[charlie22]

i completely disagree. the kids are in school to get an education not to get recruited to go to another school to play sports. if they throw out that rule 50% of the schools in the state might as well just shut down their programs because if they ever have a kid with talent they will just transfer to one of the power house schools. there would be 4-5 teams per division that would have a chance to win championships. the rule is in place to keep schools from recruiting STUDENTS from another school to play on a team. not that it doesnt happen now, but it is an attempt to keep it at a minimum. that is like what we should do is allow schools to pay players to play for them. give them a million or 2 million a year to play. if you did that do you think butler would have made it as far as they did? i doubt it.

I assume you were responding to my post. If so, thank you and I'll use your post to throw some thoughts out there for people to think about, while playing the devil's advocate.

I don't disagree with you that, if you let kids freely transfer, it would result in a higher concentration of athletic talent at fewer schools. Continuing to play devil's advocate, I'll ask, so what? Should we restrict the decisions of kids to play where they want for the mere sake of having that proverbial level playing field? Are high school sports more about worrying about wins and losses and worrying about what teams win state championships than allowing kids to participate at the school they want to attend? If coaches are as important as many of them feel they are (and I feel they are), why don't we restrict the ability of coaches to change jobs? For that matter, why do we still have school district boundaries to begin with? Is it a carry over from some archiac way of thinking? If school X has a much better science program than school Y, shouldn't we allow a student very interested in science but living in Y's district to attend school X and automatically have the state funds follow the kid to school X without the antiquated reciprocity agreement needed to being in place? Do we better serve society by holding that kid back from getting the best science education possible for the sake of preserving school boundaries?

Do adults worrying about wins and losses and state funds have their priorities all wrong?

Ponder: if only a few certain schools won the championships each year, would the kids at the rest of the school start looking at athletics as something they participated in for the fun of participation since they would realize they really don't have a shot at winning a state championship against these few certain schools? Would we'd see the return of multi sport athletes who play multiple sports because they enjoy them, as opposed to talented athletes only playing one sport in their quest to win a state championship in one sport? Would most coaches actually enjoy returning to getting the opportunity to just spend time coaching and molding kids, than worrying about winning state championships and having the pressure to do so (or else)?

Is the emphasis on winning a state championship today just too much and is it harming as opposed to helping kids? Would allowing for free and easy transfers actually indirectly benefit more kids in the long run?

Just questions that cross my mind as I read about the Dunn case. When we have rules that result in a kid not being able to play sports his senior year, all in the sake of trying to get that level playing field, I wonder if we as adults have our priorities all wrong.