Last edited:
Cal schools can’t play academies starting 2019/20
- Thread starter RidgeRider
- Start date
Thoughts? Personally, I like it.
I’m against greedy parents and I’m for community based public schools. I don’t like regional publics and while I’m out dated on this, prefer kids playing in their local schools.
Anyway, CA doesn’t always do the right thing but I agree with this decision.
I’m against greedy parents and I’m for community based public schools. I don’t like regional publics and while I’m out dated on this, prefer kids playing in their local schools.
Anyway, CA doesn’t always do the right thing but I agree with this decision.
Terrible! If you can’t beat them........ban them!
Jesus Christ, no wants to compete anymore or take on a challenge. Why push yourself to see where you are or where they need to be. That’s why coaches like Logan are so respected (not afraid).
Jesus Christ, no wants to compete anymore or take on a challenge. Why push yourself to see where you are or where they need to be. That’s why coaches like Logan are so respected (not afraid).
GUYS...We already have sports factories, some are low key but with the all the church schools that have sprung up, a number have turned into power houses and have watered down the local high schools. Good examples of sports factories is DLS and CC, if the local coaches feel they want to take on these schools, so be it, but who wants to take a beating in the process..
Exactly, but to have the CIF dictate who you can and can’t play is ridiculous. The coaches that want to challenge their programs should have that option.
It's a half dozen out of state academies, hardly dictating. They are trying to maintain some semblance of dignity in the prep experience which is being ruined by the So Cal scene.
If you are into the 'professionalizing' of high school football, I can see people being disappointed but if you would like to maintain some sense of what the high school experience was meant to be, this is a good step. So Cal has completely turned high school into college and of course, college football is essentially professional now with all the hidden money.
I think they should do like Texas and have publics and privates have separate play offs. I also like what they are doing........If you are using TAX PAYER funds then you can't do what you wish.....Publics need to follow the guide lines...it is not their money to do as they wish......
Publics will stay in the gray area in order to compete wirh privates, as they are being asked to now.
Keeping them separate would allow for more stringent enforcement of traditional public school rules, since they wouldn't be asked to compete with privates and academies.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't solve everything, as there would still be public powerhouses. But I believe it would be a start.
Keeping them separate would allow for more stringent enforcement of traditional public school rules, since they wouldn't be asked to compete with privates and academies.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't solve everything, as there would still be public powerhouses. But I believe it would be a start.
I don't like this at all. If a program doesn't want to play them because it is unfair, then they won't schedule them. You are taking away an opportunity that a coach may think is good for his team long term.
A poster on the national site made this observation,the rule was made to insure no IMG model schools pop up in California more than stopping teams from playing them
Maybe that's nice for the coach's resume, but the operative term here is student-athlete, not athlete-student. There are plenty of schools in California which are uber-competitive with open boundaries, top notch facilities, mega coaching, yada yada and, thus, super duper attractive to families who desire theirs to use such a vehicle to pursue their dreams and passion. Posters cite the SS as embedded in such a culture already. So in some circles, folks have forgotten that a quality education, in fact, THE quality education a HS student pursues- whether higher learning or skills training- puts bread on the table for his family when the dream/passion doesn't pay the bills for the 99.8% who pursue it. That's the message that should resonate amongst responsible parties.
Well they are building 150 dorm rooms for “International students” lol
Academies and the sports prep schools make their own rules in regards to academic requirements and eligibility. I don't see why the CIF should allow their member schools to play teams that COULD BE playing 21-year old fourth year seniors with bad grades and a rap sheet.
California has a every kid gets a trophy mentality. Next it will ban public schools from playing private/parochial schools and have a separate state playoff system.
Feedbac1...I think you hit the nail on the head,, good feedbackI can't prove it, but look how many kids in college that play football, but never grad as they can't do the learning part.
Yep, I’m not a fan of segregation of any kind. But I could see the CIF do this down the road.
I think you’re way off here in regards to IMG.Here is a response by their coach on a recent Q & A on the national board
I tell every player and student-athlete that considers coming that this place is not for everybody...its tough. A player has to be committed to keeping up with their schoolwork, and the regimen of the boarding school. When families reach out, we spend most of the time in that conversation talking about the realities of boarding school life and what it takes to get the most out of this experience. Students and families both make sacrifices, its the closest experience you can get to being a college student-athlete. If you are able to be successful here, you will have a great foundation when you start college because you have already experienced so many things most kids don't experience until their freshman year in college.
You mean what FB crazed Texas does already....
It’s a stretch comparing this to the kid trophy culture, which I agree is somewhat pathetic.
At last counting Texas HS has 6 groupings with 2 divisions per grouping for a total of 12 State Championships.
Congratulations y'all....and I do mean you all.
Maybe its more like CIF game day play strategy. More Championship games = More income for the CIF.
I just looked at the CIF board-meeting minutes regarding this rule. Would be nice if they were clear whether the ruling was for all sports, or only football.
I don't really care what they do regarding football, but if it also applies to basketball, the ruling really bothers this die-hard hoops fan.
What about December tournaments? If a CIF school got to the finals of something like the amazing Les Schwab Invitational in Portland and got to the finals where their opponent happens to be Montverde or Oak Hill, would they have to forfeit? (This, btw, has happened... 2009, Westchester of LA went up there and go the finals where mighty Oak Hill was waiting. I lived up there at the time and was at the game... It so happened that earlier in the day I was talking to a Westchester assistant coach about the fact they were facing a team that recruited worldwide, and just hadda ask if there was any thought of the matchup being somehow "unfair". He said "No, it a challenge and an honor, and we CAN beat them" (or words to that effect). That was almost undoubtedly the best-played December game I've ever witnessed... and #5 Westchester pulled the upset over #1 Oak Hill!
This occasionally happens in other big holiday tourneys, too.
I'd be pretty pissed if I was at one of these tourneys only to see some superpower given the trophy because the CIF doesn't wanna play. Chickens...
I don't really care what they do regarding football, but if it also applies to basketball, the ruling really bothers this die-hard hoops fan.
What about December tournaments? If a CIF school got to the finals of something like the amazing Les Schwab Invitational in Portland and got to the finals where their opponent happens to be Montverde or Oak Hill, would they have to forfeit? (This, btw, has happened... 2009, Westchester of LA went up there and go the finals where mighty Oak Hill was waiting. I lived up there at the time and was at the game... It so happened that earlier in the day I was talking to a Westchester assistant coach about the fact they were facing a team that recruited worldwide, and just hadda ask if there was any thought of the matchup being somehow "unfair". He said "No, it a challenge and an honor, and we CAN beat them" (or words to that effect). That was almost undoubtedly the best-played December game I've ever witnessed... and #5 Westchester pulled the upset over #1 Oak Hill!
This occasionally happens in other big holiday tourneys, too.
I'd be pretty pissed if I was at one of these tourneys only to see some superpower given the trophy because the CIF doesn't wanna play. Chickens...
Why not allow high school teams to play AAU teams, or JC's or NAIA teams?
BECAUSE THEY ARE CHICKEN!!!
Or maybe because the CIF needs to have rules about who they allow their member schools to play. There are documented games about high schools playing teams from juvenile detention facilities! These academies could just conform to the CIF rules and apply for membership (to their own state org). But they prefer to have their own rules on academics, practice time, equipment use,eligibility, etc. It is well known that they routinely grant kids more than 4 years of high school eligibility. So maybe the rule is to protect kids more than anything?
But as fans, who gives a F if the kids are safe - as long as there is a good game to watch. And of course basketball should have different rules than football and other sports. After all, there are Christmas tournament matchups to consider.
When did we get to the point that every comment is colored by what we want to see as FANS? Isn't high school sports about the kids?
BECAUSE THEY ARE CHICKEN!!!
Or maybe because the CIF needs to have rules about who they allow their member schools to play. There are documented games about high schools playing teams from juvenile detention facilities! These academies could just conform to the CIF rules and apply for membership (to their own state org). But they prefer to have their own rules on academics, practice time, equipment use,eligibility, etc. It is well known that they routinely grant kids more than 4 years of high school eligibility. So maybe the rule is to protect kids more than anything?
But as fans, who gives a F if the kids are safe - as long as there is a good game to watch. And of course basketball should have different rules than football and other sports. After all, there are Christmas tournament matchups to consider.
When did we get to the point that every comment is colored by what we want to see as FANS? Isn't high school sports about the kids?
Yes, the game is for and about the kids. The same kids who would NOT want to forfeit a game because some adults think it's not fair.
Feedback 1 makes logical and reasoned points if view.
I have dealt with schools that I have talked to and recruited in the past, and I always ask them if they are state certified.
There is nothing keeping those ( Academies ) from applying to be certified, and follow other private and public schools in this process.
It comes down to this. These Academies are not high schools, and have no business playing high schools.
Here's wishing you great hoops
Under the new rule, they would remove the possibility that an academy would be able to participate in a tournament for high schools. So there would be zero possibility of a forfeit. Problem solved.
That's fine for in-state tournaments, but the CIF wouldn't be able to enforce that rule if a CA team went to a big out-of-state invitational, like the above-mentioned Les Schwab Invitational in Portland or the Beach Ball Classic in Myrtle Beach.
I would think that those and other prestigious out-of-state classics just wouldn't bother inviting a California team if there was a possibility of a forfeit somewhere in their bracket. In other words, the result of this ruling by the CIF would just rob the top CA teams of the opportunity to play in most or possibly ALL of the nation's top out-of-state tournaments.
Yes, there are plenty of fine high-quality tournaments in-state, but why force a powerhouse team to skip a rare chance to challenge themselves against the best competition they can find?
I think (at least for basketball) the rule is hogwash.
For football, a game with an extremely high risk of injuries, I can see the concerns involved with high-school kids possibly having to deal with older, stronger, more physically mature players in a direct-collision sport if they were to play an IMG or whomever. But not really so much in most other sports.
What's to say these "High-quality" tournaments won't keep the academy team out because of the possibility of a forfeit. My understanding is CA. Is just the first of many to follow. These academy's are taking school out of high school sports.
Get certified and follow high school rules and you can play some of the best high school teams in the country.
Get certified and follow high school rules and you can play some of the best high school teams in the country.
They have a system for 'the best' playing 'the best'. AAU. They also have a system for schools that adhere to a common set of rules. High School. I fail to see why the two should mix. Other than to legitimize the academies.
Fan interest has almost zero value to me when it comes to a reason to mix the two (and apparently to the CIF as well).
Otherwise, why not treat the JC's the same as academies? What is the difference between academies and JC's? Both can/do play with players who no longer have CIF high school eligibility. JC's have rules regarding practice time and coach contact that academies do not have. JC's do not have real eligibility requirements (during their first year) - same as academies.
Bottom line is that the CIF does not view the high school game from a fan's perspective. And no amount of wishing they would is going to change anything. I agree with the CIF that high schools should limit play to teams that adhere to a common set of rules and regulations.
Fan interest has almost zero value to me when it comes to a reason to mix the two (and apparently to the CIF as well).
Otherwise, why not treat the JC's the same as academies? What is the difference between academies and JC's? Both can/do play with players who no longer have CIF high school eligibility. JC's have rules regarding practice time and coach contact that academies do not have. JC's do not have real eligibility requirements (during their first year) - same as academies.
Bottom line is that the CIF does not view the high school game from a fan's perspective. And no amount of wishing they would is going to change anything. I agree with the CIF that high schools should limit play to teams that adhere to a common set of rules and regulations.
There has also been talk among the various coach's forums about the same topic. And the coaches overwhelmingly agree with the CIF.
Even the Texas honchos have issues with the IMG/“college” preparation the IMG guy boasts of:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/81007340
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/81007340
I don't even think they should be ranked in the same national rankings as high schools.
Kiddman, the CIF can and already does limit this. I remember when Cornerstone Christian came to Gridley. They had a few 19 and 20 year old kids on the team. The commissioner from the North Coast Section said, if they suited up, they would pull all the North Coast Section teams out of the tournament.
We agreed, and any kids over high school age had to sit in the stands as fans. The problem was, we were misled as to what kind of high school they were.
I get the drift on your feelings, but there is enough great basketball out there without muddying up the water.
As always, Here's wishing you great hoops
Many of these prep schools/teams/academies/whatever (especially the well-established superpowers) have already addressed that issue and have two rosters, a "prep" roster that includes all their players including the older players, and a "high school" roster that does not include the older players. And most (apparently not all) are clear about which group they are taking where. Looks like Cornerstone Christian wasn't, and I can certainly understand concerns by the sections of the other school in the tourney.
Besides, I was referring to situations in which a top Calif. team travels to a big invitational tourney such as the Les Schwab in Portland, or the Beach Ball Classic at Myrtle Beach. You can take this one to the bank; EVERY kid and EVERY coach and EVERY fan involved with a team good enough to be invited to one of these super-tourneys is licking their chops for a chance at a legendary powerhouse team like Oak Hill or Montverde or La Lumiere.
The big-name established teams like Oak Hill are extremely clear about who they are and what they do, with the traveling team (ineligible for state tourney, recruits worldwide, etc) and the non-traveling team (eligible).
To my knowledge, Oak Hill has never played a high-school-ineligible player on either of those teams and none of their opponents has ever faced sanctions or rulings for running the court against either Oak Hill team in a game. And this has been going on now for some 40 years at Oak Hill, probably longer. (the school itself has been around since 1878, but the traveling hoops team seems to have started up in the mid-70's).
Besides, I was referring to situations in which a top Calif. team travels to a big invitational tourney such as the Les Schwab in Portland, or the Beach Ball Classic at Myrtle Beach. You can take this one to the bank; EVERY kid and EVERY coach and EVERY fan involved with a team good enough to be invited to one of these super-tourneys is licking their chops for a chance at a legendary powerhouse team like Oak Hill or Montverde or La Lumiere.
The big-name established teams like Oak Hill are extremely clear about who they are and what they do, with the traveling team (ineligible for state tourney, recruits worldwide, etc) and the non-traveling team (eligible).
To my knowledge, Oak Hill has never played a high-school-ineligible player on either of those teams and none of their opponents has ever faced sanctions or rulings for running the court against either Oak Hill team in a game. And this has been going on now for some 40 years at Oak Hill, probably longer. (the school itself has been around since 1878, but the traveling hoops team seems to have started up in the mid-70's).
None of this matters. The academies do not adhere to the same rules and regulations as high schools who are members of their respective state organizations. In general, the academies have shown repeatedly that they do a poor job of aligning to rules that are followed by high schools. Picking an example or two of 'good ones' proves nothing. When the CIF looks at ruling like this, they do not look at the few best case examples - they are protecting kids and look at the worst case. As they should.
And saying that the coaches and kids want to play is also irrelevant. Competitive kids and coaches want to complete. The desire to compete would be the same if you inserted JC, NCAA D1 players or even NBA players in place of the academies. The willingness of the participants to step up to the challenge does not make it right. The CIF has to be the adults in the room and make an unpopular decision that is in the best interest of the kids.
Instead of complaining about the CIF, why not complain about the academies that are unwilling to follow rules and regulations that are followed by the other 99%?
And saying that the coaches and kids want to play is also irrelevant. Competitive kids and coaches want to complete. The desire to compete would be the same if you inserted JC, NCAA D1 players or even NBA players in place of the academies. The willingness of the participants to step up to the challenge does not make it right. The CIF has to be the adults in the room and make an unpopular decision that is in the best interest of the kids.
Instead of complaining about the CIF, why not complain about the academies that are unwilling to follow rules and regulations that are followed by the other 99%?
