[quote="Thunderbird77"], I guess sitting out of all sports-extra currucular activities for the thousands of students who open enroll is not too high of a price to pay to eliminate sports dynasties based on transfers.
We seem to forget, that they would only have to sit out 1 year of varsity but they are still eligible to play JV and practice during that year.
It is not the end of the world if they could not play a varsity sport for one year.
Solving the Transfer Policy Issue
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Thunderbird77
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:01 pm
So, now, under the new rules, OE has a price. It is a price everyone that chooses OE has to pay. This price is being exacted to prevent transfer-based sports dynasties. My prediction is that sports dynasties will still exist and that there will still be complaints about how these teams got that way.
-
pondhockey
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:27 pm
What about the student that lives in town A that has a small population that cannot support a hockey rink, let alone a hockey program. The student commutes to town B for their youth hockey program. Then O/E after U14 to town B to continue being able to play a sport they love and be with the team that the student grew up with. Should this player have to sit out a year or play JV if that is below their level of play?
How about a strong player from a town that has a very weak program that consistently only wins 2 or 3 games per season and rates so far down the list no one even looks down that far? The player needs more competition than what her team and conference can give her in order to develop her skills. When she O/E should she have to sit out a year or play JV if that is below her level of play?
I'm just wondering will we punishing the innocent (?) to prevent a few that intentionally (?) abuse the system? Your thoughts, please.
How about a strong player from a town that has a very weak program that consistently only wins 2 or 3 games per season and rates so far down the list no one even looks down that far? The player needs more competition than what her team and conference can give her in order to develop her skills. When she O/E should she have to sit out a year or play JV if that is below her level of play?
I'm just wondering will we punishing the innocent (?) to prevent a few that intentionally (?) abuse the system? Your thoughts, please.
pondhockey,
I believe the player from Town A gets the 9th grade exception so she can plan V right away. As I recall, if this player was in U14 in 9th grade (that is didn't play HS hockey) then transferred in 10th grade they would have to sit out.
The second player would have to sit out, this case is the typical transfer we see right now. This person should have transferred earlier or moved as these methods of building a dynasty are OK where OE is not.
Is the purpose of the proposal to prevent dynasties of prevent people from leaving? I think the the MSHSL has a valid concern if the objective is to keep competition fair but not at the expense of keeping a family from seeking a better situation which is what OE was created for.
The MSHSL really needs a smaller but more diverse group to get together and come up with a proposal that solves the fairness of competition vs fairness to family issue. Let's look for real solutions instead of the same old rhetoric.
I believe the player from Town A gets the 9th grade exception so she can plan V right away. As I recall, if this player was in U14 in 9th grade (that is didn't play HS hockey) then transferred in 10th grade they would have to sit out.
The second player would have to sit out, this case is the typical transfer we see right now. This person should have transferred earlier or moved as these methods of building a dynasty are OK where OE is not.
Is the purpose of the proposal to prevent dynasties of prevent people from leaving? I think the the MSHSL has a valid concern if the objective is to keep competition fair but not at the expense of keeping a family from seeking a better situation which is what OE was created for.
The MSHSL really needs a smaller but more diverse group to get together and come up with a proposal that solves the fairness of competition vs fairness to family issue. Let's look for real solutions instead of the same old rhetoric.
xk1 wrote:pondhockey,
I think the the MSHSL has a valid concern if the objective is to keep competition fair but not at the expense of keeping a family from seeking a better situation which is what OE was created for.
A better educational situation is what O/E was created for. If you want to see what athletic life would be like under the new O/E proposal go back what life was before the current O/E was implemented?
It will have the educational benefit without the abuse of parents using an educational base system to leverage a better athletic experience.
At least those still debating the argument are willing to admit the fact that they want to see O/E stay so their students can play for a better athletic experience rather than the old worn out lie that they are going to a certain school for better eduactional opportunities.
tomASS,
Maybe someday you will come around to the fact that the OE statute says nothing about academics and we can work toward a real solution. T'Bird presented one, it has problems but it's a start. There are valid reasons to want to leave your HS, the problem seems to come when everyone goes to the same place.
I stopped mentioning academics because even when presented with proof the OEPhobes don't believe it anyway.
Maybe someday you will come around to the fact that the OE statute says nothing about academics and we can work toward a real solution. T'Bird presented one, it has problems but it's a start. There are valid reasons to want to leave your HS, the problem seems to come when everyone goes to the same place.
I stopped mentioning academics because even when presented with proof the OEPhobes don't believe it anyway.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
The only "solution" that retains the freedoms of OE/Private school selection yet levels the playing-field state tourney-wise is to adjust sections to place OE heavy/Private teams in one section in the AA or "top level" tourney.
I don't really like the idea of all of the very best teams in one section as this would likely do (think of section 6AA but 3 times as bad). At least kids still get to play though and not sit out a year this way. I don't really agree with taking away a kids ability to play hockey if they move for educational reasons.
I'm sorry but all that will happen under new rules that have a 1-year sit-out for OE/Private is that people will just rent apartments to beat the system - or - worse yet - many kids will just go play T-breds like hockey. My guess too is that someone will just challenge a new transfer rule too and that then we'll have no restrictions on movement.
Note too that the only OE/Privates that people care about are NDP level kids. We dont' hear about the non-NDP level players at all and they are by far the majority of the movement.
AND - not all privates are filled with talent, so to say that "ALL" privates should go into one section is absurd as not all are attracting top talent.
ALSO - the issue isn't regular season from what I can tell, but more about what happens come sections. Many teams welcome the opportunity to played a stacked OE or Private as a "test" for their program, etc.
So, again, to me, it seems that we need to write a rule that addresses NDP-OE heavy publics and TOP privates ROAD TO STATE. That is what most have a problem with. Don't take away a kids ability to play, don't make sweeping statements about all privates are bad, and instead just write a rule that addresses the true issue.
I put my solution in the earlier part of this thread. Maybe we're just better with what we have currently however? This just may be the case...
I don't really like the idea of all of the very best teams in one section as this would likely do (think of section 6AA but 3 times as bad). At least kids still get to play though and not sit out a year this way. I don't really agree with taking away a kids ability to play hockey if they move for educational reasons.
I'm sorry but all that will happen under new rules that have a 1-year sit-out for OE/Private is that people will just rent apartments to beat the system - or - worse yet - many kids will just go play T-breds like hockey. My guess too is that someone will just challenge a new transfer rule too and that then we'll have no restrictions on movement.
Note too that the only OE/Privates that people care about are NDP level kids. We dont' hear about the non-NDP level players at all and they are by far the majority of the movement.
AND - not all privates are filled with talent, so to say that "ALL" privates should go into one section is absurd as not all are attracting top talent.
ALSO - the issue isn't regular season from what I can tell, but more about what happens come sections. Many teams welcome the opportunity to played a stacked OE or Private as a "test" for their program, etc.
So, again, to me, it seems that we need to write a rule that addresses NDP-OE heavy publics and TOP privates ROAD TO STATE. That is what most have a problem with. Don't take away a kids ability to play, don't make sweeping statements about all privates are bad, and instead just write a rule that addresses the true issue.
I put my solution in the earlier part of this thread. Maybe we're just better with what we have currently however? This just may be the case...
O/E is all about students and schools and thus was created for educational purposes. School's first and most primary priority is what xk1? Academics and education? Am I incorrect? To create a policy for an educational system and then say it has nothing to do with academics is truly trying to rationalize a very bias, skewed opinion.xk1 wrote:tomASS,
Maybe someday you will come around to the fact that the OE statute says nothing about academics and we can work toward a real solution. T'Bird presented one, it has problems but it's a start. There are valid reasons to want to leave your HS, the problem seems to come when everyone goes to the same place.
I stopped mentioning academics because even when presented with proof the OEPhobes don't believe it anyway.
HS hockey (or any HS sport/activity) is a wonderful bi-product of the educational system. The educational portion is not a bi-product of the athletics.
Sorry we will have to agree to disagree. I am a conservative business person who also serves as a HS soccer coach, I am looking at the good of the whole versus the benefit of a few manipulating the current system under the guise of "it's about choices" theme. It still is, but it is about educational choices and making sure that is the heart of the reason for the open enrollment......what it was intended for to begin with.
-
Thunderbird77
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:01 pm
The MN statue (law) which provides for open enrollment states that the "academic or other reason" the student is leaving for must be stated. If the law were only for academics, the law would have said "academic only.
As a HS soccer coach, it must be frustrating for TomASS to play against teams that have players who OE. Even the best coach in the world needs some talent to win. However, as GHS suggests, there are some coaches that look forward to playing the EPs of the world -win or lose- as a gauge of their program.
As you can tell from my posts, I am a fan of OE because I agree the public school system benefits from competition. This is the stated reason the legislatures gave when the law was enacted. I too am a conservative business person, who does not have a child that either will or would have been affected by the proposed rule change. I do have a daughter who plays in section 6AA. The competition in this section is fierce, but I welcome competition. It doesn't bother me at all that my daughter may never have the opportunity to go to state being in this section. It is not unfair that EP has so mnay transfers. All teams in this section can and do accept transfers. So what???
What does bother me is that we will be placing a limitation on the many, many people who OE just to try to get to the ones people term "abusers" of the law. The reality of the situation is that the abusers will still find a way and we will have solved nothing except to tell Susie that we are sorry, she has to avoid extracurriculars the year she OEs. Susie may be willing to sit out in order to change schools, but Susie- who is NOT an abuser of the system has indeed paid a price.
In making my original post, I was hoping to leverage the diverse opinions of this post to form a proposal which all could live with. Xk1 has said that my original proposal has issues. I would be very appreciative to have those aired so the original proposal could be modified. Any input from tomASS would also be especially valuable because if we can find a solution he can agree with (other than the current proposal), it is likely to have broad appeal. Let's use the power of this forum to solve the transfer policy issue.
As a HS soccer coach, it must be frustrating for TomASS to play against teams that have players who OE. Even the best coach in the world needs some talent to win. However, as GHS suggests, there are some coaches that look forward to playing the EPs of the world -win or lose- as a gauge of their program.
As you can tell from my posts, I am a fan of OE because I agree the public school system benefits from competition. This is the stated reason the legislatures gave when the law was enacted. I too am a conservative business person, who does not have a child that either will or would have been affected by the proposed rule change. I do have a daughter who plays in section 6AA. The competition in this section is fierce, but I welcome competition. It doesn't bother me at all that my daughter may never have the opportunity to go to state being in this section. It is not unfair that EP has so mnay transfers. All teams in this section can and do accept transfers. So what???
What does bother me is that we will be placing a limitation on the many, many people who OE just to try to get to the ones people term "abusers" of the law. The reality of the situation is that the abusers will still find a way and we will have solved nothing except to tell Susie that we are sorry, she has to avoid extracurriculars the year she OEs. Susie may be willing to sit out in order to change schools, but Susie- who is NOT an abuser of the system has indeed paid a price.
In making my original post, I was hoping to leverage the diverse opinions of this post to form a proposal which all could live with. Xk1 has said that my original proposal has issues. I would be very appreciative to have those aired so the original proposal could be modified. Any input from tomASS would also be especially valuable because if we can find a solution he can agree with (other than the current proposal), it is likely to have broad appeal. Let's use the power of this forum to solve the transfer policy issue.
OE
quote="Thunderbird77"]
I do have a daughter who plays in section 6AA. The competition in this section is fierce, but I welcome competition. It doesn't bother me at all that my daughter may never have the opportunity to go to state being in this section.
What if your daughter is one of those that are being pushed out in her senior year because of OE?
quote="Thunderbird77"]
What does bother me is that we will be placing a limitation on the many, many people who OE just to try to get to the ones people term "abusers" of the law.
Why is Suzie so much more important than the girl who has played at that school and is just starting to blossom as a player but gets cut because of OE?
quote="Thunderbird77"]
We will have solved nothing except to tell Susie that we are sorry, she has to avoid extracurriculars the year she OEs. Susie may be willing to sit out in order to change schools, but Susie- who is NOT an abuser of the system has indeed paid a price.
Do you want to tell the parents and the Little Josie who has put time into that the HS team by doing fund raisers and such, that the girl from a few towns over is better and will now be taking her place?
There is no question that the rule is flawed as written, but it does affect more than just the OE Student.
I do have a daughter who plays in section 6AA. The competition in this section is fierce, but I welcome competition. It doesn't bother me at all that my daughter may never have the opportunity to go to state being in this section.
What if your daughter is one of those that are being pushed out in her senior year because of OE?
quote="Thunderbird77"]
What does bother me is that we will be placing a limitation on the many, many people who OE just to try to get to the ones people term "abusers" of the law.
Why is Suzie so much more important than the girl who has played at that school and is just starting to blossom as a player but gets cut because of OE?
quote="Thunderbird77"]
We will have solved nothing except to tell Susie that we are sorry, she has to avoid extracurriculars the year she OEs. Susie may be willing to sit out in order to change schools, but Susie- who is NOT an abuser of the system has indeed paid a price.
Do you want to tell the parents and the Little Josie who has put time into that the HS team by doing fund raisers and such, that the girl from a few towns over is better and will now be taking her place?
There is no question that the rule is flawed as written, but it does affect more than just the OE Student.
The displacement of town players by transfers is a valid criticism of OE, but the first question I always ask is how is it any easier for sSzie if the player from 2 towns away moved? How is it any easier if that outsider is a 9th grader? These are 'good' transfers and for some reason nobody cares about Suzie then. My own observation has been that varsity level players are never displaced, there are no more than a few teams with a girls program capable of providing 17 varsity level players in grade 9-12. My recommendation for those communities is to enact a more restrictive transfer policy like the Eagan school district did.
T'Bird proposes we limit the number of transfers so you don't have a situation like there is at EP or the former SSP team where you have so many non residents on varsity.
T'Bird proposes we limit the number of transfers so you don't have a situation like there is at EP or the former SSP team where you have so many non residents on varsity.
OE
I Care!
I care about the kid being put down to JV because of OE, and I would guess that there are girls that would have been on the EP Varsity if not for the OE’s moving in.
And that is why there has to be a starting point,
No mater what the decision that is made there will be unhappy people.
Either the ones transferring in or the ones being displaced will be unhappy.
So the next question is who is more important?
And weather you move or not, does make a difference.
How about Community pride for one!
You chose to live and pay taxes in that community and now it’s not good enough?
What about the displaced taxpayers daughter on that team?
I care about the kid being put down to JV because of OE, and I would guess that there are girls that would have been on the EP Varsity if not for the OE’s moving in.
And that is why there has to be a starting point,
No mater what the decision that is made there will be unhappy people.
Either the ones transferring in or the ones being displaced will be unhappy.
So the next question is who is more important?
And weather you move or not, does make a difference.
How about Community pride for one!
You chose to live and pay taxes in that community and now it’s not good enough?
What about the displaced taxpayers daughter on that team?
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
...Just a thought that I think makes this issue such a tough one relative to G HS Hockey...
There is usually not much competition for spots on teams as the sport isn't developed as other girls sports are or boys hockey, etc.
So, when a kid gets bumped from V to JV, or actually has to play out U12/U14 eligibility before coming to HS early, due to OE it's a lot bigger deal in the eyes of many as girls often don't have the 50 players in line behind them to get that HS V (or even JV) spot that most other developed girls sports have or boys hockey, etc.
What's also interesting I think is that this is also why kids OE. They're in programs that aren't as developed and some don't have experienced kids (think as in having played many years of youth hockey).
So, the same phenomenon that's likely pushing kids to OE is what's also drawing them the most attention at the semi-developed programs that they go to!
Bottom line is that the game isn't still fully developed. Once it is, if we get there, then there may well be less OE's and less complaints about displaced kids as there will be internal displacement actually happening regularly by then???
Also though, the same OE concerns about displacement have similar issues with privates. What about the kids that have all along attended the feeder, are legacy kids, etc. and then they get knocked down the list by recent additions?
I guess my response to some of the concerns that kids are getting knocked out of V spots is "welcome to HS athletics." Many G HS Hockey players don't know what the rest of the developed girls sports and boys athletes know - and that's that there actually is competition for spots at HS level usually and it's not just if you live somewhere and have a pulse you can play.
There is usually not much competition for spots on teams as the sport isn't developed as other girls sports are or boys hockey, etc.
So, when a kid gets bumped from V to JV, or actually has to play out U12/U14 eligibility before coming to HS early, due to OE it's a lot bigger deal in the eyes of many as girls often don't have the 50 players in line behind them to get that HS V (or even JV) spot that most other developed girls sports have or boys hockey, etc.
What's also interesting I think is that this is also why kids OE. They're in programs that aren't as developed and some don't have experienced kids (think as in having played many years of youth hockey).
So, the same phenomenon that's likely pushing kids to OE is what's also drawing them the most attention at the semi-developed programs that they go to!
Bottom line is that the game isn't still fully developed. Once it is, if we get there, then there may well be less OE's and less complaints about displaced kids as there will be internal displacement actually happening regularly by then???
Also though, the same OE concerns about displacement have similar issues with privates. What about the kids that have all along attended the feeder, are legacy kids, etc. and then they get knocked down the list by recent additions?
I guess my response to some of the concerns that kids are getting knocked out of V spots is "welcome to HS athletics." Many G HS Hockey players don't know what the rest of the developed girls sports and boys athletes know - and that's that there actually is competition for spots at HS level usually and it's not just if you live somewhere and have a pulse you can play.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Her school can choose to enter a co-op (G HS Hockey only) or, if very small, her school may have an "Affiliate Agreement" (for all sports) with another area school that offers her sport. In these cases, no transfer, etc. is needed.gopher9 wrote:So my question is.What happens to lil Suzie if her highschool doesn't have girls hockey? Then what??
My greatest concern is that we're going to have some brilliant kids that want to move for academics and we'll limit their athletic participation as a result of some bad feelings re: a select few NDP level OE's and general private school hatred.
Sorry, but it's far more wrong to make all the "legit" academic-concern OE xfers/private kids sit out in my mind. In fact, I think that may be the single worst decision the MSHSL could make.
I don't agree that the alternative is right either, but better to punish a team's road to state if they're loaded with NDP OE's or a loaded-private than to punish even one kid that OE's or goes to a private school for all the academic reasons.
And, note, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the notion that athletics should be part of the accepted rationale for an OE or private school choice.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
I know of only two teams that have played JV only in the past couple years. One was the Holy family/Waconia that is a first year team this season, the second was Tartan last year and they played a NC V and JV Conf Schedule. Tartan couldn't co-op as it's against the Classic Sub rules.gopher9 wrote:Ok. So let say the school is co-oped with a school that only plays a JV schedule?
That aside, if the situation happened where the only team was a JV only then the player would have to play on that team or open enroll. My guess is that if there is only one player from the school that then they could try to break the co-op if she's a V player and they could co-op with another school that has a V. Where you don't have any option is in the "Affiliate" setup I believe which says that you have to play all sports with the school that you have this agreement with - so you couldn't take one sport with one school and another with another, etc.?
The new proposal came about because of BB. The problem the proposal needed to fix was too many kids transferring to 1 school creating an unfair advantage. The more I think about T'Birds proposal, the more I think it's a good solution. If there were limits in place the big examples of abuse simply wouldn't have happened.
Last edited by xk1 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Also I do not believe the rule that says for Academic reasons or others was written to mean Athletic; I believe it was intended for personal issuesxk1 wrote: My recommendation for those communities is to enact a more restrictive transfer policy like the Eagan school district did.
This is why the MSHL has to make rules becuse some of the schools choose not to play by the rules so then the MSHL has to be the police.
I give Eagan credit for seeing this through.
T'Bird proposes we limit the number of transfers so you don't have a situation like there is at EP or the former SSP team where you have so many non residents on varsity.
Like a death in the family, Divorce, Bullying and etc.
xk1 wrote:The new proposal came about because of BB. The problem the proposal needed to fix was too many kids transferring to 1 school creating an unfair advantage. The more I think about T'Birds proposal, the more I think it's a good solution. If their were limits in place the big examples of abuse simply wouldn't have happened.
Correct!! And what ever happens people are still going to bitch!
Every ISD does not have to do what Eagan did, Eagan did what is best for Eagan, this may not be what is best for all. a good example is a school with a growing program but no goalie. I don't mean a good goalie, I mean any goalie. This is a place where transfers really help as there are often schools with too many.This is why the MSHL has to make rules becuse some of the schools choose not to play by the rules so then the MSHL has to be the police.
I give Eagan credit for seeing this through.
I believe the Eagan ISD actually includes Eastview and others, I don't remember exactly. I think the District came up with this policy when EV or somebody imported some west coast players in the middle of the season a few years ago, leaving some Varsity players out in the cold. This is the old guardian transfer trick which I think the new proposal addresses as well.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
I believe xk1 is right that there was an incident in the district that led to them changing their policies.xk1 wrote:Every ISD does not have to do what Eagan did, Eagan did what is best for Eagan, this may not be what is best for all. a good example is a school with a growing program but no goalie. I don't mean a good goalie, I mean any goalie. This is a place where transfers really help as there are often schools with too many.This is why the MSHL has to make rules becuse some of the schools choose not to play by the rules so then the MSHL has to be the police.
I give Eagan credit for seeing this through.
I believe the Eagan ISD actually includes Eastview and others, I don't remember exactly. I think the District came up with this policy when EV or somebody imported some west coast players in the middle of the season a few years ago, leaving some Varsity players out in the cold. This is the old guardian transfer trick which I think the new proposal addresses as well.
-
Thunderbird77
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:01 pm
Hockeyala-
If my daughter were a bubble player who got displaced by an OE, so be it. There is no entitlement in HS athletics, just as there is no entitlement in life. This is a lesson well learned at an early age. In athletics, you can have all the talent in the world, but it is those that want to suceed the most who win. Even Tiger Woods practices. In fact, it is because he practices and works so hard that he has accomplished so much.
We were at a hockey camp in Northern MN once. There was an ex-pro hockey player there with their son. (Please not the correct usage of there and their). In this ex-pro's opinion, there was one factor which determined if you would make it in the NHL - the size of your hometown. This gentleman was from Canada. His perspective was that it was the kids from small hometowns that had the advantage in hockey because in the small towns in Canada there was not much else to do but play hockey. The kids that spend more hours on the ice will be better than the ones that don't. The people who work harder at their jobs will get farther ahead in their careers than the ones that don't. The lessons are the same.
If my daughter were a bubble player who got displaced by an OE, so be it. There is no entitlement in HS athletics, just as there is no entitlement in life. This is a lesson well learned at an early age. In athletics, you can have all the talent in the world, but it is those that want to suceed the most who win. Even Tiger Woods practices. In fact, it is because he practices and works so hard that he has accomplished so much.
We were at a hockey camp in Northern MN once. There was an ex-pro hockey player there with their son. (Please not the correct usage of there and their). In this ex-pro's opinion, there was one factor which determined if you would make it in the NHL - the size of your hometown. This gentleman was from Canada. His perspective was that it was the kids from small hometowns that had the advantage in hockey because in the small towns in Canada there was not much else to do but play hockey. The kids that spend more hours on the ice will be better than the ones that don't. The people who work harder at their jobs will get farther ahead in their careers than the ones that don't. The lessons are the same.
OE
So what happened to the comrade of playing with the kids you grew up with and played with back when.
And that feeling at your pep rally when you feel like you belong,
How about being the hometown hero or a roll model.
Are you always going to let your kids run from adversity?
Are you sure it’s about the academics as you say? Or is it really all about the sports!
I know some don’t see anything wrong with going where ever and whenever they want as long as it works for them.
There is no NHL for Girls after HS or college but one thing is for certain you can teach them it is ok to run when the going gets tough, not a great lesson in my book.
You are right there will be times when and OE might be needed but maybe that would have to be agreed upon by both Schools, similar to youth sports.
You say there is no entitlement in HS athletics, I say there should be. And I truly hope that one day someone does not take away your kids spot on the roster.
Please remember there can always be someone bigger & better somewhere else.
And that feeling at your pep rally when you feel like you belong,
How about being the hometown hero or a roll model.
Are you always going to let your kids run from adversity?
Are you sure it’s about the academics as you say? Or is it really all about the sports!
I know some don’t see anything wrong with going where ever and whenever they want as long as it works for them.
There is no NHL for Girls after HS or college but one thing is for certain you can teach them it is ok to run when the going gets tough, not a great lesson in my book.
You are right there will be times when and OE might be needed but maybe that would have to be agreed upon by both Schools, similar to youth sports.
You say there is no entitlement in HS athletics, I say there should be. And I truly hope that one day someone does not take away your kids spot on the roster.
Please remember there can always be someone bigger & better somewhere else.