Male and Manuel would be the winners.

 

I have thought about this proposal, and I don't think it will have much of an effect on the balance of power in 4A. Maybe I have missed something. Male and Manual will continue with business as usual (Jefferson County magnet status). X and T will be limited to a 20 mile radius, but unless they are drawing significant numbers of athletes from further away than say, LaGrange in Oldham County or Southern Indiana, I think it will be business as usual for them as well.

 

What makes you think Male and Manual will come out ahead if this passes?

 

BTW, before the Ram brothers come down on you like a load of bricks, its m-a-n-u-A-l.

I can see "For Sale" signs being put in many front yards, if this passes. To me, the real winners in this proposal is the Real Estate Agents.

 

You must be joking. Are athletics that important to some families that they would go through the expense of moving (paying 6% real estate commissions and all manner of legal fees and closing costs) just so their kid didn't miss playing on the freshman team? That could be tens of thousands of dollars.

You must be joking. Are athletics that important to some families that they would go through the expense of moving (paying 6% real estate commissions and all manner of legal fees and closing costs) just so their kid didn't miss playing on the freshman team? That could be tens of thousands of dollars.

Not joking in the least, goes more to the point of being at a school system from K-8 and then all of sudden, have to consider going to another school, because of some idea to limit when and where you can attend schools.

 

You may have not read my previous threads but some counties, schools have multiple school systems within close proximity and they have reciprocal agreements, which allow students to choose which school they attend, especially in many rural areas.

 

Do you honestly think that families don't move, based off athletics and academics, you must be joking. :thumb:

Not joking in the least, goes more to the point of being at a school system from K-8 and then all of sudden, have to consider going to another school, because of some idea to limit when and where you can attend schools.

 

 

There is no limitation on when and where anyone can attend schools. Nobody is going to get kicked out of school by the KHSAA if Prop 1 passes. It only requires sitting out the first year of athletics. I'm just incredulous that someone would go to the expense, hassle, and disruption of moving just so little Johnny can play Freshman football.

There is no limitation on when and where anyone can attend schools. Nobody is going to get kicked out of school by the KHSAA if Prop 1 passes. It only requires sitting out the first year of athletics. I'm just incredulous that someone would go to the expense, hassle, and disruption of moving just so little Johnny can play Freshman football.

Never mentioned getting kicked out of school and certainly not sure what incredulous means.

 

This is not about Freshman football but any Varsity athletic event, governed by the KHSAA. If you just moved enrolled at a school in 2005 and you are a Junior, where you now pay tuition to attend that school and this passes, you MUST set out your entire Senior year and do not get a chance to recover. One year your at that school, being a student-athlete and the next, mandated to set out. I have a problem with that, because I would just about guarantee, his guardians would have never sent him/her to that school, knowing that could be an option.

 

I wouldn't want to be the person or governing authority, that possible limited a student-athlete from furthering their education by receiving an athletic scholarship for college but said, "no sorry have to set out". :thumb:

This is not about Freshman football but any Varsity athletic event, governed by the KHSAA. If you just moved enrolled at a school in 2005 and you are a Junior, where you now pay tuition to attend that school and this passes, you MUST set out your entire Senior year and do not get a chance to recover. One year your at that school, being a student-athlete and the next, mandated to set out. I have a problem with that, because I would just about guarantee, his guardians would have never sent him/her to that school, knowing that could be an option.

 

I wouldn't want to be the person or governing authority, that possible limited a student-athlete from furthering their education by receiving an athletic scholarship for college but said, "no sorry have to set out". :thumb:

 

 

I guess I'd be shocked if this rule passes and the kids already attending high school are not grandfathered in under the old rules.

I guess I'd be shocked if this rule passes and the kids already attending high school are not grandfathered in under the old rules.

I agree 100% H and I certainly hope Prop #1 is not adopted.

 

Stranger things have happened my friend when voting and if so, like you perhaps some sort of grandfathering would happen. :thumb:

In order to make things as equal as possible, how about a simple rule that says any student who lives within 20 miles of any high school, public or private is eligible to play without setting out a year. A school's BOE would of course be permitted to decrease that range if it so decides. Simple, all treated the same unless that school's BOE wanted to restrict who could enroll. Of course kids who live within the 20 mile range but outside the school's boundaries would be out of district students and would have to pay tuition but would be eligible to play without sitting out a year. If the 20 mile rule is fair to the privates, it should be fair to the publics.

In order to make things as equal as possible, how about a simple rule that says any student who lives within 20 miles of any high school, public or private is eligible to play without setting out a year. A school's BOE would of course be permitted to decrease that range if it so decides. Simple, all treated the same unless that school's BOE wanted to restrict who could enroll. Of course kids who live within the 20 mile range but outside the school's boundaries would be out of district students and would have to pay tuition but would be eligible to play without sitting out a year. If the 20 mile rule is fair to the privates, it should be fair to the publics.

 

If we are going to have this new rule I think amending it to something like this (making the rule the same for everyone) makes a lot of sense.

In order to make things as equal as possible, how about a simple rule that says any student who lives within 20 miles of any high school, public or private is eligible to play without setting out a year. A school's BOE would of course be permitted to decrease that range if it so decides. Simple, all treated the same unless that school's BOE wanted to restrict who could enroll. Of course kids who live within the 20 mile range but outside the school's boundaries would be out of district students and would have to pay tuition but would be eligible to play without sitting out a year. If the 20 mile rule is fair to the privates, it should be fair to the publics.

 

While I'm not positive as to what schools are the impetus for this proposal, I don't see the people that are actually proposing this going for your suggestion.

pigskin;

 

I think you win the compromise award. This is the best thing I have heard so far. Everything is equal no-one gets anything the other does not have. Everyone gives a little.

 

I think we should vote Piggy onto the board of controls. :ylsuper:

pigskin;

 

I think you win the compromise award. This is the best thing I have heard so far. Everything is equal no-one gets anything the other does not have. Everyone gives a little.

 

I think we should vote Piggy onto the board of controls. :ylsuper:

 

I agree but that is the problem, everything is equal already...

I agree but that is the problem, everything is equal already...

 

What this does is

 

1. Allows the Independant schools to "draw" (for lack of a better word) the students that they have already been drawing, without any complaining from other schools.

 

2. Gives private schools a boundry that is "official".

 

3. Public schools now have the same boundry to pull from "officially" as the private schools.

If amended it would be that way. In the present forum Prop #1 is a huge loser.

Here is the irony in all of this. At least for me.

 

If any or all of these proposals pass. Oldschool Jr. will not be able to play on the team that I coach. (that is if he decides to play the sport I coach, he is still on the fence on this) :cry:

 

He will but will have to sit a year.