Sports Fairness?

I guess this thread doesn't want to die. I therefore will weigh in again, especialy with regard to Willie Bobo's comments. Let me begin by saying that I think transfers should be limited to rare circumstances once 9th grade is completed. I believe that many of you have a diffferent opinion, based upon logic and circumstances, and we can respect one another's right to differ. I offer these comments, however, to show that WB's arguments do not hold water.

quote:

Issuing penalties on a prima facie basis without due investigation is neither fair nor does it promote 'fair play'.

Doesn't it cause a student mental anguish when he/she is deemed ineligible by the FHSAA after the Florida Department of Education deems a transfer reasonable and customary?

Forbidding a student to transfer is not a penalty. You need a better argument than that if you're going to try a legal challenge. Being required to stay in the school YOU AND YOUR PARENTS CHOSE by attending it for 9th grade (either by moving, not moving, enrolling at a private school, etc.) is NOT a punishment.

quote:

Doesn't the ineligibility ruling mentally abuse a student athlete who may desire to play for a different school than the one he/she was formerly enrolled?

Doesn't the ineligibility ruling cause mental anxiety when a student meets all requirements for participation under the guidelines set forth by the Florida Department of Education?

Any student who feels mentally abused or suffers undue anxiety because of staying in his freely chosen home school instead of transferring for athletic reasons needs psychiatric help. WB, why not try to teach kids that life hands out bumps and bruises, most much worse than having to play on a mediocre high school baseball team. Any kid who is anguished over such a trivial matter is going to eperience crippling problems when he faces life's real inequities. For crying out loud, let's not raise a bunch of selfish whiners and cry babies.

quote:

Isn't it exploitation of the student when the student is punished for what is deemed recruiting by an adult member of the transfer school? The student athlete is used as a pawn to punish the recruiting and is therefore exploited by the FHSAA.

How is it protecting the student by punishing him/her?

Please, lets' not pretend the student and his parents aren't complicit in recruiting. The coach should be punished, but the parents and students who break the rule should only be required to attend the proper school -- that's not punishment, except for unethical coaches and parents trying to relive their troubled childhood.

quote:

The transfer penalty for athletic reasons should be voided. It is in direct contadiction of the aims of the FHSAA as stated in its bylaw 2.1.1

You are wrong. The FHSAA is supposed to "assure that all such activities shall be part of and contribute towards the entire educational program of the State of Florida" and to "promote the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play in all athletic contests; to safeguard the physical, mental and moral welfare of high school students and protect them from exploitation.," which is what this rule does. The transfer for athletic reasons after 9th grade is morally exploitative of ALL the students in the school, athletes or otherwise. It destroys the spirit of fair play, and turns high school sports into a recruiting war, ripe with all sorts of abuses.

Your rebuttal is flawed. You aproach your argument that transfers are in and of themselves not allowed. That is incorrect. The issue is not transfers, the issue is eligibility after transfer.

Parents may have the desire that their child attend a school that challenges the child academically.

The fact that their child is also an athlete should have no bearing on the eligibility of tht student.

Your rebuttal is again flawed since the student can be restricted on a prima facie basis, yet the coach and school can only be penalized after investigation.

The very mention of recruiting should be an allegation subject to investigation before any restriction or penalty is even considered.

quote:

Please, lets' not pretend the student and his parents aren't complicit in recruiting.

Let us also not assume that they automatically are. That is your opinion and view. It is not , just by being stated, a fact.

quote:

except for unethical coaches and parents trying to relive their troubled childhood.

Another blanket condemnation of parents? Again, the assumption of guilt of all. It still smacks of a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito. I still have a problem with the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" approach to anything. jmo

I don't really get your argument. I am not trying to be insulting. I just am not sure what you are against.

quote:

The transfer for athletic reasons after 9th grade is morally exploitative of ALL the students in the school, athletes or otherwise. It destroys the spirit of fair play, and turns high school sports into a recruiting war, ripe with all sorts of abuses.

ASSUMING that the above is true. Why then do you punish someone for transferring for for academic reasons by not allowing them to participate? Again with the sledgehammer by the FHSAA. Wouldn't a faireer processs (ASSUMING that the above is true) be to find eveidence of wrong doing and punish and not puunish all for what a few bad apples do? I think this is the crux of the problem. We all have admitted that coaches recruiting is wrong. so this is the REAL issue imo.

quote:

You aproach your argument that transfers are in and of themselves not allowed. That is incorrect. The issue is not transfers, the issue is eligibility after transfer.

To clarify, the issue is whether students who transfer to another high school for athletic reasons would be allowed both to transfer and to maintain athletic eligibility. IN some districts, the transfer itself may be forbidden. The FHSAA has to deal with only the eligibility issue since they don't have jurisdiction over the rest. Rest assured, however, Willie, that BOTH restricting tranfers done for atletic reasons and the FHSAA's rstriction of eligibility in those circumstances, are ways to address the same problem at different levels of government.

quote:

The fact that their child is also an athlete should have no bearing on the eligibility of tht student.

Whaaat? Says who? You, Willie? I don't care if you call a kid an athlete or not, but he should not be allowed to play after transferring -- or shouldn't be allowed to transfer at al-- absent excetional circumstances.

quote:

Your rebuttal is again flawed since the student can be restricted on a prima facie basis, yet the coach and school can only be penalized after investigation.

The very mention of recruiting should be an allegation subject to investigation before any restriction or penalty is even considered.

Far from being a flaw, this is the best way to stop it. Recruiting is like bribery; since both parties are willing participants, it is difficult to prove. The pernicious practice of transferring to play a sport is easy to spot, however, so most enforcement efforts should focus on that. Check the NCAA, Willie, they severely restrict transfers, to good efffect in college sports.

quote:

Let us also not assume that [parents] automatically are [complicit in recruiting]. That is your opinion and view. It is not , just by being stated, a fact.

What are you saying BigHit? That the parents don't know their kid is transferring? Or that they don't know why? Neither argument is very convincing. How could a parent not know those things? If they don't, that's another reason to stop the transfer.

quote:

I don't really get your argument. I am not trying to be insulting. I just am not sure what you are against.

I am against high school students transferring to another school in order to participate on the new school's athletic teams. How you could have missed that, I don't know, but I'm glad to repeat it for you.

quote:

Why then do you punish someone for transferring for for academic reasons by not allowing them to participate? Again with the sledgehammer by the FHSAA. Wouldn't a faireer processs (ASSUMING that the above is true) be to find eveidence of wrong doing and punish and not puunish all for what a few bad apples do? I think this is the crux of the problem. We all have admitted that coaches recruiting is wrong. so this is the REAL issue imo.

I'm not really sure how broad the "academic reasons" transfer excuse is. The FHSAAA's problem is that they have no control over it and, unfortunately, people will try to use any loophole. If a kid really needs an "academic" transfer after 9th grade, perhaps it is best that he concentrate on his school work, play on recreational league teams if he loves the sport, and take private lessons, play on travel teams, and attend showcases if that is appropriate for his skill level.

Rip,

What about ethnicity based transfers? Their obvious affect on athletic programs, notably football and basketball? Good, bad or indifferent?

"To clarify, the issue is whether students who transfer to another high school for athletic reasons would be allowed both to transfer and to maintain athletic eligibility."

You appear to be presupposing that all transfers by student athletes are for athletic reasons. Is it your ascertion that any transfer by any student athlete is solely for athletic reasons?

"I don't care if you call a kid an athlete or not, but he should not be allowed to play after transferring -- or shouldn't be allowed to transfer at al-- absent excetional circumstances."

Transfers are not only allowed but promoted by the NCLB.

"Recruiting is like bribery; since both parties are willing participants, it is difficult to prove. The pernicious practice of transferring to play a sport is easy to spot, however, so most enforcement efforts should focus on that."

Again there is the analogy that transferring is a crime akin to bribery. In reality, if there is anything akin to any crime it would be fraud perpetrated by the recruiter. Is the victim of fraud a willing co-conspirator? A recruited student athlete cannot win. Any promises made by an adult to induce a minor to become a party in an act that is illegal by any standards should be a separate matter.

"That the parents don't know their kid is transferring? Or that they don't know why? Neither argument is very convincing. How could a parent not know those things? If they don't, that's another reason to stop the transfer."

Parents are not mind readers. If their child expresses an interest in attending another school of the school choice option, why should they be suspicious?

"I am against high school students transferring to another school in order to participate on the new school's athletic teams. How you could have missed that, I don't know, but I'm glad to repeat it for you."

If you are as you claim against freedom of choice in education, you are living in the wrong country. In this free society a parent can decide that it is in their child's best interest to change schools after. Again you are restricting the freedom of others.

"I'm not really sure how broad the "academic reasons" transfer excuse is. The FHSAAA's problem is that they have no control over it and, unfortunately, people will try to use any loophole. If a kid really needs an "academic" transfer after 9th grade, perhaps it is best that he concentrate on his school work, play on recreational league teams if he loves the sport, and take private lessons, play on travel teams, and attend showcases if that is appropriate for his skill level."

You seem to be promoting leagues outside of the FHSAA's jurisdiction. The FHSAA chooses to control transfers and recruiting in an arbitrary fashion at best. Under their own bylaws, they do not act unless someone makes an allegation. The accuser should have to bring evidence to support their claim and prove that their claim has merit. This is not the case. Mere allegation seems to be enough for them to punish a child. Should an allegation of recruitment be made, it should be supported by evidence to prove the allegation. Prima facie decisions should never be acceptable. The FHSAA calls the appeals process 'due process'. Why not just bring back 'letters of attainder'? Everybody then will have the joy of being guilty until proven innocent.


You seem to have the perception that you were harmed by a transfer student in your past. Your posts have the steady theme that all student athletes who transfer are transferring to recreate that harm done to you.

Is your claim that student athletes transfer only to better teams? That would easily be shown to be false since all teams that have tranfer students do not become winning teams. The broad brush that you are promoting hurts the student athlete who transfers for academic reasons and the team in the new school is either bad or mediocre at best. You seem to have some specific instances that haunt you.

Or are you only against student athletes transferring to schools where they make a good team better? Would it please you if a stipulation was added that the transfer school must have had a worse record than the school transferred from?

If my speculation is correct, look at the mental anguish that was caused to you. You seem to have suppressed the hurt caused you, but it permeates any discussion of student athletes transferring schools.

quote:

I am against high school students transferring to another school in order to participate on the new school's athletic teams. How you could have missed that, I don't know, but I'm glad to repeat it for you.

It is hard to tell since it sounds like you also want to punish kids for transferring for a better academic climate.

quote:

I'm not really sure how broad the "academic reasons" transfer excuse is. The FHSAAA's problem is that they have no control over it and, unfortunately, people will try to use any loophole. If a kid really needs an "academic" transfer after 9th grade, perhaps it is best that he concentrate on his school work, play on recreational league teams if he loves the sport, and take private lessons, play on travel teams, and attend showcases if that is appropriate for his skill level.

It sounds to me like you don't want anybody who transfers to participate in sports. So in reality you are in favor of no transfers for any reason without some sort of punishment invloved for doing so. Which proves my point of the the sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. It just sounds unfair to me to punish everybody and lump everybody into one category and just assume that all are somehow guilty simply because they want to better themselves. I am not arguing whether or not the fhsaa can do it or not. If innocent people get hurt by it, it just seems unfair to me.

quote:

How you could have missed that, I don't know, but I'm glad to repeat it for you.

For the record: I didn't miss anything. You were saying 2 different things and I wanted clarification. If it makes you feel better to insinuate that I somehow cannot read it, then go ahead. Just be consistent. I can be condescending as well, but that will get us nowhere. Obviously, you just don't like being questioned or disagreed with.

Part of the reason I have a problem with your argument is that you make good points interlaced with your generalizations and assumptions, which may or may not be correct. Those are your opinions, not fact. I am uncomfortable just making sweeping generalizations about people.

quote:

It is hard to tell since it sounds like you also want to punish kids for transferring for a better academic climate.

No, BigHit. I just don't believe there are many transfers for true academic reasons after 9th Grade. I don't have a problem with a reasonable set of regulations allowing transfer if certain programs a student needs are not available at the "home district" school. The price of such a transfer should be one year of FHSAA mandated athletic ineligibility. Just like in college.

quote:

So in reality you are in favor of no transfers for any reason without some sort of punishment invloved for doing so. Which proves my point of the the sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.

No, you and I just disagree on whether having either to stay in your home district or forfeit a year of eligibility is "punishment."

quote:

I can be condescending as well, but that will get us nowhere. Obviously, you just don't like being questioned or disagreed with.

I apologize if my hurried typing resulted in any offense. Trust me, it was not meant that way. I enjoy and respect your opinion. And I also enjoy discussing these matters with those who disagree. I am even occasionally convinced that I have been wrong.

quote:

I am uncomfortable just making sweeping generalizations about people.

I don't make generalizations about people. I just think a "bright line" rule needs to be implemented to put an end to transfers for athletic purposes.

quote:

No, you and I just disagree on whether having either to stay in your home district or forfeit a year of eligibility is "punishment."

Then you would not be averse to a student athlete transferring to a school within his/her district maintaining eligibility?

No, Willie. Sorry the district language was unclear. Down here you have your "home district" school, based upon where you live. Here each school other than a magnet or alternative school has a residency district with geographic boundaries. These districts are grouped together in regions, and I guess the whole system is sometimes called the "School District." What I'm talking about is one school, not a bunch of schools in a more general "district" as defined by a school board, but ONE SCHOOOL determined by where you live. I believe you should be restricted to attending that school, or the private school you were in for 9th grade. Transferring anywhere, and being allowed to play sports, is wrong. If you want to go to a private school, do it starting in 9th grade; if you like a particular public school district, move there and enroll for 9th grade. Otherwise sit out of athletics for a year if you transfer.

Things are different here in Tampa. School Choice gives you a selection of usually three schools to choose from for 9th grade. If for whatever reason you as a parent find that that school is not the best suited to your child, you can request transfer to one of the other schools in that initial three.

I think the only requirement to maintain eligibility in the next school is being signed out by the AD at the end of the spring semester and making your decision to transfer known. That eliminates the possible appearance of recruiting by the new school if your child plays summer ball with them in American Legion.

The one school for four years and the loyalty and all is very quaint, but not always the best route. If we all lived in a district with only one high school the point would be moot.

Transfers are for one of many reasons. It could be course selection or to be with more people you are familiar with.

High school and college are similar in that they are four years and in a perfect, or near perfect, environment attended for the full degree program. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.

Unless there is some reason to punish the child, the child shouldn't be punished.

"In either case, there is nothing wrong with seeking a transfer to another program that wants your son to play and the Coach would be wrong if he tried to stand in the way."

Originally posted February 9,2005.

Why has your view changed so drastically since then?

quote:

No, BigHit. I just don't believe there are many transfers for true academic reasons after 9th Grade. I don't have a problem with a reasonable set of regulations allowing transfer if certain programs a student needs are not available at the "home district" school. The price of such a transfer should be one year of FHSAA mandated athletic ineligibility. Just like in college.

That is totally incorrect. If the college's AD signs a release, you are free to play anywhere. So it in no way is the same thing.

quote:

No, you and I just disagree on whether having either to stay in your home district or forfeit a year of eligibility is "punishment."

If depriving somebody of participating in a sport is not punishment, what is it? Who does that rule protect? Who does that hurt? How is that in the students best interest? If someone transfers to a private school in their own district, can they play then?

quote:

I don't make generalizations about people. I just think a "bright line" rule needs to be implemented to put an end to transfers for athletic purposes.

Everyone agrees with stopping recruiting. That is not an issue. I just don't understand why stopping transferrring rather than enforcing the present rules is the answer. Oh, it will work. BUT, many honest transfers of people will also be affected. Is it fair to PUNISH everbody to stop a few? I don't think so. jmo

People with money will still be able to just move to a new district and play under the new rules. The ones who will get hurt are the people who just want to better themselves. The loophole will be (as many are) in favor of people with money. What you are wanting is probably more fair than what the fhsaa is doing. Your way will have one rule for everybody who wants to transfer, move, better themselves, etc. The fhsaa just wants to stick it to private schools and deny the right to choose your school without their being a consequesnce. The rule is clearly in favor of public schools. Hey just move to a new house and it is ok. Does anybody know if someone were to move to a new district and go to a private school, would they be allowed to pick their own schhol then?

quote:

I believe you should be restricted to attending that school, or the private school you were in for 9th grade. Transferring anywhere, and being allowed to play sports, is wrong. If you want to go to a private school, do it starting in 9th grade; if you like a particular public school district, move there and enroll for 9th grade. Otherwise sit out of athletics for a year if you transfer.

If I am not mistaken, that is not the rule being discussed by the fhsaa. So this is the rule that you would like to see instead of the one that the fhsaa is putting into effect. Correct me if I am wrong. Though I don't agree with that point of view, I see your attempt at fairness to everyone that way. I just think that it is the wrong way to go about it. It is way to restrictive to one's freedom of choice (not debating their right to do it). Under those rules if someone were to move across state for their dad's job, they would not be able to play? That is ridiculous and unfair. Would you have provisions for going to school out of the entire district? A rule like that is definitely overkill. jmo Not a well thought out rule.

BigHit, you make some good points. Let me respond.

quote:

That is totally incorrect. If the college's AD signs a release, you are free to play anywhere. So it in no way is the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing, except in college there is a "one time transfer" waiver, which has many conditions that must be satisfied before it can be used, and, as you point out, requires approval of the AD. That is appropriate for college, but not for high school, because in college, recruiting is allowed, and kids are enticed to go to schools far away that may not be suitable for them, yet coaching staffs change, schools change conferences, kids get homesick, etc. These are all things that don't (or at least shouldn't) apply to high school . Even if you send your kid out of state to boarding school, he already can return without penalty, whereas in college he has to sit out a year unless he qualifies for the one time exception and gets AD aproval. Once you use the one time waiver, if you change colleges, you sit out a year. So you see, the only exception to the one year period of ineligibility in college is a limited one that makes sense in college, but wouldn't make sense in high school.

quote:

If depriving somebody of participating in a sport is not punishment, what is it?

No kid is deprived of participating. He just has to decide whether he wants to stay put and be eligible to play, or transfer and sit out a year. And as I have pointed out, it's not like he can't play, he just can't do it on his school team that plays against other schools in competition leading into the FHSAA championships. He can play travel ball, rec league, or whatever else suits his fancy. He can go to showcases and college camps. Doesn't sound like much of a punishment to me.

quote:

People with money will still be able to just move to a new district and play under the new rules.

It is a free country. You don't have to have money to move, you just need to find affordable housing suitable to your income.

quote:

Under those rules if someone were to move across state for their dad's job, they would not be able to play? That is ridiculous and unfair. Would you have provisions for going to school out of the entire district?

I have just been expressing my thoughts on the matter, not drafting a rule. However, now that you mention it, my rule probably should not apply to anyone who moves more than a certain distance from their previous home, or cannot legally stay in the school because of their residence being in another district due to a move.

quote:

"In either case, there is nothing wrong with seeking a transfer to another program that wants your son to play and the Coach would be wrong if he tried to stand in the way."

Originally posted February 9,2005.

Why has your view changed so drastically since then?

Why has your position changed? Did you not get your way and now you want to make sure that no one else does?

Wiilie,

Congratulations on your use of the "find" function on the toolbar, but you reached the wrong conclusion. The problem is that once you found the post, you didn't read it or its context. As I noted in that thread, we were discussing someone's desire to change from one COLLEGE to another. We weren't discussing high school baseball. As I noted above, there are factors involved in college ball that do not exist in high schoool ball, and those factors justify a one time transfer waiver in colege but not in high school. Several people we know, as well as my son (as I'm sure you know from your "research"), have been through the college (NCAA Div 1) transfer process in the past year, and all of them got what they wanted, and that to which they were entitled, according to the rules.

So, Willie, my position hasn't changed. I don't mean to upset anyone who has transferred, within the rules (no recruiting involved), since that was legal at the time and still is. I do think such transfers should be stopped in the future, however.

More like a double standard.

You can do one thing but others shouldn't.

The rationalization that you were referring to college does not hold water. You just want what you want and others should have what you dictate. A transfer is a transfer is a transfer. You have again tried to parry by using the word 'recruiting' when it is all transfers that you have been condemning.

You have apparently been hurt by the system and are acting out. You gave a few good ideas of what should be done for student athletes when they suffer mental anguish due to the scholastic athletic policies. Try taking your own advice.

quote:

The rationalization that you were referring to college does not hold water. You just want what you want and others should have what you dictate.

Now, now, Willie, you're getting too excited and not making sense. Here are the differences, set out in an easy to understand form:

COLLEGE:
Recruiting allowed

Students choose among schools based in part on being recruited in their sport, promises of playing time, promises of position on the field, etc., as part of the recruiting process

Students legally receive financial aid in exchange for agreeing to attend college and play on its team(s.

HIGH SCHOOL:
Al of the above are illegal.

Transfers need to be restricted to STOP RECRUITING in high school. Since recruiting is OK in college, the issues relating to college transfers have nothing to do with the discusssion on this thread.

What part of this do you not understand, Willie? Your snide comments really don't add to the discussion, but it's a commentary on the weakness of your position that you have no arguments to support what you want, so you instead end your post with an attack on me.

Nope, not excited at all.

You are still promoting a double standard. When you seem to be in doubt, you claim that transfers are again recruiting.

I wonder how you would feel if that same situation took place in high school. It seems that you would have felt the same way. Why wouldn't you still feel that the student should have transferred instead of staying the four years in that school?

You promote a double standard. You want preferrential treatment and then you want to dictate a more restrictive policy to others.

That is why your argument fails so often and you have to regroup and claim clarification.

Mentioning that a person should follow their own advice is not an attack. That is unless the advice given was an attack.

If you feel that following your own advice is an attack, then you sgould reconsider giving that advice to others.

quote:

That is why your argument fails so often and you have to regroup and claim clarification.

Willie, this is the last time I will dignify your snide remarks with a response. It is obvious you are incapable of marshalling an argument to support your position. But for you to continually claim you have misunderstood simple distinctions like the difference between college and high school baseball, and then when I explain it to you again you claim that I am "regrouping," is absurd. If you have an argument, make it; if you disagree with me, say why (like some other people have done) but quit attacking me personally. It just makes you look bad.

I can't control whether you keep responding, or attacking me personally, but I can control whether I pay any attention to you in the future: Rest assured, I won't.

I think this thread has run its course.

FLADAD