Releasing athletes

[Masseter]

What are some of your opinions on releasing athletes when they move to another school/city? I learned recently that it is up to the AD of the school that the athlete is moving from to release him/her. I also heard that the athletes don't get released sometimes. Is this fair? To not let a high school athlete play a sport somewhere else just because they aren't going to play at "your" school? What do you think?

[pirate4state]

I don't think it is fair for an AD to decide whether or not a student/athlete can compete for another school, regardless of the reasons for a move. Who made this rule?? :thinking:

[District303aPastPlayer]

the money hungry UIL :D

[3afan]

remember UIL = ISD Superintendents !!!!

[kaorder1999]

example:

a kid plays football for "A" school and leaves on very bad terms. He is removed fromt the team and the athlete takes off with hundreds of dollars worth of football equipment. Then his parents move down the road so that he can go to "B" school and play football. The AD/Head Football Coach wants his equipment back so he doesnt release him to play for "B" school.

Seems fair to me.....

[Old Tiger]

I think it's stupid

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Masseter
What are some of your opinions on releasing athletes when they move to another school/city? I learned recently that it is up to the AD of the school that the athlete is moving from to release him/her. I also heard that the athletes don't get released sometimes. Is this fair? To not let a high school athlete play a sport somewhere else just because they aren't going to play at "your" school? What do you think?

AD's and Head Football coaches are smarter than that...they dont not release an athlete because "they arent going to play at your school"

If they dont release a player it is because of significant reasons other than that....and this RARELY happens. Athletes RARELY do not get released....I'm not sure that I have ever seen it happen before

[JasperDog94]

I agree kaorder1999. I think it's a good rule. AD's have better things to do (99% of the time) than to hold a grudge against a former player. If they do refuse to release a kid to play, it's usually for a good reason. Such as the case where a kid mouths off that he's gonna go play for a rival school in front of the entire football team.

[Old Green]

This rule has been around for Decades.It was first written to eleviate recruiting of atheletes from on school to another for atheletic purposes.

Some of the power houses fifty years ago would give the parent a job if they would move into that district so their star kid could help them win a championship. Without we would be like the private schools are. Get players from anywhere with no respect to attendance zones.

[Da Mules]

I think kids moving for athletic reasons is a lot more common than we want to realize.

I remember Vernon had a big deal not so long ago with a football player who violated the team rules and then jumped to a Wichita Falls high school in order to avoid paying the price.... Now before all you Lion fans jump all over me, that is just how I remember it to the best of my recollection. Seems the coach didn't take losing a potential All-State running back very lightly..

In 1998, a kid here in West Texas lived in Amherst (6-man), played in 2A Sudan a couple of years, and then played about half his senior year in 3A Littlefield. He wasn't as big a star as he thought he was; he was kicked off the Wildcats for refusing to practise in the cold about 2-3 weeks into district play. I'm not saying he was recruited... but he surely was shopping around IMHO.

Point is that you can see the rules twisted & bent in all directions--usually the school who is losing the athlete isn't going to kick up a big ruckus about it, for the sake of the kid, mostly. The Vernon deal is the only one I can remember in recent history where the school fought it.

[District303aPastPlayer]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
AD's and Head Football coaches are smarter than that...they dont not release an athlete because "they arent going to play at your school"

If they dont release a player it is because of significant reasons other than that....and this RARELY happens. Athletes RARELY do not get released....I'm not sure that I have ever seen it happen before
happened in sinton to a kid who moved to sinton because of a family emergency. he went to the uil and explained it, and he still was not allowed to play at the varsity level his jr year. another transfer, however, was allowed. transfer #2 was only a sophomore and went on to become an all stater i believe.

[sahen]

a guy did the same thing in liberty about 5-6 years ago...he wanted to attract LSU's attention and he figured he couldnt do it in liberty so his family uped and moved to a school in baton rouge...funny thing is he ended up playing for arkansas casue LSU told him they didnt need him...he graduated this year as the all time leading tackler in arkansas history....tony bua...most of the time i'd say LSU made a mistake but being they won teh national championship i guess they didnt...

[CatWoman]

I may be naive, but I've lived in Ballinger most of my life, and I cannot recall this ever happening here, either way, coming here or leaving to play somewhere else. Maybe that's why we have never won the State Title, but we are always competitive with what we have.

Some of you other Ballinger folks, i.e. Vet93, help me out. Have you ever heard of this happening??

[vet93]

Originally posted by CatWoman
I may be naive, but I've lived in Ballinger most of my life, and I cannot recall this ever happening here, either way, coming here or leaving to play somewhere else. Maybe that's why we have never won the State Title, but we are always competitive with what we have.

Some of you other Ballinger folks, i.e. Vet93, help me out. Have you ever heard of this happening??


Catwoman...I am sure there may have been an instance of a transfer controversy that we don't know about, but I have kept pretty close tabs for the past 20 to 30 years and I cannot remember any instances. Ballinger rarely gets a transfer in the high school years that is a starter. Practically all of the talent is home grown, with the kids in place before junior high. Even if we wanted to I don't think that we have a very big stick to recruit with. We are a little too far from Abilene and San Angelo to get the "suburban effect" that schools like Wall, Jim Ned, Abilene Wylie and Greenwood get. I am ready to change this trend though ;) ;) This post will now be the official Ballinger Bearcat recruitment site. If your son is at least 6'2" and weighs 220 or greater or runs a 4.5 forty or better or if your daughter is at least 5'9" and can dribble and shoot do we have a deal for you. Employment at either Mueller's supply or Buddy's plant Plus and we have very affordable housing since there are about 200 houses on the market. All applications can be processed through this site and our recruitment committee will let you know if your son or daughter has passed the application process.:D :D

[Sans Couth]

It is an outdated rule about an ifraction that is impossible to prove, and selectively enforced. Until the UIL decides that the student has a right to appeal to an impartial jury of his peers, rather than a committee of the folks that accuse him, it will always leave them open to criticism, not to mention legal action. This rule needs to be challenged, and then erased from the book.

[Mean_Machine]

It is a good rule. Students who would move for the reason of doing better in athletics or to be tetter noticed should be prevented. Imagine one of your best athletes having a fallout with the coaching staff for dicipline reasons and is removed from the team for it. then that student moves to a neighbering town ( rival at that) so that he can play. that would not be right. Kids who Move for athletic reasons should not be able to play.

[CatWoman]

Originally posted by vet93
Catwoman...I am sure there may have been an instance of a transfer controversy that we don't know about, but I have kept pretty close tabs for the past 20 to 30 years and I cannot remember any instances. Ballinger rarely gets a transfer in the high school years that is a starter. Practically all of the talent is home grown, with the kids in place before junior high. Even if we wanted to I don't think that we have a very big stick to recruit with. We are a little too far from Abilene and San Angelo to get the "suburban effect" that schools like Wall, Jim Ned, Abilene Wylie and Greenwood get. I am ready to change this trend though ;) ;) This post will now be the official Ballinger Bearcat recruitment site. If your son is at least 6'2" and weighs 220 or greater or runs a 4.5 forty or better or if your daughter is at least 5'9" and can dribble and shoot do we have a deal for you. Employment at either Mueller's supply or Buddy's plant Plus and we have very affordable housing since there are about 200 houses on the market. All applications can be processed through this site and our recruitment committee will let you know if your son or daughter has passed the application process.:D :D

Hilarious!!

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
It is a good rule. Students who would move for the reason of doing better in athletics or to be tetter noticed should be prevented. Imagine one of your best athletes having a fallout with the coaching staff for dicipline reasons and is removed from the team for it. then that student moves to a neighbering town ( rival at that) so that he can play. that would not be right. Kids who Move for athletic reasons should not be able to play.

So let me ask you a question.

If you have a bright kid that scores off the charts on the TAKS test, and bench presses an IQ of say 160+ points, what would you think about the idea of a parent moving the family into a school district where he or she had a much better chance at a solid education and an IVY Leauge academic scholarship?

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
So let me ask you a question.

If you have a bright kid that scores off the charts on the TAKS test, and bench presses an IQ of say 160+ points, what would you think about the idea of a parent moving the family into a school district where he or she had a much better chance at a solid education and an IVY Leauge academic scholarship?

what does trying to get an IVY league academic scholarship have to do with moving for atheltic purposes..? Maybe im missing it..

If they want to move for academic reasons there is nothing wrong with that. Happens daily! I grew up in a rough gang neighborhood and my parents moved me to Forney for the betterment of my future. Thats not moving for athletic purposes and I think this is what this post was originally about

[JustAFan]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
It is an outdated rule about an ifraction that is impossible to prove, and selectively enforced. Until the UIL decides that the student has a right to appeal to an impartial jury of his peers, rather than a committee of the folks that accuse him, it will always leave them open to criticism, not to mention legal action. This rule needs to be challenged, and then erased from the book.

If you believe what you wrote, I agree with your username. I have seen very few instances where the PAPF was not granted. In those cases, it was obvious that athletics was the reason for the transfer. That is a violation of the C&CR from UIL. It is not impossible to prove. As a matter of fact, UIL places the onus on the new school to prove the athlete lives there. If they can't prove it, then c'est la vie!

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
what does trying to get an IVY league academic scholarship have to do with moving for atheltic purposes..? Maybe im missing it..

If they want to move for academic reasons there is nothing wrong with that. Happens daily! I grew up in a rough gang neighborhood and my parents moved me to Forney for the betterment of my future. Thats not moving for athletic purposes and I think this is what this post was originally about

It has everything to do with it. Why should you penalize an athlete for trying to better his scholarship chances, but not penalize a child for seeking an academic one. Of course you don't penalize the academic attempt, but by penalizing the later, you are creating a double standard, or you are saying that an athletic scholarship is not as important. I say, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[Sans Couth]

Furthermore,

The same UIL that governs football, governs the UIL academic competitions. If I move my little brainchild over to Higland Park from Beaverskid, do I need permission from the english teacher in podunkville?

WELL?

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by JustAFan
If you believe what you wrote, I agree with your username. I have seen very few instances where the PAPF was not granted. In those cases, it was obvious that athletics was the reason for the transfer. That is a violation of the C&CR from UIL. It is not impossible to prove. As a matter of fact, UIL places the onus on the new school to prove the athlete lives there. If they can't prove it, then c'est la vie!

I am not talking about proving residence, I am talking about proving intentions.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
Furthermore,

The same UIL that governs football, governs the UIL academic competitions. If I move my little brainchild over to Higland Park from Beaverskid, do I need permission from the english teacher in podunkville?

WELL?

go back and look at the original post....this post was talking about moving for athletic purposes....NOT ACADEMIC....if there is no rule for moving for academic reasons then oh well, I dont really care. I dont really care who the UIL Ready Writing State Champion was in 1995 or whenever. Its a great feat but I dont really care who it was. This is a football board and we are talking about moving for athletic purposes. Who cares about the double standard. It isnt my double standard because apparantly, as you have hinted, there is no rule for moving for academic purposes. That is why I said getting an IVY League Scholarship for academics has NOTHING to do with moving for Athletic Purposes.


If I move my little brainchild over to Higland Park from Beaverskid, do I need permission from the english teacher in podunkville?

if their isnt a rule then i guess you dont. and i guess you wont have to until a rule is established for it.

Also, Athletic competitons also make schools a lot of money.....UIL Academics dont....I guess if you host your own academic meet it would but just going to regional and state competitions dont.

I sure as heck dont want UIL competitons to turn into private-school like competitions....There is nothing wrong at all with the rule that is in place. If your argument is that since the academic side doesnt have to release people then the athletic side shouldnt (keeping away from the double standard) have to release then you are arguing in the wrong place. It sounds like to me then your argument should be that the academic side should push for a new rule.

The rule will not change when it comes to athletics.....i dont want UIL ball to become private-school bal. I dont want to see recruiting.


I am not talking about proving residence, I am talking about proving intentions.

if they are able to prove residence then intentions dont really care unless you are very obvious about it. If an athlete can prove residence then intentions dont matter really. Though not ethical, its true!

BUT....residence dont care if a player does what i said earlier. If they walk off with a bunch of equipment and leave on bad terms, residence dont matter, an AD can still not release that player until they get their equipment back. That is part of t he reason why that rule exists!

[vet93]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
It is a good rule. Students who would move for the reason of doing better in athletics or to be tetter noticed should be prevented. Imagine one of your best athletes having a fallout with the coaching staff for dicipline reasons and is removed from the team for it. then that student moves to a neighbering town ( rival at that) so that he can play. that would not be right. Kids who Move for athletic reasons should not be able to play.

Gulp....i actually agree with Mean Machine....this must mean that the apocalypse is near:D When you agree to participate in a UIL event...you also agree to adherence to the rules that the UIL establishes. If you don't agree with the rules, then find another league in which to participate (ie TAPPs, home school, another state). There is no "right" to pusue an athletic career. You have the privelage to participate in the UIL, if you cannot abide by the rules and the UIL has not broken a law with their rule, then you are out of luck. Tranfers are overwhelmingly approved. It is only in the rare circumstance when evidence points to an infraction that the rule is ever applied. I know that this seems unfair when the parents of a good athlete get cross with the coach for whatever reason, but nobody ever said life was fair and this may be a good incentive for people to learn how to be a team player and learn some good people skills (for both the parent and the athlete).

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by vet93
Gulp....i actually agree with Mean Machine....this must mean that the apocalypse is near:D When you agree to participate in a UIL event...you also agree to adherence to the rules that the UIL establishes. If you don't agree with the rules, then find another league in which to participate (ie TAPPs, home school, another state). There is no "right" to pusue an athletic career. You have the privelage to participate in the UIL, if you cannot abide by the rules and the UIL has not broken a law with their rule, then you are out of luck. Tranfers are overwhelmingly approved. It is only in the rare circumstance when evidence points to an infraction that the rule is ever applied. I know that this seems unfair when the parents of a good athlete get cross with the coach for whatever reason, but nobody ever said life was fair and this may be a good incentive for people to learn how to be a team player and learn some good people skills (for both the parent and the athlete). Is that a complement??? maybe it is or maybe it isnt
;)

[Masseter]

I appreciate everyone's replies. I am not a coach so I wasn't real sure of the actual rule or anything like that. Now, I understand about all the equipment, disagreements, etc. and why the AD wouldn't release them. I know of an AD (and i'm not going to say who or where) that when he moved to a school he noticed a trend of a lot of athletes moving to the surrounding towns for whatever reason. To put a stop to this, he stopped releasing the kids. He even told the athletes that were still there that if they moved to a surrounding city, that they werent going to get released. This is what my original post was about. I don't think that is fair to the kids especially if they are moving for something totally unrelated to athletics.

[CatWoman]

I'm gonna chime in again. In my opinion, these are high school kids for goodness sake. I am one of the biggest high school football fans you'll ever find, for that matter, I love all sports, but for the majority of them, it's 4 years and on to bigger and better things, namely LIFE. What kind of lesson is taught when a parent will move his child because controversy may arise is teaching them that they don't have to face obstacles, just "run" away from them.

I loved the commercial that ran during the NCAA Tournament that showed a college athlete and what they were studying to become in the real world. It ended with "We are NCAA athletes, and 90% of us will go pro in something other than athletics.

I'm through preaching now.

[Sans Couth]

For the most part I agree with you.

However, If I have a child that scores 160+ on an IQ test and off the charts on the TAKS, and I am able to move my child into a better shcool district to improve his chances at success, then I think it is my right as an American citizen to do so. With that being said, if I have a son or daughter that is an exceptional athlete, and I am able to move them into a system where I believe they will get better coaching, then don't you think that they should have the same chance as little Poindexter? It is afterall the same UIL that governs both sports and UIL academic competition. Are we a country that only supports education? How many of those kids on that commercial that were NCAA athletes that were going pro in something else do you think were there on academic scholarships? Yes I agree that the education is paramount, but most of those 90% that are going pro in something other than sports, got that 4 year education by trading the school their athletic ability for the education. I am sorry, but if I have an exceptional athlete that may be able to trade football, or softball, or even heaven forbid...soccer, for a university education, I am going to do everything I can, including moving my family to a school with great coaching, if it means the chances of success are better. And if some double standard, chicken-**** organization wants to try and stop me, they are going to be in for a fight.

Now all I need is a child who is great in sports, and a school to move them to, in order to put my plan into effect.

[vet93]

Sans Couth...I understand your point but in most cases the parents of little "johhny prodigy" will move to the school that they desire long before it is ever an issue, thus rendering this discussion a moot point. The rule is in place to protect from recruiting and the willy-nilly transference of kids back and forth from district to district. To allow kids to just move anywhere for athletic purposes would be more unhealthy than the rule currently in place. Example: "Hi my name is Johhny Prodigy and I want to play for coach G.A. Moore so I am going to Pilot Point" That summer Coach Moore retires "Since Coach Moore is retiring I am going to transfer back to Celina and Coach Ford" Late that fall he finds out that Coach Ford is moving to Sherman to take over their program. "I want to play for coach Ford in Sherman so I am moving." Finally the summer before Johnny's senior year he and coach Ford have a falling out. "Hi I am Johnny Prodigy and I want to play for coach Dodge out Southlake". How is allowing this type of mentality to be an option going to be good for the kid, the programs, the community, and the other athletes on the various teams? Warts and all...I think the rule is better than the alternative.



Originally posted by Sans Couth
For the most part I agree with you.

However, If I have a child that scores 160+ on an IQ test and off the charts on the TAKS, and I am able to move my child into a better shcool district to improve his chances at success, then I think it is my right as an American citizen to do so. With that being said, if I have a son or daughter that is an exceptional athlete, and I am able to move them into a system where I believe they will get better coaching, then don't you think that they should have the same chance as little Poindexter? It is afterall the same UIL that governs both sports and UIL academic competition. Are we a country that only supports education? How many of those kids on that commercial that were NCAA athletes that were going pro in something else do you think were there on academic scholarships? Yes I agree that the education is paramount, but most of those 90% that are going pro in something other than sports, got that 4 year education by trading the school their athletic ability for the education. I am sorry, but if I have an exceptional athlete that may be able to trade football, or softball, or even heaven forbid...soccer, for a university education, I am going to do everything I can, including moving my family to a school with great coaching, if it means the chances of success are better. And if some double standard, chicken-**** organization wants to try and stop me, they are going to be in for a fight.

Now all I need is a child who is great in sports, and a school to move them to, in order to put my plan into effect.

[CatWoman]

Yes, I agree with your statement of trading athletic abilities for an education. I'm all for athletic scholarships. My 12 year old daughter dreams of playing basketball for the Texas Tech Lady Raiders. Nothing I would like better than for Tech to pay for her education!!! Is it possible, yes, likely, no, but she is also is the top 10 in her class, so I am really hopeful for academic scholarship assistance.

Anyway, we as parents try to do what we feel best for our kids.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
If I have a child that scores 160+ on an IQ test and off the charts on the TAKS, and I am able to move my child into a better shcool district to improve his chances at success, then I think it is my right as an American citizen to do so.
If your child has done this in his/her current school, I'd say that you, your current school, and your child have done pretty well and don't need to go elsewhere...just my 2 cents.

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
If your child has done this in his/her current school, I'd say that you, your current school, and your child have done pretty well and don't need to go elsewhere...just my 2 cents.

I guess that is a way to look at if if you are content with being complacent. I always look to get ahead in life, not to get by.

[JasperDog94]

So you would consider 160+ IQ and off the charts TAKS scores just "getting by" or "being complacent"?:eek: Sorry, but I'd hate to be your kid. You'd put waaaay too much pressure on me...

[lepfan]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
example:

a kid plays football for "A" school and leaves on very bad terms. He is removed fromt the team and the athlete takes off with hundreds of dollars worth of football equipment. Then his parents move down the road so that he can go to "B" school and play football. The AD/Head Football Coach wants his equipment back so he doesnt release him to play for "B" school.

Seems fair to me.....

Isn't there law enforcement that can take care of that problem?

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So you would consider 160+ IQ and off the charts TAKS scores just "getting by" or "being complacent"?:eek: Sorry, but I'd hate to be your kid. You'd put waaaay too much pressure on me...

My point is a high IQ is not something that is learned in school, it is a gift, just like athletic ability. And if you can increase your chances of success by getting a higher level of "instruction" at another school, then by all means, if you have the means, then I say do it.

[JasperDog94]

I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree with moving for athletic reasons. But trying to compare that to moving for academic reasons is like comparing apples to oranges. It's just not the same thing.

I am curious how many people move for academic reasons vs. athletic reasons?

[JustAFan]

Sans Couth - It would be interesting if you ever got in that position where you moved for athletic purposes and then attempted to sue the UIL. One fact you may need to consider is that participation in a UIL activity requires that you accept the rules of the governing body. Many schools have students and parents sign a form that states they agree to abide by the rules of the school and the UIL. If you choose to allow your student to participate, you have agreed to abide by this rule. You always have the choice of sending him/her to a private school. Those schools do not have to abide by the UIL rules. Hey, if your kid is good enough, they will even contact you to try to get you to enroll Johnny or Janie Fantastic.

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by JustAFan
Sans Couth - It would be interesting if you ever got in that position where you moved for athletic purposes and then attempted to sue the UIL. One fact you may need to consider is that participation in a UIL activity requires that you accept the rules of the governing body. Many schools have students and parents sign a form that states they agree to abide by the rules of the school and the UIL. If you choose to allow your student to participate, you have agreed to abide by this rule. You always have the choice of sending him/her to a private school. Those schools do not have to abide by the UIL rules. Hey, if your kid is good enough, they will even contact you to try to get you to enroll Johnny or Janie Fantastic.

First let me say this. I am not planning on filing any lawsuits against the UIL, this is all just theoretical. My part in this thread was about the "rule" not being fair. I said it was impossible to "prove" and "selectively enforced". I have tried to show through debate that the "rule" is not fair. The rule does not apply to academics, so why does it apply to athletes? I understand that you have to "agree to play by the rules", however, the "rule" is not upheld on an unbiased basis. Also, the appeal process for being "accused" of breaking the rule, is at best, flawed. What citizen in these great United States would allow those that "accuse" him also "judge" him. If the UIL wants to have a rule that you cannot "move for athletic purpose" then it needs to have an unbiased organization that investigates every single transfer of a varsity athlete, and take the power away from the "opinion of the possibly disgruntled coach, that is losing the star".

[Masseter]

here here!

[JasperDog94]

SC - part of the problem is our justice system. We no longer have the right to a speedy trial. Trials drag on and on and on and on and...you get the picture. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case with all aspects of justice. Nothing is speedy anymore. By the time you get a hearing, it's too late to do anything about the alleged infraction.

I'm not naive enough to believe that the rule isn't selectively enforced, but I really don't like the alternative.