New Transfer Rules - Deadline Approaching

[OntheEdge]

OK I talked to my local legislator, there is concern on the rule, being discriminatory against minorities and religious preferences.

Sorry but I don't get it. How is it discriminatory? OE was supposed to give students opportunity for education not athletics. The rule doesn't prevent someone from transferring it just penalizes athletes and programs that are trying to create allstar teams and are transferring for athletic purposes only. Making such a student/athlete sit out a year does not harm such a student academically, which should be the reason for transferring.

One statement on the news was that it hurts minorities because if they have to sit out a year they will get in trouble with the idle time. Talk about a racist comment! Am I hearing correct. A minority can't function without athletics? Can someone tell me how the new rule hurts minorities?

[hockeya1a]

OK I talked to my local legislator, there is concern on the rule, being discriminatory against minorities and religious preferences.

Sorry but I don't get it. How is it discriminatory? OE was supposed to give students opportunity for education not athletics. The rule doesn't prevent someone from transferring it just penalizes athletes and programs that are trying to create allstar teams and are transferring for athletic purposes only. Making such a student/athlete sit out a year does not harm such a student academically, which should be the reason for transferring.

One statement on the news was that it hurts minorities because if they have to sit out a year they will get in trouble with the idle time. Talk about a racist comment! Am I hearing correct. A minority can't function without athletics? Can someone tell me how the new rule hurts minorities?

Not to mention that student still would get to practice with their new team and or play JV they would still be held accountable for their actions by the MSHSL's rules and if they do not know how to behave by HS then I guess there is always prison.

[ghshockeyfan]

OK - I should stay out of this - but I have a hard time with the whole OE deal. I just hate to see kids sit out. I don't think that you need to be from any specific area, or any specific group, etc. to be hurt by not participating. I will say that the interesting scenario exists where a kid can OE and then play at their old HS. So, while a bit akward at least they can do that or play JV. When is this not OK though? When they truly OE'd for academics and get the shaft athletically.

It's interesting that we typically need proof (police report/minor/etc.) to punish a kid by the chemical bylaws yet we can just assume that everyone is guilty by the OE bylaws (of OE for athletics - hence the new rule).

We only care when the player is NDP level. What about all the others now that are having to be punished?

If we want to address the issue of "super teams" built via OE, then address the movement of the best players. BUT - keep in mind that even they may indeed be moving for academic reasons...

[hockeya1a]

[
If we want to address the issue of "super teams" built via OE, then address the movement of the best players. BUT - keep in mind that even they may indeed be moving for academic reasons...[/quote]

I guess I have seen too many transfers using the excuse of Academic reasons, and you know that they are claiming it is to get a better education.
I have even seen a girl transfer to a different school because they were "better hockey team" sorry I mean it was a better school. Senior year the kid was a great player had lots of potential should have had D1 schools all over her. But she just ended up being a statistic. I hate to see this happen!

And as far as the ruling, is not perfect but it is a starting point. most of us law abiding American do not like some of the rules that are out there, But none the less they are there for everyone to follow.

[OntheEdge]

OK - I should stay out of this - but I have a hard time with the whole OE deal. I just hate to see kids sit out. I don't think that you need to be from any specific area, or any specific group, etc. to be hurt by not participating. I will say that the interesting scenario exists where a kid can OE and then play at their old HS. So, while a bit akward at least they can do that or play JV. When is this not OK though? When they truly OE'd for academics and get the shaft athletically.

It's interesting that we typically need proof (police report/minor/etc.) to punish a kid by the chemical bylaws yet we can just assume that everyone is guilty by the OE bylaws (of OE for athletics - hence the new rule).

We only care when the player is NDP level. What about all the others now that are having to be punished?

If we want to address the issue of "super teams" built via OE, then address the movement of the best players. BUT - keep in mind that even they may indeed be moving for academic reasons...

If they are indeed moving for academic reasons, then one year of lost HS eligibility shouldn't be too harsh of a penalty. As pointed out, such students can still practice and play JV or play with their old team although I think only the most desparate programs would allow such a player to continue to play.

[ghshockeyfan]

What about those that do OE for Academics but also play athletics? What if it's honestly for both?

Is everyone guilty of this b/c a few actually are?

I love it. We have a rule on the books now that makes kids think twice about OE for education if they play sports. Brilliant!

I get that this way it really has to be "worth it" but I think we are now punishing kids that give their home HS a shot before making a move.

[finance_gal]

I guess I don't see the problem with giving kids one free transfer, my kids go to a private school that has 100 boys trying out for a hockey team that can only accomidate 40. If hockey is that important to the 60 boys that don't make the team they should be allowed to go back to their home school and play, until I see a team that can completly dominate because of transfers I don't see a need for the rule change. when we do see the superteams come along like centrals girls basketbal then maybe their OE students should be limited but right now I don't see to much abuse of the current system

[xk1]

Pawlenty raises concerns about new athletics transfer rule

http://www.startribune.com/526/story/1067550.html

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/16940432.htm

[xk1]

What the Gov and the legislature "get" and many of you don't, is that while many of you consider JV and practice acceptable no student will and therefore will not take advantage of what the legislature wants which is school choice.

But I suspect the bigger reason here is that the MSHSL railroaded this through without consulting our governing bodies and this may be the more serious issue here.

[ghshockeyfan]

What the Gov and the legislature "get" and many of you don't, is that while many of you consider JV and practice acceptable no student will and therefore will not take advantage of what the legislature wants which is school choice.

But I suspect the bigger reason here is that the MSHSL railroaded this through without consulting our governing bodies and this may be the more serious issue here.

It's always tough when any entity (but the gov't or courts) try to rewrite/remove rights afforded to citizens by law.

[xk1]

Here is a quote from the Gov...

"A lot of kids who are academically interested or motivated to move schools or school districts also happen to be in extracurricular activities," Pawlenty said. "You don't want to punish them."

He continued, "If we're going to err on one side or the other we should err on the side of flexibility, mobility and choice and not holding kids in their home district if they don't want to be there."

[ghshockeyfan]

Pawlenty raises concerns about new athletics transfer rule

http://www.startribune.com/526/story/1067550.html

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/16940432.htm

Senate Education Committee Chairman Chuck Wiger, DFL-North St. Paul, opposes the legislative involvement in the issue. He said the league's decision is well-grounded and would correct abuses in the system.

"The idea of stacking a team for competitive advantage is not fair," Wiger said. "The High School League realized it is an issue that needs to be addressed."

If this is the concern - competitive advantage being unfair - then you address those players that would make this so. Not sweeping everyone together... IMHO anyway...

AND...

How do you really address this if they are good but OE entering/pre- 9th???

Or will there soon be rules about this too??? And then how about the privates??? Do we address that some way too???

[ghshockeyfan]

Here is a quote from the Gov...

"A lot of kids who are academically interested or motivated to move schools or school districts also happen to be in extracurricular activities," Pawlenty said. "You don't want to punish them."

He continued, "If we're going to err on one side or the other we should err on the side of flexibility, mobility and choice and not holding kids in their home district if they don't want to be there."

Pawlenty's brother was the Girls' Hockey Coach at Simley before me. Not that he thinks G Hockey, but I'm trying to say I think he knows what he's talking about more than someone with no athletic background at all trying to jump in as a politician.

ALSO - Wiger, who is to this day my rep., lived down the street from where I grew up in NSP. His daughters were pretty decent hockey players at NSP from what I recall and he too knows his stuff I believe.

While it's nice to have "Hockey" people as the politicians involved, they're still pretty far apart on this one.

I still think that Pawlenty makes the best point. And, I don't like the idea that any entity can take away rights granted by law (OE).

[MNHockeyFan]

If this is the concern - competitive advantage being unfair - then you address those players that would make this so. Not sweeping everyone together... IMHO anyway...

Whatever the rules are I think they need to apply to everybody. We should not discriminate against individuals just because they happen to be talented, any more than skin color or religious affiliation.

AND...

How do you really address this if they are good but OE entering/pre- 9th???...

I don't see why this needs to be addressed - both the old and the newly proposed rules allow you to freely move to a new school entering 9th grade or before, without any penalty.

Or will there soon be rules about this too??? And then how about the privates??? Do we address that some way too???

If the newly passed rules stick, my understanding is they would apply equally to public and private schools, with the exception being where the family must move to in terms of their change of residence (in order for the student to NOT be penalized).

I guess all things considered I'm glad the governor and legislature is taking a second look at this, and I agree with those who believe the current system isn't broken enough to warrant the rule change.

[hockeyrube]

OK, So let's say the legislature nixes the MSHSL ruling, and we have O/E with no restrictions.... how do we control the abuses that we all know are going on. Let's not BS each other about wanting to O/E for academic and athletic reasons together - we are not that naive. How do you stop the next EP from developing ??? How do we prevent O/E to become more about building winning sports dynasties that set outrageous records like 50 wins in a row, and go to State most years and win it all providing all the players the "exposure" that they so desperately seek !!!! How do we not make them look so attractive to the kids from the average programs who never have a shot at going to state, or getting exposure, etc etc. How many kids does the rampant abuses of O/E PUNISH ?????????? Come on you O/E'ers - tell me how we control this thing so that we don't end up with all the NDPer's at a few powerful programs ?????????

[rchhcky]

Ok, what if the legislature puts a halt to the new mshsl ruling...how does that affect Rochester schools, where atheletes choosing to OE have been required to sit a year (unless the family moves). I would assume that would change the situation down here too, which has lived by this for years.

[finance_gal]

do we really want to stop haviing powerful teams that are built on shifting sand? let them build there 3 year dynasties because competing aganist them only makes everyone else better. and when there dynasties fall there will be another one coming from someplace else. if it gets out of hand then some coaching issues may need to dealt with in regards to recruiting but I haven't seen a truely dominent team in girls hockey for about 7 years. You can't stop great athletes from being great by holding them back but you can inhibit there development.

[ghshockeyfan]

If this is the concern - competitive advantage being unfair - then you address those players that would make this so. Not sweeping everyone together... IMHO anyway...

Whatever the rules are I think they need to apply to everybody. We should not discriminate against individuals just because they happen to be talented, any more than skin color or religious affiliation

Exactly my point, but err on the side of ACADEMIC concerns (promoting seeking out best) and not ATHLETIC (worried about creating dynasty teams)!!! What's more important?

AND...

How do you really address this if they are good but OE entering/pre- 9th???...

I don't see why this needs to be addressed - both the old and the newly proposed rules allow you to freely move to a new school entering 9th grade or before, without any penalty.

Agreed. But, my point remains the same, if the issue is that OE (whenever it happens) is creating too good of teams then we need to consider this too don't we?

Or will there soon be rules about this too??? And then how about the privates??? Do we address that some way too???

If the newly passed rules stick, my understanding is they would apply equally to public and private schools, with the exception being where the family must move to in terms of their change of residence (in order for the student to NOT be penalized).

My point again is that we all know that typically a private school has some advantages as far as attracting the best talent, which in turn can create "super teams," etc. This is a fact, no matter what anyone says are other things that keep it from potentially happening...

What my point was is that if the issue is having these "super teams" then there needs to be more done than just the new proposal.

Let's not fool ourselves into taking opportunities from OE kids in grades 10-12 is really all about creating a level playing field - there are more issues that would need to be addressed. That was my point!

I guess all things considered I'm glad the governor and legislature is taking a second look at this, and I agree with those who believe the current system isn't broken enough to warrant the rule change.

Agreed.

[OntheEdge]

But I suspect the bigger reason here is that the MSHSL railroaded this through without consulting our governing bodies and this may be the more serious issue here.

I'm not completely versed in this issue but the Star Tribune reports that currently MSHSL has an exemption from government oversight in the state's administrative procedures act. My question is why was the exemption given in the first place and is it a good idea to revoke the exemption over this one issue?

As far as GHS' opinion that you are penalizing kids that transfer for academic reasons by implementing a rule that tries to stop the creation of super teams (e.g. EP Girls Hockey, Hopkins Boys Basketball, Central's girls basketball, and arguably some of the private schools) let's just say we disagree.

In my opinion no rule is perfect. I can see GHS' point that potentially some kids may be harmed although I think his claims are theoretical and I have not heard of any such an example. However, I think there is much evidence that many student/athletes are transferring for sports. For example, I know of at least one player who transferred this year and didn't even take one class at the new high school. How do you stop this without some kind of rule? I guess the other side of the argument is, do you want to stop allstar teams? If not, leave everything the same. If trying to make HS sports more community based and less club-like I think MSHSL has made maybe an imperfect but best attempt in the changes to the OE rules.

[ghshockeyfan]

OK, So let's say the legislature nixes the MSHSL ruling, and we have O/E with no restrictions.... how do we control the abuses that we all know are going on. Let's not BS each other about wanting to O/E for academic and athletic reasons together - we are not that naive. How do you stop the next EP from developing ??? How do we prevent O/E to become more about building winning sports dynasties that set outrageous records like 50 wins in a row, and go to State most years and win it all providing all the players the "exposure" that they so desperately seek !!!! How do we not make them look so attractive to the kids from the average programs who never have a shot at going to state, or getting exposure, etc etc. How many kids does the rampant abuses of O/E PUNISH ?????????? Come on you O/E'ers - tell me how we control this thing so that we don't end up with all the NDPer's at a few powerful programs ?????????

OK - Let's count the "abuses" by # of players. I bet they are less than 10 in G HS Hockey MSHSL wise. And what are these "abuses?" The move of NDP level players between schools? I guess that's what I assume we're referencing?

How many were OE?

How many were Private?

I don't want names - not names of kid nor school/teams, just numbers please...

And, when these have been tallied, I then ask again - for these few instances of "abuse" are we ready to punish all those others?

And do we really truly know enough of the stories of each of the "abuses" that we know for a 100% fact that they have all moved for athletics and athletics alone?

[xk1]

The legislature is getting involved because the MSHSL passed a rule that will have a negative impact on school choice. As long as the MSHSL league sticks to rules affecting only athletics they won't be bothered.

[ghshockeyfan]

Ok, what if the legislature puts a halt to the new mshsl ruling...how does that affect Rochester schools, where atheletes choosing to OE have been required to sit a year (unless the family moves). I would assume that would change the situation down here too, which has lived by this for years.

What I wonder is if the new rule gets tossed if we can even go back to the old which is exactly what I feared may be the case if the new one went too far...

[MNHockeyFan]

OK, So let's say the legislature nixes the MSHSL ruling, and we have O/E with no restrictions.... how do we control the abuses that we all know are going on. Let's not BS each other about wanting to O/E for academic and athletic reasons together - we are not that naive. How do you stop the next EP from developing ??? How do we prevent O/E to become more about building winning sports dynasties that set outrageous records like 50 wins in a row, and go to State most years and win it all providing all the players the "exposure" that they so desperately seek !!!! How do we not make them look so attractive to the kids from the average programs who never have a shot at going to state, or getting exposure, etc etc. How many kids does the rampant abuses of O/E PUNISH ?????????? Come on you O/E'ers - tell me how we control this thing so that we don't end up with all the NDPer's at a few powerful programs ?????????

If you believe that the current system really has created winning sports dynasties that are totally outrageous, and these are completely unacceptable, then I can understand why you feel as you do. But in girls hockey this year really any of 10-15 teams had a legitimate shot at winning the state tourney - EP was one of them but didn't even make it there. Perennial past power South St. Paul didn't even make the 1A tournament this year. In boy's hockey you had O/E powerhouse Roseau winning it over another O/E powerhouse, Grand Rapids. And in boy's basketball Hopkins, the team the O/E critics like to pick on, didn't make their tournament either.

I don't see that we have a real sports dynasty problem, at least it's not bad enough to take away choice and flexibility from individuals (which the whole concept of O/E was designed to encourage).

[finance_gal]

If a coach loses a kid to OE I see it as the coaches problem because the kid wasn't getting what they needed from there home school or athletic department. My kids school just got a new coach and I have heard about kids that are going to play next year that haven't played for a year or more because they have renewed confidence in the program. If a coach can't provide that feeling to kid about there own program then both sides are better off with the kid moving on and we should be happy that there are places for the kid to get what he or she needs.....OE means just that OPEN ENROLLMENT and it should be veiwed as that without restriction once the kid is accepted at a school

[hockeya1a]

There are a lot of rules in this world that I may or may not approve of or even like, but none the less they are rules. And they are written to keep things on an even keel and working smoothly and fairly for ALL. And the way it is being used now it is being used as a crutch for some others to lean on to get what suits them best.

I do not want any one punished unfairly, But they are still getting their education and that is what School is all about, the rest is just Extracurricular.

But for what it is worth I still like Keepitreal’s Idea best!

Make all OE\Transfers inelligible for all post season play and also add in tournament play. That way they still get to practice they still get to play.