Skip to main content

30 replies

HS Rules, NCAA Rules, UNFAIR?

P PGStaff10,000+ posts
Continued from another thread...

The LAST thing college baseball and high school baseball players need is more NCAA rules that limit opportunities for those who work the hardest and desire the best. There are already way too many rules that are put into affect because the majority desire an equal playing field. This can not be avoided because the hardest workers and biggest winners will always be part of the minority when it comes to hard work.

I can’t buy the old “in the best interest of the player” or “protect the player” reasons behind many of the rules. The NCAA is not alone in this area. In fact, I’m not sure that many of the state high school athletic associations are part of the problem rather than trying to help young student athletes. Many can’t even understand why baseball and football players can not have the same restrictions without baseball players losing very important advantages in reaching the next level.

I know this is boring to many, but consider this example…

This week there will be two televised High School All Star type football games. These players are all eligible to play by state rules because they have finished there senior high school football season. Nearly all are being heavily recruited by colleges and some who are undecided will get recruited hard by national powers.

Each year there are several nationally televised high school all star basketball games. Of course these are played after the senior season making all the players eligible. Many have committed and others will be recruited hard based on their ability to play these games and their performance during the final year of high school basketball.

Now let’s compare the same type advantage in baseball. First of all, a large portion of recruiting is done and baseball players have signed early (November) before they ever play their senior year of baseball. This makes baseball the latest to play their final high school season (last sport of the school year). Yet baseball players are among the very earliest to commit and sign a LOI.
For the past five years we have been responsible for selecting the players to participate in the Aflac All American Classic. It is a nationally televised event that is normally held in August. Last year there was a very talented player who was disallowed to play because of State High School Rules. The year before a player we were going to select was told early on that he would be ineligible for his senior season if he attended. So we didn’t select that player. His state, his high school, his home town, and of course he and his family missed out on a lot of great promotion on national television, and why… State High School Rules that were different than most other states.

Some of these state associations have said that if we did what football and basketball did, play the game after the player has completed his eligibility, it would be legal for the player to attend. Problem is, the football games and basketball games can get the very best high school players in the country because their season ends much earlier than baseball. In baseball many players are drafted by MLB clubs before they finish their senior high school season. In fact, the very best are usually the ones drafted each June. Therefore, these players who get drafted in the early rounds (the for sure true All Stars) never have the same opportunity given to the athletes in other sports. Yes, baseball could have an all star game with graduated seniors who were not drafted or at least drafted and signed by MLB clubs, but this would only be a second rate event compared to football and basketball. There would be no problem at all, if state high school associations would just realize that one rule doesn’t necessarily fit in all situations.

Unlike the NCAA, rules in high school vary from one state to another. My question is, why should a student/athlete in one state have more opportunity than a student/athlete in another state? BTW, this is an area where we often hear that the high school association is there for the good of everyone and does not consider the elite athlete more important than others. Sorry, not buying that one either! Rules are made before anyone knows who will be the best athletes, so in the beginning all student/athletes may or may not fall into the “elite” status. Who does it harm by allowing athletes to experience additional opportunities. We are not talking about leaving their team to attend an event. The events we are talking about are held during the summer, not during the high school baseball season. They don’t even have to miss class, like the basketball and football players often do to attend all star events.

Just once, I would love to see the main executive in charge of a high school state association have a talented baseball playing son who has a chance to become a first round pick and/or go to any college in America and he gets invited to play in the off school season in a nationally televised event in front of all the baseball decision makers. Wonder what would happen?

Yes, must treat all the students equally… I’m all for that, but all students are not equal or they would all have the same GPA just to keep things equal! Now how about treating the baseball player who has outstanding ability the same way we might treat a student with exceptional ability, or even a football or basketball player with exceptional ability.

Let'see... There’s no harm to any of the others, but it can hurt the one who has special talent. It does gave recognition to the high school team, the town, the state, the coach, the player, etc. The only thing that can stop all the great stuff… The state rules! Rules that aren’t even the same from one state to another. Disallowing any player to participate in something like these great events…. What is the purpose again????

Finally, can someone explain why a high school student has NCAA rules to abide by? Even those who will never attend an NCAA institution are expected to follow all NCAA rules. Understood, that many of these rules are good ones in the best interest of potential student/athletes. However, there are others that have absolutely nothing to do with anything other than limiting opportunity to high school athletes. Especially those student athletes who are the most underprivileged. Those are the ones that need the most help to achieve success, but the NCAA has made it illegal in many ways to help them. If they have no clothes... we can't give them a shirt. If they have nothing to eat... we can't buy them a sandwich. If they have no money, we can't help them.

Even a well meaning person wanting to donate some money to help a talented young athlete who hasn't any financial resources, can end up causing serious violations that could hurt that young athletes future. This in itself, by NCAA standards gives the most opportinity to those who can afford it. The hell with the poor kid in the ghetto who can'y afford it. And if he breaks the rules, he will be punished. Those NCAA rules pertaining to that poor kid trying his best in high school, actually eliminate a lot of young poor kids from ever attending the NCAA schools. Isn't it odd, that the NCAA rules can actually be so unfair as to create a big obstacle for the poorest among us and those who are willing to help them?

Makes me feel good to get that off my chest!

Would very much like to hear other opinions about this topic. Do not feel you need to agree.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
They could always make an NCAA rule that all college camps are no charge for anyone. You could also make them invitation only so that they don't get unwieldly. That works in the best interest of the athlete, and will absolutely never happen. Smile

Ahh baseball, the redheaded stepchild of HS and College athletics.
Last edited by CPLZ
CM Coach May1,000+ posts
PG I totally agree with you. But as a HS coach it goes much deeper than what you have stated. Here in NC we have restrictions on how many players we can work with in the off season and we have "Dead Periods" when we can not work with hs players at all. What this means is when football practice officially starts we are not allowed to work with any players for 30 days. We run into this same situation when basketball starts for 30 days. At the same time football is allowed to lift weights year round , basketball is allowed to have open gym etc etc. When we are not in the "Dead Period" we can only work with 8 players on a particular day. Not 8 for awhile and then another 8 - just 8 period each day. Why? Why would you rather have kids just go home than stay at the school and work out with the coaches?

There are so many rules its ridiculous. And there are so many different people interpeting the rules. One year they said we could not do anything baseball related if we had more than 8 players present. In other words I might have 15 at the track running and working on core work and 8 on the field doing baseball. NO! If you are working with 8 doing baseball you can only have 8 period! Then they came back and said something totally different the next year.

Why would anyone want to stop kids from working at the game? Have any of you been in a public school lately? Fat out of shape and lazy. Thats the normal kid. Not the exception but the rule. The fact is football brings in the money. Basketball has the political power behind it and baseball sucks hind tit! Sorry its just the facts. At least thats how it is around these parts.
CM Coach May1,000+ posts
Another thing. You know what really irks me about this? A kid comes up to me and says "Coach can you throw me some bp and work with me on my swing"? "No son we are in a Dead Period". NO! NO! I cant work with a kid after school and help him out? Sorry but anytime a coach is not allowed to help a kid out that wants to get better something is wrong with that kind of rule. It does not hurt a kid like my son. He is going to go home and hit in the cage , etc. But what about the kids that dont have anyone at home to help them out? What about the ones that the baseball field is the only place they have someone willing to help them out or work with them?

They simply dont care. And they are suits in a posistion that never played the game. They say they care about the kids but their actions speak differently.
TRhitTRhit10,000+ posts
Coach May

Amen to that !!


We did find a way to get a round "you cannot work out rules" ---we, a group of parents, made a deal with the town to use their armory. we set up a cage with a pitching machine and also a pitching cage---it was open to any kid in town if they wanted to attend---we set up a schedule for the dads to supervise and I have to tell you nearly every kid on the HS Varsity and JV showed up at every session


There are ways to skin the cat !!!
Last edited by TRhit
CM Coach May1,000+ posts
I agree TR we have guys that do just that and I think most HS programs do. But really , you can't work with a player who wants to work? Because football or Basketball is practicing? Some kids ride home with other players after workouts. Then they are stuck at the house until the bus picks them back up in the morning for school. They dont have a license or a car. It only takes one kid to get screwed by this rule for me to be poed about it. It gets old fighting the people who are supposed to be looking out for you.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
Coach,

You would love high school baseball in our home state. NOT!

The season is played during summer vacation. State championship held at end of July.

Pretend this were the case in your state. If you can't imagine here is what happens...

The senior season plays hardly any significance in recruiting or the draft which in most cases is already completed.

Many seniors do not even bother to play as they have already graduated. Some get jobs, some don't see the reasons for playing. Some have even gone to play for summer travel teams in other states.

Players are at a big disadvantage because they can't compete in the summer against the best competition in the country. No "Dirtbag" team in Iowa.

This all leads to less opportunity for the top players in Iowa. It is the reason we hold spring and fall leagues. That is pretty much the only way top players are seen by scouts and college coaches outside the state.

It also cause other problems, but no sense in talking too much about that. The coaches had the opportunity to vote in a traditional spring season and voted it down. Another example of the majority having the wrong interest in mind. Those most interested in their players will never win that vote.

Iowa, believe it or not, held on to a long standing rule of not allowing metal spikes for far too long. finally, they changed that rule, but not without a lot of debate.

Iowa has strict rules in place that not only favor the less talented kids, but actually get in the way of the talented baseball player. The in season outside participation rules take place during the summer vacation for baseball players in the state.

It's all too bad because their have been many outstanding players come out of the state and become very successful. But it didn't happen because of high school baseball in this state.
Bulldog 19Bulldog 195,000+ posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Coach May:
At the same time football is allowed to lift weights year round , basketball is allowed to have open gym etc etc.
QUOTE]

Coach, I gotta ask.. can baseball not lift weights year round? I know at our school many of the sports lift year round. Football has lifting sessions 5 different times during the week. If a particular sport does not lift, our football coach would most likely allow an athlete to lift with the football team.

Also, we have weight lifting as a class offered 6 times a day. So there really is no excuse for an athlete to not be able to lift weights with or without the coach's help.
T thats-a-balk!100+ posts
quote:
This in itself, by NCAA standards gives the most opportinity to those who can afford it. The hell with the poor kid in the ghetto who can'y afford it. And if he breaks the rules, he will be punished. Those NCAA rules pertaining to that poor kid trying his best in high school, actually eliminate a lot of young poor kids from ever attending the NCAA schools. Isn't it odd, that the NCAA rules can actually be so unfair as to create a big obstacle for the poorest among us and those who are willing to help them?

PG,
I brought up the issue on another thread and this is what I was told.

Aid is not available to every "Joe", but the best and brightest "Joe", rich or poor, will have no problem attending a prestigious institution of higher learning.

thats-a-balk - If you have a child who you think is qualified to attend an Ivy, Stanford, Duke, MIT, etc... I would suggest you do more research regarding the viability financially of attending.
CM Coach May1,000+ posts
We can if we take it during school hours Bulldog. The problem is many of the freshman and sophs have to take regular PE and then advanced PE next. So they are Jrs before they actually can take weightlifting during school. If we lift after school we are not allowed to work with the 8 on the field. If we work with the 8 on the field we are not allowed to work with the guys in the weight room. Like TR said there are ways to get around some of these things. The problem is there is always someone looking to "Turn you in" and sometimes that can be a kid that gets cut that is in your program etc. So we abide strickly to the rules. Football is not held to this same rule. They are allowed to lift then go outside and work on football stuff. They have no limit on the numbers.

PG I had no idea that was the case in Iowa. Man that is absolutely crazy.
Infield08Infield081,000+ posts
Here's a Texas rule:

A form that all public high school players are required to sign says that, according to UIL eligibility rules, students can represent their school in interscholastic activities if they "have not attended a summer camp in baseball, basketball, football, s****r, or volleyball that was held prior to the first day of vacation or after the first Saturday in August." It's interesting that many Texas colleges hold summer camps and showcases after the first Saturday in August. UIL officials could nail hundreds of players across the state if they wanted to. I'd like to know what the purpose of that rule is.
Last edited by Infield08
ClevelandDadClevelandDadHSBBWeb Administrator
Some off the cuff thoughts...

I read the topic thread a couple of times and I think the argument distilled is "HS/NCAA Rules hurt the elite athlete more in baseball than in other sports."

Not to say I disagree with the reasoning but not sure this argument will ever win the day politically. The way to make changes imho is argue that the current rules are hurting ALL baseball athletes. The athletes in Iowa are hurt by the same things that hurt athletes in Ohio and that is the weather imho. I don't ever see a federated rule-making body coming out for high school sports thus we are stuck with the inadequacies of the state rule-making bodies.

I have seen bbscout post in the past that scouts lose their jobs if they miss players. That implies (if his premise is correct) that at least the elite athletes are not at any significant disadvantage. Are we arguing that some kid is missing out on an additional 30 offers from the 60 offers he already has to mull over?

I believe in equal "opportunity" arguments but do not believe in rules creating "equality" among individuals who have differing talents/work ethics. That will never exist and flies in the face of those who do want to work harder than the next guy to succeed. I think trying to argue this from the elite athlete perspective is a loser in the realities of political debates in this country. I believe utilitarian arguments for change are the best - trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. If the current rules are hurting baseball players in general, then they ought to be changed. Who among us has the time or the energy to do that? Unfortunately, it might take some big-wig on the rule-making committe to experience the issue first hand (e.g., his elite baseball son hurt by current rules) before legitimate changes are made.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
quote:
PG,
I brought up the issue on another thread and this is what I was told.

Aid is not available to every "Joe", but the best and brightest "Joe", rich or poor, will have no problem attending a prestigious institution of higher learning.

thats-a-balk - If you have a child who you think is qualified to attend an Ivy, Stanford, Duke, MIT, etc... I would suggest you do more research regarding the viability financially of attending.

thats a balk,
Guess that might be true from an academic standpoint. I was referring to the exposure that underprivileged talented young players can not afford. The travel, lodging, cost of attending, etc. events that could give them many opportunities that others can afford.

BTW, we could legally help a good but poor non athlete high school student. We can buy them clothing, help them travel, feed them, give them a job, etc. The NCAA doesn't rule on that musician or math whiz, but you help a good baseball player in any of those ways and he stands to be punished greatly according to NCAA rules. One of those A's stand for Athletics. No S for student in there.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
CD,

I agree that fighting against high school or NCAA rules is probably a waste of time. Probably better spent trying to figure out how to best provide what's lacking legally.

Not trying to start any crusade here. Don't really care about the politics of it all. Just plain old beaching on my part! It takes too much time to figure out how to best deal with some of these "stupid" rules, to spend time trying to change something as powerful as the NCAA or state high school associations.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
TR,

That is because the people at the NCAA that can actually answer the question will not talk to anyone who is not an NCAA member.

The best way to get answers is through a friendly compliance officer at an NCAA institution. If he or she doesn't have the answer, they can get it.

If you recall, a few years ago we had to deal with the NCAA regarding an exemption for the WWBA Fall Championship being rescheduled due to a hurricane. We had many compliance officers from top college programs request an exemption based on natural causes delaying the event to a quiet period. Everyone, coaches, players, college departments, were requesting an exemption to the rules in the interest of recruiting deadlines established by the NCAA and the importance of that particular event to recruiting.

The NCAA turned it down without much thought at all. They just said it was a new rule (recruiting calender) and they didn't want to make an exemption so soon after the rule went into affect. Guess it might have made them look less powerful and more human, actually helping a lot of college programs and more importantly many outstanding high school student athletes who were going to become NCAA athletes.
Last edited by PGStaff
ClevelandDadClevelandDadHSBBWeb Administrator
PG - I don't think putting your good-faith ideas out on this board is ever a waste of time.

Who knows how many NCAA or high school athletics administrators may read these forums and hence may be moved to action because of the arguments that have been raised. Taking the time to make impassioned arguments for the sport we all care deeply about is a good thing imho Smile
B btbballfannumber1100+ posts
it's not just baseball......i've heard of concerns from competitive swimmers regarding their training and have heard of cases where the swimmers forgo their senior varsity seasons because of the h.s. rules.
seems odd that some states can place restrictions and that other states do not and that the "playing field" is thus uneven for the h.s. athlete. it also seems odd that seasons for certain sports aren't aligned in all states, i.e., girls h.s. s****r for instance. sounds like they are in the same boat as the baseball players (spring seasons). interestingly, college women's s****r season is in the fall. i can understand why those spring sport kids are making verbals earlier and earlier.
Last edited by btbballfannumber1
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
PG,
I had to read over your post a few times.

I remember reading something somewhere recently where someone was complaining about baseball having too many events (showcases) where you often see the same players at PG National, Area Code, East Coast, Cape Cod Classic, Aflac (anymore?). I think it was on your message boards if I am correct. I think that the poster's suggestion was to limit players to 2 major events. That stuck in my mind because someone told me once (a football parent) that baseball players get more opportunities to be seen than football players.

I guess you can never make everyone happy.

But you do bring up some good points. Some of the NCAA rules are silly, they claim they are in place to protect the player, what they are doing is protecting the schools. I also recently read an article on an argument for paying players a stipend (the NCAA). A good case, the NCAA is making lots of money from football, players reward for participation is around 500 in gifts a piece. I know that in baseball, the reward gifts for participation are much less. I don't see anything wrong with rewarding a college player a stipend in exchange for making them, the NCAA millions to help them survive.

I just recently found out that football has no early signing period, and when the signing period comes around (after football season) half the kids have changed their minds. That must be a nightmare. The decision to have an early signing period for football was voted down.
I also recently read where many coaches(college and HS)are very unhappy with the draft being so early in June. Everyone has their issues.

Not sure what the answer is, no one in any one particular sport seems happy with rules. As far as swimming, my daughters boyfriend was a swimmer at USC (west). You should hear some of his issues he had in HS and college.

I don't know the answer. I don't think there ever will be one, for anyone in any sport, as to what is fair and unfair.
T thats-a-balk!100+ posts
quote:
I also recently read an article on an argument for paying players a stipend (the NCAA). A good case, the NCAA is making lots of money from football, players reward for participation is around 500 in gifts a piece. I know that in baseball, the reward gifts for participation are much less. I don't see anything wrong with rewarding a college player a stipend in exchange for making them, the NCAA millions to help them survive.

I think paying a full ride for an education to eighty five players to play football is a pretty good start.
I have a friend who is attending Rice and his dad said if he finishes out the four years his scholarship would be worth over $200,000.

It's very disappointing that baseball doesn't even come close.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
quote:
PG,
I had to read over your post a few times.

I remember reading something somewhere recently where someone was complaining about baseball having too many events (showcases) where you often see the same players at PG National, Area Code, East Coast, Cape Cod Classic, Aflac (anymore?). I think it was on your message boards if I am correct. I think that the poster's suggestion was to limit players to 2 major events. That stuck in my mind because someone told me once (a football parent) that baseball players get more opportunities to be seen than football players.

TPM,
I understand that I often have a problem clearly writing what is on my mind. Not surprised that you had to read that post a few times. But after you read over the post a few times, guess I’m confused as to what the above has to do with the topic… NCAA or State HS associations having unfair rules.

Anyway that's OK, but seeing you mentioned it, I completely disagree with lots of limitations in any sport. Scouts and college recruiters actually want to see the top players as often as they can, especially against the top competition possible. The Aflac Classic is the final big showcase event of those mentioned and nearly every MLB Scouting Director attends and not once have I heard them complain about seeing the same players again. That’s because they want every possibility of seeing the top players. Then if they think that player is still a potential early draft pick after all of that, they schedule a time or two or even more to go see him again during the high school season. Limiting the number of events a player can attend would not be something scouting directors would be in favor of. Besides I think last year there was exactly ONE player who attended all those events mentioned, so its really not as big a problem as that poster made it sound like. The vast majority of those who attended the PG National attended either the East Coast Pro or the Area Codes. So most do only go to two of those mentioned at the most, some just one, unless they’re selected to the Aflac Teams, which consists of 38 total players. Many also attend Jupiter and Marietta WWBA Tournaments along with thousands of other players. I don’t think the best players should be disallowed to participate in the biggest most competitive events that are heavily scouted. Maybe I’m partial, but more than 2/3rds of the MLB Scouting Directors are on our committee and they let us know what they want.

So what some former associate scout posts on a message board doesn’t necessarily speak for the entire scouting community. There very well might be too many showcases, but there are not enough of the highest level types. What someone might read on a message board doesn’t mean a whole lot. That includes anything that I post.

Anyway, the topic was about NCAA and state high school rules being unfair rather than how many high level showcases there are. Neither the NCAA or HS associations have anything to do with the above issue. I don't mind talking more about that issue if someone wishes, but it should be in another thread IMO. Perhaps someone thinks they should make rules to take care of everything. Nothing would surprise me, so maybe they will make a new rule at some point. If they do, everyone will have to follow those rules because those groups have unbelievable power. I hoped that doesn’t happen because it would have an adverse affect on the growth of amateur baseball and many talented young players. This would also affect college baseball and even the MLB draft to a certain degree.

Once again… Perhaps the most unfair rule of all is when the NCAA can dictate how much someone can help a high school student athlete. I’m not against rules, I’m against rules that are stupid and not in the best interest of all student athletes including those who might really need assistance. Yes, a student can apply for aid based on need to attend college, but we don’t dare buy that kid a sandwich or give him a T shirt, let alone buy him a flight to attend an event that could possibly change his life for the better or secure a scholarship to a school that didn't even know about him. If we do, the same kid we have helped stands to be punished. In other words… lets name that rule… Do not help the needy, it is illegal.

That said, I do understand that the rules are intended mostly towards agents, boosters, etc.

BTW, there are high school kids who attend football camps all summer long. Also there really IS a lack of exposure in football for all but the very top players. That is why there are so many who start as football walk-ons and then earn a scholarship. Some of those walk-ons have ended up having good NFL careers. Unfortunately there is a much better chance of making a college football team as a walk-on than doing the same in baseball. Anyway, now I am getting off the topic. I’m not for limiting opportunities in any sport or other activity for that matter unless it harms the player or harms others. You have to be directly involved in some of these things to realize just how ridiculous some of these rules are for some of the players.

And now a new rule... transfers have to set out a year. At the same time more will want to transfer because of the new rule limiting roster limits. That’s another example of a rule that does not even consider in the least what is in the best interest of the student athlete. Or am I missing something?
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
PG,
I think I got a better understanding now of what you were trying to say.

IMO,certain people, maybe those such as yourself, need to let your thoughts and ideas be known to the NCAA. Someone looking from the outside is easier to spot the deficencies in big business than those within. I hope that someday, those that do have the passion on this subject (seperating fair from unfair) will speak up and wake up the sleeping giant for every student athlete who wants to attend college and play their sport.

As far as the comment from the ex scout, it was an example how everyone looks at situations differently. I didn't mean to get off the subject.

I am in agreement with your thoughts on the one year sit out transfer rule, however, as explained to me, if more programs had taken the time to take care of their business (keeping those on tract that remain at school and do not transfer) this might not have happened. I think that is what this is all about in the end, transfers out don't count in grad rates, so it's important to keep those that remain in check. I am shocked to hear stories about coaches and athletic advisors don't do their job at paying attention to their charges until it's too late.

I also think that the timing of the draft doesn't help the overall situation in baseball.

As far as the sandwich rules, I do beleive that you would be in compliance if you provided sandwiches for everyone and not signal one player out. If that is the case, fried baloney on white bread might not be too difficult to handle. Wink
Last edited by TPM
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.

TPM...

I have nother take....

quote:
...if more programs had taken the time to take care of their business (keeping those on tract that remain at school and do not transfer) this might not have happened.


PROGRAM messes up...The NCAA decides to penalize PLAYERS...Does this make any sense?...or is it..


quote:
...another example of a rule that does not even consider in the least what is in the best interest of the student athlete. Or am I missing something?


OR am I missing something?..

Cool 44
.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Cool44,

That's what the committee failed to understand I suppose.
The committee doesn't care, their philosophy, you go to college to get a degree. They don't like the draft, they have stated as such. I don't think they understand the nature of the beast. Many years ago, don't think it mattered, not as many players came out of college as they do now. That in turn creates the problem, more willing to go to college but they want to play with a possibility of playing beyond college and you achieve that by sitting on a bench. Who is going to explain this to them? A college coach, an AD, a President?
No way, their job is supposed to get kids graduated, not leave after 2-3 years.

Someone, not a coach, not a AD, not a president needs to explain this to them. Big Grin

JMO
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
Would like to add…

The NCAA is necessary and has done many good things over the years. The same could be said about State High School Associations. It’s not like everything these organizations do is unfair to athletes. I’m only upset about those things that seem unfair and unnecessary. Those things that are there for no real positive purpose other than people with power wanting to display that power. Rules that can cause limited opportunity to certain individuals who have no intent to hurt anybody or anything.

I just wish all these powerful organizations would look at things from the student athletes perspective. I understand that nearly all hs associations will claim they work on behalf of everyone rather than talented individuals. Yet in the end isn’t it all about talented individuals? How powerful would the NCAA have become, without any talented individuals? They (NCAA) are absolutely unnecessary without talented individuals no matter whether those athletes graduate or not. No talented individuals, no television interest, no media coverage, no big crowds, not a big money maker. It's all about the individual athletes. Without them most talented athletes it is called intramurals. Not much MONEY, not much need for NCAA!

I find it hypocritical when an organization claims to work on behalf of all students, yet makes rules that only pertain to those individuals with the most talent. Most of the things discussed here pertain to rules that limit what talented individuals can do or receive. Those same rules include punishment (usually ineligibility of some sort) that only pertain to the most talented individuals. Some of these rules pointed at the most talented players, end up affecting the players school, town, coaches, team, relatives, etc. If one looks at what is perfectly legal and what isn’t allowed, it is easy to see that there are a lot of stupid things going on in the state athletic governing organizations. An example… Some states disallow participation in baseball events once the official football season has started. It makes no difference in this case that the player does not participate in football. Then in one case we found out the official start day for football was before the official first day of school. Really… Is this needed, does it cause any problem, does it make any sense? It’s just a stupid rule IMO!

So if the main concern is really everyone and they don’t concern themselves with those who are the best or most talented (as many hs associations have told us) Then why do they spend so much energy and time making rules and penalties that only pertain to talented individuals?

TPM,

I think you have come up with a brand new name for one of the rules and I love it!
THE SANDWICH RULE! Think I will use that from now on.

Yes, it is true in most cases outside of recruiting that (we for example) can provide sandwiches, t shirts, caps, shoes, etc. to one player so long as we provide them for everyone. We could even provide travel and lodging among other things. But what ever was provided for the poverty stricken kid, we would have to provide the exact same thing to the billionaire’s son. Even the billionaire would understand there is something wrong with that situation. We can afford to help some under privileged kids, but can’t afford to help everyone including those who don’t need any financial help.

If we see a kid wearing shoes that are torn apart and create a risk for injury, we can give him a new pair of shoes, but only if we give every player at that event a new pair of shoes. Need has nothing to do with it, in order to give the kid with no shoes a pair of new shoes, we must give everyone including the billionaires son a new pair of shoes. Otherwise, the poor kid stands to be punished!!! I’m for rules, but not when the rules are such a disadvantage to individuals who actually need some help.

Yes there are ways around a lot of this stuff, but why should finding ways around things like this be necessary. Once again, I understand the reasons for some of these rules is because boosters, agents, etc. have abused in the past.


BTW, for those talented players out there who are working with agent/advisors… Be careful because they fall under the same rules. They can’t legally buy anything for you either.

Don’t want to fight with the NCAA or HS associations. Can’t beat them as far as I’m concerned. Therefore, if you don’t fight, you might as well go along with things. That is what we must do, but not without some complaining along the way.
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
Very interesting discussion to me. Both of my parents taught at universities and both were big sports fans. My father, an engineering professor, only taught a handful of athletes over a 25-year career but always had football and basketball season tickets. My mother often tutored struggling athletes including some from the very poorest inner city schools in America. My mother, who earned some tuition vouchers for her work (in addition to salary), often gave them to athletes who were finished with eligibility but short of graduation so they could finish their degrees (probably a violation of some sort?). They often had athletes over for dinner too, especially those that needed help over a holiday or tough time.

They would have shared PG's concerns for many of these athletes. My father was even a proponent of paying stipends to athletes...he basically said, "lets cut the c-r-a-p, get it all above board and pay them what they're worth."

So I've been raised to feel much the way PG feels about a lot of this stuff.

Included in the "sandwich rule" mentioned above is the fact that the school cannot pay for transportation to/from home to attend school once signed. So if a school on the West Coast recruits a very poor basketball/football player from inner-city NY to win games (and ultimately make $$ for THEIR school), the recruit still has to find his/her own way across the country to get to school...never mind getting home for Christmas or Spring Break. Is this fair? To me its even more unfair than the legitimate examples PG notes.

But like many things in life, the rules were put in place to stop the handful of abusers. Allow PG to pay for kids-in-need to attend their events and pretty soon kids-almost-in-need and even a few kids-not-in-need will claim "NEED!" or they won't attend the event. Its a very legitimate concern PG, but because of a few knuckleheads out there year-after-year it would be a slippery slope, even for PG I believe.

As for HS, we have a new rule in California that says if you transfer HS's you may not play a varsity sport for 1 year. Why? Well, the rule was put in place (from what I understand) to curb abuses particularly in basketball where summer AAU teammates "recruited" each other to be on the same HS team. Rule sounds legit - right? Maybe? But also consider the case where you want to move your kid because you discover HS #1 isn't the right social fit for your kid? Or you become disenchanted with the counseling? Or you can't afford the cost of the private HS anymore (lost your job)? Should your son/daughter be penalized for such legitimate reasons? Just because a handful of abusers bounced around HS's for the past few years?

So yes, too many rules in HS too. All of these rules are aimed at nailing the relatively small handful of abusers and all penalize the legitimate kids in the process (the poor kid wanting to get to a PG event, or attend a college 1,000 miles away, or to the HS kid wanting to go to a better HS for him/her).

What about the assertion that only kids "with means" can take 'unofficial' visits to out-of-town colleges in their sophomore/junior year and get that early commitment? Is that fair to the poor kids? Are all the "good" scholarships gone by the time the poor kid can get his 'official' visit paid for? To level that playing field the NCAA would have to allow schools to pay for visits earlier...maybe ok, but more room for abuse? More likely they'd fix that by banning unofficial visits.

Its all silly...but can anyone see a better way? Review them case-by-case? (I'm told at least in the HS situation that this would create too much expensive overhead).

Anyways, those are my thoughts, but somehow I don't feel that I've stated them very effectively, completely or clearly.
Last edited by justbaseball
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Very good JB.

I do beleive here in FL they have the transfer sit out rule as well which was implimented after DK graduated, public not private, someone can correct me on that one. Transfer was very abusive here at one time.

The way I see it, and this is my opinion, transfer rates were looked upon by abuse of the players not coaches, though the coaches may have created the tranfer situation, the player still did the requesting. I think it may have been a two way situation, too many coaches ran players off with over recruiting, too many players made poor decisions and wanted greener grass. The NCAA is not stopping anyone from transfering, just not D1 to D1 without sitting. I do feel though there should be some provisions for certain cases (lost scholarships, personal family situations).

JMO.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×