MHSTigerFan

In light of @Irishman pinned post regarding rumors, I think I’d be well-advised to stop passing these tidbits about who is/isn’t supposedly playing, and where, along. I appreciate the discussions on the board and we all need to respect the rules. This isn’t college or pros where the coaches regularly release information about a player’s status.

I doubt that will go on too long. This is just speculation on my part. But I think Hurley would prefer to stick with Ellspermann. It’s just hard to defend that with 0 TDs in 8 quarters of play. So he’s introducing some in-game competition. I’ve been critical of Ellspermann in the passing game. But I don’t think it’s fair to put so much on him. His best receiver hasn’t played. And the O-Line went from 3 new players to 4 after halftime of the Jasper game, and it showed. He had no time to pass on most dropbacks against North. A number of dropped passes, etc.

Hartig will start at RG. They’re going to stick with Mattingly at RT. Wade and Wallen are competing for the start at LG. It was. That changed today.

I’m now being told they’ll alternate possessions. If so, I don’t really like that. But they’re obviously looking for answers and putting pressure on both kids to perform.

I’m guessing we’ll see Collins next week for Mater Dei. Weinzapfel’s situation sounds more uncertain.

The problem with this analogy is that college athletes have typically had 5 years to complete 4 years of eligibility. You can’t really do that in HS. While HS athletes technically get 4 years of varsity eligibility, in a practical sense most only get 2 or 3. As such, losing a year of HS eligibility is a bigger penalty than what the NCAA used to do. You had to sit out a year, but you kept the same eligibility as long as you hadn’t used a redshirt.

Now you're doing it. Does it exist to protect the schools or to promote the best interests of the student-athlete? You can say "both" -- but one has to take precedence. I think that the motivation -- just as it is with success factor and various other things they've either done or considered -- is to try for more parity. Neidig has said as much and I think he's being candid when he does. Let's put aside football for a second and talk about soccer. This one hits a closer to home for me. Our boys and girls soccer programs are both among the most successful in the state. I had a conversation with a coach from another school recently and they told me that our girls team has 5 transfers on it -- and they're going to be hard to beat. To me, it's not hard to understand two things here... 1) Why competing coaches would be resentful about that -- especially the coaches who lost players to transfer. 2) Why the girls who transferred would've wanted to. I don't know for sure, but it seems reasonable to guess it was trophy shopping. To say that the IHSAA should step in to discourage this is to put the interest of the resentful coaches who lose players to stronger programs ahead of the interest of the student-athletes who, for whatever reason, believe their interests are best served being somewhere else. It's basically holding them hostage in service to the idea of parity in competition. But these aren't indentured servants we're talking about here. They're teenagers.

Then why is he saying that their motivation is fostering competition? Those are not the same thing. I believe him when he says that, BTW. I do not believe him when he says they're motivated by the best interest of the student-athlete -- because the IHSAA isn't even equipped to know what is in the best interest of every student athlete.

1) I said I get the impression this is the case. It's implied when you say that the IHSAA's determination should prevail over a parent's reasoning on where their kid can go to school..... 2)....and participate in varsity sports. I think we all realize we're talking about eligibility here -- not just where they go to school. Don't be daft. 3) Thus my question about why eligibility should be blocked for a kid who concedes that he believes he could get more playing time at another school. Can you explain to me why this reasoning -- which is certainly a "blatant athletic purpose" -- is unreasonable? I'm sorry, I just don't see anything necessarily nefarious or untoward about a kid wanting to go somewhere else that he thinks is a better situation for him athletically.

Well, what happened to the 3 or 4 times? That was the specific complaint you made several times. Personally, I think the default position of the IHSAA should be to stay out of it -- and to only get involved in circumstances where there's evidence of a pay-for-play or some other kind of genuinely undue influence going on. Other than that, I think kids should be able to go where they want, without being controlled by their current school or the IHSAA. Paul Neidig has said point blank that the thrust of the rule and the enforcement is to foster a level playing field -- lest the best athletes end up at a handful of schools. I can understand why they'd want to have that -- particularly those institutions that aren't in that handful. But the problem with this is that they say this while maintaining that their primary interest is in the student-athletes. Those two ideals can't both be true.

I'd also point out that coaches approaching players from other schools about transferring is just as much against the rules. I just always found that ironic. The IHSAA gives us the death penalty for a season...only to result in multiple instances of tampering from coaches from other schools who got away with that scot free.

Heh. Well, no, but neither was that the case with any of the kids who had to miss the postseason that year. As I recall, the one instance where they found that had happened was with a kid who graduated a couple years later and never spent one day at Memorial. He went to Henderson County in KY. So a bunch of kids who had nothing to do with it get punished for that. I think the IHSAA probably could've come up with a more equitable way to punish the school that didn't come down on a bunch of kids who had nothing to do with it.

I get the impression from some of the comments here that the IHSAA and its member institutions know and care more about a kid's situation and well-being than his parents. Don't get me wrong. I've met some parents that I think are pretty unreasonable, too. I've met some parents who insist that their kid is better than that kid, that coaches play favorites, that it's all politics, that my kid's entitled, etc. So I'm not saying that every parent has the right attitudes or motivations. But, in most cases, I'd still say that parents are better suited to determine what's best for their kids than a coach, an AD, and a principal....and certainly Paul Neidig and his gang.

I agree with a lot of this. So I'm not unsympathetic. However, each situation is unique enough to not be treated as just being from this or that bucket. For instance, I can understand a kid who wants to transfer because he sees an opportunity for more playing time elsewhere. Sometimes you look at the roster of the team you're on and just figure that you're likely to spend a lot of time on the bench...whereas another school has needs and minutes you could fill. According to the current rule, this doesn't cut it. So, instead, kids and parents have to go through a charade to explain it some other way. Why? Why is it not good enough to just say "I want to play soccer...but the guys who play my position here are better than I am, so I see more opportunity to play somewhere else"? If this kid's parents agree, are they guilty of looking for the path of least resistance? Are they guilty of living vicariously through their kids' sports? I don't think so. I think it's just as simple as wanting to see the field -- and I see nothing wrong with that.

There is a huge difference between those two scenarios. There are also kids who couldn't be described by either one. What about a kid whose family moves to a different location within the same city/county/area? What about a kid who doesn't move, but only transfers once or twice rather than 3 or 4 times? What about a kid who transfers multiples times -- but within the same school district? In fact, I'd guess that a majority of transfers don't meet either of your scenarios. What then? Or are we supposed to keep the IHSAA policing all of it just because of kids who transfer 3 or 4 times? Would you have them change the rule to accommodate 1 or 2 transfers question free?

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. I’m just saying that it’s probably best for the IHSAA to stay out of it. If a kid is hurting himself (or at least not helping himself) by jumping around that much, that’s on him and/or his parents. If that hurts the culture in teams he goes to, that’s on their coach.

Maybe. But that would probably depend on my opinion of the other coach. I’m an employer and we do this with key people who are wanting to jump ship from one of our competitors. Sometimes, people do things just to play competing employers off each other, threaten it for leverage, etc. If it’s a competitor I know and respect (which is most of them), I’ll place the call to them first. I’ve done it the other way before, and it’s usually better to talk with the other employer first…even if that pisses the employee off.

Personally, I think the parties best-suited to putting an end to that are the potential receiving-school's coaches, not the IHSAA. If I'm a coach and I learn that a kid is wanting to transfer into my program, my first phone call is going to be to their current coach to find out what is going on. If I learn that it's a kid like the one you describe, my second phone call would be to the kid's parent/guardian to them him that he's welcome to transfer but that he shouldn't expect the Red Sea to be parted on his behalf....and that I'm not going to let anybody be a cancer or a distraction because of their ambition or sense of entitlement. The IHSAA, IMO, has shown time and time again that they're terrible at policing this. That's really not a knock at them, necessarily. That's just the nature of being a governing body, distant from the realities on the ground.

I'm all about fighting through adversity. But I think you're creating a false choice here: Option 1: Fight through the first sign of adversity Option 2: Transfer to a different program The way you're saying this, there is no Option 3. In other words, the *only* explanation for a transfer is an unwillingness to fight through adversity in their current program. I certainly agree that this is a possible one. Another possible one is that a school has a lot of players at your position, and you'd like to see the field. Another possible one is that the academic environment isn't well-suited to a student. Or maybe the social culture at the current school is unhealthy. The list of reasons a student might want to transfer schools is large. And I think it should be OK, even if it's primarily motivated by sports.

I know for a fact that is Coach Hurley’s attitude about it. And I agree, it should be.

True. But I’m not really sure what he means by Fisher being not fully committed to the team. A lot of kids play other sports that run into the summer - especially these days. Connor Agler always missed OTAs for basketball.

The talk at practice today is that Caleb Ellspermann will be moved to WR and Fisher is QB1.

I wasn’t there either and I heard the same thing. But… - Backup QB - 5 fumbles You’re not going to win too many games putting the ball on the ground 5 times.

Ok. In fairness to me, my source was a teenager. 😀

I know Young didn’t play. I didn’t see the game. But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that played a role in some of their TOs.