It looks like everyone forgets Highlands basketball invented recruiting (Draud & Maile) Then Highlands football perfected it (Lorenzen & Smith etc.) Now Highlands girls basketball is trying to pick it up again

Still do not understand how a student can live in XXXX and pay tuition to attend ND and then be required to "move" and pay tuition to Highlands to be eligible. If you can live in XXXX and pay tuition to ND why can you not live in the same house and pay tuition to Highlands.

 

If a girl lived in Ft. Thomas and attended Highlands and then decided to leave and attend ND would they have to move? Move where?

It looks like everyone forgets Highlands basketball invented recruiting (Draud & Maile) Then Highlands football perfected it (Lorenzen & Smith etc.) Now Highlands girls basketball is trying to pick it up again

 

You might just be on to something there! Call it in!

 

But get it right. Maile was a better football player than Bball. And Draud was recruited for tennis!

 

Smith was basketball and Lorenzen was for football. One out of four ain't bad though!

 

And man, you forgot a lot of others!

Still do not understand how a student can live in XXXX and pay tuition to attend ND and then be required to "move" and pay tuition to Highlands to be eligible. If you can live in XXXX and pay tuition to ND why can you not live in the same house and pay tuition to Highlands.

 

If a girl lived in Ft. Thomas and attended Highlands and then decided to leave and attend ND would they have to move? Move where?

 

If she played a varsity sport and was in high school when she played that sport and just moved schools but not residency, she would have to sit out a year. Moving creates an exception to that rule.

You might just be on to something there! Call it in!

 

But get it right. Maile was a better football player than Bball. And Draud was recruited for tennis!

 

Smith was basketball and Lorenzen was for football. One out of four ain't bad though!

 

And man, you forgot a lot of others!

 

Give him a break, he was up past his bedtime.

Here is my takeaway from all of this .. The general rule, where the analysis begins, that a player is ineligible for a year when changing schools, has a specific exception carved out so that a player may be immediately eligible if there has been a "bona fide" change in residence. While I believe it was the intent of the drafters of the bylaw that the "bona fide" change in residence was intended to mean relocation to the locale/district/proximate of the new school, it does not say that (query if that was NOT their intent why require a change of address at all?). The KHSAA has adopted a number of measures to prevent kids from changing schools on a whim, and I believe that's what they were trying to do with bylaw 6, and they wanted to carve out an exception so that kids were not penalized when their parents had to move. So we are left with a bylaw with a loophole big enough to drive a truck through ... If a family moves from a second floor apartment to the first floor apartment, and they "REALLY" change floors, they have satisfied the "bona fide" change of address requirement and the player will be immediately to play for any school, whether it is down the street or 50 miles away. Personally, I think it violates the spirit of the law but not the letter of it, but I also find it to be something of an unresolved issue because I don't see that anyone has ever challenged such a "change of address" eligibility before the KHSAA, and there apparently has never been a formal finding by the KHSAA to rely upon.

 

Here is the hypothetical that is the problem and should motivate the KHSAA to either amend or discard bylaw 6. Player family lives at address A, and plays varsity basketball at school A. He doesn't like the coach, moves next door to address B and enrolls at School C 30 minutes away as a tuition student where he is immediately eligible as a result of the "bona fide" change of address. He plays varsity basketball at school C, decides he doesn't like that coach either, and wants to change schools again. He MOVES BACK to address A, which his family still owns (another "bona fide" change of address), and is immediately eligible wherever he wants to go, and he lives at the same place he started. Bylaw 6 is rendered meaningless and should be abandoned if this is the interpretation, IMO.

 

Two final comments. I am truly fine with Jenna Martin transferring to Highlands out of the 34th District ... Best of luck to her and the Bluebirds. And I acknowledge that a lot of meritorious arguments exist and have been presented that she may be immediately eligible under Bylaw 6, but it isn't my decision or that of anyone else here. I do wish the KHSAA would clarify, amend or repeal Bylaw 6, though, so that so much productivity wasn't wasted on threads like this .....

 

Lots of good and through analysis on Jenna Martin and Highlands situation. You appear to be well versed on the KHSAA bylaws. Since you said this is nothing like the Holy Cross situation, I would be interested in a similar type of analysis on the Holy Cross situation from you (of course it would need to be in a new thread). Numerous times it has been questioned whether the "spirit of the rules" are being followed in this discussion, which is always an interesting discussion.

Lots of good and through analysis on Jenna Martin and Highlands situation. You appear to be well versed on the KHSAA bylaws. Since you said this is nothing like the Holy Cross situation, I would be interested in a similar type of analysis on the Holy Cross situation from you (of course it would need to be in a new thread). Numerous times it has been questioned whether the "spirit of the rules" are being followed in this discussion, which is always an interesting discussion.

 

There is a big difference in this situation and that one as far as the facts, and I do not mean the difference between the transfer bylaw and the recruiting bylaw. In this case, involving the transfer, there are no unsupported allegations of wrongdoing. We all agree on what the facts are. In the holy cross situation, there is nowhere near agreement of the factual setting, or even a statement of what the allegations are. Have someone post the allegations against holy cross and I will address the legitimacy of the facts, as far as I know them, and then I will apply the bylaws. For the vast majority of the allegations, as I understand them, I can categorically state with first hand knowledge that most of the facts are wrong.

 

With respect to the "spirit of the rule" we may or may not have a difference of opinion about what the "spirit" of the recruiting rule is. I personally do not have a problem, and do not think it is within the "spirit of the rule" that a high school coach is forbidden from coaching AAU, including kids from other schools. If the kid develops a relationship with the coach through AAU and then elects to play for that coach at his school, I do not find that to be outside the "spirit of the rule".

 

This conversation could go on for a while (I think my pre-emptive appeal brief to the KHSAA is about 18 pages long) but it would have a lot more meaning if there was a comprehensive list of allegations against Holy Cross. So far, as I am sure you are aware, no one has ever been willing to present the allegations.

Edited June 16, 201610 yr by Pete Mitchell

There is a big difference in this situation and that one as far as the facts, and I do not mean the difference between the transfer bylaw and the recruiting bylaw. In this case, involving the transfer, there are no unsupported allegations of wrongdoing. We all agree on what the facts are. In the holy cross situation, there is nowhere near agreement of the factual setting, or even a statement of what the allegations are. Have someone post the allegations against holy cross and I will address the legitimacy of the facts, as far as I know them, and then I will apply the bylaws. For the vast majority of the allegations, as I understand them, I can categorically state with first hand knowledge that most of the facts are wrong.

 

With respect to the "spirit of the rule" we may or may not have a difference of opinion about what the "spirit" of the recruiting rule is. I personally do not have a problem, and do not think it is within the "spirit of the rule" that a high school coach is forbidden from coaching AAU, including kids from other schools. If the kid develops a relationship with the coach through AAU and then elects to play for that coach at his school, I do not find that to be outside the "spirit of the rule".

 

This conversation could go on for a while (I think my pre-emptive appeal brief to the KHSAA is about 18 pages long) but it would have a lot more meaning if there was a comprehensive list of allegations against Holy Cross. So far, as I am sure you are where, no one has ever been willing to present the allegations.

 

Sounds like no one is more well versed what the specific allegations are than someone who filed an appeals brief. Also I guess if anyone doubted there are formal allegations - I supposed you confirmed that there are. But hey I totally get why you want to start a thread discussing a KHSAA issue at a school other than the one you appear most familiar with. :jump:

Sounds like no one is more well versed what the specific allegations are than someone who filed an appeals brief. Also I guess if anyone doubted there are formal allegations - I supposed you confirmed that there are. But hey I totally get why you want to start a thread discussing a KHSAA issue at a school other than the one you appear most familiar with. :jump:

 

And for those that thought it was over...no wonder it's taking so long!

There is a big difference in this situation and that one as far as the facts, and I do not mean the difference between the transfer bylaw and the recruiting bylaw. In this case, involving the transfer, there are no unsupported allegations of wrongdoing. We all agree on what the facts are. In the holy cross situation, there is nowhere near agreement of the factual setting, or even a statement of what the allegations are. Have someone post the allegations against holy cross and I will address the legitimacy of the facts, as far as I know them, and then I will apply the bylaws. For the vast majority of the allegations, as I understand them, I can categorically state with first hand knowledge that most of the facts are wrong.

 

With respect to the "spirit of the rule" we may or may not have a difference of opinion about what the "spirit" of the recruiting rule is. I personally do not have a problem, and do not think it is within the "spirit of the rule" that a high school coach is forbidden from coaching AAU, including kids from other schools. If the kid develops a relationship with the coach through AAU and then elects to play for that coach at his school, I do not find that to be outside the "spirit of the rule".

 

This conversation could go on for a while (I think my pre-emptive appeal brief to the KHSAA is about 18 pages long) but it would have a lot more meaning if there was a comprehensive list of allegations against Holy Cross. So far, as I am sure you are aware, no one has ever been willing to present the allegations.

 

No one? As in "including the KHSAA"? Then what was the appeal brief?

 

And for the record. I don't think anyone has a problem with AAU coaches coaching in high school. As long as those AAU coaches aren't promoting the high school program and asking those kids to join them at their high school. That's not a "spirit of the rule" debate. That rule is pretty darn clear! I ONLY bring that up because you addressed it in your statement. And the allegations at HC are not just about an AAU coach. At least one of the big ones has nothing to do with coaching AAU. And if a school was holding summer practices and playing games under the school name with the school coaches (with kids that have not enrolled in your school) without permission of the other programs they are enrolled in, that would also be a violation that has nothing to do with AAU...if that were to happen somewhere.

 

So let me ask you this. If the spirit of the rule regarding AAU coaches establishing relationships with kids and then those kids come to that school was determined "okay". What would keep every high school from hiring AAU coaches for their programs? It would be an advantage to do so, correct? Go out and start and AAU organization, develop relationships with all the kids in your area and then have them come play for you. You can just justify it under the "spirit of the rule" that you created relationships with those kids so it's okay. Well then everyone would do that, it would be the wild west of bball and there would really be no need for high school teams! Because the "spirit" of high school sports is to play with classmates and kids you grew up with. Not create powerhouse teams by establishing relationships with kids outside the schools!

 

I truly respect your opinion. But I think we completely disagree with what each of us feel high school sports are all about.

Let me ask this. What if a kid turns 18 prior to his senior year and wants to transfer. The student is a legal adult and decides to go live with a family for his senior year. Is the student eligible to play sports his senior year? The parents did not move but the legal adult student did.

This is all very interesting but will someone please explain to me if/how it will impact Caleb Jefferson?

 

If there is now impact, well, whatever.

These transfers happen all the time. Why does it always seem to come to a head when it involves Highlands?

These transfers happen all the time. Why does it always seem to come to a head when it involves Highlands?

 

Haters gonna hate....

Let me ask this. What if a kid turns 18 prior to his senior year and wants to transfer. The student is a legal adult and decides to go live with a family for his senior year. Is the student eligible to play sports his senior year? The parents did not move but the legal adult student did.

 

That one has come up twice that I know of and in both cases the student was granted the transfer.