Some people can say I`m wrong,but this is an issue

[mood1801]

I know the kids and their parents who were approached.  Four total.  We might want to leave it at that.  I also know who approached them.  Not a coach or a teacher or even a student, but others very prominent to the school(s).

 

But C, if it wasn't a coach or teacher then it isn't illegal recruitment, right? After all, if it was some parent telling some other parent how good a school is then that is certainly not something the school can be held accountable for. That is like saying that if I have a Dell computer and tell people how good it is that Dell is responsible for what I say.

 

I don't know if that was the case, just noticing that you mentioned it was not a coach or teacher or student.

This is a typical statement coming from the private school crowd. As long as a coach wasn't DIRECTLY involved it's ok? If a prominant booster does it it's ok? Everyone knows this is how it's done.

[Baldcoach]

This is a typical statement coming from the private school crowd. As long as a coach wasn't DIRECTLY involved it's ok? If a prominant booster does it it's ok? Everyone knows this is how it's done.

 

Well, if it is a "typical statement from the private school crowd" then they all must own Dells! Coool! Oh, wait, you mean the not illegal thing? How about this, my best buddy Jeff tells his sister how much his child likes private school B. His sister decides to send her kids there. Was she recruited?

 

If so, any parent who talks to any other parent about any aspect of any school is recruiting. Seems pretty silly to me, sort of like broad brush statements like "everybody knows this is how its done."

 

If parents or cousins or neighbors can be held accountable for things they say about the schools their children attend then we have just stepped into 1984...and I thought we were all past that by about 20 years or so?

[Tacoma]

If parents or cousins or neighbors can be held accountable for things they say about the schools their children attend then we have just stepped into 1984...and I thought we were all past that by about 20 years or so?

Baldcoach,

 

I don't know about you but I didn't care for that book.

[ELA]

Does anyone know how the vote came out?

They delayed the vote until February.

Edited January 9, 2004 by ELA

[takedown3]

What is the "official" TSSAA definition of recruiting for purposes of the rule against?

 

Official citation please, not opinion.

 

I'm thinking I might have to turn myself in. With Pete Rose coming clean, I thought confession might be good for the soul.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Well I`m turning myself in now. Last summer I talked to a friend of mine whose son I once coached in youth baseball. His son was zoned for JCM but had 99% decided to go to Liberty(magnet school) instead. I tried to talk him into staying at JCM. Conversation lasted all of 3 minutes. Didn`t work, but I tried.

 

Handcuffs please

Edited January 9, 2004 by VolunteerGeneral

[TheEgoHasLanded]

I told a friend of mine that I liked my schools water fountains more than his schools water fountains.

[Tacoma]

The child of my best friend was offered the opportunity to attend a private school at no cost. One of financial supporters of the school approached them because the child was so talented. The offer was refused. Technically that is not recruiting by a coach, administrator or anyone with an official capacity at the school. However, that is definitely an advantage for a private school. If a supporter pays the tuition, who will ever know.

[GregC]

The child of my best friend was offered the opportunity to attend a private school at no cost.  One of financial supporters of the school approached them because the child was so talented.  The offer was refused.  Technically that is not recruiting by a coach, administrator or anyone with an official capacity at the school.  However, that is definitely an advantage for a private school.  If a supporter pays the tuition, who will ever know.

Isn't that usually the trouble at the colleges? Some booster slips a little payola or gets some kid a 'job'? The hubbub over Tee Martin and some booster comes to mind.

Edited January 9, 2004 by GregC

[VolunteerGeneral]

More proof that the open zones are an issue. And some of you got upset with me for continually bringing the subject up...

 

http://miva.jacksonsun.com/miva/cgi-bin/mi...200401095736524

[lazarus]

hi t-gen,

 

it was since the split.

the conversation has moved on,

but i didnt want to be avoiding a question.

 

and there was no ambivalence in the approach.

[CSense]

I know the kids and their parents who were approached.  Four total.  We might want to leave it at that.  I also know who approached them.  Not a coach or a teacher or even a student, but others very prominent to the school(s).

 

But C, if it wasn't a coach or teacher then it isn't illegal recruitment, right? After all, if it was some parent telling some other parent how good a school is then that is certainly not something the school can be held accountable for. That is like saying that if I have a Dell computer and tell people how good it is that Dell is responsible for what I say.

 

I don't know if that was the case, just noticing that you mentioned it was not a coach or teacher or student.

Recruiting Rule:

Section 21. The use of undue influence on a student (with or without an athletic record), the parents or guardians of a student by any person connected, or not connected, with the school to secure or to retain a student for athletic purposes shall be a violation of the recruiting rule.

 

 

With all due respect Baldcoach (and others), recruiting violations can occur from non coaches or staff members. According to the above rule from TSSAA.org handbook: recruiting can come from a coach, staff member, teacher, another athlete, parent, alumnus, girlfriend, booster, local business owner who likes the school, local business owner who employs parents, friend, next door neighbor, man down the street, etc.

 

Key phrase: "by any person connected, OR NOT CONNECTED."

 

Of course, the rest of the rule has various interpretations!!