Don'tcha just hate it when a person or a group
that is in power does something just because they can? Just so
they can say they did something? Well, that's how this whole
latest round of DIAA proposals strikes me.
High School Transfers
The proposal would result in any high school
student-athlete being banned from participation in his/her sport(s)
for an entire year after transferring. This is just
WRONG! Students often transfer for reasons totally unrelated
to athletics. Why should they be punished? In
fact, even the ones who do transfer due to athletic
considerations, why does this have to be curtailed? What's
wrong with a "free-market" system? Why shouldn't a
student-athlete be free to go to a program where he/she would feel
more comfortable? If the rule goes through, and I believe it
will, it will amount to DIAA putting a gun to kids' heads and
forcing them to stay where they are. Many of our
student-athletes vie for collegiate scholarships, or, at the very
least, roster spots on D2/D3 schools. To make them sit out a
year due to transferring would do serious harm to their chances of
acquiring either.
Eighth Grader Eligibility
This proposal would disallow 8th grade
student-athletes from participating in high school athletics at any
level (freshmen/JV/varsity). Perhaps this wouldn't be such a
bad idea if all the other states in the country had the same
restriction. Unfortunately, they don't. In Maryland, I
believe it's even okay for 7th graders to play high school
sports, in certain circumstances. The long-term effect of the
rule here would be to handicap Delaware student-athletes. If
that same boy or girl lived in a neighboring state, he/she could
have 5 years playing experience as opposed to a max of 4 years in
Delaware. That poses a unilateral disadvantage for Diamond
State participants.
Additionally, in girls basketball, allowing
8th grade participation has been a positive thing. The top
three scorers in state history -- Elena Delle Donne, Khadijah
Rushdan and Kristin (Mills) Caldwell -- all benefited from being
allowed to play as 8th graders. In fact, the chances are
certain that Rushdan and Caldwell would not have scored 2000 points
and fairly good that Delle Donne might not have as well. The
experience of playing high school ball as 8th graders seems not to
have harmed any of those three, and, in fact, a case could be made
that it has helped each of them.
To the argument that "pure" high schools
(schools containing just grades 9 through 12) are disadvantaged by
the 8th grader allowance (since they have no access to 8th graders),
I would counter that the schools that do use 8th graders tend to be
academies and preparatory schools that have smaller overall student
bodies. In some cases, were it not for 8th grade
participation, some teams would have to be discontinued altogether.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't
see 60 Minutes or Dateline doing exposés
on kids who were traumatized or irreparably harmed due to being allowed
to play as an 8th grader. Then, if it's not about the student's
well-being, what is it about? It's about adults in control of
athletic programs and their desire to maintain that power and to help
their own schools' position and standing -- regardless of what's best
for each individual athlete. And we should never change rules
because of that.
There is nothing wrong with the current system.
It has served us well for many years.