Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

[SportsMa]

That has nothing to do with transferring. Here is the policy on recruiting from the MSHSL. If what you said happened it is already covered in #2 below.

1. Any verbal or written contact initiated by a representative of another school soliciting the transfer of a high school student or junior high school student to participate in a sport will be considered as asserting undue influence, for which the school may be publicly censured, removed from tournament competition, or suspended from the League. If the contact is initiated by an individual who is not a representative of a school, that individual’s name shall be recorded and a warning issued. If a further violation is reported relative to this individual, they will be considered to be a representative of the school, and the school may be subject to a suspension from League-sponsored activities.
2. Unless reliable evidence to the contrary is presented, the Board of Directors shall accept as prima facie evidence of undue influence: awarding of tuition, allowance for board and/or room, allowance for transportation, priority in assignments of jobs, cash or gifts in any form, or any other privilege or consideration accorded if not similarly available to students not participating in athletics.
3. An alleged violation will require a letter of inquiry from the League office. On the basis of the response to the member school from the letter of inquiry, the Board of Directors may choose to appoint a committee to conduct a full investigation. It shall be an obligation of any member school to cooperate with this investigating committee which shall include a full disclosure of all records, scholarships, and information pertinent to the investigation.

Has any school gotten into trouble in regard to recruiting in Girls Hockey?

[ghshockeyfan]

That has nothing to do with transferring. Here is the policy on recruiting from the MSHSL. If what you said happened it is already covered in #2 below.

1. Any verbal or written contact initiated by a representative of another school soliciting the transfer of a high school student or junior high school student to participate in a sport will be considered as asserting undue influence, for which the school may be publicly censured, removed from tournament competition, or suspended from the League. If the contact is initiated by an individual who is not a representative of a school, that individual’s name shall be recorded and a warning issued. If a further violation is reported relative to this individual, they will be considered to be a representative of the school, and the school may be subject to a suspension from League-sponsored activities.
2. Unless reliable evidence to the contrary is presented, the Board of Directors shall accept as prima facie evidence of undue influence: awarding of tuition, allowance for board and/or room, allowance for transportation, priority in assignments of jobs, cash or gifts in any form, or any other privilege or consideration accorded if not similarly available to students not participating in athletics.
3. An alleged violation will require a letter of inquiry from the League office. On the basis of the response to the member school from the letter of inquiry, the Board of Directors may choose to appoint a committee to conduct a full investigation. It shall be an obligation of any member school to cooperate with this investigating committee which shall include a full disclosure of all records, scholarships, and information pertinent to the investigation.

Has any school gotten into trouble in regard to recruiting in Girls Hockey?

Not to my knowledge, and I assume I would have heard about it.

[xk1]

Sportsma

Yes, but I'm not going to tell who it was.

I should add that my experience is that privates are the least likely to violate the recruiting rules. Every time a kid goes to a private they are accused of recruiting so they have a procedure you go through, a public school is far more likely to violate the rules, at least from a procedural perspective. The key is that the student must initiate any conversations and go through the normal application process before the coach will talk to you.

[ghshockeyfan]

I think the private schools have the biggest issue with OE! As long as the state allows private schools to play in the same confrence, section and state tournament I think there should be OE. If not put them in a section all by themselves!!!!

IMHO, Maybe the MSHSL needs to try some alternative options to cracking down so much on OE & Privates. One option would be to look at one sport as a trial and see how things may work as far as changes.

Some may suggest that all privates go to one section. I think that is unfair to those privates that don't have strong teams. There are some privates that belong in a Class A section due to team strength.

Conferences should NOT be broken up due to public/private/OE concerns IMHO as this isn't the point of confrences. I believe that conferences are put together to make scheduling easier (guaranteed games) and we all know that OE/Private/Public teams go through ups & downs year-to-year so a conference will change strength wise over time.

For this reason I'd like to see tiers for sections/state as I've advocated for all along. Put the top 64 teams in Tier 1 based on ranking at end of season (not record as that can be skewed by SOS). You could use KRACH for example, or QRF, or some combination of them.

Within Tier 1, I'd be more open to considering all privates within one section - but then so too should we have one section for all teams with OE's? Also, do we look at the quality of the OE players on teams with OE's? Meaning, if the OE is a NDP kid does that make the team go into an all OE section? Or do we lump all teams with any OE's of any ability in the same section (even JV players)?

To be honest, the only OE's that we really have problems with are the NDP level OE's. Same with the private school kids - only concerned with NDP level players that move around it seems...

Let's get to the root of the concern here! And, really, truly, is this the route that we want to go? Seeking out complex rules to punish kids that want to play the highest level hockey they can (while getting a good education) & programs that have worked hard to build up to the level where their programs alone often attract such high level OE's?

Also, I get the feeling that the other "unspoken" concern is that it is "wrong" for kids to transfer for anything but academics. Have we really ever determined that the wording or even spirit of that OE rule/law was "academics only?" If it is, the rule/law may need to be changed to be more clear.

Once more clear, there has to be some determination made as to the philosophy of the MSHSL on this issue. After that philosophy is clearly stated, then the rule sets need to be determined to enforce/promote that philosophy.

Note, we may need to look at the OE vs Private issues individually vs lumping them together. I think each is unique.

[SportsMa]

Thanks for responses to my question. I had no idea whether there had been any verified violations of the current rules or not. You know you hear all kinds of rumblings and rumors of such things going on but never know if that is simply what they are~rumblings and rumors.

It certainly is a complex issue with many, many perspectives to take into account. It will be interesting to see how it all proceeds.

[Zamman]

Back in my high school days we had a conference that was all Catholic schools and one Lutheren, called Don Bosco. I, even as a Holy Angels grad, would not object to bringing this back.
In the 70's the Don Bosco was:
AHA, DeLaSalle, Brady, St. Agnes, St. Bernards, BSM, Lourdes, Mpls Lutheren, Grace (Totino) and Regina (all girls)....
For the 21st centery:
AHA, D, TG, BSM, CDH, STA, Vis, Lourdes and any other local Catholics...
The other privates can create their own. Then at least all the privates would be seperated from all the others in conference play. Their non-conference schedule could then be made up of all the regular public schools.....

Just a suggestion.

[ghshockeyfan]

Back in my high school days we had a conference that was all Catholic schools and one Lutheren, called Don Bosco. I, even as a Holy Angels grad, would not object to bringing this back.
In the 70's the Don Bosco was:
AHA, DeLaSalle, Brady, St. Agnes, St. Bernards, BSM, Lourdes, Mpls Lutheren, Grace (Totino) and Regina (all girls)....
For the 21st centery:
AHA, D, TG, BSM, CDH, STA, Vis, Lourdes and any other local Catholics...
The other privates can create their own. Then at least all the privates would be seperated from all the others in conference play. Their non-conference schedule could then be made up of all the regular public schools.....

Just a suggestion.

I assume Hill/Murray was in there somewhere... I guess I'd like to see what the privates would think of this suggestion? I suppose geographic concerns are the only thing that may be a problem, and if the "major consideration" sports (football, etc.) would be accepting of this since they do drive the process so to speak...

[Zamman]

Nope, Hill Murray was not in the conference. They were already "accepted" bu the public school world. Did you notice that CDH was not on the older list also? They too were accepted back then. I do not know how geographic reasons would matter. Today AHA plays in the Missota. They travel to Red Wing, New Prague, Norhtfield and Hutchinson. Traveling to Lourdes once a season would not be too bad, otherwise they are all local. Just an observation...

[ghshockeyfan]

I totally agree that this is doable (a private school conference & section) although in the case of non-loaded privates I don't know that this would be best. There are some privates that are loaded with talent (note I didn't say "recruited," etc.). Some aren't loaded with such talent though. Similarly, some public teams are loaded with OE talent, and some aren't.

I will say that it woudl seem most "fair" to see the teams with the top results vs. other top teams play in the "top" tourney (i.e. tier 1). Then, from there, the rest should be T2. This would accomplish what Classes are supposed to, but don't.

Within such a setup you could have one section in T1 that would have the privates (I only count 5-6 that would make this group this year) and then you'd have to figure out how to deal with T1 teams with OE NDP level talent I suppose. Not sure that any of this is really "fair" to those privates or OE NDP kids/teams, but it seems that they are the targets of all this animosity when really truly they are just kids...

[hockeyrube]

[ghs wrote] Let's get to the root of the concern here! And, really, truly, is this the route that we want to go? Seeking out complex rules to punish kids that want to play the highest level hockey they can (while getting a good education) & programs that have worked hard to build up to the level where their programs alone often attract such high level OE's?
Also, I get the feeling that the other "unspoken" concern is that it is "wrong" for kids to transfer for anything but academics. Have we really ever determined that the wording or even spirit of that OE rule/law was "academics only?" If it is, the rule/law may need to be changed to be more clear.


I disagree with this completely. If you examine the statute itself [MN124D.03 Enrollment options program.... especially Subd. 6 it is obvious that this statute is attempting to provide students with academic opportunities, not to build sports dynasties !!! These kids have plenty of opportunities to play on all-star teams in the off-season (8 months out of the year).
What is the goal of imposing some restrictions on athletic transfers ?? How about preventing mass O/E's to a few powerhouse schools who then dominate their conferences/sections/states ?? How about preventing the aftermath of such dynasties (IE SSP)- where O/E completely destroys the youth programs in those communities ?? I argue the statute did not intend to provide athletic transfers masked by some kind of bs claim for better academics. Let's take a stand and do the right thing - if a kid wants to transfer for academic reasons, then make them play their HS sports at their resident school, or impose a 1 yr waiting period. What's more important ... sports or academics ??? Let's keep the HS kids from school hopping in hopes of making it to STate in Hockey !!!
What about privates ??? Privates already have a mechanism for limiting the potential transfers ..... it's called big $$$$ tuition.


[/quote]

[hockeya1a]

[sports or academics ??? Let's keep the HS kids from school hopping in hopes of making it to STate in Hockey !!!
What about privates ??? Privates already have a mechanism for limiting the potential transfers ..... it's called big $$$$ tuition]

I do agree something needs to be done to stop the OE it is hurting the programs unerneath. not only for the school losing students but also the program that is by passing the local students for OE students.

the Private part also concens me when the private schools offer Scholarships $$$$$ so a kid can go to that school and yes it does happen. and until open enrolment is stopped it will be difficult to stop the privates from recruiting. it is too easey to call it O/E.

And what are we teaching our kids, it is ok to run from a little controversy

what would have happend to NP had Kilpatrick left?
Did she suffer by not going to a bigger school?

[hockeyrube]

a1a,

Good points - want another example of an awesome player sticking with a really weak program..... try Laura May from Mahtomedi who just so happens to be signed with the finest womens program in the country at the Uof M !!!! She could have easily bailed out to SW, HM, NSP - and by staying at Mahtomedi she has made the other players on her team even better.

Rube

[MNHockeyFan]

a1a,

Good points - want another example of an awesome player sticking with a really weak program..... try Laura May from Mahtomedi who just so happens to be signed with the finest womens program in the country at the Uof M !!!! She could have easily bailed out to SW, HM, NSP - and by staying at Mahtomedi she has made the other players on her team even better.

Rube

I agree that the colleges will not overlook the exceptional player who is playing for a weaker program. Players who "jump ship" only so they'll get more exposure are misguided. Each year the U of M programs, mens' and womens', manage to find one or more players from very weak high school teams.

But there are other reasons why a player may want to OE and play for a different team. What if Laura May, for example, was stuck on a team where the other girls didn't give a hoot about hockey? Maybe there are alchohol or drug problems, maybe a terrible or very negative coach. Any of these could hurt HER development, or certainly her love of the game. Isn't the individual in the best situation to determine what's best for her? I'm not saying she'll always come to the right decision, but if she doesn't she's the one that will have to live with the consequences.

I agree with ghs when he says the objectives of any change must be thoroughly understood before restrictions are put into effect, otherwise the cure may be worse than the problem.

[gopher9]

[ghs wrote] Let's get to the root of the concern here! And, really, truly, is this the route that we want to go? Seeking out complex rules to punish kids that want to play the highest level hockey they can (while getting a good education) & programs that have worked hard to build up to the level where their programs alone often attract such high level OE's?
Also, I get the feeling that the other "unspoken" concern is that it is "wrong" for kids to transfer for anything but academics. Have we really ever determined that the wording or even spirit of that OE rule/law was "academics only?" If it is, the rule/law may need to be changed to be more clear.


I disagree with this completely. If you examine the statute itself [MN124D.03 Enrollment options program.... especially Subd. 6 it is obvious that this statute is attempting to provide students with academic opportunities, not to build sports dynasties !!! These kids have plenty of opportunities to play on all-star teams in the off-season (8 months out of the year).
What is the goal of imposing some restrictions on athletic transfers ?? How about preventing mass O/E's to a few powerhouse schools who then dominate their conferences/sections/states ?? How about preventing the aftermath of such dynasties (IE SSP)- where O/E completely destroys the youth programs in those communities ?? I argue the statute did not intend to provide athletic transfers masked by some kind of bs claim for better academics. Let's take a stand and do the right thing - if a kid wants to transfer for academic reasons, then make them play their HS sports at their resident school, or impose a 1 yr waiting period. What's more important ... sports or academics ??? Let's keep the HS kids from school hopping in hopes of making it to STate in Hockey !!!
What about privates ??? Privates already have a mechanism for limiting the potential transfers ..... it's called big $$$$ tuition.

So in other words you can BUY a state championship!!!!!!!!!

[/quote]

[Zamman]

Actually if Kilpatrick would have followed her brother, Jimmy, she would have a state title added to her resume.....

I never said anything about a private school section, just a conference. The schools are mixed with A and AA..... leave them in the sections they currently are in and let them play some non-conference against their section teams. That would be ok....

[ghshockeyfan]

FWIW - I want clairification on what the LAW says. If it says xfer/OE only for academics, then either it needs to be changed to include the "full HS experience" or we need to enforce it as written if that's the intent.

That then being decided, we can then determine what the MSHSL's philosophy is on whatever is decided.

I think we need clairity on the LAW before we can work on a RULE at the MSHSL based on PHILOSOPHY.

That's what I'm getting at. What's the root issue?

1) People are upset that NDP level players are OE'ing to publics and going to private schools as the assumption is that it'sa all hockey related for them.

2) There is not a clear understanding of the LAW about OE.

No one cares about the average level (non-NDP level) players that OE or similar ability level kids that move to privates even though they are likely by far the majority (we just never hear about them!)

[hockeya1a]

[Actually if Kilpatrick would have followed her brother, Jimmy, she would have a state title added to her resume.....]

Would she have been a better person if she had a state title?

Not likely!

There will always be an occasion where some one is not happy because you can only please part of the people,

The excuses would never end.

And the running away does not teach anything either.

And that is why I believe there has to be a no exception unless you move policy. It would only be for 1 year and the kid would still be able to play at the JV level.

The other thing I hear over and over again is that they want better competition, but who do they end up playing the same people that they left or the same people that they played for before.
[/quote]

[Zamman]

Actually yes. Had she gone on to AHA like Jimmy did then she would have a state championship in 2005. Jimmy did not run away, I was told he did not like NP and moved to AHA. He did go to the private school in NP.....

[Thunderbird77]

OK So, let's get back to the suggestion at the beginning of this post. That is, how do we solve the transfer policy issue? This thread has cycled to the core issues: 1) Preventing Open Enrollment dynasties and 2)The perception that private schools, by virture of the fact that they have no physical enrollment boundaries, have an unfair advantage when it comes to sports and thus should be segregated from public schools.

Item #1 is solved by imposing limits on the number of transfers a team may have (the original suggestion in the first post)

Item #2 is solved by recognizing that a player who chooses a school prior to their first varsity sport season has made a commitment to that school. There is no guarantee as to how a player will develop over the course of their high school career. The school they choose to go to certainly also has a hand in this development as well. An athlete that either goes to a private school or open enrolls prior to playing varsity should not be regarded as a loss to the public school where they happen to live. A public school does not own an athlete simply based on geography.

IMHO one of the big problems with our public school system today is lack of competition. Let's face it, public schools have a captive audience for the service they provide, with the exception of open enrollment. Schools should never feel entitled to their students, whether it comes to academics or athletics. This is the big advantage private schools have. They have to compete for their students. No one has to go to a private school. They strive to have the right combination of athletics and academics to strengthen their schools. Why would anyone pay to go to a school that had no advantages over the public school? Why wouldn't we want our public schools to strive to do the most with the tax dollars they are given? What else will drive this to happen other than the competition open enrollment affords?

[ghshockeyfan]

I need to read this all more, but the one issue/question I have with a "limit" on OE/xfers is how this would impact the kids involved. I understnad that we're trying to hold a team/school accountable for their actions as far as accepting OE's/xfers, but I hate to see kids suffer or make the decision now not to pursue an academic transfer because they still value athletics and don't want to lose years of eligibility, etc.

I totally get that athletic participation is a privilidge and not a right, but if I'm a kid that is brilliant but still loves sports I'd hate to reconsider going to a better school for academics just because there is a rule that I have to sit out a year in any sport I play, etc.

None of this though takes into consideration if I'm any good at the sport, but, does that really matter in this thought?

[Thunderbird77]

GHS -

The current proposal at the MSHL is to make ANY transfer sit out a year. The reason I forwarded a different proposal, is that the current proposal will likely be implemented if no one comes up with any different alternatives. Modifying this proposal to allow a school to have a limited number of transfers on their team, moderates the current proposal. It prevents the situation where there are "transfer-based" dynasties (which seems to me to be the underlying concern regarding transfers), but still allows people to transfer, should there be a compelling need. In the proposal suggested, if someone ends up getting "cut" because the school has three other transfers (or whatever the limit turns out to be) which are better, they would then have to sit-out a year. This, would mean they would no longer be considered a "transfer" the next year.

[gopher9]

What about Private schools? The whole team is a bunch of transfers! They transfered out of their own community into a private school. Didn't they??

[ice29]

The whole idea behind the proposed new transfer rule (having to sit out one year, if already played a varsity sport) is to promote the Freshman and Sophmore age athletes. It''s to get them into a School program, whether it be sports or acedemics. What benefits does a Senior or Junior bring to a Program. It only eliminates an already participating Athlete, and promotes the Athletic Director and Coaching Staff for future OE\Xfers.

A proposal to allow 3 or 4 transfers sounds like forced Sports Intergration to Promote Winning Athletics in a School District.

Promote 7th thru 9th, sports and acedemics together!

[keepitreal]

What about Private schools? The whole team is a bunch of transfers! They transfered out of their own community into a private school. Didn't they??

Many private school students never attended the public schools.

[MNHockeyFan]

Many private school students never attended the public schools.

And there are some (including myself) that attend a parochial/Catholic grade school and then "transfer" to a public high school.