leatherneck

Sorry for the" compact" nature of the prior post. It's not how I typed it. Try to edit it but can't. Makes it difficult to read.

My reply with quote button is not working, so:History, if you are stating that any player can transfer freely without penalty even if the player does not comply with one of the transfer rule exceptions, you misinterpreted my post badly. I'll boil down my post so it is clear for you and everyone else:A. the public does not and cannot know all the facts due to privacy laws. The KHSAA doesn't write the privacy laws or necessary have to agree with them. But they have to comply with them. Do you think your analogizing a kid's eligibility decision with a decision to go to war is proof that some folks get too wrapped up over high school sports? World of difference between the two in my opinion.B. there used to be a strong bias against transfers, even when there was solid evidence that the transfer complied with one of the exceptions. In my opinion, the BOC was often wrong to ignore that evidence. C. currently, there is I believe a philosophy at the KHSAA that, if there is evidence that a transfer complies with one of the exceptions and the KHSAA does not determine that the evidence presented by the transfer (which satisfied the exception) was false or that there was athletic intent, the kid will get to play.The KHSAA still does an investigation. They are not turning a blind eye to recruiting, false information, etc.Coaches that recruit, as you encourage them to do, better do it very carefully or they and their school will be, and should be, penalized. Severely.Stinkboy, you are correct about each BOC member having one vote. My observations were not in hindsight. I regularly voted for a kid to be eligible and was outvoted. I'm a lawyer. Trained to ascertain facts and apply the law. The KHSAA's hearing officers are lawyers, likewise trained to ascertain the facts and apply the law. The BOC all too frequently paid no attention to either my assessment, or much more importantly, their own hearing officer's assessment. They did so in my opinion because they had an unfair bias against transfers being eligible. Under the current procedure, the KHSAA administration follows the recommendation of their paid hearing officers much more frequently (as they should in my opinion). For those that either don't know or have forgotten, the BOC used to have the final say or vote on eligibility matters. They no longer do and are removed from the eligibility process. The KHSAA administration now has the final say. It is a much fairer system now.

Observations from my time on the Board of Control: very, very often there are circumstances surrounding transfers that, due to state laws involving privacy, do not become public. This has the unfortunate result of the "public" not knowing all the factors behind why a kid was determined to be eligible or ineligible. I saw undenied situations of violence, discrimination, genuine and severe financial hardship, learning disabilities better handled at the receiving school, big academic problems at the sending school, etc involved in transfers when I was on the BOC. Things that in my opinion far outweighed the impact a kid would have on wins and losses at the new school or at his/her former school, and thus caused me to vote in favor of eligibility. For the record, I have zero idea if any of those type of circumstances are involved here and quite frankly I don't want to know. It's none of my business. Back in the day when I joined the BOC, the KHSAA had a very strong and definite bias against transfers and would ignore facts and circumstances indicating that the transfer was bona fide. I could load up Rob's server with example after example of the KHSAA making the wrong decision due to biases and personal baggage of the BOC members. Which resulted in the General Assembly stepping in and reining in what I considered a rogue, "Star Chamber" mentality at the KHSAA. I'm quite proud of the role I played in getting the General Assembly's attention. The mentality at the time was "we are the KHSAA and we'll do whatever we want". They found out the hard way, with ample pre-warnings, that they were wrong. Shortly before I left the BOC, the mentality of the KHSAA was changing. Some of it had to do with the General Assembly's "input"; some of it had to do with a general change in philosophy at the KHSAA. No longer was there a bias against transfers but rather there was a belief that high school sports go by quickly for teenagers and if a transfer showed evidence complying with the transfer rule, the kid would be determined to be eligible absent strong evidence either indicating athletic intent or that the evidence the student provided was false. I totally agreed and still agree with the new approach. The fact that a kid will be joining a really good team is not strong evidence of athletic intent. Not in a court of law and not in a state agency regulatory process (the KHSAA is the State's appointed agent to administer high school athletics and the KHSAA must comply with the laws impacting state agencies). At best, a kid transferring from a weak team to a strong team may be some very weak circumstantial evidence, but it by itself, is not sufficient evidence to determine ineligibility. It may be someone's hunch as to what is behind the transfer, but fortunately "hunches", "guesses' and "what I feel in my gut" are no longer used to determine eligibility determinations. Yes, while I was on the BOC, a transfer with solid evidence of a bona fide change of residence was denied eligibility because one very vocal and dominant BOC member stated that he was opposed to eligibility and the hearing officer's recommendation of eligibility for no other reason than "I just have a gut feeling". That was a shameful moment in the KHSAA's history. At least to me anyway, most of adults following high school athletics get too wrapped up on winning and losing. I understand why it happens. It's natural. They have a son or daughter, or a nephew or niece, or a grandson or granddaughter playing and they want that relative to play on a state championship team. They are huge supporters of the local team and they want their community school to win a state championship. When a transfer is approved that could adversely impact the chances of that state championship happening, they get all riled up. Again, I understand why it happens. But as I've observed over and over again, when I joined the Ft. Thomas City Council or was appointed to the KHSAA, the Airport Board, the Tri-Ed Board or currently the Sanitation District Board, once you get "inside" the perspective is quite different that what it appeared to be when you were on the outside. This may sound heretical coming from a Highlands football guy, but I do not come close to judging a particular Highlands football team's success on whether they won a state championship. State championships mean little to me. Oh, don't get me wrong, when it happens I'm happy. But I work hard not to lose focus on the real purpose of high school athletics. I'm quite certain that my time on the BOC, having had the opportunity to see and work with "adults" who gave lip service to the values of participation but made decisions based on winning and losing, opened my eyes and allowed me to gain a much better perspective on high school athletics.

Hickory, if a kid getting the opportunity to play 4 years of high school sports is a privilege (and I realize that's technically true but I disagree with the premise that it's a privilege), then isn't an adult getting the opportunity to coach athletics a privilege also? Show me something somewhere that says an adult has a legal right to be a coach and I'll be really, really surprised. If anything, the fact that a coach is an adult getting paid to coach (admittedly pennies on the hour) causes me to want to hold the coach to a higher standard than some teen age kid playing a sport for his or her love of the game, while getting paid nothing. Just think of the example that a coach provides when he tells his players that he's switching schools and coaching jobs because the move is in his and his family's best interest. Kids aren't stupid. The message received is quite simple: if coach can look out for himself, so can I. Maybe you are right: it is apples to oranges with the result being that coaches should be required to sit out a year after changing coaching jobs, but student athletes not being required to sit out a year.

Uh, you might want to re-read the OP. The basketball vs football issue was brought up in the OP. Impossible to discuss the issue in the OP without bringing up basketball.

So if you as an adult work for a crappy company with a jerk for a boss who didn't treat you fairly, and another job opportunity came up at a better company with a boss that wouldn't treat you like dirt, you are going to try and tell me that you wouldn't switch jobs? Let's get real here folks. People change jobs all the time for what they think are better opportunities. High school coaches change jobs all the time for more money, for better teaching positions, to work at schools with more administrative support for the sport they coach. Superintendents, Principals and teachers change jobs all the time. Nothing shackles them to one school. Nothing legally binds coaches to honor their "commitment" to their players or team beyond their one year contract. Why people think high school kids should be treated as indentured servants bound to some school for all of their high school career is beyond me. Heck, if anything, high school students should be able to transfer more freely than coaches, Superintendents, Principals and teachers get to change schools. A high school athlete pretty much has 4 short years of his life to play high school athletics, with a large majority of those athletes not going to have the opportunity to play college sports. If we really care about the kids, we should want them to be able to play where THEY want to play. And if that is for a different high school every year (which would happen very rarely even if it was permitted) so be it. But the simple fact is that those adults in favor of tighter restrictions on transfer aren't motivated by their concern of the kid transferring. The simple fact is that the restrictions on transfers have zero, nada, zilch to do what is in the best interest of the child transferring. It has nothing to do with that kid learning some life lesson. It has everything to do with adults being more interested in winning and losing. It has everything to do with school administrators wanting to protect their ADA money. It has everything to do with those not placing an emphasis on certain sports not wanting students to transfer to a school that is placing an emphasis on that sport. With two terms on the Board of Control under my belt, I've lived it; I've breathed it; I know it. Nothing makes me sicker than a coach that screams about transfers and the lack of school commitment from a kid that transfers and then the coach switches schools to take a better coaching job. When we require coaches to sit out a year from coaching if he/she wants to change schools, I'll be more supportive of the transfer rule. Until then, not a chance.Try to explain this one to me: we supposedly justify the expenditure of large sums of tax dollars on high school sports each and every year because we believe (or at least state) that athletics is a very important part of the educational process. Yet any transfer based in whole or part on athletic intent requires a 1 year of ineligibility. So the importance of athletics is not a valid reason to transfer but athletics are important enough to spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People can spin the inconsistency and lack of logic there any way they want to, but it makes no sense.

While it's been a couple of years since I was on the BOC, I'm relatively certain the financial circumstances haven't changed: the KHSAA tries to save dollars when ever it can to keep the fees paid by the member schools and the ticket prices for state championship events as low as possible. I understand the disappointment in not having programs available, but programs were obviously a money loser for the KHSAA. If programs were profitable, the KHSAA would be still selling them. That I can guarantee you. While the basketball state championships are important, if for no other reason than the money raised by both the boys and the girls tournys, the KHSAA cannot easily do something for basketball that they don't do for the other sports. As important as the basketball revenue is and as passionate as Kentucky is about basketball, I just can't see the KHSAA having programs for those events and not having them for all the other sports state championship events. I just can't. Just imagine the outcry if there were programs for the basketball championships but not for the other sports. Same goes with the trophy size issue. Frankly I'm surprised that the extremely large basketball trophy continued as long as it did.Perhaps the best solution would be to have some private enterprise license the use of the KHSAA logo and information and sell programs online in advance if the timing worked and outside the basketball state events. Heck, maybe they could sell them inside the venue. Then it wouldn't be the KHSAA singling out basketball; it would be private entrepeneurs doing it for those sports that the entrepeneurs think they can make a profit selling programs. Advertisers get to select the events they want to advertise; so I'd think private program vendors could select those sports that they want to sell programs at in the hope and expectation of making a profit. How about it Ru? Sounds like an ancillary business opportunity for BGP. The BluegrassPreps/KHSAA Boys and Girls Sweet 16 Program. Buy it on line through BGP in advance and sell at Rupp and Diddle at the event? Make a few bucks from the sale and possible drive more paying members to the site. If it proves profitable, you then try football and then other sports. Then when you have the concept refined, you approach the OHSAA; the IHSAA; the THSAA. I can envision a Ru financial empire in the makings.

Mark's daughter?

Nothing personal towards Owen, but his time to influence and guide the Boone County football program has come and went. I can see Owen getting offended if he doesn't feel his thoughts and opinions on the next head coach were given the importance and credence he thinks his opinions deserve. The last thing the Boone County football program needs is for some of the former coaches causing even a ripple of controversy concerning the new coach. The decision has been made and it is time for all people who support Boone County football to get behind the new coach. Any disagreements concerning the hiring or the process need to be kept to one's self.

Totally agree!

I want to thank Coach Flynn for his years of service to the school and the kids. Mike is one heck of a fine person. When he got hired, he went out of his way to come up and introduce himself to me. Every time I saw him, he was nothing but nice to me. Just a class act all the way around. I know some negatively commented on here about his coaching style, but I have no idea if those comments had any merit. I know as much about basketball as Qryche does about football. :isurrender: Hope MIke has a long and enjoyable retirement down in South Carolina. Any one know what part of the Palmetto State he's moving to?

Highlands wasn't ranked 3rd at the time they beat Cincy X. They did end up being ranked third in the country at year end in the USA Today Super 25. And while I wouldn't use the words destroyed or abused in describing Highlands victory over Cincy X in 09, the 5 point margin of victory was no where indicative of how much better Highlands was than Cincy X in that game.

Just doing my part to keep accurate info out there.

Prayers sent. Dang shame.

I confirmed with Dale that the team we thought just recently was dropping off the schedule is remaining on the schedule. Dale is still waiting on the University Christian School out of Florida to return the signed contract. Assuming it does, we'll have a full schedule.

Maybe not. If I interpreted an email correctly, a school that had thought it had mistakenly scheduled 11 games and asked Highlands to look elsewhere so it could get down to 10 games, made a mistake when they thought they booked 11 games. So, if I interpreted the e mail correctly, Highlands doesn't have to find another game.

Anyone out there want to try to do Homer Rice's coaching tree?

Don't go out for dinner much (Henry likes to cook and does an excellent job) but we've been to the NG a couple of times. Really like the wait staff, the food and the prices. Probably should go there more often.

I also agree with frank. He is spot on in his analysis in my opinion. The head coach that turns around the lives of troubled youth, but has a losing record, is a great coach to me.

And for the record, I always chuckle when someone posts that it's easier for head coaches to win at successful programs. Yes there are definite advantages. But there are definite disadvantages too. For one: every one is shooting for you and opponents generally give you their best game of the year, year after year after year. It is incredibly difficult to remain King of the hill in any sport or in any activity in life. Two, the pressure to repeat is intense. Players feel it; their parents feel it more; and the coaches feel it the most. If the coaches don't have the "right stuff", the pressure can be debilitating. Third: it's not a piece of cake (pardon the pun) coaching in a community that has a whole lot of former state champions and former very successful high school and college football players living in it. It is no surprise to me that very few former head coaches at Highlands stayed there a long time. Very tough position. Which makes Dale's tenure at Highlands even more impressive to me. Only one other head coach in Highlands illustrious football history was a head coach for more than 10 years (Judge Waddell) which I think sheds some light on how "easy" it is to coach at Highlands.

Of course, those accomplishments are extremely, extremely impressive. Homer brought innovation and professionalism to Ky high school football when he returned to his alma mater from coaching a little high school in Tenn. The only negative I could think of in the "greatest ever" debate is that Homer didn't coach high school football a real long time in the "modern era" (ie state playoffs), which resulted in him not racking up a large number of state championships like Dale, Beatty, Smith and Yeagle. He became the head coach in 54 and left after the 61 season. Playoffs began in 59. What he did during those 3 seasons was very impressive. State runner up in 59 and state champions in 60 and 61. One can wonder how many more state championships he would have won had he had the long tenure that Dale has at Highlands. Homer did have one of those mythical state championships in 57. He is a class act to this day.

Wow. Big congrats to the Augusta squad. Pretty cool for the Augusta players, coaches and community. :thumb:

I know, but even Helen Keller could have seen what was going to happen once you posted that comment. Mention Highlands in a thread, particularly in a manner that some Highlands fans disagree with, and it's a foregone conclusion that the thread will get turned into a Highlands thread.

Well, with respect, duh! Seems like someone ensured that happening when he posted that if Boone hired Smith, they would eventually dominate Highlands.

May be for another thread, but it greatly impacts why Smith got so many more votes than Dale did from football coaches in my opinion. Smith benefits from the fact that he hasn't been a head coach for some time, beating other coaches by big scores. Absence does make the heart grow fonder. And I'll repeat what I've said before: with some exceptions (including Chief Smoke in particular as one of those exceptions), from my dealings with football coaches, a whole lot of them are like old wash women. They like to gossip and repeat rumors without wanting to take the time to see if they are even true. Love what they do for the youth of this state and appreciate the great sacrifices they make to do so, but a lot of them are what they are. Which is a nice way of saying that, without knowing the coaches that were polled, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in who they consider to be the best Ky high school coach in history. Beatty not mentioned?