In Iowa, everyone who lives in the bounderies of a given school district pays the same rate of property taxes. Therefore, by state law, ALL children who live within those bounderies are eligible to participate in school activities in that district. We have two girls' basketball players, one boys' basketball player and a couple of track kids doing that right now (no wrestlers so far).

Now, I will say that this is not a popular rule among educators and coaches. The issue of grades is always coming up as well as the idea of "Well, if our classrooms aren't good enough for those kids, then why are our gyms/fields/wrestling rooms?"

It is a tough question though, and Mike, I wish you luck with it. Hey, you can always move to Iowa! When I was in Kansas, I always had people telling me if Iowa was so great, why don't I move back.

I did.

VS Vike Coach, thanks for the offer but I love Kansas and am committed to staying here, although we do like Iowa as well.

Richard, you have totally missed my point, and it is interesting that none of the high school wrestlers are responding. My point was as stated, a kid could not even attend to meet one of the legends of the sport. In addition, if they are sitting in the stands learning, I still fail to see the problem with that. I understand it is the rule, but to say we have to like it is absurd. I just think the process of changing rules is out of the hands of those in the athletic community.

Let me ask this question, if the majority of people want a rule changed, should the rule then be changed? Remember, we are not talking about doing something out of the ordinary, we are talking about doing something that many other states do for their students. That is a simple question that I believe is a fair question. I believe the majority of people, would like to see "SOME" of our rules changed but it is as if they have no voice.

I must also say this, I believe it an unfair statement to say that a coach from OU, your designation not mine, was only serving a self serving purpose. That is to imply that you know all of his intent and heart. My faith tells me that only one knows the heart of man and it is not you or I. I have spoken to numerous college coaches; none of them like the rules as designated in Kansas for our athletes, is that to say that all of them are also self-serving? I could also imply that any organization that takes rights away from students and parents is self-serving; I however refuse to do that because I believe the problem is bigger than that and that to make those types of references will not solve any disagreement.

Simple question, should not parents, coaches, and athletes have a say in adopting rules such as those adopted by other surrounding states? If the answer is no please give legitimate reason as to why not. I would also challenge someone to state the question in a fair way, then lets do a poll and see what the majority of those involved in this forum think. I would even support a supporter of the current rule on this issue phrase the question as long as you give a fair response option for both sides. While I may not like the overall conclusion supported by the poll, I would still find it interesting. I would find it interesting because if it really is about the kids, then to allow those kids a say and see how they feel should be a process we all support. If we can’t support them or their parents in expressing even their voice, then I have to wonder about the legitimate reason for refusal to consider any rule changes.

Last note, don’t get me wrong, I have to say that from what I have seen I support 96 or 97% of the rules of our governing organization. I just happen to believe that a small percentage of them do more harm than good. Last note is that Richard seems to indicate that the question shouldn’t even be brought up here. I don’t agree with that. If anything forums have shown me that they are a place to establish and start some levels of grass roots organization. I believe that discussion of those issues and others as they have been addressed on these forums are more positive than negative. Then again, the silencing of the voice of our athletes is a process that some may support. I just happen to believe in the maturity of many of them, and the wisdom of their parents more than I do any organization. Enough so to give the ones paying the bills through their tax dollars more of a voice than they currently seem to have.

Sorry to change topics, but we (KWCA) have been trying to get a dual state approved by the KSHSAA executive board for several years that is backed by virtually the entire wrestling community and that is a slow process, but we are resolved to see it through, so it gets put on theiur agenda every year.

My advice to you, if you want it changed, start early, get as much support as possible and be prepared to address and defend your position each year.

The KSHSAA at least gives wrestling coaches far more freedom in coaching their athletes in the summer than they do for other sports. This is a fairly recent change that no doubt took some time to get changed. I beleve it took 8-9 years to finally get 6 medals at the state tounament in 1992, which worked great for me in 92 but bad for Kit Harris in 91 (sorry, Coach, yeah I know, you still have that common opponent over me.) Anyway, change is possible, just get the ball rolling soon!!

Good Luck!!

Kale-- I must agree w/ Fig that we are all very excited to see you and your team this weekend. It'll be a great weekend, filled w/ great wrestling and the whole family! I'll see ya friday night after my game!

Kale Mann: I DO have one child in the system, so I DO have the allotted 3800 dollars or so going into the schools decision to have membership in the KSHAA. If I were a school administrator I would elect to be a member-- to do anything else would be an incredible abandonment of my responsibilities to the students. I made my educational decisions based on the individual needs of my children, something a public school administrator does not have the luxury of doing, for the most part. What I am pointing out, is that the regulatory body in Kansas is much more restrictive, and I believe needlessly so , than several of our neighboring states, as we have seen. As for not having a financial share in the public system, that is not correct, as whether you have a child in the district or not, money is being deducted from every check you earn, and the state allocates more of it for schools than for any other interest, so everyone is paying, you just don't know where it is going unless you have a child in the district. In my communication with KSHAA officials, as in Mr. Furches' apparent case, it seems to be more about control than anything else, and that is good only insomuch as the control is for the sake of better adolescent development (for students, not parents). I, too, find it a bit interesting that so far most of the defenders of the status quo are coaches or teachers, or both. If Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma can offer participation to all who pay taxes, I can't see why KSHAA has a problem with that. Also I found the post that explained to me that my child has no peers in the public schools because he is not "equal" to them to be a bit unpalatable, as he is one year away from graduation from a Board of Regents school, likely one that has turned out many teachers in Kansas, and has had no problems out of the ordinary. Vike Coach: Thank you for the support, I appreciate it.

Lets be honest here, the rule that started this thread is, not allowing athletes to participate in non sanctioned events IN season. IMO there are two rules that if eliminated or changed much would gut the very intent of the KSHSAA. Those are the participation rule during season and the rules regarding transfer eligibility. Both if effected could put a high school coach in a very compromising position. As a fan, I don't want your wrestler risking injury in a non-sanctioned event and having an effect on my school's team.
As to the "everyone else is doing it" routine, that didn't work on me with my kids while growing up and will not work here. Just because another state does it differently doesn't mean they do it better or correctly. Besides, according to the majority of posters on this board Kansas wrestling has made great improvement on a national level in recent years. Apparently these rules have not had too much of a negative effect on the quality of wrestlers we produce.

By non-sanctioned, it sounds like you mean completely not sanctioned, where the reality is that most of these events our wrestlers must miss, such as the Tulsa Nationals, Cotton Bowl, etc. are sanctioned and insured, just not through and with the approval of the KSHSAA. An athlete would be just as likely or unlikely to sustain an injury in a KSHSAA sanctioned tournament.

These rules, while there is a purpose behind them, can absolutely affect an athlete's chance to be noticed by a school who may have some type of scholarship for them. I think athletes should be allowed to compete in outside competition with some type of "first priority" clause to the effect of you may not miss any team practice or competition to participate in an outside event.

Mr. Fairleigh

I apologize if my post seemed hostile. I was not trying to attack you or your opinion. I was simply just stating my opinion. Again, I don’t agree with all of the rules set by KSHAA, but there are rules and we have to compete by them. I think the same can be said about many state and federal laws, but we have to abide by them also.

(This is not directed to Mr. Fairleigh) As for the post that addresses my questioning of KSHAA rules earlier, I never did question any of the rules in my post. But if I did, so what! Just because I’m an educator and a coach why shouldn’t I question a rule that I think is unjust? Remember our country was formed by questioning the unjust laws that were placed on us by King George III and Parliament.

Since we are on the topic of rules I would like to throw this one out. This rule has bothered me for years and I would like to see how many other people view this rule as discriminatory. I don’t remember the exact year the weight classes were changed to include this rule, but never the less I think it was a horrible decision.

The 275 class use to be the HWT or the Unlimited class. Now, we have a weight class, 275, that discriminates against our kids. Many coaches have students/athletes walking the halls that top 300 pounds that cannot compete in wrestling because they can’t reach 275 pounds. Athletes today are bigger and stronger so shouldn’t we make allowances for that. I’m not saying that I want to add another weight class, but instead change 275 back to unlimited. When I wrestled we only had 12 weight classes, which I wish we could go back to, but the aim was to get more kids the opportunity to wrestle and stabilize weight loss. The rule itself was contradictory to it’s intention by limiting the highest weight class to 275 pounds. The rule not only limits who can compete, but it also suggests extreme weight loss for those really big kids. I’m sure that the safety issue will also get mentioned here so I will address it. In the 29 years I’ve been involved in wrestling I have seen many more kids in the lower weight classes get injured than in the heavier weight classes so you can throw the safety issue out. I know this is a federation rule, but it is a rule that KSHAA can choose not to follow as it does with the head-to-head weigh in rule.

I just want see what some thoughts on this rule are. Thanks.

Coach Neil, your last posts indicates to me that you are a man of integrity and wanted to tell you that. Your question brings to light my very concern, Let me make clear, I believe we should support and follow the rules, although there is a historical precedence and need at times for revolt, our history from the very beginning tells us that to the times of Civil rights certainly including race and suffrage.

Now to your question. I agree that rules of this nature are discriminating. At the present time, my son is light, and I believe will be okay in high school in that he is gaining weight appropriately. I have noticed though that the heavy kids and light kids suffer from the same issues in some ways. I would hope that we could encourage and support changes that make participation possible for all kids. I didn’t like the 275 pound class nor did I like doing away with the 98 pound class. The issue you bring up is a very valid issue, especially when considering the athleticism today of the heavier athlete. I believe it to be true that our athletes are getting better, more mobile and stronger. There are many in shape 300-pound athletes today that could wrestle.

Last note to sportsfan02. Please do not misinterpret what I have said. I personally believe that observing and participating are two different things. The question is that they could not even attend and watch. I have also stated and I believe this; these types of decisions should include all of those involved, especially, and most importantly the head coach of the team the athlete is a part of. It should be their bottom line decision due to the needs of the team and the fact that they have the best understanding of the needs of the team and in some ways the needs of the athlete themselves.

By the way, there does appear to be a loophole in the rule. Say the history club decides to go to a clinic and see and hear about the history of wrestling, say for example from an all-American or even someone like Danny Hodge, who is certainly a historical figure. The way I read the rules is that if going with the history club then the wrestler could go to said event. Is this a misunderstanding of the rule, just asking because it does look like an out for something like this.

I am trying to understand this topic - I know that athletes cannot participate in outside contests during season, but where I'm at a loss is why they can't watch. I asked all of our coaches and our AD and nobody at my school knew anything about the athletes not being able to attend as a spectator. Does this mean that a basketball player cannot go to a professional basketball game, OR watch his/her younger sibling play biddy basketball? Many of our high school basketball players in the past were hired to referee Saturday morning biddyball games. Have the rules changed? I guess I'm just abit dense on this issue.

Kyle,

I should have prefaced the issue with Junior High wrestling by stating these wrestlers are kids that have been involved with wrestling for quite some time.

I don't think anyone will dispute the facts that for the most part, junior high wrestling is a hinderance to those that have been involved with wrestling for quite some time. I too was introduced to wrestling in junior high, which spurred me into kids. At the time however, I wasn't that good and doing the "federation" route wouldn't have been the best for me. For those that have asked, I don't blatantly call out federation over kids, but sit with the parents and discuss it.

On towards the issue of giving rides. You do give a sound resolution - at the same time, that resolution holds little water in court. Check the court case involving the death of two girls and severe injury to another that had permission slips for the girls to ride with someone on the team to softball practice, held at another facility. The case is a little fuzzy, it's been a while, but I believe the premise was that if the students were traveling to a school sponsored activity (practice), it was the responsibility of the school to provide transportation. I believe it was settled out of court. The case was with a KC school district.

This case was a major concern with me while teaching in the Wichita school district. The wrestling team was not given a school bus for competition. For close competition, the students were to either drive themselves or with their parents. This drove me nuts, and was one of the reasons I left. Kids "carpool" to the events and that in itself was a no-no. Seeing the huge liability placed upon my shoulders concerning actions I had limited control over, I left.

A piece of paper, though signed, is really nothing more than a piece of paper. It may excuse you from liability, but rest assured, a crafty lawyer can work around it.

Richard:

I find it intriguing that you bring up STUCO and Kay as life skill answers - two organizations that traditionally take the cream of the crop and make them better.

I should have prefaced my post by stating something along the lines of taking the average/below average kid and making them better. Many of the sports do not have "cuts." Wrestling and football are examples. I understand the needs for cuts, not enough gym space or spots. Which furthers my point.

I also wouldn't be inclined to use Music as an example of something that affords kids the opportunity to gain a scholarship - at least not in what is deemed the traditional model of athletics. I would be completely happy if athletics were held to their standards. If they were, the following changes would occur.

1. A class on thier sport. We would be just like Oklahoma and Texas in that regard.

2. No distance restrictions for tourney travel. When I was in high school, the music department went to the Orange Bowl to play. How great would a wrestling trip to Florida be?!

3. (From an athlete perspective), missed class time to help raise money for the wrestling team. Several high schools do "singing telegrams" on Valentine's Day as a fundraiser.

4. More time with my family. Then again, my wife may feel differently. But if I were able to hold practice during "class", I'd get to see my wife and baby more. Let's be honest, I'd probably stay at school drawing up defensive schemes instead of going home.

But back to the initial post, which was frustration over the inability to support Tyler by the wrestling family. For the most part, I understand the intent of the rules, I just don't agree with the rigidness of the application.

To Mom160, I believe the problem was not so much being a spectator, it was that spectators would be watching instruction being given, the same as the participants, only maybe not participating in the actual drills. I may be all wrong, but that was my understanding of the problem. It was okay for the high schoolers to be in the hall socializing or bidding on the auction items, but not to receive "instruction".