wins and losses. Wins and losses are a by-product of them actually being able to, you know, coach.

Most coaches get canned for not getting the best out of what they got, not wins and losses. Wins and losses are a by-product of them actually being able to, you know, coach.

 

I know...and HHS would never fire for wins and losses...IMO. But some schools do. Just curious the opinion of those.

High school sports is an extracurricular activity. No kid should get cut so a junior high kid can play against better competition. That example has absolutely nothing to do with the "high school experience" and more to do with it being a minor league stop on their way to college ball. Let them play up in AAU against better competition.

 

"Amen" to this. This is the point I was trying to make, but I was not as succinct.

 

Throughout this entire thread, there have been so many hypotheticals, it makes my head spin. If we eliminated the "should we or shouldn't we", it goes away.

 

High school athletics (for that matter, all extracurriculars), should be about the students who actually attend the school. Period.

All the more reason we should do it differently.

I look at it this way...every head coach wants to win. Therefore will play the girls that give them the best chance to do that. If she's a middle school kid or a senior it should not matter.

 

good points on both!!! Life is a competition, so are sports, it's a privilege to play high school sports, not a right of age, if you earn it you get it!!

"Amen" to this. This is the point I was trying to make, but I was not as succinct.

 

Throughout this entire thread, there have been so many hypotheticals, it makes my head spin. If we eliminated the "should we or shouldn't we", it goes away.

 

High school athletics (for that matter, all extracurriculars), should be about the students who actually attend the school. Period.

 

I agree with the multiple hyptheticals, but it's the reality of the issue. I agree that if you make the rule to ONLY HS kids, it all goes away. But should it all go away. All of them are real life and most likely the reason KY rules the way they do. The guys making the rules didn't just flip a coin. I'm sure looking statewide, there is a reason they let middle school kids play up. I can tell you at Highlands (until this year), without MS kids there is a chance we could not have even had a softball program. And we just won the region last year and have multiple kids looking to get money to go to college. Eliminate the MS kids from playing up and all that goes away. I know that's may be a little different than bball, but when you look at the issue holistically, that's what you're up against. And we are not a tiny school. But I bet some bball programs across the state are in the same situation as our softball program.

Sorry another softball analogy, because it just happened to us. But would apply to any sport.

 

We had a 7th grader starting at 2nd base all year last year. Very good player and you would not find one person in Ft Thomas that felt she should not be starting. If we were not allowed to play her, our team would not be as good as we would have been. There is NO ONE that would have been as successful as her at 2nd. Did we have girls that we could have put there...sure.

 

So with that said, we won the region. The 7th grader made multiple plays and actually hit the game winning double off the fence late in the game to go up by two. We won the regional finals 8-7. So without her in the lineup all year and at the end, we are not as successful as a team. I have two senior last year that sunk their heart and soul into the program. Their goal was to win the region before they left. The rest of the teams goal was also to win the region for them and themselves. You could make a strong argument that we don't reach that goal for them without that 7th grader in the lineup. So who do you think those seniors and the rest of the team would have wanted at 2nd base in the final game? Does that goal and dream happen if MS kids were not allowed to play up?

 

My argument is not to let just anyone play up. My argument is if the kid is good enough, physically and mentally can handle it and is approved by the coach, the administration and their parents...then they should be allowed.

I'm sure looking statewide, there is a reason they let middle school kids play up. I can tell you at Highlands (until this year), without MS kids there is a chance we could not have even had a softball program. And we just won the region last year and have multiple kids looking to get money to go to college. Eliminate the MS kids from playing up and all that goes away.

 

You are making two separate arguments and trying to make them related.

 

1. Money for softball is found through the club route so don't use that as an argument that they should play high school ball and depriving them.

2. If HHS doesn't have enough kids, bring them up, as long as it is not at the expense of a HS kid. Easy solution.

 

Curious to see poll broken out between how vested interest folks like RCC9 vote and the others vote.

You are making two separate arguments and trying to make them related.

 

1. Money for softball is found through the club route so don't use that as an argument that they should play high school ball and depriving them.

2. If HHS doesn't have enough kids, bring them up, as long as it is not at the expense of a HS kid. Easy solution.

 

Curious to see poll broken out between how vested interest folks like RCC9 vote and the others vote.

 

Not following you here.

You mentioned multiple kids looking to get money to go to college. I assumed you meant scholarships through softball.

You are making two separate arguments and trying to make them related.

 

1. Money for softball is found through the club route so don't use that as an argument that they should play high school ball and depriving them.

2. If HHS doesn't have enough kids, bring them up, as long as it is not at the expense of a HS kid. Easy solution.

 

Curious to see poll broken out between how vested interest folks like RCC9 vote and the others vote.

 

But if we blanket a rule of no MS, I don't have that option.

You mentioned multiple kids looking to get money to go to college. I assumed you meant scholarships through softball.

 

I do. And I'm not saying they got it from school ball. But there is a high level of interest for those to play school ball...using those kids as an example and it may not happen if I didn't have MS kids. I will give you the perfect example. My daughter is most likely going to go to college for softball. Possibly D1...She never played fastpitch softball in her life until someone asked her (as a 6th grader) to play for the high school team. So tell me where that doesn't sync up with what I'm talking about?

 

Secondly, where do you think money for bball comes from? Travel teams...not HS teams.

You are making two separate arguments and trying to make them related.

 

1. Money for softball is found through the club route so don't use that as an argument that they should play high school ball and depriving them.

2. If HHS doesn't have enough kids, bring them up, as long as it is not at the expense of a HS kid. Easy solution.

 

Curious to see poll broken out between how vested interest folks like RCC9 vote and the others vote.

 

As a coach or a parent?

Let me throw a wrinkle at you guys on this topic. If an 8th grader plays up on the varsity team, should that player be able to go to a different HS the next year and not forfeit a year of eligibility?

 

In this case the 8th grader took the position of some other HS player and the varsity experience that would've been gained only to have the 8th grader go to another HS the following year. Is that fair?