ILH transfer rule - time to revisit?

[SM96753]

Come up with a better product and the kids will stay.

Excellent point!

[Just_Another_Football_Mom]

Paul, I back you up 100000%...Maybe if State Legislators & Reps would send their children to the PUBLIC schools in the district that they represent, they too would make every effort to improve the schools in their district.....like it's been said before, if the food is crappy why would we continue to go that restaurant....if the DOE would improve the schools then maybe more keiki would stay at their home school......Just my 2 cents worth......

[HRC Paul]

DonkeyPunch and JAFmom, the tenor of your messages and mine may seem harsh, but I think we mean well when we say that there is a glaring inconsistency in the system as we know it. And though I endorse the concept of having the freedom and choice to attend any (public) school, make no mistake that I am a proud, proud graduate of my neighborhood high school, intermediate (middle) and elementary schools.

There is nothing else like playing for your community, representing your school in a competition of any kind. If you're from Kaimuki, as I am, there's nothing that matches an upset of Punahou in boys basketball. If you're a lifer at an ILH school (K to 12), there's nothing that matches a win over the current champs, pick the sport. It's all relative.

[Just_Another_Football_Mom]

Paul: I too am so very proud to say that I am a BULLDOG! A Waialua High School BULLDOG! I not only bleed red but there are grey flecks in there....and I can still sing my alma mater, and I do at the top of my lungs every time I attend a Bulldog game.........

GO BULLDOGS!

[kurt_kamikawa]

With all the JJ news flying around, I thought I'd mention that I spoke to him about this matter just before UH played Alabama last year. JJ's comment was, "Let the kids play." I think it's all too evident that JJ is not a big fan of bureaucratic red tape and outdated forms of thinking. Alas, life is full of injustice and we just continue to move on.

[noasark2x2]

Although I agree somewhat with the fact that transfering hurts the students I also think that it should not just be anyone can go anywhere.
I see people saying what is wrong with recruiting and that if it is ok in college then why not in high school. The big fear I have if you just let kids transfer is the fact that schools will begin football factories this is rampant in the mainland. These schools are not helping the student better themselves and get to college the studnt must do that on themselves. Kids and parents are drawn to these schoold because they win and they foolishly think that this will give their child the exposure that they need

[kurt_kamikawa]

There are definitely outcomes to guard against in terms of transferring getting out of hand. I started this post, because I feel it is time to REVISIT the rule as it stands. I don't know exactly when the present rule was crafted, but certainly a lot has changed. Foremost, the importance of sports has become a lot bigger with the potential for college scholarships something that cannot be ignored in this day of increased specialization for the student-athlete. For someone who has prepared all their lives for a single sport, having to sit out a season for a transfer that may be due to factors such as financial, academic, geographic, etc. may cost them that scholarship opportunity. The ILH has changed dramatically too with a lot of small schools now participating where team tryouts are not even held. A student athlete transferring into this kind of environment is almost assuredly not motivated by potential sports recognition, but will be penalized from sports participation anyway. We should also acknowledge that the coaching sophistication and athletic talent at OIA schools has also improved dramatically as demonstrated by Kaimuki boys basketball and Leilehua football as the most recent evidence.

If the goal is to seriously crack down on recruiting, then there are probably better ways to approach this --- namely stiff penalties for violating schools --- than to take a blanket approach of penalizing many innocent student athletes by the current rule. If we want to limit transfers, why not allow a one-time transfer without question, and then impose "no play" restrictions for subsequent transfers after that? This rule change gives the benefit of the doubt to the innocent student-athlete while placing some restrictions on a total free agency environment being created.

Perhaps it's even as simple as allowing transfers with participation being granted, UNLESS an official protest is filed. Again, this would probably relieve the innocent student-athlete transfer from being barred, but provides an opportunity to challenge a transfer for other "dark" reasons. Under the current environment, every transfer student needs to provide compelling evidence to allow their participation, but the approval can be withheld without explanation. Let's presume innocence first, unless there is sufficient evidence that illegal recruiting or other factors were involved that warrant a year in the penalty box.

[HRC Paul]

I'm with you on that, Kurt, 100%. Thing is, leagues, organizations, departments, legislative branches ... they're all used to blanket rules, broad policies. It's basic Bureaucracy 101 stuff no matter where you are on planet earth.

I would love to see leagues handle transfers on a case-by-case basis, but that would really require a lot of energy and potential litigation. Tough either way.

[krazychinaman]

just letting you guyz know if the school that your kid have to go let say live by downtown..they need to go mckinley and let say mckinley dont meet the standard from the no child left behind law then the parent have every right to have their kid change school and the old and new school cant say no...