Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Stink at Indian Creek


Recommended Posts

The only facts that really matter are 1. that an adult was inappropriately texting an underage person in a sexually suggestive way. 2. The school fired this person (thus admitting to the situation).  3. The school administration said “hold my beer” and doubled down on the emotional abuse toward the family by denying the transfer.

There is no explanation for them not doing the decent thing and allowing the kid to go. Do they fear this kid in a Greenwood uniform? Will it cause irreparable harm to the IC season by not having this kid on the team? FFS, be a decent human being and let the family make a clean break.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said:

IHSAA Executive Minutes are public record

Below is from August 2023

Every Ex Session they post stats on Transfers, here was the latest 

Scroll down:   1157 transfers, .07% ruled ineligible , 7.2% ruled limited. 

Man, they sure are all about “screwing kids frequently.”

”Well documented.”

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Edited by temptation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, temptation said:

Man, they sure are all about “screwing kids frequently.”

”Well documented.”

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

I 100% agree they are not about "screwing kids frequently". I just can't wrap my head around why out of the 10 kids deemed ineligible this one they have stood their ground on ruling ineligible. I can't think of something worse that this student could have done than his minor younger sister receiving inappropriate text messages from an adult (even getting a restraining order as directed by the school to ensure this Coach was not around). Leading directly to both of them transferring from IC to Greenwood (not athletic reasons). Granted IC has taken proper steps to fire said coach, but what could be so terrible that 1.) IC refused to sign off on the kid transferring (I have read they said any school but Greenwood which baffles me if true) 2.) why the IHSAA deemed them ineligible with the surrounding circumstances (which are not athletic purposes). Am I missing something? Can it be made to make sense? Obviously something has to be missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

I 100% agree they are not about "screwing kids frequently". I just can't wrap my head around why out of the 10 kids deemed ineligible this one they have stood their ground on ruling ineligible. I can't think of something worse that this student could have done than his minor younger sister receiving inappropriate text messages from an adult (even getting a restraining order as directed by the school to ensure this Coach was not around). Leading directly to both of them transferring from IC to Greenwood (not athletic reasons). Granted IC has taken proper steps to fire said coach, but what could be so terrible that 1.) IC refused to sign off on the kid transferring (I have read they said any school but Greenwood which baffles me if true) 2.) why the IHSAA deemed them ineligible with the surrounding circumstances (which are not athletic purposes). Am I missing something? Can it be made to make sense? Obviously something has to be missing.

Agreed.  Just calling out the folks who make up their own facts…what a sad time to be alive.

Roughly EIGHT kids statewide ruled ineligible…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

Am I missing something? Can it be made to make sense? Obviously something has to be missing.

That's what I keep coming back too. There has to be something that the IHSAA and/or Indian Creek can't publicly comment on or Doyel is intentionally omitting from his piece.

This story is on the verge of national news (I saw where Yahoo had re-published Doyel's article), just can't fathom that Indian Creek or the IHSAA would die on this hill and allow for all this public scrutiny if they didn't have a leg to stand on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

That's what I keep coming back too. There has to be something that the IHSAA and/or Indian Creek can't publicly comment on or Doyel is intentionally omitting from his piece.

This story is on the verge of national news (I saw where Yahoo had re-published Doyel's article), just can't fathom that Indian Creek or the IHSAA would die on this hill and allow for all this public scrutiny if they didn't have a leg to stand on. 

Yeah, that’s where I’m at.  I know immediate outage is the chic thing to do in 2023 but something about this story is either non-factual or has yet to be made public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said:

IHSAA Executive Minutes are public record

Below is from August 2023

Every Ex Session they post stats on Transfers, here was the latest 

Scroll down:   1157 transfers, .07% ruled ineligible , 7.2% ruled limited. 

Isn't the issue here that IC is refusing to release the player?  How would that be reflected in the IHSAA minutes & stats?  Seems possible/likely these types of denials would not be reflected here since not an IHSAA decision.  yes/no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MDAlum82 said:

Isn't the issue here that IC is refusing to release the player?  How would that be reflected in the IHSAA minutes & stats?  Seems possible/likely these types of denials would not be reflected here since not an IHSAA decision.  yes/no?

GREAT point...now that I think about it, it does sort of seem like the IHSAA is unfairly falling on the sword here when Indian Creek should be on the witness stand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, temptation said:

GREAT point...now that I think about it, it does sort of seem like the IHSAA is unfairly falling on the sword here when Indian Creek should be on the witness stand.

Wouldn't the IHSAA have jurisdiction and final say on the kids eligibility? Even if Indian Creek doesn't sign off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, temptation said:

GREAT point...now that I think about it, it does sort of seem like the IHSAA is unfairly falling on the sword here when Indian Creek should be on the witness stand.

I get what you are inferring. Not necessarily though considering they have the ability to overrule IC not signing off on the transfer. Regardless if IC doesn't sign off the IHSAA makes the decision on if the kid is eligible or ineligible so they don't really fall on the sword but jump to wherever they place the sword.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FastpacedO said:

I get what you are inferring. Not necessarily though considering they have the ability to overrule IC not signing off on the transfer. Regardless if IC doesn't sign off the IHSAA makes the decision on if the kid is eligible or ineligible so they don't really fall on the sword but jump to wherever they place the sword.

Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've said it about 3 times in this thread - but this really is a problem of their own making by Indian Creek. 

Release the player/don't protest the transfer - then this article probably never even gets written. 

OBVIOUSLY we only have one side of the story, but from just that story - it sure does seem petty/vindictive on IC's part to protest the transfer. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, temptation said:

Man, they sure are all about “screwing kids frequently.”

”Well documented.”

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

The only decisions the IHSAA really has to "rule on" are the ones were there is a dispute. I don't give the IHSAA credit for "fair treatment" in the 92% of the cases where both schools signed off and the IHSAA simply rubber stamps its approval. The point of the discussion is that when the IHSAA does have to make a decision (ie. one school doesn't release a student), the IHSAA usually comes down against the student and sides with the non-releasing school and the appeal / review process is weighted heavily against the kid. Have you read the Court cases? You can find them online if you look.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MDAlum82 said:

Isn't the issue here that IC is refusing to release the player?  How would that be reflected in the IHSAA minutes & stats?  Seems possible/likely these types of denials would not be reflected here since not an IHSAA decision.  yes/no?

The IHSAA has a two step process. The first step is a decision as to whether the student has full, limited or no eligibility. That is based on the forms provided by the school to the IHSAA. If the student does not agree with the IHSAA eligibility decision, they can have the initial decision reviewed by the IHSAA Review Committee. If they do not agree with that decision, they can have it review by the DOE Case review Panel. After that they have to file in the court system. 

This snippet from a Court decision describes the IHSAA internal review process: 

 

 

Screenshot 2023-09-08 121519.png

Edited by tango
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MDAlum82 said:

Isn't the issue here that IC is refusing to release the player?  How would that be reflected in the IHSAA minutes & stats?  Seems possible/likely these types of denials would not be reflected here since not an IHSAA decision.  yes/no?

October 5th is next Executive Meeting, new stats released then 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riprock, Riprock, Riprock 1.2..3...

Glad to join the fun and say what STC thinks about IC!!!

It wasn't long ago Daddy Gillin was walking those halls

recruiting little Braves from schools all around that could throw or catch a ball.

Daddy Gillin made the news once or twice, STC is not shocked that little Gilly wasn't far behind!

Shame on IC and the good ol' IHSAA, no reason they shouldn't release this kid and let him play.

But like before with so many decisions to be made, it just seems like they piss them away!

 

Clown Urinal Stock Photos - Free & Royalty-Free Stock Photos from Dreamstime

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, tango said:

The only decisions the IHSAA really has to "rule on" are the ones were there is a dispute. I don't give the IHSAA credit for "fair treatment" in the 92% of the cases where both schools signed off and the IHSAA simply rubber stamps its approval. The point of the discussion is that when the IHSAA does have to make a decision (ie. one school doesn't release a student), the IHSAA usually comes down against the student and sides with the non-releasing school and the appeal / review process is weighted heavily against the kid. Have you read the Court cases? You can find them online if you look.   

Burden of proof is on you.  Provide the links to “usually.”

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tango said:

LOL. I say its on you. Here is where you can start:

https://public.courts.in.gov/Portal/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fpublic.courts.in.gov%2fmycase%2f#/SCP

Do a party search for Indiana High School Athletic Association.

I‘m not the one speaking in absolutes and stating things like “usually”, “frequently” and “weighted heavily”…YOU are.

Show the proof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...