I think the key aspect that some are missing is "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."

 

I can talk to anyone about coming to my school for the academic benefits, I just can't talk about athletics.

Then change that part of by-law 10 and rigidly enfore the provisions that deal with school employees or agents offering enticements to get kids to come to their school. I would sincerely hope that as a coach I did a good enough job that parents encouraged other to place their kids in my care.

So a parent of a kid can talk about their coach but the teacher who teaches besides the coach cannot talk to their neighbor about the coach?

 

Not arguing, just showing how this is a briar rabbit tarbaby.

I think the key aspect that some are missing is "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."

 

I can talk to anyone about coming to my school for the academic benefits, I just can't talk about athletics.

Absolutely, but you are not being naive to think that the talk is JUST about academics when you are talking to the star quarterback, the 6'7" shooting guard, the 300 yard drives golfer, etc, etc?

So a parent of a kid can talk about their coach but the teacher who teaches besides the coach cannot talk to their neighbor about the coach?

 

Not arguing, just showing how this is a briar rabbit tarbaby.

Absolutely. The teacher is an employee of the school and as such is under a different set of rules then parents. I would even go so far as to include parents who are members of any kind of booster club, provided that they sign a statement prior to membership making them aware of those rules.

If they don't win a trophy and a championship well, that's part of life and growing up to learn about winning and losing.

 

 

Can we teach them about rules, fair play, and honesty while we're at it?

 

Recruiting rules are unenforceable. It happens in one form or another at public as well as private schools. There is no solution to this problem other a new focus on morality.

This bylaw was fairly well constructed and directed until it gets to the following sentence (happens to be the last one):

 

"This regulation shall also apply to students or their parents."

 

It would be interesting to know if this was part of this bylaw from the beginning or if this was added later as a knee jerk reaction. To someone who reads a lot of contracts this looks like a pure afterthought and the authors/lawyers were too lazy to retrofit it into the overall bylaw.

 

As soon as you try to integrate this statement into the rest of the wording above it you would quickly run into all the issues in this thread.

 

This single sentence is the main reason this bylaw is 'unforceable' (reasons posted above). Most, if not all the other rules in the bylaw appear to be staight forward to enforce. They are clearly designed to help prevent a 'free for all' environment that is supported or sanctioned by the actual schools officials.

 

I dont think most involved in this debate want a 'free for all' environment as advocated by the Tennessee private school. But this last sentence attempts to muzzle ordinary, non-institutional parent to parent discussion.

This bylaw was fairly well constructed and directed until it gets to the following sentence (happens to be the last one):

 

"This regulation shall also apply to students or their parents."

 

It would be interesting to know if this was part of this bylaw from the beginning or if this was added later as a knee jerk reaction. To someone who reads a lot of contracts this looks like a pure afterthought and the authors/lawyers were too lazy to retrofit it into the overall bylaw.

 

As soon as you try to integrate this statement into the rest of the wording above it you would quickly run into all the issues in this thread.

 

This single sentence is the main reason this bylaw is 'unforceable' (reasons posted above). Most, if not all the other rules in the bylaw appear to be staight forward to enforce. They are clearly designed to help prevent a 'free for all' environment that is supported or sanctioned by the actual schools officials.

 

I dont think most involved in this debate want a 'free for all' environment as advocated by the Tennessee private school. But this last sentence attempts to muzzle ordinary, non-institutional parent to parent discussion.

What do you think of the word "citizen?"

As far as I'm concerned that last sentence ( This regulation shall also apply to students or their parents. ) violates the 1st amendment of the constitution concerning freedom of speech .

What do you think of the word "citizen?"

 

In the context in which it is used, I am OK with it.

 

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.

 

The subject of the sentence and of the enforcable rule is the "school official". For some reason the authors/lawyers felt the need to define possible 'intermediary' roles. The statement in this rule does not call out the intermediary for enforcable action (i.e. penalties for their actions). Hence, the rule does not directly attempt to gag or curtail the right to free speach by the intermediary when NOT in an intermediary role. So a "citizen" who is NOT a intermediary to a school official is free to say what ever they want, even with this rule as it is stated.

So a "citizen" who is NOT a intermediary to a school official is free to say what ever they want, even with this rule as it is stated.

 

Oh, until you get to the infamous last sentence....then I am not sure where parents and student stand in this rule. I guess you have reread it and insert "parent or student" where ever you find the word "school official", "coach", "representative", etc...

I truly, truly feel that the recruiting that is rampant in this country is not from coaches or staff. It is from parents and AAU coaches.

 

You may be right, but I don't know that to be the case so I can't agree or disagree. For argument purposes, I'll assume you are right. But even if it is, does it really matter? If a parent is so obsessed with sports that he/she will choose a high school solely on athletics, then my guess is that parent will be willing to physically move into different school sistrict as early as the 7th grade if that's what it takes for his/her son or daughter to be able to attend that high school. Thus Proposal 2 if it was passed wouldn't make your problem go away. Not only does the sending school lose that student (and pretty much ensuring that any other younger children in that family will never attend the sending school either), the sending community loses the entire family. In a lot of cases, that could have a much more adverse effect than just the loss of a talented student.

 

Bottom line, unless we are going to become some totalitarian state that limits families abilities to move to where ever they want to live; to work for whatever employer they want to work for; to get other parents opinions about different high schools; and yes to have their children attend the high school they want to attend, then we are going to have to accept the consequences that the have nots will from time to time lose students to the haves. I know its not fun when that happens. Highlands lost a couple of very good baseball players to CovCath and it stinks. But complaining about it wouldn't have done any good. If we want to prevent it from happening again, the answer is simple: improve our baseball program so that people don't want to leave. And that's exactly what we are doing. If Pendleton County had the same enthusiasm for football that it has for boys basketball and placed the same emphasis and administration committment in football that it does in boys basketball, kids won't leave Pendleton County High to play football at Campbell County or any where else for that matter.

 

And since you are a girls basketball coach ( I think that is the case isn't it?), I'll repeat my oft stated view of girls basketball. For years most of the public schools in this state fought tooth and nail against girls sports (heck until recently, a lot of them fought against football because they thought it would adversely affect boys basketball). We still have way too many public schools not complying with Title IX (pm me and I'll tell you how I know) and that tells me a whole lot as to why the public schools can't compete with the privates in girls basketball. And even those publics making such committment are years if not decades behind private schools in that committment and its foolish of them to think that they are going to catch up quickly.

 

Finally, if all the inequities that you claim are in place are really in place, why do the public schools still win a large percentage of the boys basketball championships? I know why; its because for decades the public schools have placed a heavy committment on boys basketball; a committment that they have not made to football while schools like X, T, Highlands, Beechwood, Newport Catholic, CovCath, Male, Mayfield etc have been doing so; a committment that they have not made to girls basketball or volleyball while schools like Notre Dame, Assumption etc have been doing so. You know that's true. And that's why a lot of public schools can compete in boys basketball but cannot compete in football, girls basketball, volleyball etc.

Actually, I think my position has long been that it is unforceable.

 

Technically, if my child and one of your children is on an AAU team together and my child asks your child to come and play for their school team that is recruiting and illegal.

 

If you are sitting in the stands as a parent and mention to my wife about your child coming to my school, that is illegal and recruiting.

 

Notice the word "citizen" in #2. Doesn't that pretty much mean anybody but the illegal aliens that Congress and the President is worried about?

 

So, that means NO ONE can talk to a student about attending another school or STAYING in the school they are presently in.

 

So as a coach, my #1 player comes to me and says they are thinking of transferring. Technically, I am NOT allowed to talk to them about "remaining at my school" and on my team.

First, read the bylaw. It says that it applies to transfers. Does that mean that middle school students are fair game. I hope not, but I think that the rule should be clarified to include recruitment of any student for athletic purposes.

 

Read section 2c. Parent to parent talks do not constitute recruiting, even if the talk concerns what a great team we could have if our kids played together, UNLESS the parents either offer illegal inducements or the parent is speaking for the coach. I think that bylaw 10 could use a little clean-up, but I think on the whole it is very clear and very enforcable, if we have the will to enforce it.

I agree that Bylaw 10 is unenforceable from a practical standpoint. The way it is written, an enforceable violation only exists if it can be shown that there was intent to influence a pupil for the purpose of participating in athletics. How do you prove that a student was recruited for athletic reasons rather than (legitimate) academic reasons? There are many ways around this rule. For example, a school could intensely market itself to "desirable" prospects with mailings, invitations to shadow, information about academics, need-based scholarships, etc. that don't get sent to the average non-athlete. In such a scenario, that school's efforts would be effectively invisible. The intense marketing I just described doesn't have to be limited to promising athletic prospects--it can include the academically- and artistically-gifted as well (indeed, all the better to mask the "love" shown to the athletes by concealing it within the legitimate recruitment of gifted students on the basis of academics).

 

Someone please explain to me how this type of recruiting (where the intent to influence students for athletic reasons would only be evident in the statistical patterns of who got deluged with mailings and who did not) would be enforceable. Even if the parent of an athlete complained to the KHSAA about getting the hard sell through the mail, all the school has to do is point out that those mailings also went out to non-athletes like Timmy, the Junior Science Fair winner and Daniel, the violin virtuoso.

I agree that Bylaw 10 is unenforceable from a practical standpoint. The way it is written, an enforceable violation only exists if it can be shown that there was intent to influence a pupil for the purpose of participating in athletics. How do you prove that a student was recruited for athletic reasons rather than (legitimate) academic reasons? There are many ways around this rule. For example, a school could intensely market itself to "desirable" prospects with mailings, invitations to shadow, information about academics, need-based scholarships, etc. that don't get sent to the average non-athlete. In such a scenario, that school's efforts would be effectively invisible. The intense marketing I just described doesn't have to be limited to promising athletic prospects--it can include the academically- and artistically-gifted as well (indeed, all the better to mask the "love" shown to the athletes by concealing it within the legitimate recruitment of gifted students on the basis of academics).

 

Someone please explain to me how this type of recruiting (where the intent to influence students for athletic reasons would only be evident in the statistical patterns of who got deluged with mailings and who did not) would be enforceable. Even if the parent of an athlete complained to the KHSAA about getting the hard sell through the mail, all the school has to do is point out that those mailings also went out to non-athletes like Timmy, the Junior Science Fair winner and Daniel, the violin virtuoso.

A couple of years ago, the KHSAA was investigating a complaint from a school system south of Jefferson County, I believe it was Meade. It seems a mailer talking about the benefits of a Catholic education in Jefferson County including the athletic programs was sent to the best MS girls basketball player in the county. She was a 7th grader. No other MS basketball player, boy or girl, received the mailer. Her father was a Baptist (I think that was the denomination) minister.

 

So, no Catholic connection. Doesn't live in Jefferson County. Not all students in that area received it.

 

Seems pretty obvious it was sent specifically to her and for athletic purposes. But how do you prove that?

 

But the KHSAA could do nothing because they had NO WAY to prove who sent it. How would the proposed investigation unit that is bandied by the private school supporters have changed this situation? I don't see how. And don't see how you could stop this.

 

I fully understand and SUPPORT the privates right to recruit students. And ON BOTH SIDES when you have adults who will not follow the rules, sometimes they are just not enforceable.

A couple of years ago, the KHSAA was investigating a complaint from a school system south of Jefferson County, I believe it was Meade. It seems a mailer talking about the benefits of a Catholic education in Jefferson County including the athletic programs was sent to the best MS girls basketball player in the county. She was a 7th grader. No other MS basketball player, boy or girl, received the mailer. Her father was a Baptist (I think that was the denomination) minister.

 

So, no Catholic connection. Doesn't live in Jefferson County. Not all students in that area received it.

 

Seems pretty obvious it was sent specifically to her and for athletic purposes. But how do you prove that?

 

But the KHSAA could do nothing because they had NO WAY to prove who sent it. How would the proposed investigation unit that is bandied by the private school supporters have changed this situation? I don't see how. And don't see how you could stop this.

 

I fully understand and SUPPORT the privates right to recruit students. And ON BOTH SIDES when you have adults who will not follow the rules, sometimes they are just not enforceable.

First, I would be willing to bet that the school had nothing to do with sending that information. Second, I think that the situation, as you descibed it, was illegal recruiting. Third, you are right, it may not be possible to identify the sender in this case. Fourth, my guess is getting an anonymous mailer dodn't do much good in getting the student to attend the school. In fact, it sounds like it triggered a KHSAA investigation. Sounds like the system worked.