Caught my eye while the board was down

There was a story out of the Pittsburgh area about a prep football player who was trying to transfer from a school in New York to a powerhouse in Western Pa. His transfer was denied because the regional governing body in Pa. ruled it was done for athletic intent (shocker!)

http://postgazette.com/pg/06234/715337-49.stm

What got my attention was that the kid's father had given an interview to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette where he specifically said the reason they moved was because the football in Pittsburgh was better than where they were in NY. Apparently that's what precipitated the eligibility hearing. The father claims he was taken out of context, but to no avail. The regional board ruled against them. They were planning to appeal to the state.

Aside from the family blaming the media, the other thing that rubs me the wrong way is the idea that they felt they had to move in order to help the kid get recruited. He's already a top prospect and he did that playing in New York. So what's the problem? You're telling me one year playing in Pittsburgh is going to raise this kid's recruiting profile? Please. Once again, parents are what's wrong with prep sports.

 

Shit, you have kids transferring high schools to wear certain brands of shoes. I'm glad to see someone putting their foot down. A high school kid's main focus should be getting an education.
Sports is secondary.
Look, if you're a f'n stud, the colleges will come calling. In this day and age, you don't slide through the cracks.

 

I kind of waffle on this one.
Should they have busted this kid? Yes.
Should the family blame the media? No.
Why did the WPIAL FINALLY get a spine? Who knows. This crap goes on a lot in PA, but never has this been enforced.

 

I'll waffle as well. I can see that these rules are necessary to prevent one high school from recruiting from another one in the same county. But a kid transferring in from out of state? I have no problem with that, and his reason is his business.

A friend is considering a move before his youngest, a terrific soccer player who plays on a traveling team, reaches high school age. The main reason is because they were disappointed with the education an older child, a non-athlete, received at his town's high school. Now, all things being equal academically when considering a new town within the county, is it wrong for them to choose the high school that happens to have the best soccer team? I don't think so, any more than it would be wrong if they picked the school with the best band or best student newspaper or debate team whatever activity the kid was interested in. My sister and I went to different schools; we had different interests. I don't see anything evil in trying to get what you think is best for your kid.

 

I absolutely think somebody should be able to transfer from state to state for any reason they choose. Obviously, this opens up a can of worms as to who wants the kid to be successful (the kid himself/herself or the parents), but it's ridiculous that a family that had the means couldn't move from Minnesota to Florida to have their kid play in better baseball weather or have better competition (like the football case).

 

No, it's not ridiculous.

The primary purpose of schools is to educate and socialize children, not to serve as a glorified athletic club.

 

Jefferson vs. Madison County Schools. Folks said a little black girl couldn't go to school there. Lionel Caffey said, "Well, we'll just see about that."

 

"Primary" is the key word. I don't think that just because a sport is a factor that it always means the kid is suffering academically; the new school may be equal to or better than the old school academically. I went to a high school in the next county, 20 minutes away -- in my home state, some kids commute farther than that to go to a good school, and in some cases rural kids who want to go to a parochial school have no choice but to travel 30-45 minutes each way. Some kids' parents chose my school because we were a yearly power in one sport and most starters tended to get college scholarships; my parents chose it because of academics and none of the teams I played on had a winning record (we were 1-11 with the likes of me getting a varsity letter). But the kids who went there for sports received roughly the same education as me.

 

It's just too easy to say, 2much. And I know it's the correct thing to say, but I've got to see it the other way.

If this kid can get a free college education for playing football, and this move facilitates him getting recruited, then the parents are doing a noble thing for the young man.

Some may not like the fact that the world works this way, but it does.

 

Col. Jessop: "So, how is your dad, Danny."

Cruise: "He's been dead for seven years, sir."

Or something like that---haven't seen movie in at least a week now.

 

I'm not so sure it's been a matter of the WPIAL lacking a spine as much as it was the PIAA ripping it out at every turn. The PIAA (state organization for those without the PA prep sports background) has overturned enough cases that the WPIAL often gives up unless a parent or athlete says something they shouldn't on the record (we're moving so he can play better football...duh).

They know the judgement calls just don't stick.

 

Outofplace, I was just thinking the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the PIAA somehow finds a way to overturn this.