HL front page article

[HDE]

It seems I remember some penalties being handed down and a coach dismissed.

 

The current rules and tougher enforcement have made it more difficult to recruit. I think that's a good thing.

[Plato]

They may have cleaned up a some situations and maybe even some sports, but soccer is still dominated by exchange students.

 

I agree that it's a good thing to clean up the recruiting - but they should do it for all sports.

[LCBlue]

So if a kid can no longer pay to go to a private school for whatever reason and have to go to public school, they should not be allowed to play sports? Give me a break!

 

I am not taking a shot at private schools in any way, but if you can't afford it than a kid should be able to go else where and play whatever sport he or she wants.

 

So if a parent gets a new higher paying job and can then afford to send their child to a private school the same logic should hold true.

[Log Mountain Boy]

So if a parent gets a new higher paying job and can then afford to send their child to a private school the same logic should hold true.

 

I don't see it that way. I think the exception here would be to bend the rule to help someone who is in a situation where they have no other choice, but to transfer.

[LCBlue]

I don't see it that way. I think the exception here would be to bend the rule to help someone who is in a situation where they have no other choice, but to transfer.

 

For rulings to be consistent the athletes in both cases would have to be treated equally, either both eligible or both ineligible. I have no problem either way as long as the rulings are consistent. The rules should be the rules without need for "bending". If they need to be bent, rewrite the rules.

 

BTW, I know one of the parents personally that was quoted in the article. This parent stated that his child was transferring because they would have a better chance being at starter at the new school opposed to the old school. There was no mention of academic or economic reasons until after the ruling of ineligibility.

[HDE]

You can always find an excuse when you start bending rules.

[All Tell]

I don't see it that way. I think the exception here would be to bend the rule to help someone who is in a situation where they have no other choice, but to transfer.

 

I'm not surprised

[All Tell]

I found this gem in another thread.

 

First of all, recruiting is wrong to do. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But I also think a family should be able to go do whatever is best for their own life. This is the United States, not Russia.

 

Now I'm going to ask the person who said this if he wants to rethink his his position about families whose situation changes such that they can afford a private school after their child has been an athlete at a public school.

[leatherneck]

For rulings to be consistent the athletes in both cases would have to be treated equally, either both eligible or both ineligible. I have no problem either way as long as the rulings are consistent. The rules should be the rules without need for "bending". If they need to be bent, rewrite the rules.

 

BTW, I know one of the parents personally that was quoted in the article. This parent stated that his child was transferring because they would have a better chance being at starter at the new school opposed to the old school. There was no mention of academic or economic reasons until after the ruling of ineligibility.

 

As to the bolded part, from what I'm told the KHSAA does try to be consistent and considers past decisions to be precedent. However, the facts are very rarely the same in these cases from what I know. Plus, and while it may be wrong, unfortunately the decisions made by the Board are based on the people on the Board. As new members rotate on and old ones off, it's going to affect the rulings. Because any rule other than "if you transfer, you are ineligible, period" (which could be terribly unfair to many kids), is going to have exceptions that are decided in the Board's discretion, there will be inconsistencies. A new Board member may come on with a bad past experience where his/her school got beat as a result of a transfer that he/she thought was improper. While we can all wish that baggage didn't affect his/her decisions on the Board, it certainly may. Some new members may come on as a result of their strong dissatisfaction with the severity (or lack thereof as of late) of punishments and sanctions handed out by the KHSAA. That baggage may affect their decisions. Some new members may have got elected and came on to the Board as a result of the public schools in his/her region being upset with the private school issue. That baggage may afect their decisions.

 

I agree that in a perfect world all similar situations should be handled the same way. But we don't live in a perfect world; not even close. And one thing everyone needs to keep in mind, as I was told by person close to the KHSAA, the public rarely knows all the details and facts in a lot of these situations. They know what they read on here or they hear in the local gossip circles. Some of that may be wrong and/or it may leave out certain critical information. I don't want to come across as a Crusader defending the KHSAA because I think they have made some mistakes (and heck I may be wrong in that judgment because I don't know all the facts myself), but sometimes we are a tad bit too critical of them. And from what I have also been told the Board has recently approved some changes in the eligibility process (that are still waiting for approval from "above" but should be approved since those changes pretty much followed the recommendations of the task force assembled by the State Board of Education) that are designed to make sure there are better initial determinations made by the KHSAA, should stream line the eligibility process to benefit the kids and will remove the Board from the eligibility process (thus hopefully eliminating the baggage I was referring to above). If that is true, I think the Board made a wise decision to make those changes.

[Log Mountain Boy]

I found this gem in another thread.

 

 

 

Now I'm going to ask the person who said this if he wants to rethink his his position about families whose situation changes such that they can afford a private school after their child has been an athlete at a public school.

 

If you have rules saying that there must be a change of residence then no a kid should not be able to do that. Now if a kid goes to a private school and all of a sudden his parents lose their jobs and he can't afford to go there anymore I don't see why you would pile on a kid who already has to change a school because of financial reasons. I don't think a kid should be able to go from a private school to a public school and play just because either. I am not trying to make this a private/public debate at all.

 

For me I believe as long as their is a legit change of residence and no proof of recruiting a kid should be able to go from Lafayette to LexCath and play for example. I don't think a kid not happy with playing time or what have you at LexCath should be able to just go to Lafayette and play without moving either.

[Log Mountain Boy]

You can always find an excuse when you start bending rules.

 

So do you think there should not be an exception put into the rules for some kid who has no other choice because his family can't afford that school? I don't even know of a specific situation like this, but speaking hypothetically that makes sense to me.

[ladiesbballcoach]

If you have rules saying that there must be a change of residence then no a kid should not be able to do that. Now if a kid goes to a private school and all of a sudden his parents lose their jobs and he can't afford to go there anymore I don't see why you would pile on a kid who already has to change a school because of financial reasons. I don't think a kid should be able to go from a private school to a public school and play just because either. I am not trying to make this a private/public debate at all.

 

For me I believe as long as their is a legit change of residence and no proof of recruiting a kid should be able to go from Lafayette to LexCath and play for example. I don't think a kid not happy with playing time or what have you at LexCath should be able to just go to Lafayette and play without moving either.

 

So, the best interests of the kid does not hold for you in the bolded example?

[Log Mountain Boy]

So, the best interests of the kid does not hold for you in the bolded example?

 

Here is the thing. With the rules we have in place a player cannot do that. If the rules are changed I see no problem with it. I do think adjustments need to be made for the rules however. If a family relocates for whatever reason I believe the kid should be allowed to play sports unless its proven that recruiting is involved. I also think that if a player has to leave a school because of financial reasons then that player should be able to play.

[All Tell]

So the player should only be able to better his situation if a negative change occurs?

 

Lets just suppose a kid went to a parochial grade school for 8 years but his/her parents were unable to afford a Catholic school education for high school so he/she enrolled in a public high school and excelled on the cross country team. After that first year the kids father gets a huge raise and his parents now wish to continue their childs education at a Catholic school. In your world that kid would be inelligible, correct? That student left the public school for financial reasons after all.

[miragesmack]

They may have cleaned up a some situations and maybe even some sports, but soccer is still dominated by exchange students.

 

I agree that it's a good thing to clean up the recruiting - but they should do it for all sports.

 

That makes perfect sense as it is the most popular sport in every country in the world - excpet the U.S. One kid from Columbia can outplay 3-4 american kids. I've see it done.