Many states have the same rule. The association is placing academics above athletics. I applaud them for it. You should not be calling them out for possibly doing something that you were told by a family who you don't even know.
You are just wrong about this one, old man yelling from your lawn. Just. Wrong.
Yelling from your yard is what you complainers are doing. I am doing the complete opposite by saying that I am in full agreement.
Actually, you’ve spent most of your time sidestepping the core issue and instead trying to discredit the family, focusing narrowly on whether they ever had approval. It’s now clear that they did.
So what’s your position? Do you support this archaic Indiana rule that prevents kids from competing out of state? If so, why? How does it benefit anyone?
Read my post again. You didn't understand it. I said that Rich would not break rules by allowing ineligible runners because that would likely put his meet in jeopardy.
Please accept my apology. I didn't intend to accuse you of anything.
We both applaud Rich and the Arcadia Invitational (right?).
The rule is in place to prioritize academics ahead of athletics. Many associations don't permit teams to travel long distances. Many threads exist on Letsrun where people are complaining about how kids are travelling the country as opposed to a time when conference and state meets were the priority.
Indy Man..Im confused on your position…you started by trying to discredit/bash our family and now trying to say it’s about academics and conference/state finals. They have no problem letting runners use their 2 waivers to go anywhere in the country “unattached” but can’t represent school…so I think the academic side of it really has nothing to do with the argument. We did everything we were supposed to do that runners have done in the past to compete at Arcadia. We had waiver approved 2 months prior and then pulled a week before race. If they would have denied it when requested that’s fine but they didn’t
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Fixed
Incredibly level-headed attitude by Mr. Seitz. If they would have just denied it originally, that's annoying, but it's their association, their rules. All we can do is ask our coaches association to lobby the IHSAA for reasonable rule changes (sometimes, they even listen!).
But they didn't deny it originally, they pulled the rug out on them after the fact because they don't know their own (pretty arguably archaic) rules. I don't blame them for getting it wrong at first, it SHOULD be allowed. But there's a lot of blame to be placed for going back on their initial decision.
If you are truly who you say you are, I am sorry to hear thexists? Did they revoke the waiver?
If you visit this site, you know that half of what is posted is untrue. I could create a user name that looks something like IHSAA and claim to be an official.
The rule is in place for the reasons I mentioned. Why do you think it esists?
The rule is in place to prioritize academics ahead of athletics. Many associations don't permit teams to travel long distances. Many threads exist on Letsrun where people are complaining about how kids are travelling the country as opposed to a time when conference and state meets were the priority.
That argument doesn’t really hold up, if the concern is academics, then measure academics directly with GPA or eligibility standards, not blanket bans on competition. Travel itself isn’t what undermines school performance, and many of the athletes competing at that level are already top students. The rule is also inconsistently applied across states, which suggests it’s more about tradition or control than academics. Ultimately, it limits opportunities for high performing kids without any clear academic benefit.
It is the intent of the rule. You are focused on one or two elite distance runners who have the resources to do the travel amd are generally good students. The rule applies to the thousands of individuals and hundreds of teams that participate within rhe state. The association doesn't want a bunch of former washed up athletes who are now coaching soccer, football, basketball, to take their teams all over the country while missing days of school at a time. You don't have to agree with the rule, but at least understand what they are trying to do.
This has so many problems with it and its simply absurd in this day and age!
The Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) requires that out-of-state contests occur within 300 miles of the Indiana state line to be valid for member school participation. This rule, designed to minimize travel, applies to interstate contests and ensures opponents are members of their respective state associations, usually requiring specific ISAA sanctioning. L IHSAA Key details of the ISAA 300-mile rule include: Distance Limit: The site or venue of the contest must be within 300 miles from the Indiana State line. Opponent Rules: The out-of-state team must be a member of their own state's athletic association. Sanctioning: The event must be sanctioned as needed by the IHSAA. Exception Process: Outside of these boundaries, schools generally cannot participate, although this is occasionally reviewed by the association. • Coach and Athletic... +2 The rule aims to prevent high school athletics from becoming overly focused on national travel and competition, ensuring the focus remains on regional, team-based activities rather than individual, long-distance competitions.
I’m Calvin’s father and we have the proof of the approval from the IHSAA this year…Calvin did not compete last year for the traditional school team but was part of the Jasper “unified track” which does fall under IHSAA. I’m sure you’ll probably turn this as well, but Calvin still wanted to be part of a team and help kids that aren’t as fortunate to give back to the sport. Maybe if you talked to Calvin and knew the whole story you might show a little compassion but you clearly have a problem with my son and/or our family. We aren’t fighting for our son only but for other athletes in our state currently and for those future athletes to have an opportunity to compete at Arcadia (at least have consistency on the issue) or and races like this. IN only grants 2 waivers…most use 1 for one of the indoor nationals meets and others usually don’t get an opportunity to use the 2nd one with current formate
I will say this, as a current coach the IHSAA is literally the worse organization when it comes to student athletes. ESPECIALLY Cross country/Track and field.
I have also coached in ohio, michigan, and west Virginia. Indiana thinks they are better because they do things "differently" But Brian Lewis and Jane Schott HATE the sports they are supposed to represent, and are the WORSE people to deal with.
Some people in Indiana seem to have an issue with Calvin, and idk why. Let the kid do what he wants to do and compete for who he wants to compete. Isn't that literally the point.
The IHSAA is probably the biggest joke of an athletic association in the US.
"place academics over athletics"- Yeah cool story. But guess what, academics are the end all be all. Literally look at NIL deals within the NCAA and you tell me otherwise.
It should be up to the parents/school about what an athlete can and cannot do. The IHSAA shouldn't have a say in the matter as it LITERALLY doesn't have any impact on them.
Your post made sense except for the above. The Arcadia meet director should simply let in any and all HS runners. Some kid from Indiana running against Indiana rules isn't going to jeopardize the eligiblity of runners from other states.
Ineligibility isn't contagious.
I understand where you are coming from, but this is actually one of the parts Rich got exactly right. Here is why.
Let's define where Arcadia stands in regards to NFHS record eligibility.
The Arcadia Invitational is not a club meet. It is not a post-season showcase. It operates as an NFHS-sanctioned, high-school-only competition. That is what makes Arcadia different from highly competitive meets like New Balance Nationals or Nike Cross Nationals, where athletes compete as clubs or unattached. At Arcadia, every athlete must represent their high school and compete in their school uniform. Rich states this at the very top of his meet info page and has for over a decade.
That NFHS sanctioning is what allows NFHS records to be set at Arcadia. There were 38 of them going into this past weekend. The NFHS sanctioning is also what makes the meet legitimate in the eyes of a ton of state athletic associations. I mean there are so many state associations sending athletes to Arcadia (35 states I believe according to Rich). Under NFHS rules, the sanctioning process is a cascading, multi-state approval system. Every participating state must independently approve their schools' involvement.
For a national record to be recognized by the NFHS, the State Association Executive Officer must endorse that the meet was sanctioned by the home state association and conducted in compliance with NFHS rules. The state association must also confirm the meet was sanctioned, and that the host school is a recognized member. If any of those links break, the performance is invisible to the NFHS record book no matter how fast the clock reads
So what happens if Rich lets Calvin compete after the IHSAA has explicitly pulled approval?
He now has an athlete in his meet whose state association is on record saying they did not authorize his participation. That is a broken link in the chain. If someone in that race sets a national record, it is NFHS record invalid. Not just in the 3200m, also for the 400m, the 100m, any and all events contested at the meet. On top of that, other schools can even potentially be punished by losing their state association membership for a year.
Rich is not being difficult. He is protecting 691 schools from 35 states, the national records, and the entire framework that makes Arcadia the number one high profile in-season meet where records actually count under NFHS rules. If he starts making exceptions for athletes whose state associations have explicitly denied approval, he puts all of that at risk. Even if the athlete is a national champion indoors.
With that, the focus should probably go back to the state association and revoking their waiver approval one week before the race, then going silent. Indiana didn't even know their rules, and unequally enforces them as history shows.
I mean this seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black...
You are saying he can't compete because semantically there is some amount of risk to other athletes... but you haven't mentioned why the variety of other IN athletes were able to compete despite not having the same considerations from the IHSAA...
Do you truly believe that the NFHS would invalidate all records associated with all runners at the meet as a result of this kid not getting the correct waiver...? Honestly, if that's the case, the NFHS is just as bad as the IHSAA.
Look, I seriously dislike the IHSAA. I competed from 2008-11 in Central IN and we constantly heard about these allowances or disallowances, etc. It is archaic and not useful. But if the NFHS is going to take a position of being punitive rather than equitable to the athletes competing... maybe we should take a harder look at their principles as well.
I dont want my name here28 wrote: Yes, potentially every kid in the meet from California (not sure about other states) would be ineligible for their seasons if they were in uniform competing for their school and competed against an athlete that wasn't representing their school. I would guess that if Rich decided to not follow the state association rules, that the state association's would just decide to never sanction his meet again. That would kill the meet. So, he is not going to risk that. Rich is going to follow the rules of sanctioning with each state association and do his best to make sure that ineligible athletes don't compete in the meet.“
So what you’re saying is, this is really all about ‘branding’, that’s why most of these big name meets have the competitors all wear essentially the same generic uniform, etc….
The 300 mile from Indiana seems uptight, unnecessary and archaic. Rich always brings a tremendous amount of enthusiasm, professionalism, and gravitas to his announcing an organizational skills. I have always admired and appreciated all of this tremendous efforts. It’s about the kids. It’s about the athletes. It’s not about us. Our politics are economics or our individual states it’s about the athletes and we should be celebrating their success in the most competitive way we can organize so the 300 mile rule although well intended for certain circumstances should not apply in this one and if they signed and gave permission, then they should honor that or at least apologize to the family and compensate them for all of the travel expenses. It’s just absurd, ridiculous, and criminal for them to withhold him from competition just to keep the peace.
I dont want my name here28 wrote: Yes, potentially every kid in the meet from California (not sure about other states) would be ineligible for their seasons if they were in uniform competing for their school and competed against an athlete that wasn't representing their school. I would guess that if Rich decided to not follow the state association rules, that the state association's would just decide to never sanction his meet again. That would kill the meet. So, he is not going to risk that. Rich is going to follow the rules of sanctioning with each state association and do his best to make sure that ineligible athletes don't compete in the meet.“
So what you’re saying is, this is really all about ‘branding’, that’s why most of these big name meets have the competitors all wear essentially the same generic uniform, etc….
What? No I'm saying that California doesn't allow kids to run against unattached or college or pros or the High School athletes all become ineligible.
Many states have the same rule. The association is placing academics above athletics. I applaud them for it. You should not be calling them out for possibly doing something that you were told by a family who you don't even know.
You are just wrong about this one, old man yelling from your lawn. Just. Wrong.
Few states have a rule like this.
I’m very curious whether Indiana public schools allow kids to graduate in December, specifically those going to play spring football at the college they’ve committed to. If they do, then that goes against the idea that this 300 mile rule is about placing academics above athletics. As far as academics, that should be a local decision by the school along with the parents. If a student athlete grades are falling/in question, then that would be a good reason not to let the athlete miss school to travel for a meet. However if the athlete is on top of their work (there is a high correlation between between doing well academically and distance running), this should not be a reason to hold an athlete back from competing at these prestigious events.
Indy Man…yes. the waiver was revoked one week before the race. We did everything we were asked to do. I even asked about travel days, my son and myself rescheduled our flight (my wife and younger son went out the day before as that was when we originally had planned to travel) so he would not miss a meet then was told he would be good to go.
im not sure why the rule exist…academics may sound good on paper but these kids aren’t struggling academically. I’m guessing this rule is in place for a different sport and is just a blanket over every thing
IN had 5 national championships at indoor Nike and NB this year. NB 800, NB mile, NB 2 mile, Nike girls 800, Nike high jump ( I may have missed a sprinter?)
There are some other kids from IN that could have ran at Arcadia as well with their times