I’ll never be a fan of a kid being punished over something that is out of his control. That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

Exactly, I said more than once as a principal, I am not punishing a kid for what their parents do or refuse to do.

For those saying “don’t punish the kid for what the parents do” as it applies here, exactly what is your recommendation? How would you propose to punish the parent here?

For those saying “don’t punish the kid for what the parents do” as it applies here, exactly what is your recommendation? How would you propose to punish the parent here?

 

If a kid is academically eligible then the kid should be allowed to play. Simple as that. It’s like what was said today at the KHSAA meetings, “sports are in schools for educational outcomes, not championships.”

 

 

If that’s the true message then he should be eligible. No one should ever be punished for moving. Ever.

If a kid is academically eligible then the kid should be allowed to play. Simple as that. It’s like what was said today at the KHSAA meetings, “sports are in schools for educational outcomes, not championships.”

 

 

If that’s the true message then he should be eligible. No one should ever be punished for moving. Ever.

 

I just can't agree with a blanket policy like that. A decade ago, maybe I could have. I've said before that I honestly don't have an answer to this issue. I see both sides, and I agree, I'd hate for a kid to miss a year. But I also don't think it's fair to those left behind who see their opportunities diminished. It is an extremely complex issue.

 

But to what I asked, I'm not even saying I'm advocating punishment here. Just that if the phrase "punish the parents" is thrown around, I question how that is even possible without also punishing the kid. Even if such a punishment existed, if they got the outcome they wanted (the kid plays), wouldn't they consider that worth it?

I just can't agree with a blanket policy like that. A decade ago, maybe I could have. I've said before that I honestly don't have an answer to this issue. I see both sides, and I agree, I'd hate for a kid to miss a year. But I also don't think it's fair to those left behind who see their opportunities diminished. It is an extremely complex issue.

 

But to what I asked, I'm not even saying I'm advocating punishment here. Just that if the phrase "punish the parents" is thrown around, I question how that is even possible without also punishing the kid. Even if such a punishment existed, if they got the outcome they wanted (the kid plays), wouldn't they consider that worth it?

 

Absolutely it would be worth it. And I wish someone would tell me that I can’t move every year if I am able to do so and then tell me that my kid with a 3.7 GPA can’t play a sport because we moved. To me that is lunacy.

Absolutely it would be worth it. And I wish someone would tell me that I can’t move every year if I am able to do so and then tell me that my kid with a 3.7 GPA can’t play a sport because we moved. To me that is lunacy.

 

Not only is it lunacy, it is a clear violation of their civil liberties. Seriously, you can't move 8 counties west and be allowed to play sports? Based on what?? The move being for "athletic reasons"?? According to who? Unless they have a paper or text trail, athletic reasons is about as subjective a standard as an athletic commission can come up with.

If this kid wasn't a "superstar", would anyone even care?

If this kid wasn't a "superstar", would anyone even care?

 

Nope. Because he is far from the only kid who switched schools his summer.

For those saying “don’t punish the kid for what the parents do” as it applies here, exactly what is your recommendation? How would you propose to punish the parent here?

 

Easy. Let the kid play where he wants to play.

Easy. Let the kid play where he wants to play.

 

I was specifically asking those who said "punish the parent" what they were even proposing. "Let the kid play where he wants to play" obviously isn't a punishment at all. I get that the point you all are making is that you think there's nothing to punish, I was just trying to understand what others even meant by "punish the parent".

The KHSAA specifically says you can’t transfer for athletic purposes, the one year suspension from sports is to deter athletes from doing so.

 

If you blatantly say you’re transferring for athletic purposes, you have to sit out a year.

 

Harmon is transferring for athletics purposes. He’s not transferring because of his parents job, education, or any other reason. Therefore, he must sit out a year.

 

No ands, ifs, or buts about. Don’t overthink it.

I just can't agree with a blanket policy like that. A decade ago, maybe I could have. I've said before that I honestly don't have an answer to this issue. I see both sides, and I agree, I'd hate for a kid to miss a year. But I also don't think it's fair to those left behind who see their opportunities diminished. It is an extremely complex issue.

 

But to what I asked, I'm not even saying I'm advocating punishment here. Just that if the phrase "punish the parents" is thrown around, I question how that is even possible without also punishing the kid. Even if such a punishment existed, if they got the outcome they wanted (the kid plays), wouldn't they consider that worth it?

 

I don't see how the "kids who are left behind" have had their opportunities "diminished". They still get to play. Maybe they don't win district or region now, but that's not a right or ever guaranteed. Unless the program got shut down by the kid moving, no one's opportunities are being diminished.

 

As far as punishing the parents or the student, I don't see why anyone needs to punished. The family moved, legitimately. He should be able to play.

If he was moving strictly for athletic purposes he would’ve gone to Scott County or Trinity or a school with state championship hopes. Regardless the kid should be allowed to play where he wants to play no matter what his reasoning is.

This thought just came to me. The crux of this issue is we don't want teams bringing in multiple transfers and gaining a competitive advantage. It seems to me this is about the schools and competition more than it's about individual players / students. If that is the purpose for the rules, then maybe the rules should be shaped to penalize schools that bring in transfers versus penalizing kids who change schools. Like I said, the idea just came to mind so I haven't really thought out the details of how you could penalize schools. Obviously you could just fine them a certain amount for each transfer over a set number. I will think on it some more and if anyone else wants to piggyback on the idea, run with it.

I don't see how the "kids who are left behind" have had their opportunities "diminished". They still get to play. Maybe they don't win district or region now, but that's not a right or ever guaranteed. Unless the program got shut down by the kid moving, no one's opportunities are being diminished.

 

As far as punishing the parents or the student, I don't see why anyone needs to punished. The family moved, legitimately. He should be able to play.

 

I'm a fan of a school that nearly had its football program shuttered because after a coach's dismissal basically the entire senior class to be wanted to transfer. They literally had to forfeit half of a softball season one year because of lack of athletes to fill out the team, which was certainly impacted by transfers to other schools. Does that make clear my mindset on diminished opportunities? Hence my problem with a blanket policy.

 

Also, while I agree that a district or region is not a right, it is certainly what they are all striving towards. I disagree that the movement of players does not represent someone's opportunities being diminished. If a player transferring out took away a realistic shot at making it to a region or state tournament, that's an opportunity lost - especially if that transfer stays in region. Some kid in basketball doesn't make the team or play varsity because someone else transferred in over them. There are ripples.