[Possum Bait]

Guru,

I agee with you that the intent is stop recruiting. The primary point that i am making is that Bylaw 10 covers institutional wrong doing or recruiting.

Bylaw 6 has nothing to do with recruiting. Bylaw 6, as written, basically holds families hostage to the school inwhich their kids are enrolled. Basically, it says that kids have to change addresses to change schools. It goes further to state that even if a child changes addresses, he is still not eligible if his move was in whole or part athletically motivated.

The exclusions to the change of address waiver do nothing except provide a means of tying up a transferred student in court. The exclusions are all subjective and impossible to prove. Who can really say what a parents motivation might be?

Bylaw 10 has some value, but is very difficult to enforce. It is clearly not enforced fairly across the state. Parental rights should prevail even if another institution has invited or encouraged the transfer.


Bylaw 6 has no value. It is clearly a violation of parental rights as well as the rights of the student.


It really comes down to whether you believe that a parent has the right to send his children to the school of his choice without penalty.

I personally believe the government has no right to interfere with my parental decisions.

The penalty provides a way for coaches and institutions to hold kids hostage. Think about it. A coach can basically treat a kid in any he wishes knowing the kid cannot transfer with 1) a prolonged court battle or 2) sitting out of sports for a year.


In college a transfer has to sit out a year but they lose no eligibility. Bylaw 6 actually forces a child to forfiet a year of eligibility.


Again, I can imagine how a coach or institution can justify a protested transfer.

It seems vindictive to me. What purpose does it really serve?