Private School Recruiting Hurting Public School Sports?

[s1nglewing]

Exactly which "financial aid" violations is St Joe et al committing?

A rich parent can pay for anyone's tuition - his kid or not. The Catholic Chruch provides financial aid to all kinds of students - athletes and non-athletes.

The schools you mention are not violating any financial aid rules per MAIS. The booster clubs are not involved.

I am not privy to what GCS is doing so can't comment on that.

[Doc]

The main reason a lot of kids transfer is opportunity and coaches. If coaches can not relate to kids they will find coaches who can. Also kids want an opportunity to play and not sit. So many coaches are set in their ways and  not willing to adjust to the times. We live in a social media time and players want to be promoted and feel important and if coaches are not doing that kids will find places where they do. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Doc

[BrickCity]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

The main reason a lot of kids transfer is opportunity and coaches. If coaches can not relate to kids they will find coaches who can. Also kids want an opportunity to play and not sit. So many coaches are set in their ways and  not willing to adjust to the times. We live in a social media time and players want to be promoted and feel important and if coaches are not doing that kids will find places where they do. 

Good take and I agree and disagree with this.  We live in a social media age where kids DO want to be promoted. But what would coaches be teaching kids if all they did were praise their actions and works? I just dont see any coach that would sacrifice their job over not being able to adjust to the times.

I personally feel like young players have been told that if they "work hard" they will get rewarded, but that is not always the case. I hate its like that but thats just not how life works

Edited August 24, 2022 by BrickCity

[TK_on_the_Coast]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

The main reason a lot of kids transfer is opportunity and coaches. If coaches can not relate to kids they will find coaches who can. Also kids want an opportunity to play and not sit. So many coaches are set in their ways and  not willing to adjust to the times. We live in a social media time and players want to be promoted and feel important and if coaches are not doing that kids will find places where they do. 

Excellent evaluation of the issue. 

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

2 hours ago, s1nglewing said:

Exactly which "financial aid" violations is St Joe et al committing?

A rich parent can pay for anyone's tuition - his kid or not. The Catholic Chruch provides financial aid to all kinds of students - athletes and non-athletes.

The schools you mention are not violating any financial aid rules per MAIS. The booster clubs are not involved.

I am not privy to what GCS is doing so can't comment on that.

MAIS Handbook Rule VH states that, "No student may be eligible to participate in inter-school athletics if he has been shown financial consideration by a school, or any of its associated organizations, on the basis of his value to the activity program of the school." The rule also sets forth certain " Signs of Misguided and Faulty Financial Aid". Among these are: (1) "A pattern of transfers into an athletic program receiving financial aid, especially at the senior high level," (2) "Shear numbers of athletes receiving financial aid," (3) "Aid to athletes coming from one source, or benefactor, over an extended period of time," and (4) "Consistent reports from other member schools that a problem exists with the competitions financial aid as it relates to recruiting."

 

The rule could certainly be written more clearly, but it's meaning and intent seem apparent, at least to me.

 

A student cannot be provided financial consideration by any organization associated with a school on the basis of his value to the football team (an "activity program of the school"). This gives rise to the questions - Must the organization be formalized, or can it be an informal group? Must the organization be larger than a single individual? The answer to these questions can be rooted out of the section titled, "Signs of Misguided and Faulty Financial Aid." Among them is, "Aid to athletes coming from one source, or benefactor, over an extend period of time." This sign speaks of a single source or benefactor - not a booster club, not a corporation, not even an informal group. A single benefactor.

 

The fact that the Catholic Church provides tuition assistance to all kinds of students is irrelevant, and misdirects the point. Most, if not all, of the Jackson metro-area MAIS schools provide tuition assistance. Heck, that they do so largely enables the illegal financial aid schemes to flourish. Here's how it really works: 

 

School X has a normal annual tuition of $10,000. Prospective student-athlete applies for tuition assistance, and goes through the formal plan available to all students and prospective-students. School X determines that, based on the prospective student-athlete's ability to pay, he will have a reduced tuition amount of $5,000. Where does that $5,000 come from? The daddy of another player who, let's just say, sure would like to have his star QB son protected by a large, talented offensive lineman or sure would like for his star QB son to have a talented WR on the team. And, since the tuition price is cut in half, he can get two for the price of one. And, because his son played with a lot of talented players in youth football that are in public schools and would come to School X to play with star QB son if only they could afford it, daddy has access to players. BAM - just like that, a single benefactor has paid for two or more players to attend School X for the purpose of playing football. That violates the MAIS Handbook Rule VH.

 

Now, let's place this scenario in real life. Hartfield and St. Joe have over 10 kids going to each school that are paid for by single benefactors. In each instance you have: (1) a pattern of transfers into an athletic program receiving financial aid at the senior high level; (2) you have 10 or more kids receiving financial aid; and (3) you have aid being provided by a single benefactor over an extended period of time (years in fact in both instances). What I don't know - but I have reason to believe it has occurred - is whether and which other member schools have complained. I do know this - MRA was ultimately investigated because the number of MHSAA and MAIS schools complaining about their open and obvious financial aid violations could no longer be ignored. Whether and if the MAIS gets there with St. Joe and Hartfield remains to be seen.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Washed_Up_Athlete

[s1nglewing]

Until MAIS investigates and finds fault, there is nothing to see.

Just allegations and rumors.

[longhorn75]

3 hours ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

MAIS Handbook Rule VH states that, "No student may be eligible to participate in inter-school athletics if he has been shown financial consideration by a school, or any of its associated organizations, on the basis of his value to the activity program of the school." The rule also sets forth certain " Signs of Misguided and Faulty Financial Aid". Among these are: (1) "A pattern of transfers into an athletic program receiving financial aid, especially at the senior high level," (2) "Shear numbers of athletes receiving financial aid," (3) "Aid to athletes coming from one source, or benefactor, over an extended period of time," and (4) "Consistent reports from other member schools that a problem exists with the competitions financial aid as it relates to recruiting."

 

The rule could certainly be written more clearly, but it's meaning and intent seem apparent, at least to me.

 

A student cannot be provided financial consideration by any organization associated with a school on the basis of his value to the football team (an "activity program of the school"). This gives rise to the questions - Must the organization be formalized, or can it be an informal group? Must the organization be larger than a single individual? The answer to these questions can be rooted out of the section titled, "Signs of Misguided and Faulty Financial Aid." Among them is, "Aid to athletes coming from one source, or benefactor, over an extend period of time." This sign speaks of a single source or benefactor - not a booster club, not a corporation, not even an informal group. A single benefactor.

 

The fact that the Catholic Church provides tuition assistance to all kinds of students is irrelevant, and misdirects the point. Most, if not all, of the Jackson metro-area MAIS schools provide tuition assistance. Heck, that they do so largely enables the illegal financial aid schemes to flourish. Here's how it really works: 

 

School X has a normal annual tuition of $10,000. Prospective student-athlete applies for tuition assistance, and goes through the formal plan available to all students and prospective-students. School X determines that, based on the prospective student-athlete's ability to pay, he will have a reduced tuition amount of $5,000. Where does that $5,000 come from? The daddy of another player who, let's just say, sure would like to have his star QB son protected by a large, talented offensive lineman or sure would like for his star QB son to have a talented WR on the team. And, since the tuition price is cut in half, he can get two for the price of one. And, because his son played with a lot of talented players in youth football that are in public schools and would come to School X to play with star QB son if only they could afford it, daddy has access to players. BAM - just like that, a single benefactor has paid for two or more players to attend School X for the purpose of playing football. That violates the MAIS Handbook Rule VH.

 

Now, let's place this scenario in real life. Hartfield and St. Joe have over 10 kids going to each school that are paid for by single benefactors. In each instance you have: (1) a pattern of transfers into an athletic program receiving financial aid at the senior high level; (2) you have 10 or more kids receiving financial aid; and (3) you have aid being provided by a single benefactor over an extended period of time (years in fact in both instances). What I don't know - but I have reason to believe it has occurred - is whether and which other member schools have complained. I do know this - MRA was ultimately investigated because the number of MHSAA and MAIS schools complaining about their open and obvious financial aid violations could no longer be ignored. Whether and if the MAIS gets there with St. Joe and Hartfield remains to be seen.

 

The only investigation into MRA was the one in the early 90s when the school-sponsored Booster Club that was in cahoots with the then-athletic director was paying kids to play. They cleaned house after that happened, and there has always been talk about a resurgence of it, but to not much. IN addition, the signs of faulty financial aid, are not a one-size fits all. The totality of the circumstances must be looked into. As many of these kids that go there with athletic ability who are having benefactors, there do exist kids who are on scholarship/tuition assistance for other reasons. Some schools have a tuition exchange program with certain educational employers, or have to provide tax returns and check out the financial circumstances as it pertains. 

 

As it pertains to other parents paying other kids tuitions, it happens for non-athletic reasons as well. There have been situations where a family's gone into some financial trouble and a generous benefactor offers to cover part of the bill regardless of athletic ability. Once again though, there is no agency relationship between the MAIS and the benefactor parent of the student. There's no way the school could be theoretically held culpable for the acts of a third party. The first thing the enforcement on the parent brings about, is a question of whether a man/woman has the right to spend his/her money the way he/she wants. And whether the MAIS can govern that, by the incidental fact the man/woman's kid attends a school that is a member of the MAIS. That's where the enforcement deal can go kaput. 

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

16 hours ago, longhorn75 said:

 

The only investigation into MRA was the one in the early 90s when the school-sponsored Booster Club that was in cahoots with the then-athletic director was paying kids to play. They cleaned house after that happened, and there has always been talk about a resurgence of it, but to not much. IN addition, the signs of faulty financial aid, are not a one-size fits all. The totality of the circumstances must be looked into. As many of these kids that go there with athletic ability who are having benefactors, there do exist kids who are on scholarship/tuition assistance for other reasons. Some schools have a tuition exchange program with certain educational employers, or have to provide tax returns and check out the financial circumstances as it pertains. 

 

As it pertains to other parents paying other kids tuitions, it happens for non-athletic reasons as well. There have been situations where a family's gone into some financial trouble and a generous benefactor offers to cover part of the bill regardless of athletic ability. Once again though, there is no agency relationship between the MAIS and the benefactor parent of the student. There's no way the school could be theoretically held culpable for the acts of a third party. The first thing the enforcement on the parent brings about, is a question of whether a man/woman has the right to spend his/her money the way he/she wants. And whether the MAIS can govern that, by the incidental fact the man/woman's kid attends a school that is a member of the MAIS. That's where the enforcement deal can go kaput. 

1. Booster clubs are collections of people who donate money for a common cause. For instance, a booster club may buy a new scoreboard with funds raised. One or more of those same people may decide to buy players. It doesn’t matter whether their money passes through the booster club or not. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

 

2. Of course the totality of the circumstances must be considered. That’s what the rule calls for. If a kid is on financial aid for reasons in addition to just athletics, then the aid may pass muster. 
 

3. Of course there are legitimate situations in which a parent pays a kid’s tuition. But that doesn’t excuse or have anything to do with the illegitimate ones.

 

4. You're just wrong if you believe a school can’t be held responsible for the acts of a third party. Read the rule. It happens all the time in the ncaa. It recently happened at Ole Miss when the school was held responsible for the acts of a single booster over whom it had no control.

 

It all boils down to whether the MAIS has the resources and willingness to enforce the rule. History says it won’t unless the evidence is handed to it on a silver platter. And that’s the real reason why St. Joe and Hartfield feel comfortable enough to allow what is occurring.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Washed_Up_Athlete

[s1nglewing]

MAIS isn't NCAA - apples to oranges.

There is uninformed smoke but no fire.  Move along

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

11 minutes ago, s1nglewing said:

MAIS isn't NCAA - apples to oranges.

There is uninformed smoke but no fire.  Move along

Uninformed? I’ve been called many things, but uninformed ain’t one. 
 

Dr. Emile Piccarella. Heath Jenkins. Shall I name kids?

[s1nglewing]

21 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

Uninformed? I’ve been called many things, but uninformed ain’t one. 
 

Dr. Emile Piccarella. Heath Jenkins. Shall I name kids?

Probably better not; however,  if you believe your accusations have merit feel free to call MAIS.   You may get more accomplished by doing so than ranting on a message board.

 

Main Office: 601-932-2007 - ask for Chris Chance

[RMcCormick66]

43 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

Uninformed? I’ve been called many things, but uninformed ain’t one. 
 

Dr. Emile Piccarella. Heath Jenkins. Shall I name kids?

This guy woke up and chose violence. 

[BrickCity]

44 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

Uninformed? I’ve been called many things, but uninformed ain’t one. 
 

Dr. Emile Piccarella. Heath Jenkins. Shall I name kids?

Im interested in the things other people have called you. trying to expand my vocabulary 

[longhorn75]

13 hours ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

1. Booster clubs are collections of people who donate money for a common cause. For instance, a booster club may buy a new scoreboard with funds raised. One or more of those same people may decide to buy players. It doesn’t matter whether their money passes through the booster club or not. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

 

2. Of course the totality of the circumstances must be considered. That’s what the rule calls for. If a kid is on financial aid for reasons in addition to just athletics, then the aid may pass muster. 
 

3. Of course there are legitimate situations in which a parent pays a kid’s tuition. But that doesn’t excuse or have anything to do with the illegitimate ones.

 

4. You're just wrong if you believe a school can’t be held responsible for the acts of a third party. Read the rule. It happens all the time in the ncaa. It recently happened at Ole Miss when the school was held responsible for the acts of a single booster over whom it had no control.

 

It all boils down to whether the MAIS has the resources and willingness to enforce the rule. History says it won’t unless the evidence is handed to it on a silver platter. And that’s the real reason why St. Joe and Hartfield feel comfortable enough to allow what is occurring.

Respectfully, we are seeing immense change in the NCAA, and its rules on remuneration for play with every year. That change has arisen since the Supreme Court struck down the "Amateur" designation, and says that kids can make money off themselves. 

 

As per Booster Clubs, these are organizations that the SCHOOL SANCTIONS. Most booster clubs are run by parents, but also are under the watchful eye of the school's athletic director. Thus, the club is an official shoot-off of the school's athletic program. Number two, if a benefactor does these things on behalf of his own self, and not on behalf of the school or the booster club, then we have no way to prove that anyone on the team sanctioned the move. It's on the private individual then.

 

Further, remember that the NCAA is also an agency that kids sign agreements to buy into. when kids want to play college football, they must register and sign up with the NCAA Clearinghouse and such like that. high schoolers aren't signing up for the MAIS. They sign up for the schools. There is never any agreement that a parent signs that subjects their actions, or the actions of their children to the jurisdiction of the MAIS. The only theoretical enforcement mechanism is against the schools that actually sign a contractual agreement to be a part of the association. 

 

I am sure the MAIS is aware that the attempt to sanction individual boosters/parents, who mostly come from a lot of moolah, for these things will open up a huge can of worms and will result in powerful people retaliating. Further, it opens up a can of worms, if the organization is wrongfully depriving individual persons from the individual freedom to spend their money the way they want to... so thus this is just an inevitable piece of the culture. 

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

11 hours ago, longhorn75 said:

Respectfully, we are seeing immense change in the NCAA, and its rules on remuneration for play with every year. That change has arisen since the Supreme Court struck down the "Amateur" designation, and says that kids can make money off themselves. 

 

As per Booster Clubs, these are organizations that the SCHOOL SANCTIONS. Most booster clubs are run by parents, but also are under the watchful eye of the school's athletic director. Thus, the club is an official shoot-off of the school's athletic program. Number two, if a benefactor does these things on behalf of his own self, and not on behalf of the school or the booster club, then we have no way to prove that anyone on the team sanctioned the move. It's on the private individual then.

 

Further, remember that the NCAA is also an agency that kids sign agreements to buy into. when kids want to play college football, they must register and sign up with the NCAA Clearinghouse and such like that. high schoolers aren't signing up for the MAIS. They sign up for the schools. There is never any agreement that a parent signs that subjects their actions, or the actions of their children to the jurisdiction of the MAIS. The only theoretical enforcement mechanism is against the schools that actually sign a contractual agreement to be a part of the association. 

 

I am sure the MAIS is aware that the attempt to sanction individual boosters/parents, who mostly come from a lot of moolah, for these things will open up a huge can of worms and will result in powerful people retaliating. Further, it opens up a can of worms, if the organization is wrongfully depriving individual persons from the individual freedom to spend their money the way they want to... so thus this is just an inevitable piece of the culture.

 

1. The NCAA didn’t strike down the amateur designation. It allowed NIL payments from third parties. And that has nothing to do with the MAIS rules.

 

2. The MAIS rules are enforced against the school. The school cannot allow an ineligible kid to play. If it does, then the school faces punishment. But every school does or should notify its parents and kids that the school must comply with MAIS rules. It is supposed to be in every handbook.

 

3. You last point is partially correct. There is a component of mutually assured destruction at play, but not in every direction and not all parties have the same degree of power. Let Hartfield anger the wrong people at or affiliated with Jackson Prep long enough and just see what happens.

 

4. The notion that the MAIS can’t enforce rules that dictate how adults spend their money is just plain wrong. Every year, people move houses in the Jackson area in order to comply with the transfer rule. This many times costs families tens of thousands of dollars. 

[longhorn75]

On 8/26/2022 at 9:39 AM, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

 

1. The NCAA didn’t strike down the amateur designation. It allowed NIL payments from third parties. And that has nothing to do with the MAIS rules.

 

2. The MAIS rules are enforced against the school. The school cannot allow an ineligible kid to play. If it does, then the school faces punishment. But every school does or should notify its parents and kids that the school must comply with MAIS rules. It is supposed to be in every handbook.

 

3. You last point is partially correct. There is a component of mutually assured destruction at play, but not in every direction and not all parties have the same degree of power. Let Hartfield anger the wrong people at or affiliated with Jackson Prep long enough and just see what happens.

 

4. The notion that the MAIS can’t enforce rules that dictate how adults spend their money is just plain wrong. Every year, people move houses in the Jackson area in order to comply with the transfer rule. This many times costs families tens of thousands of dollars. 

I can't even name how many times the MAIS has let the "bonafide move rule" slide? It happened multiple times. A school actually got busted playing a kid who didn't move into the house properly, but after the forfeit of two games, the student athlete was allowed to play. Also, there was a more recent time when they had an athlete who was playing there, who never even moved when he transferred. But an attorney was able to get around it. So, the bonafide move rule; has been allowed to slide, and there are countless exceptions to the rule, that its enforceability was moot. There's also a bunch of ways to get around the bonafide move rule, which have been used by several programs around the MAIS without any enforcement. 

 

The Supreme Court case said not just NIL., they said any compensation restrictions like even internships and computers and such, which opened the door to NIL deals, was in violation of antitrust law. They curtailed the amount of limitations the NCAA could put into compensation for college athletes, and honestly, the way the college sports environment is going, the amateurism that the NCAA is trying to impose down throats, is soon to be a thing of the past. 

 

THere's nothing here. This is going to continue to happen, whether people like it or not. So, it's just something to be embraced. 

[Ballfan]

On 8/25/2022 at 9:52 AM, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

1. Booster clubs are collections of people who donate money for a common cause. For instance, a booster club may buy a new scoreboard with funds raised. One or more of those same people may decide to buy players. It doesn’t matter whether their money passes through the booster club or not. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

 

2. Of course the totality of the circumstances must be considered. That’s what the rule calls for. If a kid is on financial aid for reasons in addition to just athletics, then the aid may pass muster. 
 

3. Of course there are legitimate situations in which a parent pays a kid’s tuition. But that doesn’t excuse or have anything to do with the illegitimate ones.

 

4. You're just wrong if you believe a school can’t be held responsible for the acts of a third party. Read the rule. It happens all the time in the ncaa. It recently happened at Ole Miss when the school was held responsible for the acts of a single booster over whom it had no control.

 

It all boils down to whether the MAIS has the resources and willingness to enforce the rule. History says it won’t unless the evidence is handed to it on a silver platter. And that’s the real reason why St. Joe and Hartfield feel comfortable enough to allow what is occurring.

Why single out St Joe and Hartfield?  Is there any evidence to back this up or is this simply based on perception, demographics or just disbelief that school can build a program?  

[MadisonReb10]

6 hours ago, Ballfan said:

Why single out St Joe and Hartfield?  Is there any evidence to back this up or is this simply based on perception, demographics or just disbelief that school can build a program?  

Hartfield absolutely does it. There’s been a few kids who would’ve never set foot on that campus when it was UCS but now is essentially controlled by Pinelake. Prep has done it some. JA has been big on recruiting JPS schools the last 5 or 6 years. MRA got into the mix a decade or so ago again with JPS but would routinely get kids that wouldn’t start at MC or NWR as freshman or sophomores but probably would have by the time they were seniors. Tri County and Canton Academy are no different. CA has pulled a lot of guys from the Canton Public Schools that were the difference in a 13 win team the year before to a 3 win team the next season. 

[s1nglewing]

(It's not illegal)

 

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

“Aid to athletes coming from one source, or benefactor, over an extended period of time.”

 

yes, it most certainly is illegal 

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

9 hours ago, MadisonReb10 said:

Hartfield absolutely does it. There’s been a few kids who would’ve never set foot on that campus when it was UCS but now is essentially controlled by Pinelake. Prep has done it some. JA has been big on recruiting JPS schools the last 5 or 6 years. MRA got into the mix a decade or so ago again with JPS but would routinely get kids that wouldn’t start at MC or NWR as freshman or sophomores but probably would have by the time they were seniors. Tri County and Canton Academy are no different. CA has pulled a lot of guys from the Canton Public Schools that were the difference in a 13 win team the year before to a 3 win team the next season. 

This guy speaks the truth 

[s1nglewing]

34 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said:

“Aid to athletes coming from one source, or benefactor, over an extended period of time.”

 

yes, it most certainly is illegal 

 

MAIS says not. 

So it's not.

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

MAIS says nothing, so it hasn’t been enforced.

 

Those are two very different things.

 

Look, the rule is easy to violate and violations are easy to conceal (which is what differentiates the transfer rule). But they are violations nonetheless.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Washed_Up_Athlete

[s1nglewing]

Then call MAIS.

Make a difference.

Complaining on a forum accomplishes nothing.

[Washed_Up_Athlete]

I’m not complaining. I’m simply writing the truth. I actually believe recruiting, tuition reduction, and sponsorship should be legal. But it isn’t.
 

What I don’t believe is that it’s okay to write or say that’s something is legal when it plainly isn’t. That’s what you’re doing. It’s wrong and does a disservice to the readers of this board.