ADVERTISEMENT

Arland Bruce has arrived & is practicing w/ Brody Brecht at Ankeny. FINALLY, ON OCTOBER 1, Ruled ELIGIBLE to Play.

And tom Keating most certainly benefitted as the coach at Wahlert to win 11 state championships by having kids transfer in to play volleyball. The fact he is pushing this makes him a scumbag and hypocrite of epic proportions.

Kids are literally transferring out of the Des Moines school district to play for schools that are still playing and are not being denied eligibility.

Now he isn't available for the hearing? Truly a scummy human being. **** you Tom
 
Got it. Now this won’t change certain opinions at all on the merits of this stuff. But I will say what we just heard is total BS IMO. We got this morning an appeal hearing set for this Friday in the admin process. We just heard the head of the IHSAA wants to postpone it because “he can’t be available.” That is total crap.

Then the IAHSAA should withdraw their decision if it’s unable to argue their position at the time of the hearing.
 
Hawkedoff give some examples of the vb players Tom Keating had transfer in? Wahlert didn’t need players to transfer in back when Tom was coaching. All those kids grew up in the catholic system and wanted to play for him. Just another hater!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
And tom Keating most certainly benefitted as the coach at Wahlert to win 11 state championships by having kids transfer in to play volleyball.

This is the 4th or 5th time you have brought this up in this thread in an effort to get people to take notice. Here is some news for you...very few people care. I'd say no one, but you do. Not sure if anyone else cares what may or may not have happened umpteen years ago in Dubuque.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBHawk
Hawkedoff give some examples of the vb players Tom Keating had transfer in? Wahlert didn’t need players to transfer in back when Tom was coaching. All those kids grew up in the catholic system and wanted to play for him. Just another hater!!!

I have zero clue what Mr. Keating did while a coach. Nor do I know what he has done previously in his position. I only know how he has treated this case. That is it.
 
This year is different because Iowa wont cave to the political nonsense and cancel HS sports does not make it fair game for kids from all the blue states to come here and take our Iowa kids spots. If a Iowa kid wants to change HS with in the state so be it, it happens a lot and always will. Things are not normal now and normal rules should not apply. IOWA build a wall!
 
This year is different because Iowa wont cave to the political nonsense and cancel HS sports does not make it fair game for kids from all the blue states to come here and take our Iowa kids spots. If a Iowa kid wants to change HS with in the state so be it, it happens a lot and always will. Things are not normal now and normal rules should not apply. IOWA build a wall!

Kansas is a blue state?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fsanford
I have zero clue what Mr. Keating did while a coach. Nor do I know what he has done previously in his position. I only know how he has treated this case. That is it.

How has he been on prior eligibility cases you have handled? Does his behavior in this one stand out to you for any reason?
 
This year is different because Iowa wont cave to the political nonsense and cancel HS sports does not make it fair game for kids from all the blue states to come here and take our Iowa kids spots. If a Iowa kid wants to change HS with in the state so be it, it happens a lot and always will. Things are not normal now and normal rules should not apply. IOWA build a wall!

Don't like a transfer taking an Iowa kid's spot? Tell them to work harder/play better. Too many parents/kids who think they deserve a spot/playing time/etc. because they've been on the team longer and spent all that time attending practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obviously Oblivious
I do. Many people do. You clearly don't. But your opinion isn't shared by everyone.
As I've mentioned, there are Ankeny parents who don't want him to play.


Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of Ankeny (and pretty much any town in Iowa) parents who don't like their kid losing playing time or getting demoted (I've seen it before in other sports). And many of them put the blame on the coaches...playing favorites...don't know what they are doing...etc. Too bad...work harder/play better.

In the case of Arland, doesn't really matter what the Ankeny parents think...it matters what the rules say and I think AuroraHawk (and Hkfan in other posts) have said it best..."the standard should be neither vague nor ambiguous and not capable of varying interpretations depending upon the whims of the decision makers".
 
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of Ankeny (and pretty much any town in Iowa) parents who don't like their kid losing playing time or getting demoted (I've seen it before in other sports). And many of them put the blame on the coaches...playing favorites...don't know what they are doing...etc. Too bad...work harder/play better.

In the case of Arland, doesn't really matter what the Ankeny parents think...it matters what the rules say and I think AuroraHawk (and Hkfan in other posts) have said it best..."the standard should be neither vague nor ambiguous and not capable of varying interpretations depending upon the whims of the decision makers".
Why do people do this?

I wasn't saying that what parents think is an important consideration in this decision. It was part of a longer conversation about a variety of related and semi-related issues. You seem to have jumped in mid-stream and maybe you're not quite up to speed.

I agree with you though. It matters what the rules say, but not Aurora's interpretation of the rules or what he wishes the rules were. The actual rules as determined and administered by the IAHSAA.
 
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of Ankeny (and pretty much any town in Iowa) parents who don't like their kid losing playing time or getting demoted (I've seen it before in other sports). And many of them put the blame on the coaches...playing favorites...don't know what they are doing...etc. Too bad...work harder/play better.

In the case of Arland, doesn't really matter what the Ankeny parents think...it matters what the rules say and I think AuroraHawk (and Hkfan in other posts) have said it best..."the standard should be neither vague nor ambiguous and not capable of varying interpretations depending upon the whims of the decision makers".

If Arland was eligible to play for Ankeny, there should be zero parents complaining that the "coach doesn't know what he's doing" or "is playing favorites."
 
I agree with you though. It matters what the rules say, but not Aurora's interpretation of the rules or what he wishes the rules were. The actual rules as determined and administered by the IAHSAA.

The rules are set forth in writing and, by law, must be applied by the IHSAA in a manner that is consistent and not arbitrary.

The specific exception to the 90 day "sit out" period at issue reads: "Contemporaneous change in parental residency."

In Arland Bruce's situation that IHSAA concluded that a person can only have one residence and they concluded that his mother continued to "reside" in Kansas and not in Iowa.

Stop focusing on Arland's case for a moment. Instead, focus on situations where the IHSAA necessarily concluded that the transfer involved a "contemporaneous change in parental residency." Jake Rubley: Did his parents sell their $500K+ house situated in Highlands Ranch? No. Is the house listed for sale? No. Is his family currently renting an apartment? Yes. So . . . where are the Rubleys paying property taxes? Colorado or Iowa? Do you think that the Rubleys' vehicles have Iowa license plates or Colorado license plates? By law, someone moving their residency to Iowa must get new license plates. Did they get new drivers' licenses showing their new residency? Did they change their voter registration? All of these factors play into a determination of actual residency - which is what the IHSAA apparently cares about. Dominic Varelli: Same questions. Where does his family pay property taxes? Illinois or Iowa? Did his father change his driver's license? Get new license plates? Register to vote in Iowa?

If the IHSAA really was concerned about "residency," then it would be checking these criteria. Otherwise, it is only giving lip service to the concept of residency and administering the rule in a haphazard and arbitrary fashion. On its face, it appears that economic factors are governing the decision making process as opposed to "real" residency concerns.
 
The rules are set forth in writing and, by law, must be applied by the IHSAA in a manner that is consistent and not arbitrary.

The specific exception to the 90 day "sit out" period at issue reads: "Contemporaneous change in parental residency."

In Arland Bruce's situation that IHSAA concluded that a person can only have one residence and they concluded that his mother continued to "reside" in Kansas and not in Iowa.

Stop focusing on Arland's case for a moment. Instead, focus on situations where the IHSAA necessarily concluded that the transfer involved a "contemporaneous change in parental residency." Jake Rubley: Did his parents sell their $500K+ house situated in Highlands Ranch? No. Is the house listed for sale? No. Is his family currently renting an apartment? Yes. So . . . where are the Rubleys paying property taxes? Colorado or Iowa? Do you think that the Rubleys' vehicles have Iowa license plates or Colorado license plates? By law, someone moving their residency to Iowa must get new license plates. Did they get new drivers' licenses showing their new residency? Did they change their voter registration? All of these factors play into a determination of actual residency - which is what the IHSAA apparently cares about. Dominic Varelli: Same questions. Where does his family pay property taxes? Illinois or Iowa? Did his father change his driver's license? Get new license plates? Register to vote in Iowa?

If the IHSAA really was concerned about "residency," then it would be checking these criteria. Otherwise, it is only giving lip service to the concept of residency and administering the rule in a haphazard and arbitrary fashion. On its face, it appears that economic factors are governing the decision making process as opposed to "real" residency concerns.
I don't think you are understanding the position of the committee. I'm quite positive they are interpreting the Bruce's current residence as not a residence at all. At least not a legitimate one. So while I agree that what the committee should be doing is checking all of those details about taxes and property ownership and all that, it's clear the main concern is the flimsy lease deal entered into solely for the purposes of appeaances. You do see the difference between the living situation of the Bruces and all those other families, right? Obviously, what the committee finds important is whether or not the family has at minimum entered into a legitimate living situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OILCHECKER
I don't think you are understanding the position of the committee. I'm quite positive they are interpreting the Bruce's current residence as not a residence at all. At least not a legitimate one. So while I agree that what the committee should be doing is checking all of those details about taxes and property ownership and all that, it's clear the main concern is the flimsy lease deal entered into solely for the purposes of appeaances. You do see the difference between the living situation of the Bruces and all those other families, right? Obviously, what the committee finds important is whether or not the family has at minimum entered into a legitimate living situation.

I understand the position of the committee quite well. They concluded that a person can only have one residence. They concluded that Bruce's mother is not "residing" in Iowa and that she is "residing" in Kansas. So, of course, they concluded that her current "living arrangement" in Iowa wasn't a change in residence.

I note with curiosity your use of the terms "legitimate living situation?" Weren't you the person who wrote that "living arrangements are often vague?" By that measure, you seem to be suggesting that Arland Bruce's mother's "living situation" is "illegitimate" because she doesn't spend 100% of her time in Iowa?

The analysis isn't hard. The "contemporaneous change in parental residency" is supposed to open the door for a kid to play at a new high school. Parent has to move his/her/their residency? Shouldn't punish the kid for the parent's situation.

It should not be the other way around. The tail should not be wagging the dog. If it was Arland Bruce's situation alone, I wholly support the IHSAA's decision. He came to Iowa solely for the purpose of playing football and it was not part and parcel of a parental move. BUT . . . if the IHSAA is going to stick its head in the sand and allow the other transfers to play, then the IHSAA is arbitrarily defining "residency" and giving the concept lip service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidHawk324
I don't think you are understanding the position of the committee. I'm quite positive they are interpreting the Bruce's current residence as not a residence at all. At least not a legitimate one. So while I agree that what the committee should be doing is checking all of those details about taxes and property ownership and all that, it's clear the main concern is the flimsy lease deal entered into solely for the purposes of appeaances. You do see the difference between the living situation of the Bruces and all those other families, right? Obviously, what the committee finds important is whether or not the family has at minimum entered into a legitimate living situation.

The Association has never said word one on the amount of the lease. And there are 2 reasons why would be my guess. First, what specific dollar amount would be sufficient and where is that outlined? Second, they are well aware that if they said well the lease must specify a certain monthly amount than they are on a slippery slope of leases being canceled and rewritten with that dollar amount and also be checking that each of the transfers is actually paying said amount each month.
 
I don't think you are understanding the position of the committee. I'm quite positive they are interpreting the Bruce's current residence as not a residence at all. At least not a legitimate one. So while I agree that what the committee should be doing is checking all of those details about taxes and property ownership and all that, it's clear the main concern is the flimsy lease deal entered into solely for the purposes of appeaances. You do see the difference between the living situation of the Bruces and all those other families, right? Obviously, what the committee finds important is whether or not the family has at minimum entered into a legitimate living situation.

So, again. If you have the financial wherewithal to establish a temporary secondary residence in the new state, you get to play. If you don't have the financial means...sorry, too bad, so sad, you're out of luck. It's very clear that multiple kids are being allowed to play even though it's obvious they're only here on a temporary basis to play football, so it's clear they're not enforcing the intent of the rules.

They have just picked a standard that is unfairly skewed towards the wealthy.
 
I understand the position of the committee quite well. They concluded that a person can only have one residence. They concluded that Bruce's mother is not "residing" in Iowa and that she is "residing" in Kansas. So, of course, they concluded that her current "living arrangement" in Iowa wasn't a change in residence.

I note with curiosity your use of the terms "legitimate living situation?" Weren't you the person who wrote that "living arrangements are often vague?" By that measure, you seem to be suggesting that Arland Bruce's mother's "living situation" is "illegitimate" because she doesn't spend 100% of her time in Iowa?

The analysis isn't hard. The "contemporaneous change in parental residency" is supposed to open the door for a kid to play at a new high school. Parent has to move his/her/their residency? Shouldn't punish the kid for the parent's situation.

It should not be the other way around. The tail should not be wagging the dog. If it was Arland Bruce's situation alone, I wholly support the IHSAA's decision. He came to Iowa solely for the purpose of playing football and it was not part and parcel of a parental move. BUT . . . if the IHSAA is going to stick its head in the sand and allow the other transfers to play, then the IHSAA is arbitrarily defining "residency" and giving the concept lip service.
Living situations can be vague. This one, however, is quite clear. It is not possible to find a legitimate living situation in the United States for $100 per month. Pretty simple, really, and the main difference between the Bruce case and all the other cases. The attorneys of the world can try to paint that any way they want, but logic dictates that amount of money is at minimum about 1/6 the cost of even the cheapest apartment in the area. And, ignoring the (un)likelihood that the mom is really living there with her nearly adult son while her two younger boys live with an uncle in another state. These are details that are quite easy to see and difficult for committee members to ignore, I suspect. They are former educators, not lawyers. I'm sure they have seen these types of situations before. I know I have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OILCHECKER
I don't think you are understanding the position of the committee. I'm quite positive they are interpreting the Bruce's current residence as not a residence at all. At least not a legitimate one. So while I agree that what the committee should be doing is checking all of those details about taxes and property ownership and all that, it's clear the main concern is the flimsy lease deal entered into solely for the purposes of appeaances. You do see the difference between the living situation of the Bruces and all those other families, right? Obviously, what the committee finds important is whether or not the family has at minimum entered into a legitimate living situation.


I agree IHSAA is likely interpreting the Bruce's residence is not a residence at all, but maybe IHSAA should have made that clear in their rules...if it clearly stated you shall not rent a portion of a home/apartment owned/rented and occupied by another family then there's not much open to interpretation in this case. Just because someone has the financial means to rent or purchase an apartment/home doesn't necessarily make it anymore of a legitimate residence (as it relates to players transferring into the state this year when their states cancelled football)...just makes it appear more legit.

Residence = a person's home; the place where someone lives. As far as anyone truly knows, Arland and his mother live in Ankeny. People are assuming/interpreting their living arrangement as his mother is living in KS and Arland is crashing at someone's house (and this interpretation could be 100% accurate, but there's no evidence that I've seen....and as far as I know, IHSAA rules don't say you can't rent a room).

Maybe IHSAA should spend some time polishing their transfer rules.
 
Btw, did you mean to type this?:

I understand the position of the committee quite well. They concluded that a person can only have one residence.

Because if you did, then you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OILCHECKER
Living situations can be vague. This one, however, is quite clear. It is not possible to find a legitimate living situation in the United States for $100 per month. Pretty simple, really, and the main difference between the Bruce case and all the other cases. The attorneys of the world can try to paint that any way they want, but logic dictates that amount of money is at minimum about 1/6 the cost of even the cheapest apartment in the area. And, ignoring the (un)likelihood that the mom is really living there with her nearly adult son while her two younger boys live with an uncle in another state. These are details that are quite easy to see and difficult for committee members to ignore, I suspect. They are former educators, not lawyers. I'm sure they have seen these types of situations before. I know I have.


By IHSAA rules/definitions, what's a legitimate living situation? And no, I'm not attacking your stance...I tend to agree, this situation gives the appearance of not being legit. However, who gets to decide what passes the sniff test and what metrics are they using. From the little bit I've read about other transfers, many of those don't pass the sniff test either...they just appear to be more legit because $. Establish clear rules.
 
Btw, did you mean to type this?:

I understand the position of the committee quite well. They concluded that a person can only have one residence.

Because if you did, then you don't.

They didn't conclude that a person can only have one residence?
 
They didn't conclude that a person can only have one residence?
It doesn't seem like it. The committee is aware that several of the transfers maintain more than one residence, and they are playing. Which leads me to believe the issue is what I have been describing - the illegitimate living arrangements in Iowa for the Bruce family.

I can tell you that this took me by surprise as my experience with the IAHSAA led me to believe that none of these transfers would be approved if they split up the family and/or maintained two residences. But, based on who was approved and who wasn't, it's clear that dual residences isn't an issue as long as one is a legitimate residence in the district.
 
It doesn't seem like it. The committee is aware that several of the transfers maintain more than one residence, and they are playing. Which leads me to believe the issue is what I have been describing - the illegitimate living arrangements in Iowa for the Bruce family.

I can tell you that this took me by surprise as my experience with the IAHSAA led me to believe that none of these transfers would be approved if they split up the family and/or maintained two residences. But, based on who was approved and who wasn't, it's clear that dual residences isn't an issue as long as one is a legitimate residence in the district.

This is from the IHSAA's ruling:
"Interpreting the term 'residence' to allow for multiple residences would render the General Transfer Rule meaningless and this is not permitted as a tenant of statutory construction. ... Because there can only be one residence, the IHSAA must determine that the family in fact has only one residence."
 
This is from the IHSAA's ruling:
"Interpreting the term 'residence' to allow for multiple residences would render the General Transfer Rule meaningless and this is not permitted as a tenant of statutory construction. ... Because there can only be one residence, the IHSAA must determine that the family in fact has only one residence."
Well, you got me there. I'm on the record as not in favor of any of these transfers. I'm not just picking on the Bruces. No reason to, really. I just think their case is particularly egregious.

Appreciate your input on this.
 
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of Ankeny (and pretty much any town in Iowa) parents who don't like their kid losing playing time or getting demoted (I've seen it before in other sports). And many of them put the blame on the coaches...playing favorites...don't know what they are doing...etc. Too bad...work harder/play better.

In the case of Arland, doesn't really matter what the Ankeny parents think...it matters what the rules say and I think AuroraHawk (and Hkfan in other posts) have said it best..."the standard should be neither vague nor ambiguous and not capable of varying interpretations depending upon the whims of the decision makers".

“work harder, play better”. You do realize that some of these transfers are big time recruits that are taking away opportunities for some very talented kids who busted their butts right? Ankeny has some very talented WRs and a talented RB. The snaps they miss out on because of Bruce could be the difference between an opportunity to play college ball or not, while Bruce is already committed. You don’t think Valleys QB is talented? But a kid comes in committed to KState and takes his place? It’s not always about “work harder, play better”. Yes - I get Rubley was ruled ineligible, but now that kid has to come in cold when Valley probably was not better off with Rubley in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkness Monster
The Association needs to allow the kid to play because they have poorly written rules. The kid and his family made the move in this manner based on those poorly written rules. Allow him to play and then go back to the rules and re-write them with precise clarity so this mess doesn't happen again. Allowing him to play isn't going to ruin anything for anyone.
 
“work harder, play better”. You do realize that some of these transfers are big time recruits that are taking away opportunities for some very talented kids who busted their butts right? Ankeny has some very talented WRs and a talented RB. The snaps they miss out on because of Bruce could be the difference between an opportunity to play college ball or not, while Bruce is already committed. You don’t think Valleys QB is talented? But a kid comes in committed to KState and takes his place? It’s not always about “work harder, play better”. Yes - I get Rubley was ruled ineligible, but now that kid has to come in cold when Valley probably was not better off with Rubley in the first place.
Boo hoo. If your kid can’t beat out another kid, he shouldn’t play. I don’t care if the other kid happens to be Aaron ****ing Rodgers. That’s how the world works. Deal with it. Ankeny is a public school and if he’s good enough to be a student he’s good enough to play football. Pay some private school tuition if you want to protect your kids spot. IHSAA is totally, completely in the wrong here.
 
Boo hoo. If your kid can’t beat out another kid, he shouldn’t play. I don’t care if the other kid happens to be Aaron ****ing Rodgers. That’s how the world works. Deal with it. Ankeny is a public school and if he’s good enough to be a student he’s good enough to play football. Pay some private school tuition if you want to protect your kids spot. IHSAA is totally, completely in the wrong here.
AAAAaaaaaaAAAAAAARRRRrrrrGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!! Get em, coach!!!!!!
 
“work harder, play better”. You do realize that some of these transfers are big time recruits that are taking away opportunities for some very talented kids who busted their butts right? Ankeny has some very talented WRs and a talented RB. The snaps they miss out on because of Bruce could be the difference between an opportunity to play college ball or not, while Bruce is already committed. You don’t think Valleys QB is talented? But a kid comes in committed to KState and takes his place? It’s not always about “work harder, play better”. Yes - I get Rubley was ruled ineligible, but now that kid has to come in cold when Valley probably was not better off with Rubley in the first place.


Kids move/transfer every year...and kids who thought they'd be starting are suddenly the #2.

When I say work harder, I don't just mean physically. Work on your footwork/technique/blocking...study the playbook...study film...if you aren't the starter then talk with the coach to see if there's another position you can work at to try and help the team...work to improve yourself. There are a lot of bigger, faster, stronger, smarter people in the world...at some point you are going to run into them...what are you going to do...quit or work harder.

So what are some of the things it is about if it's not always about work harder/play better?

As far as losing opportunity...how about the fringe recruits who end up with offers because they get better by practicing against/with one of these highly talented kids OR get noticed because college coaches are at games recruiting/scouting the high level player? There are likely some playing time/practice rep downside for some players...but there are some positives to having these kids in the program that many people don't think about.
 
“work harder, play better”. You do realize that some of these transfers are big time recruits that are taking away opportunities for some very talented kids who busted their butts right? Ankeny has some very talented WRs and a talented RB. The snaps they miss out on because of Bruce could be the difference between an opportunity to play college ball or not, while Bruce is already committed. You don’t think Valleys QB is talented? But a kid comes in committed to KState and takes his place? It’s not always about “work harder, play better”. Yes - I get Rubley was ruled ineligible, but now that kid has to come in cold when Valley probably was not better off with Rubley in the first place.
Mr. Peterson or Mr. Dunnwald?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaldHawk4Life
Allowing a kid to play for half the season then rule him ineligible? This smells really really bad.

Starting to look more and more like the IHSAA essentially defers to the school's determination of whether the kid meets the rule and only intervenes if there is a complaint raised by someone.

If I'm putting 2+2 together correctly, Bruce was determined to be eligible by Ankeny. He appeared to be on track for playing until someone voiced a complaint (I don't think that it has ever been revealed who may have complained). The IHSAA then determined that Bruce wasn't eligible to play.

Through the appeals process, it appears that questions were raised about whether Bruce was being unfairly singled out in light of other players who were not deemed ineligible.

In light of certain information coming to light, it now appears that Jake Rubley will have to go through the appeals process (who knows? maybe he and his family will just head back to Colorado now that the high school he attended is resuming football; hell . . . his Dad was/is the head coach) in an effort to play again for Valley.

If you go to Keith Murphy's Twitter account, you'll see that someone from Waukee has raised the issue of the IHSAA looking into Isaiah Emanuel's eligibility at SE Polk. Someone posted that his mother isn't living in Iowa.

Will Valley have to forfeit its win? By rule, I believe so. If Emanuel is declared ineligible, will #1 SE Polk have to forfeit its wins? Probably.

Is this a cluster f--k? Absolutely. And it hangs solely on the shoulders of the IHSAA. There can be no doubt that it was aware of the COVID situation and kids transferring to Iowa to play football. It. Was. All. Over. The. News. They should have gotten out ahead of the situation. Instead, they were passive. Now they are facing huge backlash from the public and kids who relied upon the process set up by the IHSAA and the approvals of the IHSAA are now prevented from playing.

Again . . . I've written several times that my personal opinion is that high school sports are for kids in a school's district. Travel/club teams are where recruiting should take place. I felt that the transfers solely for the sake of playing a sport did not meet the spirit of what high school sports should be. Had the IHSAA simply taken a proactive approach instead a passive stick-their-head-in-the-sand approach, this could have been avoided. Shame on them.
 
Starting to look more and more like the IHSAA essentially defers to the school's determination of whether the kid meets the rule and only intervenes if there is a complaint raised by someone.

If I'm putting 2+2 together correctly, Bruce was determined to be eligible by Ankeny. He appeared to be on track for playing until someone voiced a complaint (I don't think that it has ever been revealed who may have complained). The IHSAA then determined that Bruce wasn't eligible to play.

Through the appeals process, it appears that questions were raised about whether Bruce was being unfairly singled out in light of other players who were not deemed ineligible.

In light of certain information coming to light, it now appears that Jake Rubley will have to go through the appeals process (who knows? maybe he and his family will just head back to Colorado now that the high school he attended is resuming football; hell . . . his Dad was/is the head coach) in an effort to play again for Valley.

If you go to Keith Murphy's Twitter account, you'll see that someone from Waukee has raised the issue of the IHSAA looking into Isaiah Emanuel's eligibility at SE Polk. Someone posted that his mother isn't living in Iowa.

Will Valley have to forfeit its win? By rule, I believe so. If Emanuel is declared ineligible, will #1 SE Polk have to forfeit its wins? Probably.

Is this a cluster f--k? Absolutely. And it hangs solely on the shoulders of the IHSAA. There can be no doubt that it was aware of the COVID situation and kids transferring to Iowa to play football. It. Was. All. Over. The. News. They should have gotten out ahead of the situation. Instead, they were passive. Now they are facing huge backlash from the public and kids who relied upon the process set up by the IHSAA and the approvals of the IHSAA are now prevented from playing.

Again . . . I've written several times that my personal opinion is that high school sports are for kids in a school's district. Travel/club teams are where recruiting should take place. I felt that the transfers solely for the sake of playing a sport did not meet the spirit of what high school sports should be. Had the IHSAA simply taken a proactive approach instead a passive stick-their-head-in-the-sand approach, this could have been avoided. Shame on them.
That's essentially what I said from the beginning of this thread: the iahsaa doesn't have the man power to vet all of these transfers, especially at the start of the school year and most just get a cursory look and are approved. Bruce was likely brought up by an outsider and the iahsaa was forced to scrutinize the transfer more thoroughly and what they saw didn't look right (which is debatable). Doesn't mean that the iahsaa was singling him out or applying a different set of standards to him necessarily. And now that they have sort of drawn their line in the sand and others have been brought up or asked about, the iahsaa is obligated to look at those transfers more closely as well.
 
As I've been saying, the majority of the responsibility for transfer waivers fall on the school. I know it's fashionable to shit on the IAHSAA, but that's mostly out of ignorance.

If you are a school hoping to get a waiver for an athlete, you better have done your due diligence.
 
Hmmm......IHSAA's mentor on to handle transfers & subsequent eligibility protocols must be the NCAA &/or B1G.
IMHO, shame on the IHSAA, this mess is your doing or lack of doing, either option works.
 
Kids move/transfer every year...and kids who thought they'd be starting are suddenly the #2.

When I say work harder, I don't just mean physically. Work on your footwork/technique/blocking...study the playbook...study film...if you aren't the starter then talk with the coach to see if there's another position you can work at to try and help the team...work to improve yourself. There are a lot of bigger, faster, stronger, smarter people in the world...at some point you are going to run into them...what are you going to do...quit or work harder.

So what are some of the things it is about if it's not always about work harder/play better?

As far as losing opportunity...how about the fringe recruits who end up with offers because they get better by practicing against/with one of these highly talented kids OR get noticed because college coaches are at games recruiting/scouting the high level player? There are likely some playing time/practice rep downside for some players...but there are some positives to having these kids in the program that many people don't think about.

I completely hear you on this.. I have worked with some high level athletes and you are spot on. The difference for a high school kid is that they get 2 maybe 3 years as a varsity player. Going against high level athletes in practice is definitely going to make them better, but they still have to have the opportunity to make plays on the field which is limited to when they are in high school. The transfers affect the number of opportunities those kids get. If the kid does all of the right things and makes improvements necessary - it is up to the coach to find a spot for the kid that will help put the team in the best position possible to win. I just struggle knowing that the kids from Kansas and Colorado would be eligible and playing right now if they hadn't panicked and tried to find greener grass.

These kids were looking for an opportunity, and I hate the IHSAA as much as the next guy. I believe they do a lot of things wrong and are always putting $$ ahead of kids. I honestly have no idea what the hell they are doing and I am not sure they do either. They have never been a leader and resemble the NCAA in many ways... and not in a good way. They really had two options here... and both needed to be addressed in early August when practices started and kids started moving. 1) Anybody who comes to Iowa is immediately eligible due to the pandemic. 2) Transfers for the sake of playing football are ineligible (unless they sell their home and relocate to Iowa - only one residence rule). IHSAA created the mess they are in and I don't feel bad for them one bit - I just think that there is a bigger picture to all of this that goes beyond eligibility.

For the record - if I were Arland, I would forget about a senior year and focus on training and being ready to go in January at Iowa. There really is no reason to risk injury this late in the game, it is just a pissing match between his family (and most of the Iowa fan base) and the IHSAA.
 
ADVERTISEMENT