This Ryan mans Greenback team in 2019

[orngnblk]

37 minutes ago, Southtowner said:

Section 17. Athletic recruiting is prohibited. Athletic recruiting is the use of influence on a student or the parents or guardians of a student, by any person(s) directly or indirectly associated with the school, to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes. In the event that there is a violation of this rule, there shall be a penalty against the school, and the student(s) who was the subject of the violation shall be ineligible for a minimum of one year.

 

^ Who would be considered indirectly associated with the school. Me? You?  I believe so.  The key words here are 'to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes.'

And how would you define "secure or retain"?Make them sign a contract?How can an average person like you or me do this?Just asking.Neither one of us would grab one by the arm and run them to the admins office.Retain and secure are pretty self explanatory and would be very hard to do dont you think?

To me it leans more to a booster of some sort actually "giving" them something to secure them.The ave Joe only gives info.

Edited December 12, 2018 by orngnblk

[Southtowner]

36 minutes ago, orngnblk said:

And how would you define "secure or retain"?Make them sign a contract?How can an average person like you or me do this?Just asking.Neither one of us would grab one by the arm and run them to the admins office.Retain and secure are pretty self explanatory and would be very hard to do dont you think?

To me it leans more to a booster of some sort actually "giving" them something to secure them.The ave Joe only gives info.

Never underestimate the Average Joe's.

[orngnblk]

9 minutes ago, Southtowner said:

Never underestimate the Average Joe's.

Ok cotton!

That's a great one!

[crow]

1 hour ago, Southtowner said:

Section 17. Athletic recruiting is prohibited. Athletic recruiting is the use of influence on a student or the parents or guardians of a student, by any person(s) directly or indirectly associated with the school, to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes. In the event that there is a violation of this rule, there shall be a penalty against the school, and the student(s) who was the subject of the violation shall be ineligible for a minimum of one year.

 

^ Who would be considered indirectly associated with the school. Me? You?  I believe so.  The key words here are 'to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes.'

No sir, I believe the key words are "the use of influence on a student or the parents or guardians of a student". What constitutes influence? Are we speaking of benefits gained by attending said school or could pointing out a schools colors just happen to match the same color as little Johnnys favorite color, maybe that cool turf field is something little Johnny thinks if awesome instead of a muddy grass one, or a particularly cool jumbotron in the end zone? Maybe it's just the cool paint job on the field on Friday nights or the dozens of tailgaters in the parking lot every home game. All these things listed could, in theory, influence a student or parent/guardian to prefer one school or another. I believe the spirit of the rule is influence in the form of benefits either gained or lost based on attending one school over another. For me to speak to a student or their parent about the type of example our HC is to young men or how cool our tailgaters are is, in my mind, sharing positive information about our school not the use of influence. Just my take but I'm pushing Sam's cola in a Coke world anyway. 

[Southtowner]

3 minutes ago, crow said:

No sir, I believe the key words are "the use of influence on a student or the parents or guardians of a student". What constitutes influence? Are we speaking of benefits gained by attending said school or could pointing out a schools colors just happen to match the same color as little Johnnys favorite color, maybe that cool turf field is something little Johnny thinks if awesome instead of a muddy grass one, or a particularly cool jumbotron in the end zone? Maybe it's just the cool paint job on the field on Friday nights or the dozens of tailgaters in the parking lot every home game. All these things listed could, in theory, influence a student or parent/guardian to prefer one school or another. I believe the spirit of the rule is influence in the form of benefits either gained or lost based on attending one school over another. For me to speak to a student or their parent about the type of example our HC is to young men or how cool our tailgaters are is, in my mind, sharing positive information about our school not the use of influence. Just my take but I'm pushing Sam's cola in a Coke world anyway. 

Sure those are key words.  But it's how one can secure or retain.  That is the undue influence.  We are on the same page for the most part. We are splitting hairs if you will.

I gave up soda pops for the most part.  I'll take a cold Sundrop every now and then.

[TheMan2015]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:42 PM, Southtowner said:

Section 17. Athletic recruiting is prohibited. Athletic recruiting is the use of influence on a student or the parents or guardians of a student, by any person(s) directly or indirectly associated with the school, to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes. In the event that there is a violation of this rule, there shall be a penalty against the school, and the student(s) who was the subject of the violation shall be ineligible for a minimum of one year.

 

^ Who would be considered indirectly associated with the school. Me? You?  I believe so.  The key words here are 'to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes.'

That’s just for athletic purposes. We’re bringing them in for the academic purposes. 

[orngnblk]

48 minutes ago, TheMan2015 said:

That’s just for athletic purposes. We’re bringing them in for the academic purposes. 

Ahh the gray area!We may use that.

[rtl112]

According to these written laws then there is probably some grey areas in some of the recruiting going on, oops I meant transferring.

[Gbnation]

3 hours ago, rtl112 said:

According to these written laws then there is probably some grey areas in some of the recruiting going on, oops I meant transferring.

Get it right!! 

Transferring lol

[ladykee]

On 12/12/2018 at 4:12 PM, crow said:

No sir, I believe the key words are "the use of influence on a student or the parents or guardians of a student". What constitutes influence? Are we speaking of benefits gained by attending said school or could pointing out a schools colors just happen to match the same color as little Johnnys favorite color, maybe that cool turf field is something little Johnny thinks if awesome instead of a muddy grass one, or a particularly cool jumbotron in the end zone? Maybe it's just the cool paint job on the field on Friday nights or the dozens of tailgaters in the parking lot every home game. All these things listed could, in theory, influence a student or parent/guardian to prefer one school or another. I believe the spirit of the rule is influence in the form of benefits either gained or lost based on attending one school over another. For me to speak to a student or their parent about the type of example our HC is to young men or how cool our tailgaters are is, in my mind, sharing positive information about our school not the use of influence. Just my take but I'm pushing Sam's cola in a Coke world anyway. 

I speculate almost every team would be guilty under this great interpretation lol! People that complain about transfers who follow the rules of either sitting out or moving their family to the school district sound like snowflakes to me. The only issue I have ever had with unfairness or unequal playing fields in terms of competition is when a public has to compete with a private who has no school zone. Parents can pay to send their child to play  for a private from all over the area without a change of address. That is in no way arguable to be an equal playing field. What level of players would those privates have if they all had to live in a zone like the publics do? I guarantee you there would be an absurd amount of transfers all over the landscape if publics were allowed to accept transfers with or without tuition and not require a change of address. We could sell our home today and move our son to any school we want and trust me he’s been “influenced” if that is what you choose to call it but at the end of the day we the family decide where we want to live and what school we want our kid to go to as every other parent has the right to decide so to me TSSAA can’t control that right. If Little Johnny wants to wear red and black or maroon and gray and the family moves to the school zone whose business should that be really? They are legal. If kids want to wear orange and black great for them right Coalfield? Right SP? Go Greenback!!!

[crow]

2 hours ago, ladykee said:

I speculate almost every team would be guilty under this great interpretation lol! People that complain about transfers who follow the rules of either sitting out or moving their family to the school district sound like snowflakes to me. The only issue I have ever had with unfairness or unequal playing fields in terms of competition is when a public has to compete with a private who has no school zone. Parents can pay to send their child to play  for a private from all over the area without a change of address. That is in no way arguable to be an equal playing field. What level of players would those privates have if they all had to live in a zone like the publics do? I guarantee you there would be an absurd amount of transfers all over the landscape if publics were allowed to accept transfers with or without tuition and not require a change of address. We could sell our home today and move our son to any school we want and trust me he’s been “influenced” if that is what you choose to call it but at the end of the day we the family decide where we want to live and what school we want our kid to go to as every other parent has the right to decide so to me TSSAA can’t control that right. If Little Johnny wants to wear red and black or maroon and gray and the family moves to the school zone whose business should that be really? They are legal. If kids want to wear orange and black great for them right Coalfield? Right SP? Go Greenback!!!

Not sure why you quoted me here but I pretty much agree and posted the same thing you did. 

[Southtowner]

51 minutes ago, crow said:

Not sure why you quoted me here but I pretty much agree and posted the same thing you did. 

She likes you Crow.  That's why she quoted you.