What is the status of the proposed transfer rules? And what are the nest steps, such as when will the different sections around the state vote on them?
Some parents that I talked to at the rink the other night seem to believe that the rules are passed already. I thought it was mentioned on here it would be a while yet.
If anyone knows, please report.
Thanks
Status of proposed transfer rules
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
From the Pioneer Press...
"Transfer, eligibility issue faces delay
Minnesota State High School League Executive Director Dave Stead will make a recommendation to the league's board of directors on Thursday that they table a proposed bylaw change regarding transfers and eligibility until their next scheduled meeting on Feb. 1.
Stead said Tuesday he wants toensure the language of the bylaw accurately reflects the recommendation of an ad hoc committee that was formed to prevent abuses of open enrollment.
The 40-member committee has recommended two crucial changes to MSHSL Bylaw 111: It took out the open enrollment aspect of eligibility that provides one free transfer without penalty, and it increased the ineligibility period for transfers from a half season to a full year.
"The last thing I want anyone to feel is that the issue is pushed forward too quickly," Stead said. "There are still some things that need to be worked on."
— Tim Leighton"
"Transfer, eligibility issue faces delay
Minnesota State High School League Executive Director Dave Stead will make a recommendation to the league's board of directors on Thursday that they table a proposed bylaw change regarding transfers and eligibility until their next scheduled meeting on Feb. 1.
Stead said Tuesday he wants toensure the language of the bylaw accurately reflects the recommendation of an ad hoc committee that was formed to prevent abuses of open enrollment.
The 40-member committee has recommended two crucial changes to MSHSL Bylaw 111: It took out the open enrollment aspect of eligibility that provides one free transfer without penalty, and it increased the ineligibility period for transfers from a half season to a full year.
"The last thing I want anyone to feel is that the issue is pushed forward too quickly," Stead said. "There are still some things that need to be worked on."
— Tim Leighton"
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Well - even if this all goes through, there's still Shattuck & the T-breds. The pricetag on these and the sacrifices that need to be made may be tough for most players to handle, but they are options.
I'm not certain what TBreds cost now, but heard that SSM runs $31k for tuition + $3500 for hockey - or about $35k total per year. Great option though, and I have to say that the new U16 SSM coach Darwitz is outstanding. Sounds like they'll be going after NDP like talent only and wanting to go there and actually them having a place for you are not based on you being able to come up with the $$$ alone as some may think.
I also think we'll see some more HS teams start to play the SSM U16 team more as it is probably as good as many top HS teams in the state. I think they get 5 games a year against HS competition, and I expect some HS coaches to pick up these games next season & beyond.
Here's some more info...
http://www.s-sm.org/upper/athletics/tea ... 006+-+2007
http://www.s-sm.org/ftpimages/131/downl ... 168938.doc
http://www.s-sm.org/ftpimages/131/downl ... 189508.xls
I'm not certain what TBreds cost now, but heard that SSM runs $31k for tuition + $3500 for hockey - or about $35k total per year. Great option though, and I have to say that the new U16 SSM coach Darwitz is outstanding. Sounds like they'll be going after NDP like talent only and wanting to go there and actually them having a place for you are not based on you being able to come up with the $$$ alone as some may think.
I also think we'll see some more HS teams start to play the SSM U16 team more as it is probably as good as many top HS teams in the state. I think they get 5 games a year against HS competition, and I expect some HS coaches to pick up these games next season & beyond.
Here's some more info...
http://www.s-sm.org/upper/athletics/tea ... 006+-+2007
http://www.s-sm.org/ftpimages/131/downl ... 168938.doc
http://www.s-sm.org/ftpimages/131/downl ... 189508.xls
Last edited by ghshockeyfan on Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
That was soccer. They were recently building that program. I don't think the same is true for the established hockey program, although I could be wrong.xwildfan wrote:Re: SSM. Very few players on the hockey teams pay full tuition. A niece of ours was being recruited for their HS soccer team and was told that her tuition would be the same as the private school that she was attending at the present time.
Transfer rule - delayed
Big article in the Strib this morning. Sorry I'd post the link but it's a little busy this morning. Delay! Delay! Delay! It seems the privates are upset about the attendance boundries, which sorry to say, can't blame them.
I am not a big private fan, but they exist and should be able to draw kids from anywhere in the country should a parent choose to send their kids there.
I am not a big private fan, but they exist and should be able to draw kids from anywhere in the country should a parent choose to send their kids there.
I believe the reason they came up with private boundaries is this, if they don't have them, there is no way to transfer to a private without sitting out a year (under proposed rules) because there is no prescribed school district to move into.
If they can't come up with an reasonable solution for privates I suspect they will leave the MSHSL and essentially start AAA hockey in MN. Some of you may be happy about that but it will bring down the quality of play. This will end up with even more girls leaving for privates or or the Thourghbreds.
If they can't come up with an reasonable solution for privates I suspect they will leave the MSHSL and essentially start AAA hockey in MN. Some of you may be happy about that but it will bring down the quality of play. This will end up with even more girls leaving for privates or or the Thourghbreds.
-
hockeywild7
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:20 am
I agree with what you said puck but that being said why shouldnt they have to play under the same restrictions as the public schools? Its really no different than a division I program going against a divison III is it? If you take away the transfer (scholarships) to the public schools and allow the privates to do whatever they want its a huge advantage for them. Lets make it an even playing field or take all the privates and put them in one section.
The public and private schools can never operate under the same restrictions because privates CAN draw from anywhere and publics can't except through OE.
Can someone explain why it's OK to OE into 9th grade but a crime to do it after? According to the MSHSL director "What we're saying is, you play in the community in which you live. The purpose of any rule is to provide equitably for kids." If you can OE in 9th (or earlier) doesn't that go against the "prime directive"?
The director also went on to say "What non-public school people seem to want is to let their kids go anywhere they want,". Well isn't that their right? Why should the State determine what private school you can go to?
Can someone explain why it's OK to OE into 9th grade but a crime to do it after? According to the MSHSL director "What we're saying is, you play in the community in which you live. The purpose of any rule is to provide equitably for kids." If you can OE in 9th (or earlier) doesn't that go against the "prime directive"?
The director also went on to say "What non-public school people seem to want is to let their kids go anywhere they want,". Well isn't that their right? Why should the State determine what private school you can go to?
My kids go to private schools, they have never taken part in any of our home districts activities, why should my home district own there rights simply because i choose to live on lake that falls withing there boundries...thats not right. I pay taxes to support the public school, more than most people because i live in very nice home, i also write a check for my kids to got to private schools, I think i bought the right for them to not be controlled by my home district and by sending them to a private school they should be able to play with out penalty. they should just keep the rules the same because there going to end up with more players from all sports missing out cause the kids that seem to have the gift in 9th grade are ussally different that the ones that are trurlygifted in 12 th grade[/i][/list]
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
I think we need to look at this all differently.
If the MSHSL is anti-private, let the privates form their own elite conf. as they kind of had years ago. Then, if the MSHSL wants to grant them one section/region etc. for sports let them play-off for one spot in each of the MSHSL tourneys vs. being in many different sections. I think that the section/region tourneys for privates though could end up being better than the state tournament w/o more than one of these teams making it however. Keep in mind that I'm not anti-private.
The other option that I see is that we could just go back to community based athletics through HS with MSHSL. Meaning you play on the public HS team in your home attendance area regardless of where you go to private/OE school. If education is the purpose of private/OE, then this solves that and also allows for building strong community programs that can plan and build knowing that they have these players through HS and must serve them. I don't however believe that this addresses kids that move HS's for the "complete package" including athletics, etc. and not just academics.
When I read this quote from the article, it just seemed that this was the direction we could eventually be heading - especially with this phobia of the privates having too many advantages...
"What non-public school people seem to want is to let their kids go anywhere they want," MSHSL executive director Dave Stead said. "What we're saying is, you play in the community in which you live. The purpose of any rule is to provide equitably for kids."
Maybe we just go back to a player playing in their community (for their home HS no matter where they go to HS (private/OE/etc.)). I know this is a "crazy" idea, but if we're heading in the direction of privates being pushed out or punished so much, maybe this is best and would actually help people see a reason to invest in building strong community programs that have to serve kids through HS.
If the MSHSL is anti-private, let the privates form their own elite conf. as they kind of had years ago. Then, if the MSHSL wants to grant them one section/region etc. for sports let them play-off for one spot in each of the MSHSL tourneys vs. being in many different sections. I think that the section/region tourneys for privates though could end up being better than the state tournament w/o more than one of these teams making it however. Keep in mind that I'm not anti-private.
The other option that I see is that we could just go back to community based athletics through HS with MSHSL. Meaning you play on the public HS team in your home attendance area regardless of where you go to private/OE school. If education is the purpose of private/OE, then this solves that and also allows for building strong community programs that can plan and build knowing that they have these players through HS and must serve them. I don't however believe that this addresses kids that move HS's for the "complete package" including athletics, etc. and not just academics.
When I read this quote from the article, it just seemed that this was the direction we could eventually be heading - especially with this phobia of the privates having too many advantages...
"What non-public school people seem to want is to let their kids go anywhere they want," MSHSL executive director Dave Stead said. "What we're saying is, you play in the community in which you live. The purpose of any rule is to provide equitably for kids."
Maybe we just go back to a player playing in their community (for their home HS no matter where they go to HS (private/OE/etc.)). I know this is a "crazy" idea, but if we're heading in the direction of privates being pushed out or punished so much, maybe this is best and would actually help people see a reason to invest in building strong community programs that have to serve kids through HS.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
I'm saying there are options better than telling them that their kids have to sit out years.
If people are really anti-private, let's just come up with a better solution.
1) We could give them their own conf./section/region/etc. and they could all play-off at year end for one slot in the state tourney (they woudl still be part of the MSHSL under this setup and could play a normal scheudle just as they do currently). this would just eliminate the privates taking up multiple conference/section/region championships as some complain about (I personally don't care to be honest)
2) We could allow privates to play MSHSL teams, but be "elite" or non-MSHSL teams come tourney time (the above mentioned ssections/regions would be their own state tourney). this woudl eliminate them from post-season MSHSL play and yet probably still give them their own tourney that may rival that of the other tourneys.
If we go with 2, I'd adapt the MSHSL guidelines to state that any private/OE kid plays at their home attendance area HS for MSHSL activities if they don't play for the private/elite team. If they play with the private school elite/private team that is their choice. Again, the only difference is the tourney play at year end - MSHSL vs. private/elite - and that the player has the option to play with their friends that they've grown up with on their home HS area team. The exception here is that OE's must play for their home HS area team. You'd have to physically move into that attendance area to play for another public school HS team.
Furthermore, if we're really being honest about what the "goals" are of the tourneys/etc. lets make the tourneys tiers vs. classes. Class A is supposed to be a "participation" based state tourney, not one for small school privates to win year-after-year when they are clearly not fitting the purpose of having multiple classes (for more non-traditional hockey schools to get the exposure that will help grow the sport in these communities).
If people are really anti-private, let's just come up with a better solution.
1) We could give them their own conf./section/region/etc. and they could all play-off at year end for one slot in the state tourney (they woudl still be part of the MSHSL under this setup and could play a normal scheudle just as they do currently). this would just eliminate the privates taking up multiple conference/section/region championships as some complain about (I personally don't care to be honest)
2) We could allow privates to play MSHSL teams, but be "elite" or non-MSHSL teams come tourney time (the above mentioned ssections/regions would be their own state tourney). this woudl eliminate them from post-season MSHSL play and yet probably still give them their own tourney that may rival that of the other tourneys.
If we go with 2, I'd adapt the MSHSL guidelines to state that any private/OE kid plays at their home attendance area HS for MSHSL activities if they don't play for the private/elite team. If they play with the private school elite/private team that is their choice. Again, the only difference is the tourney play at year end - MSHSL vs. private/elite - and that the player has the option to play with their friends that they've grown up with on their home HS area team. The exception here is that OE's must play for their home HS area team. You'd have to physically move into that attendance area to play for another public school HS team.
Furthermore, if we're really being honest about what the "goals" are of the tourneys/etc. lets make the tourneys tiers vs. classes. Class A is supposed to be a "participation" based state tourney, not one for small school privates to win year-after-year when they are clearly not fitting the purpose of having multiple classes (for more non-traditional hockey schools to get the exposure that will help grow the sport in these communities).
in theory communitty based teams sounds good, but if that was the case my kids wouldn't play, the same with alot of outstate kids, you would lose more than you gain by having comunitty based teams, the logistics would be impossable for kids that live any distance from the communitty or in our case our home communitty is 40 miles away from the school my kids go to, and how does a team form theif river falls compete with the edina's financially in non revenue sports, they don't so they eliminate that opportuity for the kids. sports should be about opportunitty, by pushining pennalties and talking exclusion it only hurts sports, we should let everyone play including SSM if they want because the competition only makes all the programs stronger
We are looking at this through the lens of girls hockey, one also needs to think about BB, Football, etc, not top mention Boys Hockey. I think the anti-private movemove is much stronger on the boys side.
In any case I think what is obvious is that the proposed rules were made up without a lot of thought to the overall problem and should be tabled until they figure out what they really want to do about privates and mandatory play within you residential school district. I still believe the current rules are the best overall compromise.
In any case I think what is obvious is that the proposed rules were made up without a lot of thought to the overall problem and should be tabled until they figure out what they really want to do about privates and mandatory play within you residential school district. I still believe the current rules are the best overall compromise.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
"What non-public school people seem to want is to let their kids go anywhere they want," MSHSL executive director Dave Stead said. "What we're saying is, you play in the community in which you live. The purpose of any rule is to provide equitably for kids."
Well, if this is the thinking of our appointed high school league bureaucrats, we need to take a step back and rethink the whole issue. The original purpose behind allowing transfers originally was to promote school choice so individuals had more freedom to attend schools outside of the district in which they live. Yes its main purpose was to extend more freedom of choice for academic reasons, and some kids and parents have taken advantage of OE solely for athletic reasons, but I am starting to think that the MSHSL is going way to far in the other direction. This reactionary mindset is demonstrated by the quote above, as Mr. Stead is clearly over-reaching. Rules should be designed to BENEFIT kids, not provide "equitably" [sic] for kids. And yes, the "non-public school people" DO want the freedom to send their kids to any private school of their choosing, even if their kids do not play sports. This was a real dumb thing to say. The whole area boundary thing that's being proposed for private schools is a bad idea, and I would think could be successfully challenged in court.
If after all the "feedback" is in, and the consensus is there to do SOMETHING, I hope they take a more conservative approach than what's been proposed so far. One possibility would be to leave everything as is, but on the second transfer impose a half-season penalty ON WHATEVER SPORT(S) the student chooses to go out for. Currently, my understanding is that if a kid is transferring a second time primarily to play for a better hockey or basketball team, for example, they only have to first sit a half season in another (any) varsity sport. This allows them to simply go out for soccer or another fall sport, satisfy the rule, and thus pay no penalty for their main sport. Under this rule modification they would have to sit a half season for soccer or any fall sport they chose to play, a half season for basketball or hockey if they also wanted to play that, etc. A minor tweak but it would have some influence I think as nobody wants to miss a half season of their main sport, and it could be applied fairly to all schools, public and private, over which the MSHSL has jurisdiction. They could give it a few years and measure how much effect it has, and then re-visit the issue if necessary.
Just my two cents...
Well, if this is the thinking of our appointed high school league bureaucrats, we need to take a step back and rethink the whole issue. The original purpose behind allowing transfers originally was to promote school choice so individuals had more freedom to attend schools outside of the district in which they live. Yes its main purpose was to extend more freedom of choice for academic reasons, and some kids and parents have taken advantage of OE solely for athletic reasons, but I am starting to think that the MSHSL is going way to far in the other direction. This reactionary mindset is demonstrated by the quote above, as Mr. Stead is clearly over-reaching. Rules should be designed to BENEFIT kids, not provide "equitably" [sic] for kids. And yes, the "non-public school people" DO want the freedom to send their kids to any private school of their choosing, even if their kids do not play sports. This was a real dumb thing to say. The whole area boundary thing that's being proposed for private schools is a bad idea, and I would think could be successfully challenged in court.
If after all the "feedback" is in, and the consensus is there to do SOMETHING, I hope they take a more conservative approach than what's been proposed so far. One possibility would be to leave everything as is, but on the second transfer impose a half-season penalty ON WHATEVER SPORT(S) the student chooses to go out for. Currently, my understanding is that if a kid is transferring a second time primarily to play for a better hockey or basketball team, for example, they only have to first sit a half season in another (any) varsity sport. This allows them to simply go out for soccer or another fall sport, satisfy the rule, and thus pay no penalty for their main sport. Under this rule modification they would have to sit a half season for soccer or any fall sport they chose to play, a half season for basketball or hockey if they also wanted to play that, etc. A minor tweak but it would have some influence I think as nobody wants to miss a half season of their main sport, and it could be applied fairly to all schools, public and private, over which the MSHSL has jurisdiction. They could give it a few years and measure how much effect it has, and then re-visit the issue if necessary.
Just my two cents...
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
A few thoughts -hockeygod wrote:in theory communitty based teams sounds good, but if that was the case my kids wouldn't play, the same with alot of outstate kids, you would lose more than you gain by having comunitty based teams, the logistics would be impossable for kids that live any distance from the communitty or in our case our home communitty is 40 miles away from the school my kids go to, and how does a team form theif river falls compete with the edina's financially in non revenue sports, they don't so they eliminate that opportuity for the kids. sports should be about opportunitty, by pushining pennalties and talking exclusion it only hurts sports, we should let everyone play including SSM if they want because the competition only makes all the programs stronger
1) How do kids in out-state communities play then pre-HS when they don't have enough participants? I assume the communities co-op to field teams? As should the HS's then to accomplish this? The planning to do so would actually be much better/easier and more would buy into building community hockey I believe as you know it's your vehicle through HS vs not know who's going to run off where come HS (although that would still be an issue to some degree I suppose with privates that chose to play elite/private sports vs MSHSL home area under such a setup).
2) I guess I'm missing the point on non-revenue athletics to some degree. Are you saying that TRF-like communities will drop HS hockey as a result of all the kids in their community playing for them? Don't they currently field teams under a similar setup as far as impact on such communities? I can't see Edina being hurt by this either - they'd probably be stronger yet, which is scary I think!
3) I agree about inclusion of SSM. Heck, I'd even let the TB in.
To be honest, in a day and age when many preach that we abandon community considerations, there is something to be said about how this woudl strengthen the investment in community athletics and also force people to work out differences vs. just leave. I think that this philoshophiclaly and ethically is a great lesson for our kids and has its merits, but let's be honest that in theory it may be OK, but in practice may be a disaster waiting to happen...
Really, #2 above doesn't take much away from the privates (except MSHSL tourney & they get their own instead), and actually may make them even more elite and may drive more of our top athletes to privates to play in such a strong setup. What it does do though is let kids seek out their best educational opportunties - public OE or private yet have the option to play for the home community which they grew up in with their friends, etc. The problem with this is that there are a select few that left their home are to get away from the community issues, and they won't like this for that reason. So, in some ways, this idea is bad in that it doesn't allow kids to seek out the "whole package" of an OE that comes with athletic, etc. "non-acedemic" pieces.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
I want to add - in general - I think the MSHSL either needs to do something drastic, or nothing at all.
What I mean by this is either keep it the way it is or adjust the whole system, not just the penalties.
I don't believe that increasing the penalties - probably as to unfairly impacting privates - is of much value.
Instead, evaluate if the entire system needs a new approach. And, I think that we may be heading in that direction eventually...
Let's keep in mind that we're taking about something that greatly impacts the lives of MANY young people - KIDS - and that we have to keep that in mind when we discuss all of this.
Furthermore, I should add, that the decisions about all of this impact more than just the kids moving around. It has a great impact on all the other participants in all the programs. Not only the kids in programs that kids leave, but also in the programs that kids go to, and even kids on programs that don't have any movement to/from as they must compete against those that do...
All of this isn't just about the select few, but in actuality all the participants.
What I mean by this is either keep it the way it is or adjust the whole system, not just the penalties.
I don't believe that increasing the penalties - probably as to unfairly impacting privates - is of much value.
Instead, evaluate if the entire system needs a new approach. And, I think that we may be heading in that direction eventually...
Let's keep in mind that we're taking about something that greatly impacts the lives of MANY young people - KIDS - and that we have to keep that in mind when we discuss all of this.
Furthermore, I should add, that the decisions about all of this impact more than just the kids moving around. It has a great impact on all the other participants in all the programs. Not only the kids in programs that kids leave, but also in the programs that kids go to, and even kids on programs that don't have any movement to/from as they must compete against those that do...
All of this isn't just about the select few, but in actuality all the participants.
"What we're saying is, you play in the community in which you live." kind of goes against having co-ops doesn't it. It's another special case they allow for. I assume the MSHSL makes the ISD boudaries of all the schools in the co-op the new definition of community.
A co-op is essentailly what a private is by the way. One might argue the boundary of a private is the collection of all the communities it draws from.
A co-op is essentailly what a private is by the way. One might argue the boundary of a private is the collection of all the communities it draws from.
outstate schools will always have sports such as girls hockey, but are they going to have wrestling if there isn't a school district sponsering it? are they going to have badmitton? how about girls tennis...we have to look at the big picture here because any rule changes would apply to all sports...and the rich area's would have awesome programs in a comunitty based system while the poor area's would have ...not very good programs....the answers is let everyone play, you can figure out classes and and tournaments, give the weaker programs more games so they can schedule there own tournaments, but the way to build any sport is by letting the kids play.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
xk1 knows I'm not anti-private - but I will say that a co-op seems similar yet differs greatly in the details from a private school.
Typically the economic affluence of those that can afford to create a private school "co-op" (attend a private school) is what makes them superior to the inferior public school co-op setups that are allowed. I assume this concern is the root of all private school hatred, even though I personally could care less about any of these issues.
Case in point - I have yet to see a public school co-op win, or even strongly contend for, a state championship, but we have seen privates regularly appear in the tourney, etc. Unless my memory is failing me...
Typically the economic affluence of those that can afford to create a private school "co-op" (attend a private school) is what makes them superior to the inferior public school co-op setups that are allowed. I assume this concern is the root of all private school hatred, even though I personally could care less about any of these issues.
Case in point - I have yet to see a public school co-op win, or even strongly contend for, a state championship, but we have seen privates regularly appear in the tourney, etc. Unless my memory is failing me...
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Agreed that such drastic changes are applicable to all sports and considerations need to be made for this fact.hockeygod wrote:outstate schools will always have sports such as girls hockey, but are they going to have wrestling if there isn't a school district sponsering it? are they going to have badmitton? how about girls tennis...we have to look at the big picture here because any rule changes would apply to all sports...and the rich area's would have awesome programs in a comunitty based system while the poor area's would have ...not very good programs....the answers is let everyone play, you can figure out classes and and tournaments, give the weaker programs more games so they can schedule there own tournaments, but the way to build any sport is by letting the kids play.
My assumption is that nothing changes as far as current sponsorship. If those programs exist now, they would too under the proposal I made. In fact, we may see more participants in the home HS's! I think that's actually the goal. I'm missing the point of why a district that is currently sponsoring a sport would drop it if they got back their OE/private kids too? Keep in mind those OE/privates pay taxes to fund those schools in their home district so they should have access to those sports technically?
From what I can tell, the rich areas already have awesome programs. I don't see what would differ there. Are we saying that the privates level the playing field by stealing the economically affluent kids from the public schools in teh area? Personally, I'm not concerned about this issue. It may still happen that this would continue anyway as we have to remember that those privates would still have the option to offer their private/elite teams through their school. (think of SSM prep now).
I woudl argue that there would be more incentive for weaker programs to build/rebuild if they knew they wouldn't necissairly/lilkely lose their best participants to neighboring communities through OE and that they may actually retain some of their private kids that want to finish their athletic careers with their friends, etc. while getting a great education elsewhere (OE/private)...