Could it be that recruiting is not as widespread as some would have us believe. I mean, perish the thought, but the KHSAA may be doing just fine in policing the member schools...but there's nothing of substance to the allegations!

I absolutely agree with ths and my impression was that many on the BOE felt the same way.

I absolutely agree with ths and my impression was that many on the BOE felt the same way.

 

I think their impression was punish those recruiting, not the kids.

In my previous post, hearing officer = investigator(sorry I was not very clear). That was my point is that they have bylaws in place and their own hearing officer states that the rules were followed, yet the Board of Control still doesn't follow their own rules

 

 

Understood, but I guess my point was it is their zealousness to prohibit transfers that causes them not to follow the hearing officers recommendations and their own rules. Some people on here believe the KHSAA does not do enough to enforce the recruiting rules and prevent illegal transfers and that's just not accurate.

I, for one, do not think recruiting by coaches is the issue.

Someone mentioned it above and I agree:

 

The discussion that I heard today (I had to bail when the first lady whose son went to Sayre was speaking) is different than what I have read on here and what many coaches are saying.

 

Today's discussion centered on recruiting. Yes, there are some coaches/schools who feel that recruiting is taking place. However, IMO the coaches who are for the 'districts' are for it mainly to "even the playing field". You hear many say that a private school has a much larger boundary (or no boundary at all) than a public school does. It really has nothing (or not very much) to do with recruiting.

Someone mentioned it above and I agree:

 

The discussion that I heard today (I had to bail when the first lady whose son went to Sayre was speaking) is different than what I have read on here and what many coaches are saying.

 

Today's discussion centered on recruiting. Yes, there are some coaches/schools who feel that recruiting is taking place. However, IMO the coaches who are for the 'districts' are for it mainly to "even the playing field". You hear many say that a private school has a much larger boundary (or no boundary at all) than a public school does. It really has nothing (or not very much) to do with recruiting.

:thumb:

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree.

 

What I heard (and I was not able to listen as closely as I would have liked, darned job) seemed to be centered squarely on the perception of recruiting (particularly when talking about middle school students changing teams) and on what to do about it. More then one time I heard the sentiment expressed that more punishment (and that term was used over and over) should be aimed at coaches rather then students. I couldn't agree more.

 

I loved the mother (and attorney) whose son is currently attending Sayer but want to go to and play at Henry Clay calling all of this a lawyers retirement plan. With the 6th circuit ruling that sanctions against Brentwood in Tennessee are unconstitutional and that it is not the function of state athletic associations to insure a level playing field between schools I can see anything that may be done being tied up in courts for years and costing millions of dollars.

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree.

 

What I heard (and I was not able to listen as closely as I would have liked, darned job) seemed to be centered squarely on the perception of recruiting (particularly when talking about middle school students changing teams) and on what to do about it. More then one time I heard the sentiment expressed that more punishment (and that term was used over and over) should be aimed at coaches rather then students. I couldn't agree more.

 

.

 

Who/What are you disagreeing with?

I think this is going to end up, at some point in the distant future, as a Bylaw 10 revision and not a "high school championships," "feeder school," or "years of ineligibility" revision.

 

I have been intimately involved with several cases at the KHSAA level and two subsequent court cases with the KHSAA, and can state, unreservedly, that recruiting occurs, with both public and private schools. However, the investigative end of the KHSAA is reprehensibly poor. It is entirely (and sometimes viciously) driven by politics, and too often places decision-making authority arbitrarily in the hands of one or a handful of people. All too often there is little or no effort made at fact-finding.

 

Bylaw 10 can be overhauled, and the policing of recruiting can be better. We know that, because the NCAA does a good job at it. Some examples of investigative revisions are 1) earmark some money for some full-time investigators. Some of you will be surprised to note that there are none. 2) Change the burden of proof. If a prima facie case is made out of recruiting, there can be a burden-shifting to the parents and/or school to provide adequate evidence of reasonableness. This will urge private schools, for example, who are not subject to open records, to voluntarily disclose some private files. 3) KHSAA administrative hearings do not currently have subpoena power. Give it to them. Subpeonas are amazing things.

 

Some of you may find this a little invasive. If so, consider the alternative. We can either turn up the heat on these "no evidence" problems at the fact-finding level, or we can let the legislature or courts rule us. Which would you prefer?

I think this is going to end up, at some point in the distant future, as a Bylaw 10 revision and not a "high school championships," "feeder school," or "years of ineligibility" revision.

 

I have been intimately involved with several cases at the KHSAA level and two subsequent court cases with the KHSAA, and can state, unreservedly, that recruiting occurs, with both public and private schools. However, the investigative end of the KHSAA is reprehensibly poor. It is entirely (and sometimes viciously) driven by politics, and too often places decision-making authority arbitrarily in the hands of one or a handful of people. All too often there is little or no effort made at fact-finding.

 

Bylaw 10 can be overhauled, and the policing of recruiting can be better. We know that, because the NCAA does a good job at it. Some examples of investigative revisions are 1) earmark some money for some full-time investigators. Some of you will be surprised to note that there are none. 2) Change the burden of proof. If a prima facie case is made out of recruiting, there can be a burden-shifting to the parents and/or school to provide adequate evidence of reasonableness. This will urge private schools, for example, who are not subject to open records, to voluntarily disclose some private files. 3) KHSAA administrative hearings do not currently have subpoena power. Give it to them. Subpeonas are amazing things.

 

Some of you may find this a little invasive. If so, consider the alternative. We can either turn up the heat on these "no evidence" problems at the fact-finding level, or we can let the legislature or courts rule us. Which would you prefer?

 

I do not find it invasive at all and I am of the mindset that if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

. 2) Change the burden of proof. If a prima facie case is made out of recruiting, there can be a burden-shifting to the parents and/or school to provide adequate evidence of reasonableness. This will urge private schools, for example, who are not subject to open records, to voluntarily disclose some private files.

 

Can you shed some light on what you mean by the above - especially the "burden shifting to the parents....".

To answer you question to me, I disagree that this hearing today dd not have the perception of recruiting as a primary focus.

 

To answer the other question if I may be so bold, I think what Hearsay is suggesting that once reasonable and compelling evidence of illegal recruiting has been produced the burden to prove that it didn't occur shifts to the parents an/or school. If I am interpreting this incorrectly I apologize.

 

Lastly politics needs to be taken out of the equation. I remember several years ago a complaint of illegal recruiting was brought against the PRP Boys Basketball team complete with letters on PRP stationary to prospective students from a coach. After an exhaustive? investigation a finding of no wrong doing was handed down. The principal at PRP at the time was on the BOC and he carried quite a bit of power. While he maintains that he exclueded himself from all discussions there was still an impression in my mind anyway that he did indeed influence the decision. There needs to be a separate and totally independent panel that investigates and rules on these types of issues with NO oversight by the BOC. Appeals would go directly to the courts.

That is the problem TA, merit based aid is NOT all based on test scores. I have found many "scholarships" based many non-academic criteria(community service, discretion of the donor, given by local business who have their own criteria, etc.)

Have you read proposal 1? All merit based awards must be based on measurable criteria. It even lists the acceptable tests. Also, the types of awards you are descibing are usually awarded in the name of some family member. The are mostly in the range of a couple of hundred dollars. I have no problem with restricting athletes from those types of awards.

Have you read proposal 1? All merit based awards must be based on measurable criteria. It even lists the acceptable tests. Also, the types of awards you are descibing are usually awarded in the name of some family member. The are mostly in the range of a couple of hundred dollars. I have no problem with restricting athletes from those types of awards.

 

The types of awards I am describing are in the $1000+ dollar range in some cases. You are the first non-public school supporter I have spoken to that would restrict athletes from receiving those type of awards. I would not restrict them from receiving these types of awards(some people might), but I think a little more transparency on what the criteria for receipt of one of these awards is. Proposal 1 lists acceptable tests. I would even go further and say as long as it is majority academic based then I am fine with it. Many of these scholarships are not though and that is where things get a little grey. Again, this is not a major sticking point in the discussion as was stated by both parties today as I think it should not be. Seems the focus is around recruitment and geographic area which students can be drawn from. Both sides are still miles apart on each issue.

To answer you question to me, I disagree that this hearing today dd not have the perception of recruiting as a primary focus.

 

.

 

I don't think that the majority of schools in the state are more concerned about recruiting than they are about the private schools having a bigger boundary. The bigger boundary issue touches more public schools than the issue of recruiting does.