If there is a bona fide change of address for reasons outside of athletics, he is eligible.

 

Actually, the bylaw states that the period of ineligibility "can be" over turned with proof of a bonafide change of address. The key words here are "can be". It isn't a definite by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Meaning--even if a kid has a bonafide change of address--the kid can still be ruled ineligible. This ensures that the commissioner has complete power/control in the decision making process when they suspect that a kid as transferred for athletic reasons (even if they do have a bonafide change of address).

Actually, the bylaw states that the period of ineligibility "can be" over turned with proof of a bonafide change of address. The key words here are "can be". It isn't a definite by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Meaning--even if a kid has a bonafide change of address--the kid can still be ruled ineligible. This ensures that the commissioner has complete power/control in the decision making process when they suspect that a kid as transferred for athletic reasons (even if they do have a bonafide change of address).

 

See Michael Mitchell... :thumb:

Come on, WC. That's not the only test. The KHSAA rules say that no one outside of the player's family can pay his tuition.

 

 

You can give me all the excuses, bylaws or whatever you want; you know, I know, and everyone knows that what the kid has had to deal with-he should be allowed to play high school football.

You can give me all the excuses, bylaws or whatever you want; you know, I know, and everyone knows that what the kid has had to deal with-he should be allowed to play high school football.

 

WC, all I've done is correct your interpretation of the KHSAA bylaws regarding bylaws. Those arent excuses, my friend.

You corrected nothing of mine; you clarified in your own mind.

How is this the KHSAA's fault? Lets everyone call some evacuees and recruit them to our schools and then pay for their tuition. I feel for the kids in Louisiana, but he could attend any non-parochial school for free. Maybe he should go to Holmes. That would be free.

 

There should have been a window of opportunity to be ruled eligible if you are an evacuee. That window needs to be closed. The tragedy happened a few weeks ago. If they were going to evacuate and be ruled eligible for football they should have arrived at the school a couple weeks ago. Letting kids become eligible at any time during the season leaves room for some real shady recruiting opportunities. I don't feel this is the case in this situation, but a public education is free.

The kids Grandma is part of the Holy Cross parish. He was baptized at the Covington Cathedral when he was younger, his family is orginaly from this area.

 

This is a lame duck move. So its alright to get goverment assistance at a public school but if a private school wants to help a kid we say no. KHSAA makes me sick to the stomach.

Like I stated in my post. I do not think this is a situation of recruiting LA players.

I also think to say a kid should be able to go to a private school and not have to pay anything is crazy. Would the parish/school community try to raise the money for a non-athlete?

I don't know the answer to that, but IMO the answer would be no.

Again I feel for the kid and parochial schools are at a disadvantage in receiving evacuees.

The answer is go to a public school for free.

The kids sister is also being help by the fundraiser and she does not play football.

Because it goes right along with what the KDE says about enrolling students into schools. Are parochial schools tied to the Kentucky Department of Education?

The KDE is waiving the typical things needed to enroll into a new school, such as a bonafide address and personal records, since they are deemed "homeless".

Now since public schools are essentially free to those who attend within the district, the kid would be granted eligibility.

Now if the student decides to go to a parochial school, then that student must pay tuition to gain access into the school.

I would assume the fundraising portion goes against the "scholarship" situation that comes up from time to time, be it a booster or whatever.

I can see where the KHSAA has ruled him ineligible.

 

 

Of course you can Your stance on private schools has acutally shocked me this last couple weeks. You know darn well there was no bad intentions by Holy Cross on this move.

So where does it end?

If a family that cannot afford a catholic education but desires it, should they be allowed tuition relief so their child can attend a parochial school?

 

 

The hurricane is a special situation and the KHSAA needs to take this on a case by case basis. My first reaction woud be yes, its part of the Catholic/Christian mission to help those in need. So I doubt you would see Holy Cross turn away many students who needed a school to attend.

Does anyone have a link for the actual reason he was ruled ineligible. I would like to learn more about this.

How is it biased?

Simply one that is regulated and one that is not.

 

 

Thats about as biased as you get. Private schools are highly regulated, maybe not by the same governing body as you all. I hope this situation makes the national news and people show the KHSAA to be the frauds that they are.

You can give me all the excuses, bylaws or whatever you want; you know, I know, and everyone knows that what the kid has had to deal with-he should be allowed to play high school football.

:thumb:

 

Thats about as clear as it gets. All you guys backing the KHSAA know what this kid has had to go through. If football is his outlet , he should not be denied it. He lost everything, and now we won't let the kid play football.

 

Why because a bunch of public school advocates don't care about kids anymore just about winning. I doubt HC cares if he is the worst or best football player ever. They are doing this to help a kid in a struggle. Period.

You corrected nothing of mine; you clarified in your own mind.

 

My friend, WC, You seem to be trying to say that the kid changed residency and THAT ALONE meets the KHSAA requirement. All I've tried to do is point out the error in your thinking. The residency requirement is but one component of the decision. The KHSAA has WRITTEN rules (ie I'm not making them up) that also say that non-guardians CANNOT pay the tuition of a student at a private school.

 

I am not debating the merits of the KHSAA decision. Again, I am simply trying to point out that your seemingly hard-line position that since the kid moved he IS eligible is incorrect.

 

So, do you not believe me or are you simply not happy with the KHSAA's decision? Or both?

My friend, WC, You seem to be trying to say that the kid changed residency and THAT ALONE meets the KHSAA requirement. All I've tried to do is point out the error in your thinking. The residency requirement is but one component of the decision. The KHSAA has WRITTEN rules (ie I'm not making them up) that also say that non-guardians CANNOT pay the tuition of a student at a private school.

 

I am not debating the merits of the KHSAA decision. Again, I am simply trying to point out that your seemingly hard-line position that since the kid moved he IS eligible is incorrect.

 

So, do you not believe me or are you simply not happy with the KHSAA's decision? Or both?

 

The problme is the KHSAA has lifted its restrictons on those students from the LA evacuation. But it seems it has lifted after stipulation but one.

Anyone with common sense could probably figure out any family from LA would struggle to pay tution anywhere.

 

By saying they can't do a fundraiser to help a family out, is actually creating a monopoly on LA evacuee students and thus going against they very mission the KHSAA thinks it is trying to uphold.

The KHSAA is obviously looking at the legal precedent. Some things may be settled on a case by case basis without sacrificing equtiy and the KHSAA is saying this isn't one of them. The broad and general rule of not allowing students to play if their tuition is paid by outside sources is something they aren't willing to compromise on, especially in specific cases. It seems they are thinking that to do so would open up every case to individual scrutiny and apparently the KHSAA is not wanting to go down that path.

 

Since the courts are so routinely involved now in these things, you can bet if they allow the kid to play under those circumstances, many others will challenge that issue and seek eligibility for students whose tuition is funded by outside sources. Each case would be presented with its own set of circumstances and pleas for consideration.

 

These are extreme circumstances. The KHSAA has done the right thing in allowing waivers of the 1 year rule for these transfers, as long as they don't violate any other KHSAA regulations. But one shoe isn't going to fit every foot.

 

Even though it is not a popular decision, I can respect the KHSAA for looking at the big picture here and taking a stand. If it were up to me, I don't know if I would take the same stance, but I do understand why they are ruling this way.