Lakewood St. Edward is caught recruiting and they get a "strongly worded letter" and a $250 fine.

Are you serious OHSAA? $250 fine? Two hundred and fifty dollars? This is a joke.

Pay special attention to the part where The St. Ed principal, had a "long diologue" with the OHSAA, after which he stated that it led to some current referendums, to possibly change recruiting bylaws.

St. Edward fined, reprimanded for two recruiting violations by Ohio High School Athletic Association
Tim Warsinskey, The Plain Dealer, April 20, 2011 9:28 a.m.

View full sizeLAKEWOOD, Ohio - St. Edward has been fined and reprimanded for two recruiting violations, the Ohio High School Athletic Association said Tuesday.

The school was fined $250 and received a letter of reprimand in February.

"The third part is an expectation that the instances that occurred will not happen again," OHSAA spokesperson Tim Stried said.

Stried said St. Edward last fall hosted a "meet the coaches night," which is a violation of a bylaw that prohibits initiating contact with prospective student-athletes.

St. Edward also sent out hundreds of invitations to prospective students for an open house, which is permissible. "But there were a couple student-athletes that were specifically followed up with to attend, which a violation," Stried said.

St. Edward principal Eugene Boyer said the violations resulted in a long dialogue with the OHSAA, which Boyer said led to some current referendums to possibly change recruiting bylaws.

"I thought it was a learning experience for both of us," Boyer said. "There was confusion around the bylaws and that's why the new referendums are there to clear it up." Stried said changes in bylaws often happen after instances such as this one, but he did not know if the current proposals are a direct result of conversations with St. Edward.

The OHSAA's May referendum ballot proposes changes to the definition of prospective student-athletes. One proposal would permit coaches to have contact with seventh- and eighth-grade students who are enrolled in their district or, in the case of private schools, in "a non-public school of the same type." Another bylaw proposal defines what is permissible for mass marketing of schools to prospective students.

OHSAA member principals will vote on the referendum proposals the first two weeks of May.

Didn't your school get caught?

Cool...didn't realize that I went back in time to three days ago when you posted this the first time.

Good for you, you can sleep better with additional evidence as to why your school can't complete (even though a number of publics can and do).

genghis dong;747713 wrote:Didn't your school get caught?

This thread is not really about St. Ed recruiting, (we all know they did, do, and always will recruit), it's more about the OHSAA and the punishment they levied....Or lack thereof.

sherm03;747892 wrote:Cool...didn't realize that I went back in time to three days ago when you posted this the first time.

A post is not a thread.

queencitybuckeye;747911 wrote:Good for you, you can sleep better with additional evidence as to why your school can't complete (even though a number of publics can and do).

Four final 4's and a State Championship appearance in the last decade say you're wrong.

Didn't your school get caught? What was their punishment?

skank;747985 wrote:This thread is not really about St. Ed recruiting, (we all know they did, do, and always will recruit), it's more about the OHSAA and the punishment they levied....Or lack thereof.

We also know that Massillion did, does whatever. What was their punishment?

Bottom line....dong, Massillons transgressions are in the past....THIS act of rule breaking was done in the present.

Do any of you feel that their punishment was just....Honestly?

skank;747989 wrote:Four final 4's and a State Championship appearance in the last decade say you're wrong.

Fair enough, I forget that there are places where 2nd and 4th place finishes are meaningful. Congrats.

skank;748007 wrote:Do any of you feel that their punishment was just....Honestly?

I find it ridiculous that what they did is against any rules in the first place.

queencitybuckeye;748010 wrote:Fair enough, I forget that there are places where 2nd and 4th place finishes are meaningful. Congrats.

Changing the terms in mid conversation I see. You said, "your school can't compete, (even though a number of publics can and do)".

"EVEN THOUGH A NUMBER OF PUBLICS CAN AND DO." Is what you said, like competing met YOUR requirements....When I proved that Massillon "can and does compete....Now this isn't good enough for you, huh? You want to change the requirements.

skank;748003 wrote:Bottom line....dong, Massillons transgressions are in the past....THIS act of rule breaking was done in the present.

Oh I see if your public school got caught CHEATING in the past it not relevant to the conversation. Just like your championships I guess.

Lakewood ST. Ed's isn't private?

ernest_t_bass;748132 wrote:Lakewood ST. Ed's isn't private?

Whatever, however, they ARE parochial.

Every public school in the state has meet the coach, most do it at the middle school and take kids out of class to attend.

skank;748048 wrote:Changing the terms in mid conversation I see. You said, "your school can't compete, (even though a number of publics can and do)".

"EVEN THOUGH A NUMBER OF PUBLICS CAN AND DO." Is what you said, like competing met YOUR requirements....When I proved that Massillon "can and does compete....Now this isn't good enough for you, huh? You want to change the requirements.

You proved nothing other than your definition of competing is a far lower bar than mine.

And you know how EVERY public school in the state runs their program? That's impressive.

queencitybuckeye;747911 wrote:Good for you, you can sleep better with additional evidence as to why your school can't complete (even though a number of publics can and do).

For the final time, the above is what you posted earlier, here, I'll highlight it for you....MY school has played in the State semi-finals in '01, '02, '05 & '09, making it to the State Championship in '05. I think that proves that they CAN compete.

But now, I see where you edited your post to say complete instead of compete....Well played my friend....Well played.

queencitybuckeye;748271 wrote:You proved nothing other than your definition of competing is a far lower bar than mine.

This post proves you said compete.

Furthermore, if a public school with 550 boys can take a parochial school with over 1,000 boys to the final gun, losing by a mere 7 pts....And you don't call that competing, I think you're lying.

This is such a stupid rule that OHSAA is putting changes in the rules due to this. This is a silly rule hence the $250 fine.

Steubenville... I mean Lakewood St. Ed's gets away with everything Steubenville... I mean Lakewood St. Ed's wants to. Maybe OHSAA should have looked into Steubenville... I mean Lakewood St. Ed's long ago...

Bottom line, one of the parochial schools that "the parochial 7" said wins because they want it more, and work harder....etc, JUST GOT CAUGHT CHEATING....End of story.