Started By
Message

re: Hahnville QB "hearing" Thursday

Posted on 9/14/18 at 7:52 am to
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30866 posts
Posted on 9/14/18 at 7:52 am to
quote:

The rules need to be changed. You can't expect a 17 year old kid to continue playing for a school that just fired his father. The whole "move for athletic purpose" language in the rules is dumb as hell because you can't really prove it. Why does it matter why they moved anyway? If they live in a schools attendance zone he should be eligible to play at that school.
So offering a kids dad a job to get him at the school is ok?
Posted by redfishfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2015
4425 posts
Posted on 9/14/18 at 8:14 am to
quote:

So offering a kids dad a job to get him at the school is ok?


That shouldn't matter if they move into the school district. I don't know the guy but maybe he's a really good coach and a good teacher. The coaching/teaching profession is all about connections. When I decided to get out for a few years and resigned I had 10 phone calls from coaches I had coached with or against offering me jobs because they didn't know I was getting out all together. Let's just say I had a high school age athletic son. Since those schools contacted me to come coach at their school, my son isn't eligible? That's a dumb rule. Why wouldn't schools try to get the best coaches/teachers they can? The times I filled out "concurrence" on transferring kids I always filled it out to help them get eligible. I never want to be the reason a kid can't play HS sports.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram