he or she is enrolled. KHSAA eligibility rules apply after that. The implication is that if the student wanted to change schools over the summer and enroll elsewhere, they would automatically be eligible at a different school, regardless of residence or other factors.

 

Check this link out:

 

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/HB158/bill.doc

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=140526

 

I started a thread on this when it appeared it the Independent. I wasn't sure if it would make it this far or not. But, it appears it has. Let the speculation begin.

I remember that thread but this is more nuts and bolts...

I remember that thread but this is more nuts and bolts...

 

You are right, I just can't figure out why Rep Web is so vocal on this. She is from Carter Co. I may be wrong but I don't see this being a big problem in Carter Co. From what I have read she jumped on this when one student had to sit out one year after a custody dispute caused a transfer.

As always, these things read like stereo instructions.

 

I would hope, that you would have to live within a school district to be eligible to attend a school.

 

Assuming that you have to live in a school district to attend a school and play sports, I have no issue with this. I have never liked the current sit-out rule because I feel it has been inconsistent in it's application. This would be straight forward and easy.

 

Again, I am assuming proper residency in the school district. IMO if you live in a school district you should be able to play sports there. I agree that your eligibility should be tied to that school district for the full year.

 

I know there would be some people, but I just don't think there would be that many people who would pack up and move from year to year for thier kid to play sports somewhere else.

(e) The rules, administrative regulations, or bylaws governing residence and transfer shall allow a student to be eligible in the school in which he or she first enrolls each school year, or makes himself or herself a candidate for an athletic team by engaging in a practice prior to enrolling in any member school. The student shall be eligible as long as he or she remains enrolled in that school and meets all other eligibility requirements. Subsequent eligibility shall be determined and enforced through the organization's bylaws.

 

I don't think residency is a requirement for this legislation. It says they have to, "be eligible as long as he or she remains enrolled in that school and meats all other eligibility requirements". If a school does not require residency within the district, then they would be eligibal.

 

It also states that, "rules, administrative regulations, or bylaws governing residence and transfer shall allow a student to be eligible in the school in which he or she first enrolls each school year". So, this document would trump any other rule, regulation, or bylaw that requires residency.

The way Ram has described the bill is the interpretation that I have as well. You can switch to any school you want during the summer, but on the first day of school, you are stuck with that school. During the school year, if you transfer schools for reasons other than change of address due to parent move because of job or divorce, the student would be ineligible to play sports at the new school until the next school year.

This looks like a good idea.:dancingpa

How big of a blow is this to Sears and his battle against the windmills?

This looks like a good idea.:dancingpa

 

FUNNY

At this point, I see both sides to the bill. The big con are course is that it would/could really encourage recruiting or encourage disgruntled kids/parents into school shopping. The pros of course are parental choice of the best school for their children (which can of course change during the 4 years of high school); forces schools to make bigger commitments to athletics and permits a kid to leave a school if there is a coaching change for the worse (that happens unfortunately).

 

While I think the recruiting issue could be eliminated if we put a stronger commitment into investigating and enforcing recruiting allegations and if coaches were more willing to turn in their fellow coaches for recruiting (instead of just looking the other way), at this point I'm not sure the resolve is there. Rather, it seems that the schools would just rather put some hard and fast (and arbitrary) rules in place to try and stop transfers regardless of whether there is recruiting or not (the old cliche' of penalizing the 90% for the bad actions of 10%).

 

I'd be surprised if this bill is ever signed into law.

I would love to see the paperwork and the transcript of some of these kids when they graduate. Would it not run into problems with the different curriculums at different schools and the requirements for graduation.

 

I don't see this taking off.

The KHSAA would have a hard time proving that recruiting took place. This would open the door for the "R" word to really take effect. Especially in counties where there is more than one school. I could see programs with large enough staffs "scouting" players from other teams JV and Frosh games and recruting those kids to come to their school. The ramifications of this are exponential. This obviously has nothing to do with academics, and that is the sad thing. This type of bill could push coaches out of our state and into other states where the kids don't run the program, because that is exactly what could happen. An example could be, a kid doesn't like all the lifting, running, and overall committment needed at "X" school. He and his buddies could go to another school just up the road that may win more games but they don't work nearly as hard. Just one situation out of many that could occur. What will this do to the small schools who struggle to get 30 kids out? I see this as the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. You also now have parents calling the shots. IF Johnny doesn't get to play I am going to take him up the road (where will this end???). Just an outside opionion.

The KHSAA would have a hard time proving that recruiting took place. This would open the door for the "R" word to really take effect. Especially in counties where there is more than one school. I could see programs with large enough staffs "scouting" players from other teams JV and Frosh games and recruting those kids to come to their school. The ramifications of this are exponential. This obviously has nothing to do with academics, and that is the sad thing. This type of bill could push coaches out of our state and into other states where the kids don't run the program, because that is exactly what could happen. An example could be, a kid doesn't like all the lifting, running, and overall committment needed at "X" school. He and his buddies could go to another school just up the road that may win more games but they don't work nearly as hard. Just one situation out of many that could occur. What will this do to the small schools who struggle to get 30 kids out? I see this as the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. You also now have parents calling the shots. IF Johnny doesn't get to play I am going to take him up the road (where will this end???). Just an outside opionion.

 

I agree 100% with you. I think this would be a big mistake for sports overall.

Hopefully this will die because it could lead to chaos.

he or she is enrolled. KHSAA eligibility rules apply after that. The implication is that if the student wanted to change schools over the summer and enroll elsewhere, they would automatically be eligible at a different school, regardless of residence or other factors.

 

Check this link out:

 

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/HB158/bill.doc

 

The way I read this a student basically gets one transfer without penalty, if done over the summer. However "subsequent eligibility" shall be determined by the bylaws which I intrpret to mean a student can't change schools summmer after freshmen year, summer after sohmore year, and summer after junior year and expect to play without penalty either his junior or senior year. I have no problem with it. Freedom of choice can't be a bad thing overall, let kids go where they think they'll be most happy. If getting to play a sport, as opposed to sitting on the bench, makes a kid happy why should we penalize that? Believe it or not, there are some bad coaches out there. Bad in the sense that they don't evaulate talent well or develop the talent they have very well. I don't buy the argument that kids should be forced to stick with their school because life's not fair, it's a good life lesson to deal with adversity, etc...BS!! You only to get one chance to go through high school and I don't see the jusitfication in penalizing a kid's eligibility for a year because he wants attend a different school.