article KHSAA Sanctions Graves County Boys' Basketball for Bylaw 16 Violations

[WKY]

It isn't supposed to but In the case of hoptown, when a kid gets ruled ineligible by the khsaa when they transfer in hoptown has a lawyer in standby who sends a letter threatening to sue the khsaa and the khsaa then reverses. It's happened multiple times in the last few years.

 

You might think, "it can't be that simple". But it is.

 

I know this all too well but I hoped it wasn't the case in this situation. This is just sickening. Things like this make it hard to stand behind the KHSAA on any infractions handed down. Call their bluff and stand up for the other 200+ schools in the KHSAA. This is not right!

[Greenvilleky]

The KHSAA backs down when threatened. But most of the time when they back down from these situations it's not when somebody has accused the player or school in question of doing anything wrong. The Ledonald Gray situation is a good one. University Heights didn't challenge or complain to the khsaa about Gray's eligibility. But he was originally ruled ineligible by the khsaa as he should have. He didn't have a legitimate reason for the transfer. They appealed it and a lawyer went to the hearing and threatened them. They reversed. I suspect this happens often when there aren't legitimate moves but the school that the kid transfers from doesn't challenge the eligibility.

 

Again, in cases like cordia and graves county and others when schools are accused of cheating, and there is a mountain of evidence the khsaa comes down hard. But in eligibility cases we often see the khsaa back down when threatened.

[THUNDERBIRDS]

If a lawyer threatening to sue alters how the KHSAA enforces a rule, then the rule can't ever be enforced. That is my point about the recruitment bylaw. It is fraught with ambiguity. But when you tell me that a kid coming to an open gym without the "express consent" of his school is the basis for a KHSAA sanction, then I tell you that a lot of schools in northern Kentucky are in noncompliance. Those are the only facts that I could deduce from the article, and I have not seen the KHSAA opinion. I would have thought that if the coach taking him on a tour of the school was the fact that tipped the balance, and resulted in the finding that there had been a recruitment, that would have been mentioned in the article. Not that that even matters though. My question remains: is it a "recruitment" if the kid has another reason that he transferred for, and is it a "recruitment" if he transfers because, for example, his parent or a family friend is a teacher at the new school. I think the rule is too vague to be enforced, and unless the kid and the school both admitted that it was a recruitment for sports purposes, then I think that both of them have a legal argument that the KHSAA is selectively enforcing the rule against them.

 

Seriously? This actually goes on? Care to name a few? Not just basketball I'm sure. It probably goes one with multiple sports across the board.

[Pete Mitchell]

I have argued before the KHSAA before and won, and it had nothing to do with "threats". I won because the facts and circumstances warranted the transfer, and it was not in violation of the bylaws. I do not know the particulars of the cases you referred to. In general, however, I would say that the KHSAA ruling on whether a transfer is compliant or noncompliant has more to do with the problems in the way the bylaw is written than with "threats" levied by lawyers. The KHSAA has lawyers too, after all.

[jessepinkman]

The kid from Hickman was ruled eligible but Graves is on probation for recruiting?! 8th graders transfer to different districts all the time and the KHSAA ignores it. Why don't they crack down on all the 8th grade football players that transfer to Mayfield?

 

 

Trust me, Graves Co. does not have to "recruit" anyone from Hickman Co. The kid wanted to go there.

[RCC9]

I have argued before the KHSAA before and won, and it had nothing to do with "threats". I won because the facts and circumstances warranted the transfer, and it was not in violation of the bylaws. I do not know the particulars of the cases you referred to. In general, however, I would say that the KHSAA ruling on whether a transfer is compliant or noncompliant has more to do with the problems in the way the bylaw is written than with "threats" levied by lawyers. The KHSAA has lawyers too, after all.

 

I don't think "transfers" are the issue here. I think it's about "how" not "what". If a coach speaks to a kid about their program prior to a kid being enrolled at that school, there is a possible violation. In this case, it sounds like the kid went to the summer practices and was hosted by the coach on a tour of the facility. That is a violation. How serious...I have no idea without details. But rule of thumb, no coach should be involved AT ALL with a transfer until that kid is enrolled in their system or has been given the approval by their administration. Anything else is a violation.

[silo11]

That is why I said I understand her being eligible her sophomore season at University Heights. I also could understand her being eligible if she chose to go back to Christian County. The fact that she lives in Christian County's district and chose to transfer to Hopkinsville as a junior should make her ineligible but apparently if you threaten to sue that doesn't matter. Nice job KHSAA! Way to display the integrity that you expect from everyone else! You're giving me a great teaching tool for my daughter. When you don't get your way, threaten with a lawsuit!

 

The problem with this is that the registered address in the school system for this student is in fact in Hopkinsville High School district.

[Greenvilleky]

I don't think "transfers" are the issue here. I think it's about "how" not "what". If a coach speaks to a kid about their program prior to a kid being enrolled at that school, there is a possible violation. In this case, it sounds like the kid went to the summer practices and was hosted by the coach on a tour of the facility. That is a violation. How serious...I have no idea without details. But rule of thumb, no coach should be involved AT ALL with a transfer until that kid is enrolled in their system or has been given the approval by their administration. Anything else is a violation.

 

Exactly. Nailed it.

[Pete Mitchell]

Exactly. Nailed it.

 

Hunh? Nailed it? Tell me, what exactly does "involved with" even mean, and where did that language come from? A couple of examples: Is a brief conversation between a high school coach and a 7th grade student after an AAU basketball game, where the coach says "I like the way you play" an act of "recruiting" in your world? By comparison, if a high school coach says on BGP that the same kid is "a nice player, I like the way she plays" knowing she and her parents read BGP, hasn't he done the same thing? Is that what "involved with" means? I think the Graves County decision, where a recruiting violation is found to have occurred because a coach let an eighth grader play in an open gym without the "express consent" of his coach creates an unenforceable standard, but we shall see.

[Toothpick]

:clap:

 

This culture must change out there!

[WKY]

The problem with this is that the registered address in the school system for this student is in fact in Hopkinsville High School district.

 

She must have moved in the last week because when the ruling was reversed she was still living in Christian County's district. That was the grounds for her being ruled ineligible to begin with.

[Greenvilleky]

Hunh? Nailed it? Tell me, what exactly does "involved with" even mean, and where did that language come from? A couple of examples: Is a brief conversation between a high school coach and a 7th grade student after an AAU basketball game, where the coach says "I like the way you play" an act of "recruiting" in your world? By comparison, if a high school coach says on BGP that the same kid is "a nice player, I like the way she plays" knowing she and her parents read BGP, hasn't he done the same thing? Is that what "involved with" means? I think the Graves County decision, where a recruiting violation is found to have occurred because a coach let an eighth grader play in an open gym without the "express consent" of his coach creates an unenforceable standard, but we shall see.

 

The coach gave the kid a tour of the school and contacted the family via text and call. It's a clear violation. That's what the post I responded to said. It was about "what happened". There is no debate on this. They clearly violated the rule.

[RCC9]

Hunh? Nailed it? Tell me, what exactly does "involved with" even mean, and where did that language come from? A couple of examples: Is a brief conversation between a high school coach and a 7th grade student after an AAU basketball game, where the coach says "I like the way you play" an act of "recruiting" in your world? By comparison, if a high school coach says on BGP that the same kid is "a nice player, I like the way she plays" knowing she and her parents read BGP, hasn't he done the same thing? Is that what "involved with" means? I think the Graves County decision, where a recruiting violation is found to have occurred because a coach let an eighth grader play in an open gym without the "express consent" of his coach creates an unenforceable standard, but we shall see.

 

Wow! Really? You can add all kinds of hypotheticals you want. In your world then, shaking hands and telling the other team good game after a game would be recruiting too. If a kid is asked to play or workout with another school that they are not enrolled in, that's a violation. Telling a kid "good game" in any situation is not. You are really reaching here.

 

A coach or anyone associated with the program can not talk to a kid about their program until they are enrolled. Period! Telling someone they like the way they play or good game is MUCH different than asking a kid to workout with them, check out our facilities or have ANY influence in getting a kid to transfer. Your examples do not show any influence in getting a kid to transfer. If it did, we would not be allowed to tell the opposing team "good game" after any competition.

 

You seem to be reaching and I think I know why.

 

It's pretty simple. As a coach, You should not talk about anything related to your program with any kid that is not enrolled in your school. I know, you're gonna come back and say that happens all over the place. And I will tell you that if the KHSAA has gone as far as this, they have the evidence and there was probably much more going on than what was even exposed. Because, like others say, it's not easy to get proof and they don't sanction schools without proof. If you say ANYTHING that can be construed as selling your program or influencing a kid to come, it's a violation. We can debate every unique scenario you want, but at the end of the day, I would use the rule of thumb stated in the other post. When you're gulity, you can always try to find scenarios to compare it to. But if you're guilty, you're guilty.

 

Question, why are you so interested in defending this thread?

[Pete Mitchell]

Everyone please go read the official release from the KHSAA. Graves county was sanctioned for allowing kids from another school to play in an open gym without obtaining express consent from the kids school. There is no reference to that finding being based upon a tour or discussion of the facilities. The mere fact that a student from another school participated in an open gym led to the sanctions, per the KHSAA official release. And it is my position that, if that leads to sanctions, if that degree of contact meets the definition of "being involved" with the student and is a "recruiting" violation, then there are thousands of violations across the state.

 

It is encouraging that we at least agree that coaches can talk to kids from other schools, and tell them that they like the way they play, without it being a "recruiting" violation when the kid later transfers. My whole point is that the graves decision is overreaching and untenable. I have never heard the words "involved AT ALL" as being the standard for when recruiting has occurred, until this thread, but I was trying to indulge your creative definition of "recruiting". I guess at least I now know that we agree that contact between coaches and players from other schools is permitted, even within your definition of "recruiting".

 

For the record, I still would not consider it to be "recruiting" to simply allow kid to play in an open gym.

[Greenvilleky]

Just because the release doesn't say a tour happened doesn't mean the tour didn't happen.