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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Hammond Morton Football Placed on Probation for “Undue Influence”


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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

No one has suggested that. But the rule absolutely protects the IHSAA member schools and the IHSAA has to put the best interests from its members first and foremost. That's a no-brainer. 

 

8 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

You're confusing the two. The IHSAA can't restrict a parent from moving their kid from one school district to another, but they can absolutely restrict (as they should be able) varsity eligibility for blatant athletic purposes. Kids can still play JV for a year as well as club sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

I agree that the transferring has gotten a little out of control the past few years, but the question is, do we really want an institution to be meddling this much in the lives of students? Over high school sports? Just seems a little ridiculous to me that there's investigations into kids over this kind of stuff. And the fact that some schools have tried to keep seniors out of their last year of a sport is just shameful, and frankly, downright pathetic. 

Of course you do. I don't agree with everything the IHSAA does, but you don't want Indiana High School Football turning into a charade like the NCAA has become do you? The NCAA has lost full control on the power dynamic they once held and college athletics is turning into a circus. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

It's obviously a case by case scenario.

A kid whose family lives in Carmel on the North Side of Indy that physically moves to say Greenwood or Whiteland should be eligible to play without any varsity restriction. This unfortunately isn't the common type of transfer though. 

A kid who lives in Fishers, attends Fishers for a year and then transfers to Noblesville 15 miles away is likely an arbitrary case. If both schools sign off on it, then the IHSAA shouldn't get involved as long as it is a one type deal. 

If you transfer a second time your varsity eligibility should be automatically rescinded for a year unless the transfer involves a physical address change that aligns with the school district the player's family is re-locating. 

The vast majority of transfers happening right now, at least in larger metropolitan areas, don't involve a physical address change however. Kid's are simply attending out of district schools and providing their own transportation. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Of course you do. I don't agree with everything the IHSAA does, but you don't want Indiana High School Football turning into a charade like the NCAA has become do you? The NCAA has lost full control on the power dynamic they once held and college athletics is turning into a circus. 

It's a tough situation and I understand completely where you're coming from and agree with a lot of it. But I would say the NCAA is a whole different situation as there's millions of dollars and a much bigger potentiality for pro careers at play there. Maybe it's all the stuff that's come out about Niedig and his ilk over the years that gives me (justifiable) pause in trusting them to be unbiased arbiters of these kinds of situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, what happened to the 3 or 4 times?  That was the specific complaint you made several times.

I'm saying if the IHSAA doesn't put their foot down on all the influx in transfers, you're going to see kids transfer 3-4 times before their high school career is over. There's a top 50 basketball recruit here in state who started his freshman year Franklin Central, then transferred to Crispus Attucks, transferred to a prep school for his junior year, and is now back in-state this time playing for Warren Central. It's an absolute joke that is allowed to happen.

 

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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

If both schools sign off on a transfer, then I would agree the IHSAA needs to stay out of it. But the IHSAA should absolutely be allowed to have a say in an athletic transfer when one school doesn't sign off. A precedent needs to be set. Open enrollment allows kids to choose any school district they want prior to their freshman year. 

 

9 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

Deterring a kid from transferring 3-4 times in his high school career is the IHSAA's way of looking out for the best interest of a student-athlete. It's not healthy to do that, at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

It's a tough situation and I understand completely where you're coming from and agree with a lot of it. But I would say the NCAA is a whole different situation as there's millions of dollars and a much bigger potentiality for pro careers at play there. Maybe it's all the stuff that's come out about Niedig and his ilk over the years that gives me (justifiable) pause in trusting them to be unbiased arbiters of these kinds of situations. 

There's been an established rule for years (long before Niedig) that restricts varsity eligibility for up to 365 days from athletically motivated transfers. And up until these last few years, its been enforced as such. With such a large influx of transfers these last few years that the IHSAA has been pretty lax about enforcing, it's going to be an absolute free for all if the IHSAA abolishes it's long standing rule. I do not support the idea that kids should be able to transfer at-will without some kind of repercussion. My stance on that won't change. The rule absolutely exists to protect the IHSAA member schools as a whole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

I am not completely one-sided as my last post, but I absolutely align with FB16 hoping to avoid scenario's where kids transfer every year....

You hope in life that people learn to battle adversity, compete, and realize the victory may not result in being a starter...but learning that the real victory is dedication, perserverance, and being part of something that's bigger than oneself.

Apologies for being so "preachy"....I'm stepping out the pulpit.  Definitely respect other views and accept one size doesn't fit all.

Appreciate the dialogue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

No one has suggested that. But the rule absolutely protects the IHSAA member schools and the IHSAA has to put the best interests from its members first and foremost. That's a no-brainer. 

You're confusing the two. The IHSAA can't restrict a parent from moving their kid from one school district to another, but they can absolutely restrict (as they should be able) varsity eligibility for blatant athletic purposes. Kids can still play JV for a year as well as club sports.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

Deterring a kid from transferring 3-4 times in his high school career is the IHSAA's way of looking out for the best interest of a student-athlete. It's not healthy to do that, at all. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

There's been an established rule for years (long before Niedig) that restricts varsity eligibility for up to 365 days from athletically motivated transfers. And up until these last few years, its been enforced as such. With such a large influx of transfers these last few years that the IHSAA has been pretty lax about enforcing, it's going to be an absolute free for all if the IHSAA abolishes it's long standing rule. I do not support the idea that kids should be able to transfer at-will without some kind of repercussion. My stance on that won't change. The rule absolutely exists to protect the IHSAA member schools as a whole. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

Of course you do. I don't agree with everything the IHSAA does, but you don't want Indiana High School Football turning into a charade like the NCAA has become do you? The NCAA has lost full control on the power dynamic they once held and college athletics is turning into a circus. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

The IHSAA serves as the intermediary between all its member schools. The rule is obviously in place to protect its collective members as a whole. If that means star players from School A, B, C, and D can't transfer without repercussion to School E then so be it, as that is the collective outlook you're going to see if the IHSAA completely absolves themselves from transfer situations. 

You won't find but maybe 1 or 2 coaches in all of the IHSAA sanctioned sports who actually support the idea of an open-window, free agency like market. It's just not conducive to high school sports and certainly not the message it is intended to deliver. My stance on that won't change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

it was 31 years ago.  Probably time to let it go.🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

Pulling a kid from school after week 1 because your son isn't a sophomore starter or transferring because your son gets yanked after a couple of bad series even if it is a "parental decision" doesn't always serve in the best interest of a student-athlete either. The IHSAA is trying to avoid this by deterring immediate eligibility at the varsity level. 

If the IHSAA didn't have a say in this matter, this would be a common theme continuously occurring with parents who are trying to vicariously live their kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

Pulling a kid from school after week 1 because your son isn't a sophomore starter or transferring because your son gets yanked after a couple of bad series even if it is a "parental decision" doesn't always serve in the best interest of a student-athlete either. The IHSAA is trying to avoid this by deterring immediate eligibility at the varsity level. 

If the IHSAA didn't have a say in this matter, this would be a common theme continuously occurring with parents who are trying to vicariously live their kids. 

I think you could make a good argument that a student-athlete has to either finish a season with the school he started it with or otherwise sit out the remainder of a season once started.  I agree that policies shouldn't encourage the situation you're describing.

I just don't agree with losing a year of eligibility.  Again, you really can't compare it to the NCAA -- even pre-portal.  Because the NCAA always gave student-athletes a time period of 5 years to complete 4 years of participation.  If they transferred, they had to sit out a year -- but they didn't forfeit any eligibility.  In a practical sense, most HS athletes only get 1-3 years of varsity participation to begin with.  And nobody's extending HS to 5+ years to accommodate athletes being forced to sit out.

Anyway, most of the situations you cite seem kind of extreme -- kids jumping 3 or 4 times, doing so after a week, etc.  I don't think that's representative of the typical transfer.

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

17 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I think you could make a good argument that a student-athlete has to either finish a season with the school he started it with or otherwise sit out the remainder of a season once started.  I agree that policies shouldn't encourage the situation you're describing.

I just don't agree with losing a year of eligibility.  Again, you really can't compare it to the NCAA -- even pre-portal.  Because the NCAA always gave student-athletes a time period of 5 years to complete 4 years of participation.  If they transferred, they had to sit out a year -- but they didn't forfeit any eligibility.  In a practical sense, most HS athletes only get 1-3 years of varsity participation to begin with.  And nobody's extending HS to 5+ years to accommodate athletes being forced to sit out.

Anyway, most of the situations you cite seem kind of extreme -- kids jumping 3 or 4 times, doing so after a week, etc.  I don't think that's representative of the typical transfer.

The typical transfer has already been described by @crimsonace1.

Kids are either transferring to trophy shop or they are disgruntled with lack of playing time, exposure, etc and transfer to other school districts. These are absolutely athletically motivated transfers which the IHSAA wants to discourage. If you uplift a rule that restricts varsity eligible for 365 for athletically motivated transfers, where does the line stop? What is to prevent a kid from transferring 3 or 4 times during his high school career? Can you really say that transferring at-will promotes a healthy system? What is to stop kids/parents from colluding and transferring to form all-star teams at various schools across various sports? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

The typical transfer has already been described by @crimsonace1.

Kids are either transferring to trophy shop or they are disgruntled with lack of playing time, exposure, etc and transfer to other school districts. These are absolutely athletically motivated transfers which the IHSAA wants to discourage. If you uplift a rule that restricts varsity eligible for 365 for athletically motivated transfers, where does the line stop? What is to prevent a kid from transferring 3 or 4 times during his high school career? Can you really say that transferring at-will promotes a healthy system? What is to stop kids/parents from colluding and transferring to form all-star teams at various schools across various sports? 

I'm not talking about the *reasons* kids transfer.  I'm talking about their profiles.  You've repeatedly mentioned kids who transfer to 3 or 4 schools and now a kid who transfers a week into a season after learning they won't be starting.

I'm saying that these don't sound like the common profile.  They sound like outliers -- being used to create an extreme situation to defend a rule that impacts many (most) kids who aren't accurately described this way.

I agree that most kids who transfer either want to go to a team that is more likely to win or they want more playing time.  Personally, I don't see a problem with either one.  If that's what a kid wants to do, it's his life...not his school's, not the IHSAA's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I agree that most kids who transfer either want to go to a team that is more likely to win or they want more playing time.  Personally, I don't see a problem with either one.  If that's what a kid wants to do, it's his life...not his school's, not the IHSAA's.

But the impact of that kid's decision (especially depending on the kid) may not be isolated to him alone.....and that is the issue.  And that impact always isn't positive....

And that was my initial comment about people only focusing on their own "needs"  and not accepting that they are part of something bigger than themselves......

I'm not anti-transfer, but I am not carte blanche about it either.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I'm not talking about the *reasons* kids transfer.  I'm talking about their profiles.  You've repeatedly mentioned kids who transfer to 3 or 4 schools and now a kid who transfers a week into a season after learning they won't be starting.

I'm saying that these don't sound like the common profile.  They sound like outliers -- being used to create an extreme situation to defend a rule that impacts many (most) kids who aren't accurately described this way

What is the common type of transfer then?

If a parent's true intention of moving their child into a different school district isn't athletically motivated (academics, safety, etc) then losing varsity eligibility for 365 day should be an after thought at that point. But this clearly isn't the case, as you can see all the fuss. I had a family member who was a dual sport athlete at a mega-enrollment Indy area high school. He wasn't getting it done in the classroom and his dad took him out of said school and put him in a small, private 1A high school that was less than 5 years old at the time. The school he was transferring from told the parents they weren't going to sign off on his release and the dad simply told the school, "I don't care, he's not playing sports until his grades are up to my standards". It was a genuine sentiment and the mega school eventually signed off without any restriction. Unfortunately in today's world, this isn't the primary type of transferring. Kids are absolutely jumping districts for pure athletic purposes. 

30 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I agree that most kids who transfer either want to go to a team that is more likely to win or they want more playing time.  Personally, I don't see a problem with either one.  If that's what a kid wants to do, it's his life...not his school's, not the IHSAA's.

That's where you're wrong. It is the job of the IHSAA to keep the best interests of its member schools. I would potentially give a second thought to the IHSAA interjecting themselves into these kind of situations in the event both schools sign off on a transfer, but I simply cannot get behind the idea of high school athletics turning in to free agency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I'm saying that these don't sound like the common profile.  They sound like outliers -- being used to create an extreme situation to defend a rule that impacts many (most) kids who aren't accurately described this way.

And forgot to add in my last post, these are only outliers now because there is deterrence from the IHSAA in the form of varsity restriction. Take away the IHSAA's ability to regulate transfers and these type of outliers become the norm.

Just look at the explosion of transfers in the NCAA the last 10 years. The NCAA initially ruled that grad students could transfer without a one year penalty and in the last year have given every player a one time transfer waiver. It's a mess. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if you want to reduce or impact the amount of transfers that we are seeing, the simplest way is to essentially have the departing school "not release" the student athlete period. At that point, the parent and student athlete have a decision to make:  stay at school, transfer and accept limited eligibility for one year, or appeal to IHSAA.

The appeal to the IHSAA then should be able to vet whether it is purely for athletic purposes or not and then make a judgment.

I believe this will create at least some sort of deterrent to transfers. It will also create more work for the IHSAA.

Personally, I am more aligned with MHSTigerFan and not punishing a young man for what is already a shortened high school career (2-4 yrs).  I also see the concern around competitive balance.

Great topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RegionFBFan said:

It seems to me that if you want to reduce or impact the amount of transfers that we are seeing, the simplest way is to essentially have the departing school "not release" the student athlete period. At that point, the parent and student athlete have a decision to make:  stay at school, transfer and accept limited eligibility for one year, or appeal to IHSAA.

The appeal to the IHSAA then should be able to vet whether it is purely for athletic purposes or not and then make a judgment.

I believe this will create at least some sort of deterrent to transfers. It will also create more work for the IHSAA.

Personally, I am more aligned with MHSTigerFan and not punishing a young man for what is already a shortened high school career (2-4 yrs).  I also see the concern around competitive balance.

Great topic.

This is essentially the process is now. In instances where both schools sign off, the IHSAA rarely interjects themselves into these type of situations. Eron Gordon is the one high profile case where the IHSAA went great lengths to block a transfer where both schools had signed off. 

I'm fine with keeping it that way, but in this current transfer climate, you're going to see more and more athletically motivated transfers. Schools/coaches are going to have to start rejecting some of them to keep the integrity of the game, especially if the IHSAA isn't willing to do anything about. 

Edited by Footballking16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Schools/coaches are going to have to start rejecting some of them to keep the integrity of the game, especially if the IHSAA isn't willing to do anything about.

I understand that this is the way it is today. This is precisely my point. The AD's and Coaches can control it much more if they stop releasing the student athlete. They are the front line on defense as they should be not the IHSAA.  The IHSAA should intervene only after the parent or student challenge the decision made by departing school.

The question then becomes why aren't the schools saying no to release?  Likely because they do not want to punish the student athlete which I completely understand. It could also be that they receive as many transfers as they lose so net net a wash over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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