IBJNews

IHSAA bylaw targets recruiting of younger athletes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Parents at a summer Little League All-Star tournament will have to be much more careful of what they say or who they talk to. The same goes for parents of grade-school-athletes playing travel baseball, softball, soccer or basketball in the summer.

For the first time in history, the Indiana High School Athletic Association's bylaws on recruitment are no longer being applied to high school students alone.

With the passing of Bylaw 20-2 this past summer, potential student-athletes as young as 10 could lose their high school eligibility if recruitment is found.

IHSAA Commissioner Bobby Cox said the association in Indianapolis that governs high school sports in the state has heard reports of outside people influencing youngsters to attend a certain school to play sports. If found out, a fifth-grader could lose his or her high school athletic eligibility.

"We've never discussed what happens before the ninth grade," Cox said.

Until now. The bylaw was authored by the IHSAA's executive staff and approved April 30 by the Board of Directors by a 16-0 vote.

Merrillville Athletic Director Janis Qualizza was at the meeting and agrees 100 percent with the new bylaw. She said a day doesn't go by where one of her middle school coaches comes into the Pirates' athletic office and tells stories about students being recruited to leave by an unaffiliated lay coach.

"Ten years old, come on," Qualizza said. "The recruiting has gone bonkers. We have middle school kids telling our coaches they should go to another school because of this or that. It's crazy.

"I don't know the answer to stopping all of this. But we have to try."

This is the first school year where Bylaw 20-2 applies. Cox said no case has come up under 20-2 to date.

Crown Point attorney Michael Jasaitis has taken on the IHSAA in many eligibility cases through the years. He expects Bylaw 20-2 will keep him and other attorneys busy once eligibility cases come to the forefront.

"This new IHSAA bylaw appears to be a rule with terms so vague that reasonable persons would have to guess at its meaning and would apply the rule differently, which may render it invalid pursuant to the concepts of vagueness and overbreadth," Jasaitis said. "Such a rule also could be overreaching, especially in light of the fact that a high school athletic association is attempting to punish 10-year-olds, which would seem to be outside of its jurisdictional authority.

"Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what a court would do if this rule is challenged in the future."

Jasaitis pointed out one line in 20-2 that shows what he calls the vagueness of the rule. It reads, "A student with a history of athletic recruitment is a student who was, at any time after the student's Tenth (10th) birthday, recruited by an individual or agency which has a reputation or history of recruiting students who have shown athletic talent, have shown potential athletic talent or whose physical appearance was consistent with those of an athlete ..."

"What does that mean?" Jasaitis said. "We're going to look at the physical appearance of a 10-year-old?"

Marvin Rea, Bowman Academy athletic director and boys basketball coach, said also he is confused about how this will develop.

His 2010 Class A state championship team had six players who played for him in AAU ball when they were 9. He was not associated with Bowman at that time. He was an engineer.

"If this rule was written 10 years ago, I would've been in violation, or maybe not," Rea said. "What is their definition of recruiting? Coaches have camps for grade-school and middle-school kids everywhere. Can you have clinics? Can you have camps? Can baseball or softball coaches give lessons or coach travel teams where they can influence kids to attend their schools?"

Many local AAU programs use high school gyms for practice. Is that now a violation if the student is 10? Or 11 or 12?

Cox knows his association's move is historic. But he and his membership also believe that recruitment at the lowest levels has brought this about. "We've heard scenarios where sixth-graders are being identified as potential athletes by outside people," Cox said. "We're trying to combat that."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • IHSAA Op-Ed
    Maintaining the Priority: http://www.ihsaa.org/Media/MediaReleases/201213/12913MaintainingthePriority/tabid/1380/Default.aspx
  • Simpler solution
    Just do away with all public schools and let parents decide where to send their kids for whatever reason the parents deem pertinent.
  • Not that difficult
    Sounds like this rule affects all the Parochial schools, Park Tudor, etc.... It is more simple just to create a Catholic League/Parochial School League because afterall if they give scholarship money to anyone that plays sports it's a problem. That way the schools that are deemed to recruit will play themselves and play in a Class of their own for a Conference Championship and in the finality of it all a State Champtionship. So it is simply a check the box thing "Do you give scholarships of any kind to athletes"? No need for this vagueness, indirect approach to the simple question? The question can be ask in a look back format like "In the last four years has your school provided ANY formof scholarship money to any students who were athletes?

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. liek the rest of America

    2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

    3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

    4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

    5. whoa!

    ADVERTISEMENT