January 27, 200719 yr This proposal is on the State Board of Education's upcoming agenda. I know it has been debated on here before. I would like to hear one last go-around of input. I would like everyone to attempt to be as concise, articulate, and businesslike as possible. I do not mind emotional input, but I would like for it to be controlled. I am particularly interested in anyone's proposal's for amendment's to this rule, with the assumption being made that some form of Proposal 2 is going to pass the State Board. These might have to do with the year in middle school that is restricted, the size of the radius, the minimum enrollment for the effectiveness of the rule, etc. If you're going to make a legal argument, cite me to a case, statute, reg, or some solid authority, don't just give me your opinion that its unconstitutional.
January 27, 200719 yr It is kind of hard to discuss it until the form of the proposal is decided upon. It could be in such a form that very few students/schools are affected.
February 25, 200719 yr It is kind of hard to discuss it until the form of the proposal is decided upon. It could be in such a form that very few students/schools are affected. The resolution the AD's voted for was for a separate tournament for publics and privates. Why is it being changed into something totally different?:creepy: :confused:
February 26, 200719 yr The resolution the AD's voted for was for a separate tournament for publics and privates. Why is it being changed into something totally different?:creepy: :confused: Get over the past inmyopinion, just my opinion. The proposal that the good gentleman is asking about passed more recently than the "split" proposal and by a wider margin. So that is the issue germaine to today's discussion and is the one much more likely to get approved by the various level of authority. As for feedback, Dr. Hearsay, how about this question. This restriction, as I read it on the KDE and KHSAA web sites, deals with non-athletes being restricted. In other words, Johnny who has never played anything, suddenly decides in 10th grade he wants to run cross country after changing schools in the middle of grades 9 and 10 for whatever reason. He obviously isn't an impact participant in terms of ability if he is starting this late (which doesn't matter but merits mentioning for use in my example). It is now his first year in this school. As I read it, he is now not eligible for the first year since he didn't attend the feeder school the prior years unless his change in schools meets a transfer ruling or am I reading it wrong? I guess my gist is that does KBE really want to restrict (or allow its agent to restrict) actions by non athletes? It seems to me that the proposal which gives transfer rule restrictions to students who "play up" may solve 90% of the issues which have been debated here for the last few years. Kids who play up to any level, begin to show some ability in grades 7 and 8, and then are plucked away by another school with a higher profile program. That's the main issue I have seen all along. As for the playing up transfer, the only thing that bothers some I have talked to is that it restricts those who have played at "any" level, while the current transfer rule covers only those that have played varsity. For me, the most volatile proposal is flying low under the radar. Proposal 5, which restricts kids from choosing to play outside baseball for example, until their team is out of postseason play, is much more likely to see a quick and stiff challenge. This year, seems like the mood of the member schools was to try and restrict everything they possibly could. But who knows, its early and I haven't had my coffee yet.
March 28, 200719 yr Question about this...if a kid has to move into another territory and switch schools...can he play at that school?
March 28, 200719 yr Question about this...if a kid has to move into another territory and switch schools...can he play at that school? Moving to NKY?
March 28, 200719 yr Question about this...if a kid has to move into another territory and switch schools...can he play at that school? As far as I know, yes.
March 28, 200719 yr As far as I know, yes. So basically it would allow the privates to do what the publics have done all along??
March 28, 200719 yr So basically it would allow the privates to do what the publics have done all along?? Do privates have "territories" in Louisville?
March 28, 200719 yr Do privates have "territories" in Louisville? No. Don't you know..we don't have to follow any rules..we make them up as we go along! :rolleyes:
March 28, 200719 yr No. Don't you know..we don't have to follow any rules..we make them up as we go along! :rolleyes: I know, just was clarifying... Seriously, I think this is what's tough about the "Bona Fide" change of residence rulings by the KHSAA...
March 28, 200719 yr It really gets sticky as far as I'm concerned when defining a feeder school. Are all parochial schools in the Archdiocese of Louisville feeder schools for the Catholic High Schools? Remember the Archdiocese stretches all the way from the Ohio River to the Tennessee border. If so does a kid that goes to a parochial school in Hardin County HAVE to go to a Catholic High School in Jefferson County or Nelson County in order to be eligible for athletics immediately or will the powers that be grant waivers for those students? I have asked this question before an no one has been able to answer it.
March 29, 200719 yr That's the real stickiness with this. It could go all the way to our nation's supreme court. And if it does. The courts would rule in favor of the student. They will not ever go with a school OWNING a kid.
March 29, 200719 yr That's the real stickiness with this. It could go all the way to our nation's supreme court. And if it does. The courts would rule in favor of the student. They will not ever go with a school OWNING a kid. Nor should they...:thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.