Interesting article in LA Times -

[Bordertown]

I thought this was very interesting in the LA Times on Orange Lutheran. Seven kids transfer to the school and 4 are expected to be starters next year. The most interesting note was "The transfers also figure to add to the growing debate about separating playoff divisions for public and private schools."

Question for California fans.
1) How heated is the discussion?
2) What are California transfer rules? Are private schools required to define an "attendence zone"? What I found interesting is the players are from Anaheim, Mission Viejo, LA, Chino Hills, Long Beach & Norco(?). The the real estate crash I guess some folks could be moving out or in, but if they are moving out I would suspect private education at $10,000 would be the first to go.
3) If the privates and public schools were separated, how would it change the face of California football?


http://www.latimes.com/sports/highschool/la-spw-hsreport1feb01,0,5532988.story

 

[elwood]

1. This is a So.Cal discussion only.
2. No attendance zone for privates.
3. If the privates are separated from the publics, the State Champion MUST then come from the Private classification.

 

[consumerman]

For years Mater Dei would come up with all-league players for other schools who suddenly transfered to Mater Dei

then Mission Viejp started doing it, that is where the name SpongeBob came from

 

[Bordertown]

1. This is a So.Cal discussion only.
2. No attendance zone for privates.
3. If the privates are separated from the publics, the State Champion MUST then come from the Private classification.

Not sure why this is a SoCal discussion only! Does each Section set its own rules with regard to privates? Why MUST the State Champion come from the Private School Classification?

 

[elwood]

Not sure why this is a SoCal discussion only! Does each Section set its own rules with regard to privates? Why MUST the State Champion come from the Private School Classification?

1. You ask how heated the discussion is - response is that it is a discussion only going on in So. Cal. - - Factual comment. Little or no comment like that going on in No.Cal. Probably due to the fact that you get mass migration of talent in So.Cal. Have not seen it happening in No.Cal.
2. Real simple - If they separate the privates from the publics in the playoffs, you're excluding privates for some reason. Unless you're trying to suggest that the exclusion is that they(the privates) are not as good (which should work itself out on the field anyhow), the only rationalle is that they are better and got that way for reasons that you do not like, or are not fair. Call it Division 1A. Since you (publics) seem to think you are inherently disadvantaged, you want to create Division 1B and have your own separate playoffs. If that is your wish, fine - knock yourself out. But do not do that and then claim to have the best team. If you want that, prove it on the same field of play.

Welcome to life as Appalachian State.

 

[Bordertown]

Touchy!! Actually I support Privates being allowed to compete with publics in Texas. I am Ron Paul on that subject. But the problem that I perceive different between Texas & California is Texas has rules against transferring for athletic reason. It is fine but it is akin to NCAA rule, you miss a year of varsity competition. Yes folks skirt it by saying it is for academic reasons, but if a high school coach has reason to believe the kid transferred for athletic reasons - the coach losing the kid can deny the transfer (are appeal rights).

But if a school has no boundaries, can offer financial aide, and the kid can play immediately - well I can see how abuse can occur and an unlevel playing field exist.

Louisiana football is often held up as an example of a private system gone amuck. A schools like Evangel and John Curtis having less than 300 kids and winning the largest division in the state. Publics got sick of it and make them beat schools their size. They still win their championships, they just aren't as prestigous.