Proposal 4 and 5 address what you are saying. Presently, nothing does. From my understanding the first 19 proposals are changes in bylaws and will be addressed and voted on first. Depending upon which ones pass, it should affect what is done with Prop 20. It is separate because it is a change in the Constitution and has to be voted on separately.

 

Of course, either of these get passed and you have situations where a 6th grader could run cross country or play a golf match and their eligibility is established for ALL sports.

 

In general I don't like it that middle school players are playing for the high school team. They should be playing on an age appropriate team.

In general I don't like it that middle school players are playing for the high school team. They should be playing on an age appropriate team.

So OJ should not have been playing HS ball? Michelle Wie should not be playing on the HS golf team? I thought you were for kids and not having them tell you what to do with your child. If your child is better than the others, why should they not have the right to play.

 

BTW, the state legislature has weighed in on this matter and set a state stature that says no body besides the Ky BofE, I believe, or it's designee can set a policy that prevents the tryout of any student on the varsity team in a sport. I am pretty sure that decision is out of the hands of the KHSAA.

So OJ should not have been playing HS ball? Michelle Wie should not be playing on the HS golf team? I thought you were for kids and not having them tell you what to do with your child. If your child is better than the others, why should they not have the right to play.

 

BTW, the state legislature has weighed in on this matter and set a state stature that says no body besides the Ky BofE, I believe, or it's designee can set a policy that prevents the tryout of any student on the varsity team in a sport. I am pretty sure that decision is out of the hands of the KHSAA.

No, I don't think OJ should have been playing high school ball or that Michelle Wie either. Let them play with their age group. I wish the legislature would stay out of those kinds of decisions (at least until we start lobbying them to kill Prop 20).

I'm assuming your response was to my post.

 

If so...

 

My feelings are simple. If a private education is a priority to you for your child then sitting out one year of sports should not be an issue. If you TRULY are desiring the perceived benefits of attending a private school, you would still send your child to that school even if they had to sit out one year.

 

Now, if its not the freshman year , that could be a different story.

 

If it is the freshman year and if not being able to play sports is a deal-breaker, yes, your priorities are not in order.

 

I disagree. The Frosh year might be more critical than one thinks. Think of ALL the sports and how difficult it would be to miss your Frosh year and not fall way behind. The least problem is football (no cuts) but I wouldn't want to try and make a Girls v-ball or b-ball team without having played as a Frosh at a private school. How many Frosh girls does say Notre Dame have try out for the Frosh v-ball team? Maybe 30-50 and they will keep 12. Then of those 12 maybe 6-8 will be kept the next year. I wouldn't want to be a Soph trying for one of those 6-8 spots, even if I was pretty good.

 

So in essense the Frosh ban could be ending an entire career.

 

Now you could argue that sports should not be priority and as long as they permit a student to attend a private school that should be good enough, but I would say it is not. Sports at a private high school are the primary tool used to bring students together from various grade schools to become a new unified group. That's one of the unique things about Freshman year when kids that competed against one another for 8 years, now become teammates.

So the only reason it is frivolous is because it will cost the schools money?

 

Was the lawsuit that ended segregation frivolous? It put the school in a lose-lose situation? Had they won it would have still cost them money to defend against the suit.

 

I just now read through this thread for the first time and I cannot believe someone would equate the Civil Rights Movement with high school athletics... :irked:

 

Talk about apples and oranges, if I were a minority, I would probably be outraged that someone could be so obtuse.

"Proposals 4 and 5 similarly deal with eighth-grade public school students who transfer to private schools for ninth grade. One proposal forbids those students from participating in any activities for the first year while the other proposal forbids students from participating in varsity sports."

 

Does that mean transferring students are forbidden from participating in Varsity Sports in just their first year or for their entire high school career?

 

The article mentioned these alternate proposals, but did not explain how the voting process works for what seem like late submissions. Will they be added to the KHSAA's official list of proposals prior to the Oct 20 vote?

 

Proposals 4 and 5 don't apply unless the student has participated in sports at the member school (i.e. the high school). Remember, middle schools, junior highs, and elementary school sports are outside the jurisdiction of the KHSAA and these institutions are NOT KHSAA member schools. Proposal 4 reads that the child shall be ineligible if they played in any interscholastic competition, which can be interpreted to mean varsity, JV or freshmen level. Proposal 5 stipulates that the student shall be ineligible if they participated in any VARSITY competition. This is the way I read the proposals straight from the KHSAA.

 

Also, I didn't read anywhere in the proposal's where it differentiated between public or private school's. I would take that to mean the knife would cut both ways. If a child was enrolled in Trinity's feeder school and then left for another high school after 8th grade after playing a sport for the Rocks, he would then be ineligible for the new school. At least that is my take on it, which I believe is fair.

I'm assuming your response was to my post.

 

If so...

 

My feelings are simple. If a private education is a priority to you for your child then sitting out one year of sports should not be an issue. If you TRULY are desiring the perceived benefits of attending a private school, you would still send your child to that school even if they had to sit out one year.

 

Now, if its not the freshman year , that could be a different story.

 

If it is the freshman year and if not being able to play sports is a deal-breaker, yes, your priorities are not in order.

:thumb: Excellent post. Couldn't agree with you anymore..

I just now read through this thread for the first time and I cannot believe someone would equate the Civil Rights Movement with high school athletics... :irked:

 

Talk about apples and oranges, if I were a minority, I would probably be outraged that someone could be so obtuse.

 

Oh please

 

No I do not think that this argument is even close in scope to the desegration of schools.

 

I was simply using what I thought was an example of the absurdity of the argument that it would be a frivolous lawsuit because it could cost schools money. By his thinking then the lawsuits that caused schools to be desegrated would have been considered frivolous. If you can't see that them maybe I'm not the obtuse one.

Proposals 4 and 5 don't apply unless the student has participated in sports at the member school (i.e. the high school). Remember, middle schools, junior highs, and elementary school sports are outside the jurisdiction of the KHSAA and these institutions are NOT KHSAA member schools. Proposal 4 reads that the child shall be ineligible if they played in any interscholastic competition, which can be interpreted to mean varsity, JV or freshmen level. Proposal 5 stipulates that the student shall be ineligible if they participated in any VARSITY competition. This is the way I read the proposals straight from the KHSAA.

 

Also, I didn't read anywhere in the proposal's where it differentiated between public or private school's. I would take that to mean the knife would cut both ways. If a child was enrolled in Trinity's feeder school and then left for another high school after 8th grade after playing a sport for the Rocks, he would then be ineligible for the new school. At least that is my take on it, which I believe is fair.

BUT

 

Trinity, nor any private school in Louisville that I'm aware of, allow students not enrolled in their schools (read under 9th grade) to participate in their sports programs at any level. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now if they did start allowing middle school kids to play for them.

BUT

 

Trinity, nor any private school in Louisville that I'm aware of, allow students not enrolled in their schools (read under 9th grade) to participate in their sports programs at any level. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now if they did start allowing middle school kids to play for them.

 

There are some private schools in NKY that have used 7th/8th graders to have enough players to field say a Girls Frosh soccer team. They may have only 10 Frosh and add 5 8th graders to fill out the team.

There are some private schools in NKY that have used 7th/8th graders to have enough players to field say a Girls Frosh soccer team. They may have only 10 Frosh and add 5 8th graders to fill out the team.

 

And this never happens at NKY public schools?? Look at the rosters of any school's freshmen teams, especially in the "minor" sports. By the way, name the middle school(s) for any NKY private school??

 

Just another unfounded slam at private schools!!

And this never happens at NKY public schools?? Look at the rosters of any school's freshmen teams, especially in the "minor" sports. By the way, name the middle school(s) for any NKY private school??

 

Just another unfounded slam at private schools!!

 

 

Dude deep breath. Relax.

 

All Tell said no private schools in LOUISVILLE have 7th or 8th graders play at any level (Varsity, JV, Frosh)

 

I am just imforming him that NKY Catholic private schools have used 7th and 8th graders in Catholic private schools to fill out rosters for JV or Frosh teams.

If a student has gone to a private school as an elementary and middle student and has played sports then I think that he or she should also be able to do that in high school. The 20 mile barrier is just an arbitrary number. Why not 30 or 50? If a parent is willing to take on the financial burden of a private school and is will to bear the cost of transportation to and from they they should be able to do so with NO penalty of any kind, including participation in athletics.

 

True, 20 miles is an arbitrary number, but since the large privates have no limitation on how large an area they can draw from (in contrast to public systems that generally have very well-defined attendance areas), some sort of athletic restriction is reasonable. It has been pointed out that the 20 mile rule still encompasses a larger area for Louisville-based private schools than the footprint of Jefferson County.

I dont understand how making a kid sit out his freshman year in sports will resolve anything? What does this accomplish, they have identified problems between Public and Private competing fairly in athletics, what would this penalty do to make competition more fair?

Here's an interesting thing that could happen....the Private grade schools' enrollment goes up dramatically...reversing the declining attendance in Catholic grade schools....at least here in Louisville, that is.