Star Tribune Article

carpenter guy · Post by **carpenter guy** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:38 am

John Millea Last update: October 17, 2005 at 8:31 PM Open enrollment: nay they say The team, not records, spur Hornets' relays Athletes of the week Here's how high school recruiting often happens: • Athletes from different schools play together on summer/offseason/all-star teams, and they discuss how much fun they would have as teammates during the school season, too. • Their parents sit together in the stands. How hard is it for one parent to elbow another parent in the ribs and say, "Gee, wouldn't it be neat if our kids played on the same team in school, too?" • A coach who has a little bit of sneaky in him sits in the background and watches the pot boil. Before anybody knows it, a young athlete has changed uniforms, making enemies in his old school (where people feel betrayed) and his new school (where people don't like a newcomer waltzing in and taking a roster spot that would otherwise have gone to a homegrown player). When I wrote a week ago about the situation with the Richfield boys' basketball team, the response from readers was powerful. There were several layers to the story, but many of the problems began when a senior transferred to Richfield and became a starter on the team. The player had every right to do so under Minnesota's open-enrollment law, of course. But the Richfield scenario shines a bright light on the spiderweb that open enrollment has become. "Open enrollment is a bad idea because it is so very difficult to monitor. The transfer rules for eligibility are too lenient. Any player that transfers to a non-resident public school district after his/her freshman year should lose one year of eligibility, including practice time." BOB JENTGES, NORTH MANKATO Here's Open Enrollment 101: At the urging of Gov. Rudy Perpich, it was enacted by the Legislature in 1988 as a way for students interested in math, science, languages, fine arts, athletics, etc., to get the best possible education. It allows students to attend any public school they choose, no matter where they live. The Minnesota State High School League has slightly tightened the athletic loophole, allowing student- athletes one transfer with no penalty. If high school students transfer a second time, they must sit out half a varsity season before becoming eligible. The MSHSL cannot kill open enrollment; only the Legislature can drive a stake through its heart. "I don't like it, and I don't think our schools like it, but we're stuck in a position, because of state law, that allows kids to move for athletic as well as academic purposes," MSHSL executive director Dave Stead said. "On recruiting, it seems to me the coaches like to play with semantics. Is there really a difference between approaching a player directly vs. letting it be known that your program will welcome premier players from outside your city with open arms? I would like to see the state tournament rosters list a player's hometown/residence, just like colleges." DOUG DEGERMAN, OAKDALE We have been down this road many times. I have written about open enrollment in previous years. Chisholm boys' basketball coach Bob McDonald, who has won more games than any coach in Minnesota history, is an outspoken opponent of open enrollment. And he is not alone. I received dozens of e-mails about the Richfield situation, and many of them see open enrollment as the monster that won't go away. But the monster still walks among us. Legislators have felt no need to consider changing open enrollment laws. There is no pressure from their constituents to do so. The MSHSL and school administrators have discussed a further tweaking. Stead said one possibility is this: if a student transfers without moving into the new school district, he/she will not be eligible for athletics in the new district for one year. "The league could do that," Stead said. "Whether legislators or attorneys would jump in and say we're denying an opportunity, I don't know." At this point, any change is a good change. John Millea • jmillea@startribune.com

cliff77 · Post by **cliff77** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:15 am

John Millea is a socialist (like so many at the StarTribune) who wants every student to be forced to play in his home school district with no opportunity to take advantage of better opportunities in other schools that would help that student develop his/her talents. He has been on this rant for years and his stories about this subject are always one-sided. He never talks about the benefits of open enrollment. He also believes there is this organized recruiting effort at our high schools and mostly at private schools. If it were up to him, every student would be trapped and forced to go the local public school if they wanted to participate in high school sports. I don't think he will stop his unfair reporting until he can get the state legislature or the MSHSL to restrict transfers alltogether.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:39 am

As we have discussed many times on this board, his so called newspaper is nothing but a liberal rag that is much more intersted in influencing the public opinion than informing it. Millea fits right in. He quotes all of these people who are against open enrollment for the article but not one person nor school who has had a good experience with it. Not one! He points out that legislators are under no pressure from their constituents to change the law........well....ah....why is that big John? I love his closing. "Any change is good change" Pretty deep stuff. Is this on the editorial page?

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:05 pm

All I can say is the "RED" Star is as posted above.... That is all. ________________________________ Academy of Holy Angels 2005 GIRLS STATE CHAMPS! 2002 & 2005 BOYS STATE CHAMPS!! GO STARS!!

GNHogger · Post by **GNHogger** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:17 pm

cliff. please don't associate "fat pat" reusse or joe s. "mr. gl" as socialist commie's with the red star. these guys are, in my opinion, two of the best local sports talking heads out there. and these guys are old timers. they know their stuff including hockey.

FreeAGENT · Post by **FreeAGENT** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:00 pm

When forming an argument when and why would you ever deliver points that derogate the subject? I think your political views are blinding you of what this article is standing for.

defencewinsgames · Post by **defencewinsgames** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:24 pm

Amen to that <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil">

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:18 am

FreeAgent, I agree but then put the thing on the editorial page. He can have his opinion about open enrollment and he can quote people who agree with him. But then put it where it belongs. I am not a big fan of open enrollment. But if you are going to do a newspaper article about it...tell both sides. Quote kids who have open enrolled and who are glad for the opportunity. His article refers to open enrollment as a monster. Now, I am no jounalism major but thats not reporting the news. Its an attempt to pursuade others to you point of view.

mnhockeylvr · Post by **mnhockeylvr** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:43 am

Once in a while i get to come back and read this even before the season starts. I see that we have taken once again to calling names on here. "A bunch of commie whatever," we say. Like a bunch of apes throwing poop at those watching us. Seriously...can we please elevate a little discourse on here. Some have actually posted real points on here. But of course, we are so far above the STrib by simply dismissing them with an old red scare term. It didnt work for Joe McCarthy, and it makes you sound like you cant come up with a real argument.

carpenter guy · Post by **carpenter guy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:02 am

The article brings up some interesting points. To dismiss it simply because you feel the paper is Liberal is being blind yourself. For the record I'm surely not a Liberal. In my line of work I go all over the twin cities working on residential projects. I have the opportunity to meet a lot of different people and when this subject comes up people that I run into are almost unanimous is saying the system is being abused by some. From those I have talked to it sounds like the AD's, coaches and many at the State High School League would love to see some changes made. However since it's law there isn't much they can do when people decide to make the law fit for their little world. Personally, I'm all for kids getting the best education possible. In fact my children go to private schools because that is my choice. There are plenty of very good public schools as well. That however doesn't stop me from believing that using open enrollment for sports alone is not a good thing. As the article stated some schools (coaches) have made it known that their door is wide open. To end this book, I have to agree with the last poster. If your going to call names and dismiss something without even thinking about it then don't bother posting.

cliff77 · Post by **cliff77** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:45 am

I stand by my description of Millea as a socialist. I could go back into StarTrib's archives and provide a lot of support for that argument. Others posting here agree as well. It is very dangerous when a columnist such as Millea is allowed continued access to such a large readership base without presenting the other side of an issue. He has never adequately presented both sides of the open enrollment issue as far as I am concerned, and again, others posting here support this contention as well. Carpenter Guy, you first posted Millea's article. You put this and the writer up for review. Millea is a very controversial "sports" writer at the StarTrib. Please don't preach to me about labeling him this or that. His reporting belongs on the Editorial pages, not on the Sports Page. GNHogger, I did not call Reusse a socialist, although he is an admitted liberal who admits to knowing very little about hockey and liking it about as much as he does soccer. As far as Soucheray is concerned he writes for the Pioneer Press, not the StarTrib. Next time you accuse me of something, please present a defendable, not laughable argument.

carpenter guy · Post by **carpenter guy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:52 am

cliff you are missing the point. Instead of ripping the writer why don't you address the issue? If you have strong feelings about why open enrollment should continue to be used as a sports avenue I'm here willing to listen to your side. If your going to get political then I want nothing to do with the conversation.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:04 am

If carpenter guy and mnhocklvr would read what cliff and I posted about this article a little slower, they would see that we scortched it because of what it was..a one sided, biased editorial about open enrollment. I also stand by my opinion of the newspaper..which is hardly singular. But if this article a had appeared in the Pioneer Press , I would have the same opinion of it. The fact of tha matter is that this kind of stuff doesnt show up in a quality newspaper unless it is on the editiorial page. This is just part of a trend with this rag. Anybody remember Nick Colemen's article about AHA last summer? PS to carpeter guy: Whats wrong with ripping the writer? He decided to editorialize on the sports page. He desrves to get ripped and so does his paper....whether you agree with him or not. The Strib has no credibilty with a lot of people. As a result, what appears in it is eyed with a great deal of skepticism. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckerboy</A> at: 10/19/05 11:09 am

carpenter guy · Post by **carpenter guy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:12 am

This is a hockey board and I thought the article would bring along some healthy discussion. Instead I have people showing off their political ideology and not even addressing the issue. I'm a conservative but that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Dismiss the writer, but the issues are real.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:14 pm

John Millea does a good job covering high school sports, for that matter, at least the Strib does cover high school sports. Too often aside from football, there isn't much of a mention about high school sports from the paper on the east side of the river. Why no public outrage at open enrollment? Geez, look how much coverage high school sports get in the metro papers or the metro tv stations; almost none. Why? because by and large the public doesn't care. If they did, it would be covered. We are a distinct minority here. Outstate people seem to care more, our local paper and tv stations have almost all their spors coverage on the prep side of things, but add it all up and our populations aren't that much compaered to the cities. Then again open enrollment isn't nearly the issue here as in the metro area. Moorhead uses open enrollment and gets second in the State last year, no issue from John Millea. Richfield gets second in State and it is an issue. Explain that to me.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:35 pm

I dont know about that goldy. To say there is no public outrage about open enrollment because high school sports isnt covered much is a little too speculative to me. Thats the problem with people like Millea and the Strib(without using any labels). They are convinced that the public isnt outraged about the same things they are because the public is uninformed or not as intellectual as they are. (no labels please) It certainly couldnt be because the public through their elected representatives made an informed decision to enact open enrollment. No way. That could never explain the lack of outrage. If only the legislative branch of government was as enlighted as Millea, then we would get change. And as we all know, any change is good change

cliff77 · Post by **cliff77** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:13 pm

OK carpenter Guy, I am 100% in favor of open enrollment because it offers kids with special talents in many areas, opportunities they would not have otherwise. Open enrollment forces schools and their respective programs to compete for students. Competition produces better programs and better qualified participants at the end of the experience, in all areas, academic and athletic. Socialists, like John Millea, don't like competition. They want sameness and mediocrity. They want to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. This "end open enrollment" argument is profferred by those without the fortitiude to compete.

Brett11 · Post by **Brett11** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:18 pm

Ditto what Cliff77 just posted.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:34 pm

But cliff, didnt we already have that? If you are "in need" of what Wayzata has to offer...move there. No one has ever stopped anybody from doing that. I agree with every thing you say but the question still remains "Did we need open enrollment to accomplish that?" It isnt like "for sale" signs never go up in west Bloomington or Edina or EP. If you want to got Jefferson, move to west Bloomington. Doesnt that still foster the competion that makes us better?

Brett11 · Post by **Brett11** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:41 pm

Why would anyone want to move their entire family when driving their kid there is enough of a hassle and expense. I think the current policy is just fine. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... Brett11</A> at: 10/19/05 2:41 pm

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:09 pm

Cliff77 did not use "its to inconvenient to move" as one of his reasons for being in favor of open enrollment. Is it one?

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:20 pm

IN defense, the issue with Richfield basketball was not completely about open enrollment. There was mention and that is the defense of the coach and his wife. Is that the real issue, I do not know. I am a Richfield parent, a fan of a private school and an employee in a public sports facility. The allegations from the problem at Richfield are far greater than the defense of the coach and his opinion. I have to stop raving about a basketball issue on a hockey board, sorry. Back to the issue of this topic. Milea is a good reporter who gets his mind set on a topic and grinds "his" opinions into readers. I am not a fan of his, but someone else maybe... ________________________________ Academy of Holy Angels 2005 GIRLS STATE CHAMPS! 2002 & 2005 BOYS STATE CHAMPS!! GO STARS!!

PAMESH · Post by **PAMESH** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:55 pm

That seems a little simple minded to think it is that easy to just move there. Not everyone can afford a home in Wayzata but they would love to have the benefits of going to their school. I do believe it offers a much safer environment then the inner city schools. If a player doesn't make the varsity team at Wayzata because a kid from Mpls moved in and took his spot why doesn't that kid open enroll to some place he can make the team. That seems as simple as the mpls kid moving to Wayzata. Here is my question. Who cares about open enrollment, and wheather it gets abused or not? If a parent wants to allow their child to switch schools 2, 3, or 4 times in their high school career who does that affect other then the kid. I would never allow it. I am a firm believer in, you make a choice and stick to it and live with the results. If a kid wants to move into my district for sports or a safer educational opportunity that is their choice and it doesn't affect me. If the most important thing is to play a sport at the varsity level and he takes that opportunity away, I open enroll. If I don't it really isn't that important to me. I also believe it makes better competition. We saw some pretty good players in the State championship last year. I don't know if we see that many great players in one game without it. I am also a liberal so don't throw that term around like it is a four letter word.

FreeAGENT · Post by **FreeAGENT** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:01 pm

Open enrollment is only hyped by the avid High School sports fans. Yes, you're always going to have a student transferring for athletic reasons. But did we forget about academics? Education, as a society, is far more important than High School sports. With that said, any student or parent will agree that academics and athletics are complementary occupations. Nearly every student, good and bad, is involved in some sport or club. To deprive a student the right of bettering his education for the concerns of High School sports is ridiculous. The transfer from public school to public school is useless. Public schools are public schools, the education system is essentially the same. But public school to college-prepatory is a completely different issue. The only way to logically allow private school transfers is to permit open enrollment across the board. Justice is the only issue here, and that's unachievable. Sports more important than education? Fine, get rid of it. Otherwise, let's be practical, we already have a strong enrollment system.

carpenter guy · Post by **carpenter guy** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:04 pm

I will say again that I'm all for open enrollment when it's used properply. For the most part it is. However to think when somebody moves from one school to another for sports it only affects that individual is being extremely narrow minded. Competition is wonderful but abuse of any system is not. Most schools don't abuse but those that do leave a lasting mark on many. Personally, I pull for the schools that build a solid youth program that the high school coach helps to develop. I bet if we polled all the AD's, coaches, high school league officials, players, and parents they would overwhelmingly say that the abuse of open enrollment simply for sport is wrong and should be stopped. Just a hunch.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Star Tribune Article

Star Tribune Article

Re: Star Tribune Article

Re: Star Tribune Article

Re: Star Tribune Article

Re: Star Tribune Article

Packerboy

Packer Boy

Call it what it is then

Ahh...Discourse

article

Re: article

cliff

Re: article

Re: article

Re: article

Re: article

you asked for it

Way to go Cliff77!

Re: you asked for it

Move, are you kidding?

Re: Move, are you kidding?

Re: Move, are you kidding?

Re: Move, are you kidding?

Re: Move, are you kidding?

All for open enrollment