[charlie22]

Amen! Kids have parents/legal guardians whose job is to look after their child's interests and act accordingly. Unless the State can make a case the kid's parents are neglecting the child in making decisions about where he/she goes to school from year to year, then it should be the parent's right to take their kid wherever they want to go and expect he/she can fully participate in all the school's available activities.

If the kid's parents feel their son's best interests are served by having him change schools SOLELY for football, then so be it. Some people (including the former KHSAA commissioner, apparently) feel this is not a legitimate reason for changing schools. Interestingly, participation in organized school athletics is considered a protective factor for a child (with regard to decreasing the risk of that child engaging in illegal behavior and abusing illicit drugs/alcohol later on). So, the issue of participation in school sports is no minor matter, and if the kid's parents feel he can get more out of his athletic participation at one school than another, then have at it!

Please keep in mind that the former Commissioner, like the current Commissioner, is charged with enforcing the rules enacted by the member schools, even if the Commissioner doesn't agree with them. So while I know folks want to blame the KHSAA, the fault if you will lies more with the member schools for enacting such a rule. Why would member schools impose such a rule? In my opinion it's simply because there are a lot more "have nots" than there are "haves", and the "have nots" are concerned that if kids could freely transfer they'd lose a lot more of their talented athletes to the "haves". Again don't blame the KHSAA; blame the schools that enacted the rules.