The MAIS, what direction are they headed?

Southern Sports & Travel

Precedent - an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

It was just a few months ago that I had a conversation with a member of the MAIS Executive Committee that centered on the process in which sanctions were imposed by the MAIS on member schools that were in violation of any of the articles in the MAIS AAC Handbook and the recourse a member school had should a challenge arise.

After a thorough explanation of the duties of the Appeals Committee, the AAC Committee and the Executive Committee the term “precedent” would come up on more than one occasion in that conversation when the question was asked what the prevailing guideline was in handing out sanctions to member schools.

On Thursday the MAIS AAC Committee revoked the “hardship” status that was granted to four Australian foreign exchange students at Copiah Academy and Marshall Academy at a January 7^th meeting before the MAIS Eligibility Committee. The same committee ruled the four students ineligible but after hearing a request from Marshall Academy representatives the Eligibility Committee voted 4-0-1 to grant “hardship” status based on Marshall’s plea regarding the huge financial burden each family and school incurred in the foreign exchange process, the fact that none of the students had reached the age of 19 before August 1^st and that athletes in similar situations competed last season.

Both Marshall Academy and Copiah disagreed with the Eligibility Committee’s ruling that the four students were ineligible but felt the issue was over following the meeting due in part that it is rare that the AAC Committee overturns a ruling by the Eligibility Committee.

On January 23^rd the AAC Committee convened for their regularly scheduled meeting and took up the January 7^th ruling among other business.

Thursday’s AAC meeting ultimately resulted in a vote to revoke the “hardship” status thus making all four student/athletes immediately ineligible. The vote to essentially overturn the Eligibility Committee’s decision was 14 voting affirmative to revoke the “hardship” status with three abstentions.

Since Thursday’s ruling confusion has dominated social media and other outlets as to what infraction the AAC Committee cited that each school violated.

The MAIS compounded the confusion by reaffirming its’ position through a statement that I received from MAIS Director of Activities Director Les Triplett that the MAIS refrains from any comments on committee or AAC action involving eligibility cases.

This statement, or lack there-of, didn’t sit well with some who felt an explanation was owed to the MAIS community, the thousands who follow MAIS athletics and the media that provides coverage of MAIS athletics.

Meanwhile assumptions were rampant as to why these four kids were ruled ineligible. While rumors flew, four families 9,000 miles away sat shocked and disappointed.

"As much as I'm upset about Johnny not playing, I'm more upset that it ruins it for Coach Dailey and his teams. He made every effort to play by the rulings at each step and now everyone is punished," said John Crnogorac from his home in Sydney, Australia. Mr. Crnogorac’s son Johnny is a student at Marshall Academy.

Several newspapers subsequently contacted the MAIS regarding the ruling and the same "no comment" answer was provided them.

The much respected Robbie Hamilton took to his K-106 radio program on Friday morning and unloaded on the MAIS and their refusal to offer the public any statement in such an important ruling. Hamilton said the MAIS needed to “put their big boy pants on” and explain their decision.

Will Nations, sportswriter for The Daily Times Leader in West Point tweeted, “The MAIS compared to the MHSAA is the Iron Curtain. MHSAA has problems, like anything, but MAIS is unreal.”

According to Hamilton the LHSAA (Louisiana) is a shining example when it comes to openness.

After many hours of research and digging Southern Sports & Travel has learned that the MAIS has cited their reasons for declaring the four student/athletes ineligible as the following:

1) have clearly exhausted their four years of athletic eligibility since  entering the 9th grade.

2) have finished a season in the sport of basketball during their 12th grade  year at their previous school.

3) have graduated and/or finished their formal training at their previous high school.

The alleged violation appears in Section VI of the MAIS AAC Handbook under “Eligibility Rules For Inter-School Competition.”

E. FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF PARTICIPATION

Upon entering the 9th grade, a student will have four (4) consecutive years of

eligibility in inter-school contests. This is interpreted to mean that a student is eligible

for four (4) consecutive years after entering the 9th grade, regardless of when he/she

began to participate.

By citing these alleged citations the MAIS, intentionally or by accident, has put to bed the rumors that have run wild recently surrounding the foreign exchange students who have made the trek from Australia.

Those include students being too old, illegal recruiting, paid tuition and housing and on and on.

What these alleged infractions also do is open up a wide array of questions that should be answered.

1) If the kids had indeed already graduated how could they enroll in two MAIS schools?

2) Putting athletics aside, who deemed the kids eligible to enroll in Copiah Academy and Marshall Academy if they had already graduated?

3) Is anything different with this group of Australian foreign exchange students than those over the past three years?

4) At what point in time did these kids become ineligible?

5) Why did the Eligibility Committee grant them "hardship" status?

6) How many "hardship" grants have been overturned by the AAC in the past?

6) Does the new school year in Australia start in February or October?

7) Did the school from which the students transferred offer any correspondence to be presented to either committee to support their claim that the students had not graduated?

8) Did any of the student’s parents offer sworn statements as to the age, years of athletic participation and whether they had graduated prior to enrolling in an MAIS school?

9) Was the full AAC Committee that met last Thursday presented with the January 7^th rebuttals given by both Copiah Academy and Marshall Academy?

10) How much time did each AAC Committee member independently invest into examining what is surely a complicated and costly issue?

11) Was the AAC Committee educated thoroughly about the Australian basketball season which was just 10 games long? 

12) Did any of the kids play just three seasons of high school basketball (30 game total) which is equivalent to one MAIS season?

It’s not particularly important what position individuals take in this matter but what is monumentally important is the process and the lack of openness exhibited by the MAIS.

If the alleged infractions are in fact in violation of the MAIS AAC Handbook then punishment is warranted but there cannot and should not be any gray area in such an important matter that has far reaching effects on kids and families who want nothing more than for their children to have an opportunity to hone their skills in the country that has the best basketball completion on the planet.

Furthermore, if the alleged infractions are indeed accurate those at the MAIS who are charged with the overview of insuring that the rules are enforced have been derelict in their duties and responsibilities over the past three years and have some explaining to do.

They will ultimately have to explain why players on last season’s Overall Champion Central Private squad were any different than those they claim are ineligible at Copiah and Marshall this season.

Unfortunately the public may never know and that is shameful.

I’m an MAIS shareholder so to speak, just as thousands of other parents are. I paid tuition for two children for thirteen years each to attend an MAIS school and spent literally thousands of dollars paying to attend many MAIS athletic events.

My personal interest goes a bit further than just being a stockholder in the MAIS. It also entails six years of hard work promoting MAIS athletics through Southern Sports & Travel.

Covering schools outside the Jackson area was paramount due to the virtual non-existence of media coverage provided in previous years to a vast majority of member schools. People can draw their own conclusions as to why MAIS athletics outside the Jackson Area was stagnant and not promoted more aggressively.

When I was recently told that the public had no business knowing what infractions the MAIS hands down to its’ member schools I was infuriated and left with the notion that some holding important positions within the MAIS may be out of touch.

Also concerning is the fact that those who file complaints on an MAIS school can remain anonymous which in some respects fuels outlandish rumors that can ultimately cause great harm to not only members schools but kids also.

The MAIS Executive Committee will hear an appeal from Copiah Academy and Marshall Academy on Wednesday. The hope is that a clear explanation is offered from the MAIS to its’ thousands of past and present shareholders and that the veil of closed door meetings and information be lifted.

Without conforming from practices of the 70’s and 80’s the MAIS may eventually need a GPS to guide them in the right direction. 
My opinion will cost me sponsors and I will receive a few nasty emails and messages but I feel strongly about this issue. As I shared with the Executive Committee member that I spoke with, I owe no-one anything nor do I answer to an employer so my opinions are 100% objective.