I am pretty sure there have been players that have gone from private to public and public to private who did not move and were allowed to play after transferring.

 

Bottom line, does anyone know what the transfer rules are anymore? No transparency on the KHSAA decisions means sometimes it looks like the written rules and exceptions do not apply.

 

I will update this soon, but it is in flux. Bylaw 6 has always governed "domestic" transfers, and it provides that a student that transfers schools is automatically ineligible for a year unless they meet any of the exceptions under Section 2 of the bylaw, which includes those that have a "bona fide" change of address that predates the transfer and is not athletically motivated.

 

However, the DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE used by the KHSAA gives the Commissioner sweeping authority to waive Bylaw 6, or other bylaws, if their enforcement would be "unfair" because the "circumstances creating the ineligibility were clearly beyond the control of the parties." All a bunch of legal-speak, to be sure, but the Commissioner has used this authority a lot in the past, although exactly when and to what extent is unknown because the KHSAA will not release those records. It has only recently been made of record that waivers have been granted for economic hardship (i.e. loss of a job, inability to pay tuition), educational opportunity not available at one school that are available at another, bullying, the use of racial slurs and sexual misconduct.

 

So the problem should be fairly evident. The Commissioner has broad discretion to declare students eligible who would not otherwise be, and he has used this discretion in the past. And I believe that anyone who meets the standards that have been established is entitled to "equal protection", that the same rules have to be uniformly applied. The KHSAA disagrees and does not believe the Commissioner's discretion can be challenged. In the Devon Cooper case in Louisville, the court declared that the Commissioner was not interpreting what is "beyond the control" properly and ruled Cooper eligible, overturning the KHSAA interpretation.

 

The rules are in flux because the Commissioner's discretion, and adherence to his own prior decisions, is a murky mess.

I will update this soon, but it is in flux. Bylaw 6 has always governed "domestic" transfers, and it provides that a student that transfers schools is automatically ineligible for a year unless they meet any of the exceptions under Section 2 of the bylaw, which includes those that have a "bona fide" change of address that predates the transfer and is not athletically motivated.

 

However, the DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE used by the KHSAA gives the Commissioner sweeping authority to waive Bylaw 6, or other bylaws, if their enforcement would be "unfair" because the "circumstances creating the ineligibility were clearly beyond the control of the parties." All a bunch of legal-speak, to be sure, but the Commissioner has used this authority a lot in the past, although exactly when and to what extent is unknown because the KHSAA will not release those records. It has only recently been made of record that waivers have been granted for economic hardship (i.e. loss of a job, inability to pay tuition), educational opportunity not available at one school that are available at another, bullying, the use of racial slurs and sexual misconduct.

 

So the problem should be fairly evident. The Commissioner has broad discretion to declare students eligible who would not otherwise be, and he has used this discretion in the past. And I believe that anyone who meets the standards that have been established is entitled to "equal protection", that the same rules have to be uniformly applied. The KHSAA disagrees and does not believe the Commissioner's discretion can be challenged. In the Devon Cooper case in Louisville, the court declared that the Commissioner was not interpreting what is "beyond the control" properly and ruled Cooper eligible, overturning the KHSAA interpretation.

 

The rules are in flux because the Commissioner's discretion, and adherence to his own prior decisions, is a murky mess.

 

Is there a previous case with similar issues or facts that would set a precedent in this case OR is the argument that the Commissioner has the disecretion to waive Bylaw 6, he has done it in the past, and should again in this specific case?

Is the agreement between the KHSAA and its members (the schools) like the agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL in that the authority to pass final judgement is absolute? We saw this recently with Elliott. Precedent doesn't really matter because the authority, through collective bargaining in the NFL, allowed it. Would a court use similar logic re: KHSAA?

This entire situation with the kid now at Highlands should serve as a caution flag to those who start pulling their kids around from school to school in the name of sports. Is it worth it to miss an entire season or even half of a season of your junior year? It all goes by so fast anyway, you just have to ask yourself if it's worth it all.

I will update this soon, but it is in flux. Bylaw 6 has always governed "domestic" transfers, and it provides that a student that transfers schools is automatically ineligible for a year unless they meet any of the exceptions under Section 2 of the bylaw, which includes those that have a "bona fide" change of address that predates the transfer and is not athletically motivated.

 

However, the DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE used by the KHSAA gives the Commissioner sweeping authority to waive Bylaw 6, or other bylaws, if their enforcement would be "unfair" because the "circumstances creating the ineligibility were clearly beyond the control of the parties." All a bunch of legal-speak, to be sure, but the Commissioner has used this authority a lot in the past, although exactly when and to what extent is unknown because the KHSAA will not release those records. It has only recently been made of record that waivers have been granted for economic hardship (i.e. loss of a job, inability to pay tuition), educational opportunity not available at one school that are available at another, bullying, the use of racial slurs and sexual misconduct.

 

So the problem should be fairly evident. The Commissioner has broad discretion to declare students eligible who would not otherwise be, and he has used this discretion in the past. And I believe that anyone who meets the standards that have been established is entitled to "equal protection", that the same rules have to be uniformly applied. The KHSAA disagrees and does not believe the Commissioner's discretion can be challenged. In the Devon Cooper case in Louisville, the court declared that the Commissioner was not interpreting what is "beyond the control" properly and ruled Cooper eligible, overturning the KHSAA interpretation.

 

The rules are in flux because the Commissioner's discretion, and adherence to his own prior decisions, is a murky mess.

 

In these situation they (Houston's and Macke's) should sit out. I hate it for the kids but something has to be done about these transfers.