To me, one of the biggest concerns is the use of the word "transfer" relative to the move from middle school to high school. It doesn't apply, IMO, to districts that have school choice options

It really doesn't bother me either way. I was just supplying information to a person who had a question. But, for the sake of discussion, I think a person can be a intermediary without knowing they are, or either party knowing that they are mediating between knowing they are. Another words, I don't think it has to be two or more parties working in concert.

 

For example: Coach A says to a parent, "I would love to have school B's QB". The parents attends a community event and sees school B's QB's parents and says, "I would love to see your son attend our school, he would fit in well and he has many friends at our school, and I know we need a QB". QB B's parents transfer their son to Coach A's school. Is this a recruiting violation? I believe it is. The parent clearly mediated between the coach and the recruit, by transferring information. Could it have possibly been an innocent incident? Sure it could have.

 

Now I have heard many people say that if you only talk about the academic benefits of their school, then the are not recruiting. Because the bylaw says,"for the purpose of athletics". So in the above scenario if the parent says,"I would love to see your son come to our school, for the sake of his education". I would say no recruiting violation occurred. They did not transfer information from one party to another. And no discussion of athletics occurred.

 

Now matter how we brake the letter of the bylaw down, I believe the spirit of the bylaw is that no player is to be contacted by anyone from anther school for the purpose of having that student/athlete to change school to play sports.

 

Simple fact though: can you prove anything in either of the above incidents? No. I doubt any of the parties are going to know the entire story, or testify in a negative light. The coach did nothing wrong. The parent didn't know they did anything wrong. The parents of the QB did nothing wrong, and the school that the QB transferred from knows nothing about the incident. School A is happy, Coach A is happy, the parent is happy, and the parents of the QB and the QB are apparently happy. No evidence is available.

 

RAM, I did not mean to contradict your personal statement. I respect the intrepretation of the rule as am not trying to even challenge it.

 

My main point is that rule leaves so much interpretation and that what some people believe is legal and even still in the spirit of normal parent to parent discussion can be viewed, very reasonably, as blatent disregard and violation of the rule. And this is a major reason for some of the ongoing charges that illegal recuitment goes on.

 

BTW, I agree with the scenario above as a clear violation in the first paragraph. I think the violation started with the first action of the coach in that scenerio - "I would love to have school B's QB". Once he or any other school official uttered those words I believe a violation has occured since they defined an actual recuitment target.

 

I will even say that even if the parents use only education in their discussion a violation still occured if the only prompting of the discussion was the coaches comment. At the end of the day, and according to the rules, the coach is accountable.

I made the point in the above post that parents were not covered under Bylaw 10.

 

I would stand by that statement except for the last sentence of Bylaw 10 - "This regulation shall also apply to students or their parents."

 

Everything above that line is targeting actions of coaches and formal school officials.

 

Its obvious in reading "Sec 3) Penalty" that the "students and parents" sentence was merely added as an after thought to a rule that was designed for formal "representatives of a member school".

To me, one of the biggest concerns is the use of the word "transfer" relative to the move from middle school to high school. It doesn't apply, IMO, to districts that have school choice options

I bolded the word that helps create the situation that the KHSAA is in. Good number of districts in this state where there are no school choice options.

Anyone who makes contact with a player and/or a players parents for the purpose of recruitment has become an agent of that school.

 

Bylaw 10. Recruitment

 

Sec. 2) Definition

a) Recruiting is defined as an act, on behalf of or for

the benefit of, a school, which attempts to influence a

student to transfer to a member school for the purpose

of participating in athletics. Such also includes influencing

a student to remain at a school. A school official utilizing

an intermediary, such as, but not limited to a peer,

another school employee, a student, a parent or a

citizen, for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete

shall be in noncompliance.

 

There is just no way the KHSAA can police this, they would have to have an agent in every district that plays sports.

There is just no way the KHSAA can police this, they would have to have an agent in every district that plays sports.

Thus the statement that better enforcement of the recruiting rules is pie in the sky and cannot truly happen to address the issue.

Again, the current rules says that if my child and your child are on the same AAU team and you talk to me about attending a private or a public school, that is recruiting. That is the MAIN form of recruiting.

 

How are you going to enforce that not occurring??????

I'm not. I see nothing wrong with it (as long as a school official hasn't orchestrated the contact) and public schools do it just as much as private schools.

 

Do you not want parents talking up your program? Better yet do you tell your parents NOT to talk up your program?

Thus the statement that better enforcement of the recruiting rules is pie in the sky and cannot truly happen to address the issue.

But your scenario is not against the rules (unless a school official orchastrates it). Again do you, or did you, specifically tell your parenst not to speak well of your program to potentail students parents. If you found out it happened did you report it to the KHSAA as a violation? If these things occurred with regards to your program then by your own interpretation you were guilty of illegal recruiting.

RAM, I did not mean to contradict your personal statement. I respect the intrepretation of the rule as am not trying to even challenge it.

 

My main point is that rule leaves so much interpretation and that what some people believe is legal and even still in the spirit of normal parent to parent discussion can be viewed, very reasonably, as blatent disregard and violation of the rule. And this is a major reason for some of the ongoing charges that illegal recuitment goes on.

 

BTW, I agree with the scenario above as a clear violation in the first paragraph. I think the violation started with the first action of the coach in that scenerio - "I would love to have school B's QB". Once he or any other school official uttered those words I believe a violation has occured since they defined an actual recuitment target.

I will even say that even if the parents use only education in their discussion a violation still occured if the only prompting of the discussion was the coaches comment. At the end of the day, and according to the rules, the coach is accountable.

 

:thumb: I didn't take your statement as a contradiction. I was just wondering what other people's interpretation was. I honestly don't know what the KHSAA's view is on these situations. I see the given scenario as a violation, but like I said there is no way to prove it.

 

I would say this kind of conversation between parents take place all the time, I have heard them, I don't think many of the conversation are blatant disregard for the rules, rather just parents (who don't know they are breaking the rules) talking about high schools and athletics.

Agree 100%: Be AGGRESSIVE, FIRM AND CONSISTENT and enforce the rules and punish violators! No mercy for cheaters! But you're gonna have to stick to rules that are clear and to the point.

 

When any rule is broad, open for interpretation and truly un-enforceable, it becomes useless. Any attempt to make everyone happy will leave no one happy and one will lose their soul in the attempt. (KHSAA case in point).

 

Parent's get input on many issues before making a decision for their kids. From the mundane to the more profound. There is no way to include an 'endorsement' or opinion in the realm of 'recruiting'. If a parent says to summer ball teammate that "you'd love this school...the academics are at the top of the area, and they have a great coach, and you get to play with so and so and so through high school"...who's at fault...who get's punished?? The school administration for producing a great curriculum/faculty that better prepares kids for college and attracts the better students? The coaches, for producing competitive teams that expect to win and thereby attract kids of like mind? I don't understand.

 

I do agree that 'endorsements', encouragement and opinion from coaches and/or any school representative is recruiting. I agree that any special treatment offered / given by ANYONE (school rep or not) for the purpose of bringing a kid to a certain school is recruiting...(and that includes athletes and non athletes.)

 

Encouraging someone who is interested in a school because they believe it is the best situation for their child, but feels they can't do because it's out of district or too expensive by telling them that they can take advantage of open enrollment in that district / they can move / or that financial aid is offered to students at a private school is not recruiting and cannot ever be enforced.

 

I'm afraid, however, that we will continue our vain attempt to legislate "fairness" from the bottom up and ignore the possibility that not everybody who out perfoms you in life cheated.

 

We will not be happy until we have thousands of court ordered 'winners'. All of whom will be so completely void of any of the character-building life lessons that historically comprise the foundations of successful poeple and successful insititutions that we'll look around some day and wonder what happened.

 

For heaven's sake, let's NOT for a minute think about building schools that look within first....that embody hope and possiblity...that encourage thinking big....that expect and nurture hard work and the fruits of that work (which may or may not include a particular athletic victory)...a school, with a genuine committment to life as a journey. Not a journey filled with excuses, envy and self pity; but a journey of endless opportunity, self respect and respect for the hard work others. A school that measures itself against the best it can find and aspires with great admiration and determination to exceed that benchmark.

 

The real trophies are not the ones with 'state champ' engraved upon them and sit behind glass and dust over. The real trophies are the ones a kid ownes forever. Like confidence, hope, determination, work ethic, pride, appreciation, respect...these are the trophies that are earned and carried forever.

 

These schools are out there...and we could build more of them if we wanted to....OR....we can just label them all cheaters and save ourselves the effort.

The issue of what is recruiting and what is not is quick sand. The KHSAA does not have a good interpretation of what it is and cannot enforce what is already in the books.

 

Private schools and schools in open enrollment areas have to "recruit" to survive. You have to try to bring kids to your school and let them see the advantages of your school and its various programs. Unfortunately, because this is the case, it runs head long into the KHSAA rules. The danger of choice is that some schools are going to get the short end of the stick. In an open enrollment situation, schools must find a niche that works for them and understand the limitations of that. If a parent has the opportunity to send their child to an academically challenging school that will help their child's chance after high school, that parent would be crazy to turn down the opportunity.

 

In the end, public schools have to improve in order to keep students in their buildings. Each public school has to find their niche that will keep students and parents interested in their school. When these things happen and schools begin to accept certain situations (the possibility of not having the best athletes and winning state championships every year, etc.), then the whole recruiting issue will become moot.

But your scenario is not against the rules (unless a school official orchastrates it). Again do you, or did you, specifically tell your parenst not to speak well of your program to potentail students parents. If you found out it happened did you report it to the KHSAA as a violation? If these things occurred with regards to your program then by your own interpretation you were guilty of illegal recruiting.

From the post above that lists the bylaws........

 

a) Recruiting is defined as an act, on behalf of or for

the benefit of, a school, which attempts to influence a

student to transfer to a member school for the purpose

of participating in athletics. Such also includes influencing

a student to remain at a school. A school official utilizing

an intermediary, such as, but not limited to a peer,

another school employee, a student, a parent or a

citizen, for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete

shall be in noncompliance.

 

1) It defines that recruiting as an act that is on the behalf OR BENEFITS the school. It does not limit it to on behalf.

 

2) Also, notice it is also recruiting if you talk to a student about NOT LEAVING your school.

 

3) Notice that it includes BUT NOT LIMITED TO peers (meaning your players), a parent, citizen. Includes about everyone except the illegal immigrants the Dems and Reps are fighting over.

 

4) As I read this if you as a citizen talk to a player about a school and it will benefit the school, THAT IS RECRUITING. How am I wrong in reading this definition?

With the negative rap that the KHSAA office consistently gets, before this discussion goes any farther, I think it is very fair to point out that no one in the Lex KHSAA office is writing these rules.

 

The rules come from the member schools through authorship and than ratification through vote. If a rule is unclear, it is more the fault of the membership schools than it is the KHSAA office.

a) Recruiting is defined as an act, on behalf of or for the benefit of, a school, which attempts to influence a

student to transfer to a member school for the purpose

of participating in athletics. Such also includes influencing

a student to remain at a school. A school official utilizing

an intermediary, such as, but not limited to a peer,

another school employee, a student, a parent or a

citizen, for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete

shall be in noncompliance.

Yes, it defines what recruiting is BUT please note the underlined words TO TRANSFER. If a student hasn't yet enrolled in a KHSAA member school then this by-law wouldn't seem to apply to them as they can't transfer if they are not yet enrolled. I know it's picky BUT isn't that the kind of thing that lawyers are paid big bucks to find? Please also note that it says for school official to be in non-compliance he/she must utilize (that to me means direct) those people.

 

Now assuming I accept your interpretation of that by-law, I point you to this little gem which is included at the bottom of that by-law:

Any representative of a member school knowingly allowing

the recruitment of a student for the purpose of participating

in athletics or who should have known of such recruitment

shall be guilty of willful neglect of duty, misconduct, and/or

breach of contract. Such shall apply not only to coaches,

but also to personnel supervising coaches, such as, but

not limited to an athletic director, an assistant principal,

a principal, an assistant superintendent, a superintendent

or a school board member. This regulation shall also apply

to students or their parents.

And I ask if you (or any coach for that matter) tells their players and parents NOT to speak well of your program to potential students because it is recruiting? If you don't then it seems to me that by your definition you are in non-compliance with the rule.

 

Wouldn't a better answer be to clean up ambiguities like this and then to enforce the rules rather then adding an entire new level of ambiguities that may well lead to more confusion?

Yes, it defines what recruiting is BUT please note the underlined words TO TRANSFER. If a student hasn't yet enrolled in a KHSAA member school then this by-law wouldn't seem to apply to them as they can't transfer if they are not yet enrolled. I know it's picky BUT isn't that the kind of thing that lawyers are paid big bucks to find? Please also note that it says for school official to be in non-compliance he/she must utilize (that to me means direct) those people.

 

Now assuming I accept your interpretation of that by-law, I point you to this little gem which is included at the bottom of that by-law:

 

And I ask if you (or any coach for that matter) tells their players and parents NOT to speak well of your program to potential students because it is recruiting? If you don't then it seems to me that by your definition you are in non-compliance with the rule.

 

Wouldn't a better answer be to clean up ambiguities like this and then to enforce the rules rather then adding an entire new level of ambiguities that may well lead to more confusion?

Didn't see that word transfer but also know that two mentalties are out there. I believe you are from the Louisville area that has many HS choices. There are a good number of counties where choices DO NOT exist. One MS, one HS in the entire county, private and public. So for a lot of us, we look at that and read over it because there is no or very minimal transfer questions from MS to HS. I believe that one of the mindsets (speaking for rural schools now) behind the Prop 2 position. For rurals, at least many of them, Prop 2 means very little as there are no choices from MS to HS.

 

On the matter of transfer, it does NOT say a transfer HAS to occur but rather ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE A STUDENT TO TRANSFER. So again, I believe it is VERY CLEAR that if we are just two parents and I talk to you about your child coming to play at my child's school (or for that matter just any school) than that is clearly "recruiting."

 

I have no clue how anyone would expect the KHSAA to clean up that type of recruiting and what I contend is 90% of the recruiting that goes on.

 

On your last point..........

If I knew it was occurring and then did not address it, I believe I would be wrong.