Hearsay, I do cast blame. Anyone involved in the decision making process needs to attack the alleged problem (recruiting) and not take a shotgun approach.

 

If there is in fact a problem with recruiting the CB Akins' of the world need to make a case against each and every offender. What they don't need to do is preach about how bad the problem is when they can't prove the problem. It sounds a lot like Witch Trials to me.

I'm really happy that you're willing to concede that "some" public schools are guilty while maintaining that a "perception" of impropriety is enough to punish kids over.

 

Sugar coat it any way you want this IS MOST ASSURADLY NOT about illegal recruiting. If it was the public schools wouldn't have dismissed the private school proposal to fully fund a compliance division of the KHSAA to investigate and punish violations of recruiting rules. This is about public schools that are afraid they will lose more students that they "own" to public schools, no more no less.

 

The public schools do not feel they own these students, they DO reasonably expect kids in their feeder schools to attend their high school unless these kids "voluntarily" decide to attend a private/parochial school. There are many good reasons to attend a private school. However, these reasons should not be whispered in the ears of above-average athletes by those connected to high school athletic programs.

 

I can not speak for the reasoning behind the leaders on the public school side, but I can speak for a number of public school coaches in the Louisville area that don't get all worked up when a kid "chooses" to attend a private school as long as the choice is not unduly influenced. North Bullitt and other public schools have had a good number of athletes in their "feeder" schools decide to attend parochial schools in Jefferson. The problem or anger arises when those schools visit the Bullitt County Youth League to scout for football players, then have former players, parents, grandparents, or "friends of the program" invite them to shadow. This has happened countless times in the past (and still continues to a lesser extent) and one school, Holy Cross, was finally penalized and had their head coach removed.

 

One reason, IMO, the public school side was against the funding of the compliance department offered as a compromise by the privates was the legitimate complaint by the publics that the KHSAA consistently fails to use the investigators they already have. Adding investigators would do nothing to help alleviate complaints when many complaints fall on deaf ears.

 

Once again, when the delegate assembly vote for separation nearly passed in Oct. 2005, private school leaders should have seen the writing on the wall and taken steps to passify the majority. IMO, they arrogantly ignored this warning. It is naive to believe that "persuasion" activities conducted by some coaches, alumni and "friends of the program" of private schools does not occur. The problem is that a lot of this activity goes on as quietly as possilbe and proving it sufficiently to get the KHSAA to investigate is difficult. It took 2 years of complaints and prodding by North Bullitt officials to get the KHSAA to finally penalize Holy Cross for their illegal contact with Bullitt County Youth League players. The privates know they can do a lot to "attract" players without any consequence. Prosposal 2 was intended, IMO, to put up another barrier to these activities. It is a shame that it had to come to this.

From the CJ Article:

 

Tim Shaughnessy, a state senator from Louisville, called the board's decision "extremely disappointing."

 

Shaughnessy, who tried to block Proposal 2 in the latest legislative session, noted that the Board of Education will conduct a public hearing to receive comments in the next 30 days. Then the proposal will be reviewed by two legislative committees, he said.

 

"Then the governor will have the opportunity to weigh in," he said. "So this thing is a long way from done, and I will be engaged in trying to stop this at every opportunity."

 

Shaughnessy, a St. X graduate I believe, should stick to more urgent political matters. His bias is obvious.

Hearsay, I do cast blame. Anyone involved in the decision making process needs to attack the alleged problem (recruiting) and not take a shotgun approach.

 

If there is in fact a problem with recruiting the CB Akins' of the world need to make a case against each and every offender. What they don't need to do is preach about how bad the problem is when they can't prove the problem up. It sounds a lot like Witch Trials to me.

 

:laugh:

 

Let me re-phrase it this way - There was a proposal, made by Trinity's A.D. if I am not mistaken, two fully fund two or three investigator positions with the KHSAA that operated as an independent unit in order to investigate alleged recruiting. I thought it was a good idea at addressing the problem. The KHSAA and member schools shot it down. Clearly, then, neither the KHSAA or the member schools are interested in patrolling recruiting.

 

However, that does not mean that recruiting does not exist (and I am with those that believes that public schools recruit just as much or even more so than private schools), and clearly there is a perception that recruiting is rampant. The "perception" itself is a problem, even if it is baseless. I don't think the Board can simply ignore it. But they also can't, through the legal processes, sua sponte say "We want you to reinstate that proposal that Trinity made." They can't do it. So, had they not done some compromise finality proposal, they would have kept sending everything back to the KHSAA, and the KHSAA would keep sending junk back to them, and back and forth, and so and so forth in ad infinitum. The KHSAA is NOT going to address recruiting, and the Board is limited in their power to pass rules for their agent.

 

What I saw yesterday's ruling as, from the Board's standpoint was "We're done. We're disgusted at your lack of spine, and we're going to do 'X' and don't want to see it back here again. We know full well that there will be lawsuits over this, and its time to let the Court's put some finality to this, since the normal administrative processes have been a failure."

 

The only other option to the Board, IMHO, was to get rid of KHSAA as their agent, or at least get rid of their Commissioner. And we all know that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Heresay, I agree that the biggest problem in all of this is the KHSAA's unwillingness to aggressively investigate ALL complaints. They have brought this upon themselves and will pay the price. Had they seen it was in their best interest to investigate every reasonable complaint of improper contact, we would not be at this point. With all the headaches this decision will bring their way, I bet they will reget not be more proactive in preventing this.

Shaughnessy, a St. X graduate I believe, should stick to more urgent political matters. His bias is obvious.

So private school supporters are not allowed to use any ans all venues they have available to fight what they see as a very pigheaded polocy?

 

The public schools do not feel they own these students, they DO reasonably expect kids in their feeder schools to attend their high school unless these kids "voluntarily" decide to attend a private/parochial school. There are many good reasons to attend a private school. However, these reasons should not be whispered in the ears of above-average athletes by those connected to high school athletic programs.

Of course they do. Why else would people like Sears refer to them as "OUR" kids?

 

I can not speak for the reasoning behind the leaders on the public school side, but I can speak for a number of public school coaches in the Louisville area that don't get all worked up when a kid "chooses" to attend a private school as long as the choice is not unduly influenced. North Bullitt and other public schools have had a good number of athletes in their "feeder" schools decide to attend parochial schools in Jefferson. The problem or anger arises when those schools visit the Bullitt County Youth League to scout for football players, then have former players, parents, grandparents, or "friends of the program" invite them to shadow. This has happened countless times in the past (and still continues to a lesser extent) and one school, Holy Cross, was finally penalized and had their head coach removed.

How long should it take for an investigation? Should an allegation automatically result in sanction or does due process go out the window. And I also seem to remember several years ago the basketball program at PRP was under investigation with evidence including a letter from a PRP assistant coach advising a potential student that he could get into the PRP advance program. Nothing was done but then Charles Miller (the PRP principal at the time) was on the BOC so no one was surprised.

 

One reason, IMO, the public school side was against the funding of the compliance department offered as a compromise by the privates was the legitimate complaint by the publics that the KHSAA consistently fails to use the investigators they already have. Adding investigators would do nothing to help alleviate complaints when many complaints fall on deaf ears.

No the public school side was against funding an independent investigative arm of the KHSAA becaue IMVHO that is the last thing the publics want. I wonder why.

 

Once again, when the delegate assembly vote for separation nearly passed in Oct. 2005, private school leaders should have seen the writing on the wall and taken steps to passify the majority. IMO, they arrogantly ignored this warning. It is naive to believe that "persuasion" activities conducted by some coaches, alumni and "friends of the program" of private schools does not occur. The problem is that a lot of this activity goes on as quietly as possilbe and proving it sufficiently to get the KHSAA to investigate is difficult. It took 2 years of complaints and prodding by North Bullitt officials to get the KHSAA to finally penalize Holy Cross for their illegal contact with Bullitt County Youth League players. The privates know they can do a lot to "attract" players without any consequence. Prosposal 2 was intended, IMO, to put up another barrier to these activities. It is a shame that it had to come to this.

Again, if this is such a concern on the public side then why not clean up the investigative arm of KHSAA? The bottom line to this is that Holy Cross and it's coach WAS sanctioned so the system worked.

Shaughnessy, a St. X graduate I believe, should stick to more urgent political matters. His bias is obvious.

 

Then "we" have a little equity...

:laugh:

 

Let me re-phrase it this way - There was a proposal, made by Trinity's A.D. if I am not mistaken, two fully fund two or three investigator positions with the KHSAA that operated as an independent unit in order to investigate alleged recruiting. I thought it was a good idea at addressing the problem. The KHSAA and member schools shot it down. Clearly, then, neither the KHSAA or the member schools are interested in patrolling recruiting.

 

However, that does not mean that recruiting does not exist (and I am with those that believes that public schools recruit just as much or even more so than private schools), and clearly there is a perception that recruiting is rampant. The "perception" itself is a problem, even if it is baseless. I don't think the Board can simply ignore it. But they also can't, through the legal processes, sua sponte say "We want you to reinstate that proposal that Trinity made." They can't do it. So, had they not done some compromise finality proposal, they would have kept sending everything back to the KHSAA, and the KHSAA would keep sending junk back to them, and back and forth, and so and so forth in ad infinitum. The KHSAA is NOT going to address recruiting, and the Board is limited in their power to pass rules for their agent.

 

What I saw yesterday's ruling as, from the Board's standpoint was "We're done. We're disgusted at your lack of spine, and we're going to do 'X' and don't want to see it back here again. We know full well that there will be lawsuits over this, and its time to let the Court's put some finality to this, since the normal administrative processes have been a failure."

 

The only other option to the Board, IMHO, was to get rid of KHSAA as their agent, or at least get rid of their Commissioner. And we all know that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

Assuming all the above is close to the truth then shame on everyone involved.

 

I am not for a minute saying I believe there is no recruiting. I am saying prove it.

 

And since everyone says the problem is illegal recruiting yet a proposal to address that very alleged problem was shot down I say the whole process is a joke and anyone involved in it needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

 

Hopefully the Legislature will get involved. The Government should take care of us when we do a poor job governing ourself.

I guess I should have said most public officials don't think we own these kids. The investigation of Holy Cross didn't take very long, it was mostly the KHSAA dragging their feet to decide to investigate. If the proposed investigative arm was truly going to be independent, it would have been a good idea IMO, if it was to be controlled DeVries or Tackett, it would have not been any better than the present system. I agree that if the letter was produced PRP should have been sanctioned. I don't condone this type of cheating by anyone. Obviously, the majority of delegates saw this as being a bigger problem among privates than problems they had with neighboring publics.

 

All I can speak to is the situation in Bullitt County, where we have had a LOT of problems over MANY years (a consistent pattern) with private schools from Jefferson County attempting to "persuade" above-average football players that attend public schools in Bullitt County to attend Catholic high schools. During the same period of time, we have had only a few isolated incidents of concern with illegal contact from public schools outside our system.

I guess I should have said most public officials don't think we own these kids. The investigation of Holy Cross didn't take very long, it was mostly the KHSAA dragging their feet to decide to investigate. If the proposed investigative arm was truly going to be independent, it would have been a good idea IMO, if it was to be controlled DeVries or Tackett, it would have not been any better than the present system. I agree that if the letter was produced PRP should have been sanctioned. I don't condone this type of cheating by anyone. Obviously, the majority of delegates saw this as being a bigger problem among privates than problems they had with neighboring publics.

 

All I can speak to is the situation in Bullitt County, where we have had a LOT of problems over MANY years (a consistent pattern) with private schools from Jefferson County attempting to "persuade" above-average football players that attend public schools in Bullitt County to attend Catholic high schools. During the same period of time, we have had only a few isolated incidents of concern with illegal contact from public schools outside our system.

Then maybe, just maybe Bullitt County should do something to address WHY parents are willing to pay the money and provide the transportation to send their children to private schools in Jefferson County. As I recall there is quite a bit of discontent with the present (and soon to be "retired") leadership of the Bullitt County Schools.

Can't wait to see the court battles this will bring on. Lots and lots of what ifs. Who is really being served by this rule--student athletes? I think not.

From all that I have read I think this is just extending Bylaw 6. Many people have asked questions about divorce, death of parents, and bonafide address changes.

 

I think Bylaw 6 and Prop 2 are made to go hand in hand. The difference is Bylaw 6 started being relevant in 9th grade, and Prop 2 extends the "Transfer rule" to 7th grade. If a student/athlete wanted to play a sport at a certain high school they knew they had to change schools before 9th grade. Now, if a student/athlete wants to play a sport at a certain high school they have to change schools before 7th grade. The only way to implement this change was to designate a high school district for every middle school.

 

I don't necessarily agree with Prop 2, but from the articles that I have read and the discussion on BGP and by reviewing the Bylaws of the KHSAA this is the conclusion that I have reached. Prop 2 does not, right now, say all of this, but I think this is the intention.

 

Guru or Hearsay, does this sound like a possibility, or am I naive?

Could this be a first step with the next being the KHSAA start to oversee Middle School sports in the state?

Could this be a first step with the next being the KHSAA start to oversee Middle School sports in the state?

 

I was thinking about that. That may be a possibility. In North-Eastern Kentucky junior high sports are ran by all the schools and coached by school coaches, pretty much ran like high school sports and governed by the same rules. Maybe this is their intentions, to broaden KHSAA into junior high school sports as well.

 

KJHHAA (Kentucky Junior High and High School Athletic Association)

So what middle schools will be feeders for Manual?

 

Someone else here posted that ALL schools will have a list of feeder middle schools, which ones will be Manual's?