Prep athlete suing UHSAA


Return To Article
  • c_train31 sandy, utah
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:17 a.m.

    don't let him transfer!

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 4:15 p.m.

    Just read the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Mikas. Any rational judge is going to side with the kid. Injunctive relief will be granted. UHSAA is going to have their backside scalded by this one. Given the circumstances, it was a perfectly dumb decision to deny the kid eligibility.

    What astonishes me is that I KNOW some of the board members on the UHSAA, they are reasonable people. I cannot fathom how they arrived at the decision they did with Eric Mika. It staggers belief.

    The Sutherland Institute said it best when they wrote: "It is troubling that the UHSAA, a private organization, has almost unbridled power to regulate access to tax-funded programs. In the case of student transfers, the UHSAA has authority, and its rules require it, to meddle in the private lives of Utah families, essentially putting them on trial under a guilty-until-proven-innocent prosecution system. The tables will now turn as the UHSAA is faced with defending itself against the Mikas in a real court of law."

    UHSAA should reverse course and make peace quickly. They risk having their power eviscerated by the court. And UHSAA will lose.

  • Brighton Alum Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    Scholarships these days come from summer travel with an AAU team. They do not come from your high school season. Mika has and will be able to continue to travel with an AAU team an the summer and will again be seen by college coaches all over the country. This will not hurt his recruitment at all.

  • dsk CC, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 11:44 p.m.


    I agree it was a sad day when they forced Waterford to go down to 2a. The soccer teams at Waterford are awesome and have some very good players. I am just saying that it is hard for the rural schools to compete with teams such as Waterford and St. Joseph. I know Waterford wasn't happy winning the 3a soccer championship and then having to go down the next year. It must be frustrating to always play St. Joseph in the Championship game every year.

  • SLKid79 Sugarhouse, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 1:01 p.m.

    The big problem with saying that he should have to stay at the school he started at, is that he is a talented division-1 level athlete, and if he continued to play at Waterford, chances are his best offers would come from Utah, or BYU, playing at Lone Peak, he'll be in a bigger spotlight with more recruiters watching, which will give him the opportunity to go to a better college, you can't tell him he can't play, he has a legitimate hardship making him transfer, however, if the family wants to make the decision easier, they should transfer his brothers out of the school, and his parents should leave the organizations they are involved with at the school.

  • KRY South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 8:17 a.m.

    The UHSAA says the family most prove their is a hardship if he continues to go to Waterford. From what I can see he has proved that hardship period. The long hours of commuting, late nights, school work etc. All are grounds for a hardship.

    But the panels says yes we agree their is a hardship but you will also benefit by playing basketball at Lone Peak. So they deny his hardship. What is wrong with this picture? If he was a no name player who was not very good would they deny his transfer. I don't think so.

    The rule needs to be tweeked again to not include private schools. So parents can send their kids to private schools to get a better education early, then as they get to high school go to a bigger school to play sports, I was such a kid.

    The UHSAA can't win in court so they will need to change the rules. Can't wait to see Lone Peak play, I heard they are ranked 25th in the country.

  • Timp South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 7:14 a.m.

    Everyone needs to step back and look at the best interests of the kids.

    I had a family member play for a top program and he excellsed. I had another family member play for one of the worst football programs in the state and honestly it was a struggle for him to just oomplete 4 years without quitting like each one of his friends. The first family member is playing in college. The second had 0.1% of doing the same due to the envirmonment, lack of coaching, poor competition, ect that his school provided.

    If I had a kid I would do everything I could (if they wanted me to) to ensure that they had all the opportunities to follow their dreams/passion. If they were in the band, I would try and get them to American Fork. If they were basketball players I would try and get them to play at Lone Peak.

    That's just me. I guess I care about them more than the community. Losing programs usually always lose for more reasons than a few transfer out

  • Ville Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 7:03 a.m.

    It shouldn't be a surprise that they are going after the UHSAA. Until that organization can make decisions that are consistant and fair to the kids, there will be more of this. For those who say you should play where you start or forfeit time, transfers happen all the time. I went to a LP - AF game earlier this year with some friends who go to AF. They pointed out two kidson their team who started their sports at LP, live in the LP boundaries but are now playing for AF. They also told me about the baseball player that moved from LP to AF after he played his soph year with LP. I think it goes on more than we all realize, that's why it doesn't make sense not to allow a kid to play at a school where he lives in the boundaries. Of course, most of us in the SL Valley know well about the Skyline player who transfered to WJ dor his senior year. Is he taking all his classes at WJ now? When you read about this issue, seems like the someone at the UHSAA may have a bias on this or the school.

  • watchfuleye Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:25 p.m.

    The rule is good for the point of transferring schools would go on non stop. Not only that but they could go to Lone Peak for basketball, Bingham for football, and in the old days, Taylorsville for baseball, all in one year. The parents knew going in and now want to sue? The UHSAA has a tough job. I don't agree with everything they do but this one is spot on. Stay where you are and quit complaining.

  • fan29 Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:20 p.m.

    If the young man lives in the schools area I don't see why there is a problem. Another case of UHSAA over reaching is authority!!!

  • PG #1 FAN Lindon, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 2:38 p.m.

    I'm glad he is suing. The UHSAA has way too much power. 2 years ago, I spoke with the UHSAA about my daughter transferring because she had a coach openly discriminating against her. The coach told her, in front of the entire team, that she was not welcome. He tried to cut her twice but she won the tryout for the position so they had to keep her. When I told the UHSAA about the problem they told me that she would likely lose and have to sit out a year. "If the transfer was related to sports in any way that she would lose" is what I was told. That was too big of a risk since she plays 3 other sports so she stuck it out. She had to suffer 2 additional years of gender discrimination because they want to be the overlords of High School Sports. Time for this madness to end. Let the kid play. The purpose of this rule is to encourage fairness, not to keep kids in disfunctional situations.

  • ifiwasabettingman Sandy, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 2:27 p.m.

    @DSK it would make Juan Diego and Waterford mad to put them up a class? From 2a to 3a? You think so? Cause the day when Waterford was forced to go back to 2A was the saddest day of my life. I loved competing against bigger and better schools.

  • Whiteshoes Hurricane, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 2:00 p.m.

    As has been said before...

    The boy can attend Lone Peak. Take classes. Go to dances.

    The UHSAA determines athletic eligibility. Every HS student chooses his "boundary school" when he/she first enters high school. In this particular case, the private school became his "boundary school" for athletic eligibility purposes because they chose to attend that school. If he switches schools...he has to sit out a year just like anyone else.

    If thst rule didn't exist, every student could attend a school outside of his neighborhood and then switch back without a penalty. For example, kids would live by Brighton but go to a private school and then switch and go to Brighton...and then switch back to Skyline without a penalty. Bottom line is that if you switch schools...there has to be a consequence.

  • 2afan Layton, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    How is this the private schools fault. "no restrictions",they play with the same transfer rule. your fair frustration has led you to make an emotional and inaccurate statement.

  • Just my opinion Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 1:29 p.m.

    If they are not eligible from a transfer stand point they can not be on the team (this would include practicings, warm up, dress, be listed on rosters/programs, or anything else like that). They can be used as a team manager, and since the UHSAA doesn't have any say or have any rules against what a team manager can do, a team manager can practice with the team if the coach wants.

    If they are not eligible from a grade stand point they can practice, they just can not dress, warm up, be listed on the roster/program.

    So the only difference currently is that you must call a player not eligible from a transfer stand point a manager and then everything is the same.

    I called and ask the UHSAA about this one and they pretty much said if someone wanted to do that they could since they don't have a rule to cover that issue.

  • dsk CC, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 1:06 p.m.

    This is the problem with private schools. They can pull students from a very large area with no restrictions, then when someone wants to transfer back to their old school(boundary). Everyone gets upset, make all the private schools that pull from such large areas into the classification above what their numbers indicate. Most other states either have a separate classification or make them play up a level Waterford-3A, Juan Diego-4A, they wont like it, but Utah is so much smarter than everyone else it will never happen. How are schools such as Parowon supposed to compete with schools that can pull from Park City, Provo and Salt Lake. While they are restricted to a town of about 6,000. That sounds real fair, but what is fair about pulling a Lone Peak all-star to play on a private 2A school 20 miles away. Make decisions and stick to them or deal with the consequences. Time to grow and face reality.

  • BBALL GURU Midway, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 1:05 p.m.

    As one who is involved in the situation, I am positive that he CANNOT practice with the team. No participation at all if he is ruled ineligible. He can be used as a manager and travel with the team, but cannot participate in practice as a player.

  • coach68 CENTERVILLE, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 12:27 p.m.

    @old ball coach..as I understand it he can not participate in any way, including practice. At least that is what we do at my school.

  • The Jimmer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 12:13 p.m.

    Seriously? The UHSAA wants to keep a kid from playing even though he transferred for non-athletic reasons? Someone should sue the UHSAA for telling parents and schools how they can use tax dollars. Isn't the UHSAA a private organization?

  • Old ball coach Sandy, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 11:18 a.m.

    @coach68- He can't practice? Which is still technically with the "team"!

    1) Can't suit up
    2) Warm Up
    3) be introduced as a player

    4) Can still practice!

  • coach68 CENTERVILLE, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    @Old ball coach. you must be old, if the kid is ruled ineligible he can't be on any school team including the Junior Varsity.

  • CiderMan OGDEN, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 10:37 a.m.

    The UHSAA could also change the rules and not let any student play sports at any public school except the school in the boundaries where they live, no more open enrollment as far as sports is concerned -how about that one?

  • Old ball coach Sandy, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    The UHSAA is not telling the player he can't attend Lone Peak High School. UHSAA is saying he is not eligible this season to play sports at Lone Peak. This is clearly a sports motivated move. I know for a fact that kids Drive down from Park City, and up from Provo to attend Waterford!

    The Parents know exactly what the are doing, and I think UHSAA is doing the right thing here. Sit out like the rest of the kids who transfer, play Junior Varsity, and kick butt your senior year!

  • coach68 CENTERVILLE, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    @flashback. it's not the UHSAA that has a say in open enrollment, that comes from the state. This kid can go to LP for his education. It's all about playing sports. I had a kid once in this situation, lived in my school boundaries but attended Judge. As a senior he decided the travel was too much and came to my school. He was not allowed to play.
    I would bet this kid, and parents, were told when he went to Waterford that this was the rule, and not they want it changed.

  • sportsman44 MIDWAY, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    Make the kid sit out a year. For his well being so that he can catch up from last year and all the hardship that it was on him. He needs at least a year to make up for his bad grades that he got at Waterford. oh did he get bad grades was it really that hard for him? either way he needs to focus on school more than basketball. That's why he going to LP right?

    Oct. 28, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    Any comments from UHSAA about a local basketball star transferring from Skyline to W. Jordan this year?? Sounds like discrimination against LP.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    The next thing UHSAA needs to do is to stop open enrollment at the various schools so that kids play sports where they live instead of transfering to Bingham, Cottonwood, Lone Peak, Skyline, etc.

  • KG South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    @ aficionado: He (and you) chose to go to Waterford. I would assume both choices were based on higher academic standards and better quality education. Better education means harder classes, and more demanding homework assignments. Sure, it is draining, but he (and you) knew or should have known about the demands of Waterford before choosing to enroll there.

    That said, I am not sure the UHSAA took into consideration all the factors, such as changes in the economy, that increase the costs and burden of traveling to Waterford. But on the other hand, if they are paying the tuition at Waterford, and they chose to have their son commute that distance, they could have foreseen some of those challenges as well.

    Personally, I think he should be able to play. There is no consistency from the UHSAA up to this point, so the decision (and every UHSAA decision) seems quite arbitrary. There is little doubt in my mind regarding the strategic timing of the law suit. In the end, I think he plays.

  • sldad Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    I hope the UHSAA loses this one. Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to have a panel sit in judgment of a family just trying to do the best thing for their child? Don't assume the coaches and schools have the best interests of the child in mind. Most often they do not. If the parents feel their child would be better off somewhere else they should be able to make the change. Just as all schools do not offer equal academics, all schools do not offer even reasonably similar sports opportunities. Waterford was not what they wanted. Let them change their mind.

  • RD1025 Springville, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    If they are ONLY doing this because of the safety issue, and for the protection and best interest of their son. Then getting to attend LP should be the only thing they would be concerned with. If they are not doing it for sports related reasons, then sitting out a year shouldn't matter. Right? The rule is a good one, unless you are a parent who thinks they are above the rules. Until the UHSAA started enforcing the transfer rule last year, parents could lie all they wanted about reasons for transferring. Look at the difference it has made with Timpview football and Provo basketball. These teams aren't as dominant without the transfers that have carried them for years.

  • aficionado Sandy, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:41 a.m.

    do any of you know what waterford is like? The stress it brings? Did any of you attend there? Did any of you send your kids there? Well guess what?

    I went to Waterford!

    You have no idea the stresses of that school. Every night 4 hours of homework. + 2 hour sports practice. that means without eating or anything your night is 6 hours long. If it takes you 35 minutes to get home, that means your staying up till 11 every night. at least. and then early morning seminary bright and early at 6 50 so eric has to leave at 6 15. that means waking up at 5 50. so that's what 6 - 7 hours of sleep every night? For a active, growing teenage boy.

    That is unhealthy. That is now fixed at Lone Peak.

    And how bout social stress? Do you know what its like to have 30 kids to one grade? Do you know what it's like to not have time to hang out on the weekends? I sure do. It stinks. So just let the kid play. He's not going to West Jordan. He's going to the school he's suppose to go to.

  • Allen#1 West Valley, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    He lived in Lone Peak district when he chose to NOT attend Lone Peak.

    He is a good kid and should continue to play at Waterford where he started.

  • KSDBN Murray, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:19 a.m.

    He is a good kid. I hope he plays.

  • Just my opinion Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:15 a.m.

    "Proud to be American"

    First unless the judge is lacking in common since he will at minimum deney the injuction.

    They waited until just before the season started to file the court case hoping that the judge would let the kid play until the court case was over, and the lawyer knows the court case would not be over until after the season was over.

    So this way the kid would get to play either way. Because if the court upheld the UHSAA rule it wouldn't matter because the kid would have already got to play the whole season.

    Hope the judge dismisses the case.

  • ohIknow Alpine, Utah
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:12 a.m.

    Sounds like he needs the LP quarterback attorney, he beat the UHSAA.

  • Just my opinion Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:02 a.m.


    Not if you decide another school is better for you and attent or play for that school. You have then made the choice that that is now you home school.

    If not why would everyone not start out at a school outside the boundries of where they live, because then they would always have one freebee to change school for what every reason they wanted.

    When they first attend or tryout for high school they already have the choice to attend any school they want. They should then not be able to change again just because they live in that schools boundries.

  • justcap Provo, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 11:10 p.m.

    The transfer rule is a good one and should be upheld. But you should always be allowed to play at the school in which boundaries you live.

  • Andronicus Herriman, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 10:31 p.m.

    Just wait until a kid is denied eligibility and misses out on scholarship money...I see monetary lawsuits coming up next. UHSAA has been a joke for as long as I've been coaching in Utah.

  • UC Baller Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 10:12 p.m.

    i bet that if the option was given to attend Lehi...which is 8 miles away instead of 20 something....they would opt to stay at Waterford.

    He didnt shop his kid around as he states....but cmon. If LPeak wasnt any good at BBall, he wouldnt go there. And if its a hardship, then he can sit a year if it is truly that tough on him.

  • Just my opinion Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 9:52 p.m.

    I don't always like the way the UHSAA does things. But the new transfer rule is a good thing and should be upheld. Hopefully the courts stay out of it and dismiss the pointless lawsuit.

    This is one the UHSAA should win.

    If they didn't want to drive 20 miles each way everyday they should not have gone to that school in the first place. It was only once their kid grew and got better and they thought he would be able to play at Lone Peak they wanted to change.

    That would be the definition of transfering for athletic reasons.

    I wish the UHSAA rule was play where you live and only if you attend that school (no private school would be part of the UHSAA).

  • Proud to be American West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 9:43 p.m.

    The UHSAA didn't see this coming? Are they serious? C'mon Van Wagoner, this will be the first of many - and will lead to the collapse of the UHSAA's "power" to make decisions on whether a kid can or cannot play where they want.

    The courts will allow Mika to play, and there is nothing the UHSAA can do to stop it.

  • sensei17 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 9:21 p.m.

    Because he chose not to go to the high school who's boundaries he lives in. He knew the rules and does not want the rule to apply to him.

  • Timp South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 9:20 p.m.

    UHSAA is beyond ridiculous.

    A kid living in public school boundaries should ALWAYS have the right to go to his local public school even if he had been in private schools his whole life. That is the kids and family's decision, not some overpaid UHSAA employee. Just as a band or drama kid should be able to participate in band or drama at their local public school even if they went to a private school the year before.

    Beyond ridiculous in my opinion.

  • aficionado Sandy, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 9:12 p.m.

    Tell me how it is fair that a kid who lives inside the boundaries is being denied his right to play high school basketball?

    I fail to see the justice.