It is in cruel jest that some FHSAA investigator making six figures, driving a luxury company vehicle up to a trailer or public housing knocking on the door to tell some high school student that the punishment for trying to pull his family out of poverty is athletic ineligibility, essentially crushing his primary chance to escape poverty and change the trajectory of his family’s life for years to come.    you can disagree with what I’m saying, but please spare me any moral lecture about wanting to do right and what’s best for student athletes, especially ones in extreme need. 

So crazy to me. Some kid can live in extreme poverty, and is offered a way to completely change the dynamic of his family’s living situation for the better while at the same time enhancing his education, and increasing his access to a free college education.    And the response from people almost exclusively more well off than him and his family is, is NO!!!! You must stay in a failing school, in extreme poverty, and decrease the chances of college with the hopes of creating generational wealth!!!! ”But why sir?? Why can’t I help me and my family for decades to come?”    “Because peasant, the high school you are leaving might not win as many football games without you stuck in your vicious cycle!!!!!”

Is this a common sense question or should we be getting an "EXPERT" in here to tell us the answer?

Responding to Nolebull's comment with an SAT-like question for everyone on this board: Here's the scenario (and I'm making it as blatantly obvious as I can):  Assistant coach for Local High School ("LHS") identifies a rising junior skill position player from another high school that the LHS coach believes could be a real difference-maker for his team.  The LHS coach pulls the kid aside after a 7-on-7 tournament and starts extolling the virtues of LHS and telling the kid what a great fit the kid would be.  He then meets up with the kid's parents and offers them housing right down the street from LHS.  He then tells them he can make arrangements for the kid's mom to get a new "job" at the car dealership owned by former LHS quarterback and long-time LHS booster, Rooster Calhoun, who took LHS to the state championship game back in 1974.   In short, the coach commits what everyone and their brother could only describe as 'recruiting,' and extends an offer of what everyone and their sister could only conclude would be 'impermissible benefits.'  And the kid and his family members willingly participate in the recruitment process and, ultimately, gladly accept the benefits.  Who should be punished: A.  The assistant coach. B.  The head coach (and, yes, I was intentionally vague on whether the head coach participated in or had knowledge of the actions). C.  The school. D.  The kid. E.  All of the above.  Unlike the SAT, you are not limited to one answer.   Put down the letter for each one (unless you think all should be punished, in which event you can just put down "E").   

Thank You, he is the reason we lost our top receiver 3 years ago to WPHS, not an easy drive from Kissimmee.  He ended up being their top WR, kick returner and top TD maker that year.   FHSAA came down on them hard so he headed to Leesburg.  Acting like this stuff isn't really happening, justifying why it happens, leaving poor programs, headed to better programs or other lame excuses are weak.  Clear rule breaking should have consequences for ALL involved.