I was being sarcastic. I don't favor any change in the current eligibilty fo freshmen at any level.

 

OK, nor do I. Its just a scenerio that turns my gut a little less than the current setup.

 

I actually think this proposal will INCREASE the likelihood that athletes will GO MORE OFTEN to private schools than the other.

 

Those private school supporters have consistently indicated on here that parents send their kids to a private middle school and then transfer to the public high school much more often than the other way around. Face with the prospect of their child being denied the opportunity to play games as a freshmen, they will just stay with the private HS than to enroll their child in the community public high school.

 

The hystery of a mass number of freshmen being ruled ineligible for games, I don't think will happen. But rather will see increased enrollment as they stay on the private side.

 

First, opposition to Proposal 2 by ordinary parents has nothing to do with what is good for private schools or public schools at an overall athletic program level. To the ordinary parent this proposal is outragous, offensive and hurtful to children. I have yet find one parent who, when the details of this proposal are understood, supports this proposal. Not a single one and I interact with plenty of parents who have children in both private and public schools.

 

Second, I know of no private school who has indicated it thinks this is positive. A primary opposition argument from the privates (and one that seems to be a concern to the AG) is that of the "parent's right to chose". That choice should include a path from private to public schools if that is the desire of the parent. This is a very common and historically traditional path that thousands of parents have taken, especially in Jefferson Country. I know of no private school or organization that wants that path taken away or discouraged. Given the extreme financial sacrifice one makes to have their childrent attend a private school no one wants a family to feel they are 'trapped' into having to go to private school. That sort of thought process is completely foreign to those associated with private schools.

First, opposition to Proposal 2 by ordinary parents has nothing to do with what is good for private schools or public schools at an overall athletic program level. To the ordinary parent this proposal is outragous, offensive and hurtful to children. I have yet find one parent who, when the details of this proposal are understood, supports this proposal. Not a single one and I interact with plenty of parents who have children in both private and public schools.

 

Second, I know of no private school who has indicated it thinks this is positive. A primary opposition argument from the privates (and one that seems to be a concern to the AG) is that of the "parent's right to chose". That choice should include a path from private to public schools if that is the desire of the parent. This is a very common and historically traditional path that thousands of parents have taken, especially in Jefferson Country. I know of no private school or organization that wants that path taken away or discouraged. Given the extreme financial sacrifice one makes to have their childrent attend a private school no one wants a family to feel they are 'trapped' into having to go to private school. That sort of thought process is completely foreign to those associated with private schools.

 

Of course, I am on record on here as having stated that I oppose Proposal 2. A couple of thoughts for the sake of continued discussion:

 

First, Proposal 2 was well-publicized and has been hashed and re-hashed several times before it got to its current position. Noone can sensibly argue this snuck up on them. However, BEFORE the Proposal came to the Board of Education on April 5th, there was just a trickle of communications from "regular" parents in opposition. Most of the opposition work was done by the Archdiocese of Louisville. The fact of the matter is is that most parents did not put their DayTimers or wallets into this fight during the crucial time period.

 

Second, there is a Board of Education member I know who gets dozens of e-mails every day against the Proposal, and he also gets several e-mails a day, from regular parents, in favor of the Proposal.

 

Third, anybody opposed to this Proposal should thank Board member Doug Hubbard for at least putting up a fight and getting the "concessions" put in that he got put in, such as the right to be on the team but not play in games, not leaving all of the discretionary power in the hands of the Commissioner, and expanding the radius of feeder zone from 15 miles to 30. Proposal 2 in its prior form was even more of a disaster than the current version, and would have been vetted through had it not been for Doug's efforts. Doug understands that the decision here is obviously political, and he fought for what he could get while he could get it.

 

Fourth, the privates have been screaming about lawsuits from day one. I'm sure there will be lawsuits, but I have fought in this arena before and I'm telling you, the Tennessee High School Athletic Association case is not as powerful as all of the privates (and the State Senators that support them) think it is. It is by no means a clear cut legal case.

 

For instance, your "parents right to choose" scenario is just not all that ironclad. If parents had the right to choose, they would be able to pay for their children to attend private schools and would be able to withhold payment of their public school tax dollars. Cut it any way you want to, the analogy is the same.

 

This fight needs to be made politically, and so far, noone in the private arena has found anyone wielding enough influence politically to strike where it hurts. Don't you think it would have been a hot primary issue? Gotten voters mobilized? Why wasn't it discussed?

 

Anyway, points to ponder.

A national report similar to Fayette County's. With very similar findings.

 

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2004/01/the_case_for_high_school_activities.aspx

 

The case for increased participation is overwhelming.

 

Yet, in Kentucky, where education (supposedly) comes first Proposal 2 will reduce participation.

 

 

Where's the proof that increased participation leads to improved academic performance? Correlation does not prove causality. Just because the rooster crows at dawn does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise.

 

There are probably a lot of reasons for people to oppose proposal 2, I'm just not sure this one holds up to scrutiny.

Fourth, the privates have been screaming about lawsuits from day one. I'm sure there will be lawsuits, but I have fought in this arena before and I'm telling you, the Tennessee High School Athletic Association case is not as powerful as all of the privates (and the State Senators that support them) think it is. It is by no means a clear cut legal case.

 

 

A link to a good recent article on the Tennessee action:

 

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704150410

 

Again I say to you that if you don't see it as a big issue then lets make ALL freshmen ineligible for game action.

I don't believe the KHSAA would have the power to do that. And the reason why is that state legislators (read NOT KHSAA) put a KRS in place (see MS thread in general discussion on which one) that protects a MSers' right to try out for the HS team.

 

Since the state assembly has seen need to protect MSers in their ability to play for HS teams, don't think the KHSAA could get a freshmen ineligibity rule through.

First, opposition to Proposal 2 by ordinary parents has nothing to do with what is good for private schools or public schools at an overall athletic program level. To the ordinary parent this proposal is outragous, offensive and hurtful to children. I have yet find one parent who, when the details of this proposal are understood, supports this proposal. Not a single one and I interact with plenty of parents who have children in both private and public schools.

 

Second, I know of no private school who has indicated it thinks this is positive. A primary opposition argument from the privates (and one that seems to be a concern to the AG) is that of the "parent's right to chose". That choice should include a path from private to public schools if that is the desire of the parent. This is a very common and historically traditional path that thousands of parents have taken, especially in Jefferson Country. I know of no private school or organization that wants that path taken away or discouraged. Given the extreme financial sacrifice one makes to have their childrent attend a private school no one wants a family to feel they are 'trapped' into having to go to private school. That sort of thought process is completely foreign to those associated with private schools.

Just wanted to point out that the state is more than just Jefferson County and what works in Jefferson County may not work in the rest of the state. And thus, a problem of the KHSAA that they have to find a system that works in Jefferson County and works for the rest of the state.

 

As a non-Jefferson Countian, I realize that JC has it's own unique workings and we need to be sensitive to that, but those in JC also need to realize that it is not all about what works in JC. It is about what works throughout the state of KY from Mayfield to Pikeville and Corbin to Rabbit Hash.

 

Which may be that something that works real well in JC but doesn't work well in the rest of the state, those within JC might have to compromise on.

 

I for one know that this the state of HS athletics is not good and changes need to be made but that it is EXTREMELY difficult to find the middle point that will work for all. Cause WHEREVER they end up, a good portion of the state is going to be unhappy with them.

I don't believe the KHSAA would have the power to do that. And the reason why is that state legislators (read NOT KHSAA) put a KRS in place (see MS thread in general discussion on which one) that protects a MSers' right to try out for the HS team.

 

Since the state assembly has seen need to protect MSers in their ability to play for HS teams, don't think the KHSAA could get a freshmen ineligibity rule through.

So then would be in favor of a KRS that protects the rights of ALL freshmen to be allowed the opportunity to PLAY (not just practice) with their high school teams?

Reality Check: Why would a 14 year old kid, a freshman in high school, put in the hours of practice time for no reward? Why would they put in that time if there was no fun, no real game to play?

Reality Check: Why would a 14 year old kid, a freshman in high school, put in the hours of practice time for no reward? Why would they put in that time if there was no fun, no real game to play?

:thumb:

I for one know that this the state of HS athletics is not good and changes need to be made but that it is EXTREMELY difficult to find the middle point that will work for all. Cause WHEREVER they end up, a good portion of the state is going to be unhappy with them.

What isn't good about it? Why do changes need to be made? I watched all four seventh region games today. Eastern didn't lose to St X because there is anything wrong with high school athletics. They lost because they committed four errors.

So then would be in favor of a KRS that protects the rights of ALL freshmen to be allowed the opportunity to PLAY (not just practice) with their high school teams?

If the state legislature at the time thought it was so important for MSers to play at the HS level, I could see them getting involved again. Although I do think the KRS gives the BOE the right to rule MSers ineligible but that is the only organization.

What isn't good about it? Why do changes need to be made? I watched all four seventh region games today. Eastern didn't lose to St X because there is anything wrong with high school athletics. They lost because they committed four errors.

I think the debates on here are well established on why there is a camp that feels the system needs an update while others feel it is doesn't.

Reality Check: Why would a 14 year old kid, a freshman in high school, put in the hours of practice time for no reward? Why would they put in that time if there was no fun, no real game to play?

AT THE FRESHMEN LEVEL, I had players that didn't WANT to play in games or was content with 2-3 minutes per game. They loved being a part of the team. They loved practicing. They loved traveling with us. Come game time and it was on the line, they would prefer to watch from the bench as they knew their skill level was not up to speed.

AT THE FRESHMEN LEVEL, I had players that didn't WANT to play in games or was content with 2-3 minutes per game. They loved being a part of the team. They loved practicing. They loved traveling with us. Come game time and it was on the line, they would prefer to watch from the bench as they knew their skill level was not up to speed.

At the freshman level there are freshman teams. As you have said numerous times not every program is the same. Some schools rarely have freshmen play at any other level then the freshman teams. To expect kids the practice with other freshman to then sit and watch during games is unrealistic and mean IMHO. I feel fairly certain that either coaches will cut those kids because they can't play in games or on no-cut sports the kids will quickly get tired of watching games and quit.