HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

FWIW I think the last few posts have illustrated quite well the impact on ALL the teams by a few xfers. In home area team is weaker/spots open up, in xfer/OE someone is displaced/team is stronger, and then the other piece of this is that the opponents of these two programs have to deal with the changes in strength of opponent. This impacts all the teams. But, that doesn't make it wrong either! Not for OE or private...

I still want to know what the goal is of all of this, and I don't believe that it's crazy to consider allowing (THEIR CHOICE/OPTION) OE/privates to play for their home area HS with their friends if they wish.

You are not going to get a "goal", the proposal is simply a reaction to parents and coaches complaints to the MSHSL. This article http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/20 ... over_x.htm tells how 25 of the 51 states are going through the same considerations we are.

xk1 wrote:You are not going to get a "goal", the proposal is simply a reaction to parents and coaches complaints to the MSHSL. This article http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/20 ... over_x.htm tells how 25 of the 51 states are going through the same considerations we are.

Understandable, but there needs to be a clearly defined problem to warrant any change in my mind. Until I see the issue or issues well defined and then clear correlation between issue and rule change, I won't be happy with any change, needed or not, etc., etc.

Maybe I've just missed this so far as it is entirely possible that I have, or maybe I'm just a lot slower than most to understand all of this.

The Strib published the proposal today, source at...
http://www.startribune.com/media/2006/1 ... source.pdf

Agenda Item #9E
December 7, 2006
Minnesota State High School League
Transfer Eligibility Committee
November 15, 2006
Meeting Notes
Students who transfer from one school district attendance area to another school district
attendance area are eligible if:
1. they are entering 9th grade for the first time
2. their parents move from one school district attendance area to another school district
attendance area
NOTE: Criteria for determining a change of residence include, but are not limited to:
o No family members continue to reside at the previous address or attend
school in the prior school district
o Change of driver’s license
o Verification of the residence identified
o Homestead credit
o Utility bill
o Etc.
3. Court ordered transfer under a child protection order, placement in a foster home, or a
juvenile court disposition order
This is inclusive for all students in grades 9-12 AND for any student in grade 7 or 8 who has
played at the varsity level in any sport.
A change of residence is considered to be a move from one school district attendance area to
another school district attendance area. The board of education of the school district shall
determine the school’s attendance area. For purposes of the transfer rule, the attendance
area for a non-public school shall be defined as the same attendance area as the public school
in which the non-public school is located.
Students whose parents move from one school district attendance area to another school
district attendance area may:
1. Complete the marking period in their current school OR
2. Complete the rest of the school year in their current school OR
3. Complete their high school career in their current school. For purposes of varsity
eligibility, a student who transfers following the completion of items 1 and 2 above will
be considered to be a transfer student.
A student who does not meet any of the criteria for eligibility, as identified above, shall be
determined to be ineligible at the varsity level in all activities for one (1) full calendar year (365
days) from the date of the transfer. Each subsequent transfer, without having met the prior
ineligibility period, will cause the student to be ineligible for one (1) calendar year (365 days)
from the last day of the previous period of ineligibility. A student may not transfer from one
school to another, nor will a change in residence by the student’s parents from one school
district attendance area to another enable the student to gain eligibility. All periods of
ineligibility must be served in order for a student to represent his/her school team(s) in any
MSHSL-sponsored activity.
Students who transfer but who have not met the required conditions of transfer for varsity
eligibility will be eligible at all levels of competition below the varsity level and for practice as
determined by each individual school board.
The effective date of this bylaw shall be June 15, 2007. A student must be officially enrolled in
the school he/she intends to attend effective with the 2007-08 school year. Per Board of
Directors’ policy, a student who enrolls in a different school or practices with a school team in
the new school during the school season in that sport shall be deemed to have, in fact,
transferred to the new school.
According to the League’s Constitution, the Board of Directors, “ . . . shall establish a due
process procedure for a student or parent who wishes to contest a school’s failure to certify the
eligibility of a student.” This language shall include any Federal or State laws that speak
specifically to a student’s move from one school to another and the subsequent eligibility of
that student.

It doesn't sound like they've addressed the privates here at all. Unless there's a rider somewhere where they consider privates to be bound to a 'school district attendence' area. If they try that, there are probably 10,000 alumni of Cretin who are lawyers and every one of them will be begging to handle that case.

For purposes of the transfer rule, the attendance
area for a non-public school shall be defined as the same attendance area as the public school
in which the non-public school is located.

This is the private refernece. Really it's just establishing a place where a residence change is valid for that school.

For purposes of the transfer rule, the attendance
area for a non-public school shall be defined as the same attendance area as the public school
in which the non-public school is located.

OK I missed that the first time I read it.
I hate to keep harping on this, but it ain't gonna work. The privates' lawyers are going to be the sticking point. You can't treat them like public schools, with attendance areas, etc. So is Cretin's attendance area set as the same as Highland Park HS. Or all of St. Paul? If the latter, what about St. Agnes and St. Bernard's? And what about the religious aspect? SPA and Cretin are 6 blocks away from each other. How much do they overlap?

Students who transfer from one school district attendance area to another school district attendance area

This is a little fuzzy--is it the School District Attendance Area or Attendance Area within The School District. Does 'attendance area' limit transfers within a school district? Like between two St. Paul schools, for instance (Harding to Johnson).

Interesting to read the proposed rule. I didn't realize that under the proposed rule a school can let the transfer practice and play JV competition.

I think some people overestimate what a lawyer can do. What's the claim? Transfer rules are in place all over the country. If the privates believe that they should get an expanded territory for upper-classmen transfers - beyond what an ordinary public school in the identical location should get - than political connections to the MSHSL board are more important than a lawsuit.

I don't view the proposed rule as draconian. It will stop the last minute hog piles of juniors and seniors to the "hot" teams that may win state. If people want to foster community-based hockey as opposed to club hockey - I believe these types of rules are needed.

I think some people overestimate what a lawyer can do.

I agree with this statement, the more likely way privates can get involved is through the legislature. Perhaps a parent that is a contributer can influence them to get involved.

I think stopping people from transferring to a private as a senior or even a Junior is reasonable but I think you need to be able to allow them to transfer into 10th grade. A lot of people find after a year of a public HS that they really need to do better, jusy as some find after a year of private they really want to go public. Because of this their are openings in 10th grade that weren't there in 9th. Maybe if you are on a waiting list you should be allowed as well.

I believe WI allows you to transfer any time in the first 4 semesters, it removes needing to investigate each case. They also allow for waivers agreed upon by both schools.

Do privates even allow kids to transfer in as seniors? I just think this thing is way overblown because i don't see that many girls transfering to the privates just for sports...I know there are a few but in girls hockey just as many transfer to other public schools as to the privates and in reality the privates have for the most part been beaten down pretty good by the public school powerhouses

SEMetro wrote:Interesting to read the proposed rule. I didn't realize that under the proposed rule a school can let the transfer practice and play JV competition.

This is also they way it is currently. I hear that the Haller kid is back playing JV at Anoka while her sentence is enforced. Interestingly enough though, the same rule did not apply to the Gulrap kid who went back to Maple Grove from Benilde. Is there some off season transfer rule in place now?

I believe the proposal just wants a single set of rules to apply to bothe public and non public schools. In order to do that you need to have school district boundaries and that's what the proposal is trying to do.

For what it s worth I like the way it is written it looks like a good starting point.
There is no doubt in my mind that there needs to be a change in the transfer rule.

IMO I think that it is time that we look at all schools as a school, not private and not public, But a school in general. No preferential treatment.
We seem to be too focused on the “but it’s not fair for the student not to be able to play “.
At least the kid will still get to play, just not on the Varsity.
Besides it seams that we are putting the cart before the horse on assuming the kid will make the Varsity right off the bat.
After all the transfer is suppose to be for academic reasons.

I think that is great that there are choices out there for the kids.
But a school has to be just a school nothing more and nothing less to make it fair.

This should be a boon for the Private schools.
It appears the kids will just have to register a little sooner to the private school to be eligible.

If I had a great player that I wanted to play at EP I could just move to EP and everyone seems fine with that because EP is the community. If I wanted her to play at Blake, I would have to move to Hopkins, problem is, Hopkins has nothing to do with Blake. The Blake community is the SW part of town. Each private school has a community and it's not the city limit it resides in. Religion plays a factor as well as one might want to go to the nearest private of the appropriate faith. I would venture to guess the privates just want the boundaries moved out to the area they serve, just like public schools.

Blake's arena is in Hopkins but the 9-12 is in Minneapolis - so where do I buy my house?

Really, I thought that big building by the rink was the school, guess you learn something every day. I guess under the proposed rules you would move to Mpls.

Darn...taxes too high! I was hoping Hopkins - maybe they can open an Ag school some where out highway 5 or 7 - even 12 and I could buy a little farm and transfer my kid!

hockeya1a wrote:IMO I think that it is time that we look at all schools as a school, not private and not public, But a school in general. No preferential treatment.

I have to disagree here, a private school is just that, and why shouldn't they get that privalage, they pay for it?

hockeya1a wrote:It appears the kids will just have to register a little sooner to the private school to be eligible.

Here I have to agree, and maybe this should be the way. Maybe the answer is to have the privates in a different league. But if we do that, aren't we once again dividing it all up? Boys hockey was absolutely the best when it was one class. So was basketball, and football when they were two. Why do we continue to want to seperate everything, and devide up the masses. Is this about "Only the strong shall survive."? To quote the master himself, "We must broaden the base before we can build a bigger pyramid.". We barely are starting to get a base for the girls for hockey, and even that fluxuates a ton, and here we are wanting to limit those who have a bit of success. I am just having a hard time understanding what we are trying to accomplish here!!! Limit the teenagers, or the parents egos?

ghshockeyfan wrote:I still am not clear on what the goals are, but I will say this. IMHO it would be more fair to have a xfer/OE kid sit out sections/state ONLY vs. a whole season of HS. This way, the kid isn't punished a whole season, but is missing a huge experience in sections/state. Some would argue that this is more fair for the opponents too as the team that received that xfer/OE wouldn't have them for playoffs that 1st year.

I have put this idea forth before and agree strongly with it. Don't punish the student, punish abuse of the system specifically to win a championship. Could that be the "goal"? But it's clear there's two things at work here, limiting OE and knocking down the privates.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is thinking of the students, or simply of trophies? I also suspect the parent's egos are a far stronger force than the championship desires of their children.

xk1 wrote:If I had a great player that I wanted to play at EP I could just move to EP and everyone seems fine with that because EP is the community. If I wanted her to play at Blake, I would have to move to Hopkins, problem is, Hopkins has nothing to do with Blake. The Blake community is the SW part of town. Each private school has a community and it's not the city limit it resides in. Religion plays a factor as well as one might want to go to the nearest private of the appropriate faith. I would venture to guess the privates just want the boundaries moved out to the area they serve, just like public schools.

Good post. Not to mention the fact that private student families pay a significant burden for their choice to attend the school, and simultaneously support their resident school through taxes. Much of the abuse of the OE system as it relates to moving to the "hot team of the moment" lies in the fact OE between public schools is simple as an application form. It's quick and painless. There is no impact on the transfering student's family other than transportation, and no new demands on the student academically. By law the public schools can rarely refuse a transfer while privates have enrollment limits and high academic standards. I'm also guessing that private institutions tend to discourage a student athlete "stopping by" for a tourney medal in their senior year, but maybe I'm being naive.

Legislators should find ways to discourage abuses to the system, but punishing a kid's participation to this extent and certainly attempting to re-define the attendance area for private schools as it stands in this proposal is too harsh and wrongheaded IMHO. If the MSHSL is compelled to create a separate tournament for private schools, so be it, but they should not take kids out of activities because of inept bureaucracy! Either or both results of this policy will yield serious unitended consequences.

If this proposal comes to pass, you may certainly see a new class of club teams rise from schools like Benilde, CDH, Blake, etc. and take their place alongside the Shattuck's and Academy schools on the East coast. You may also see more private teams like T-Breds emerge and more, not fewer, elite players pursue that avenue. This fragmentation would be a tragic loss for the much-admired HS hockey system in Minnesota.

Tragic consequences ahead!

If these rules go through like written and the privates are basically told that they follow them or get out (I guess I don't know what kind of power the MSHSL has or what kind of entity it is), then isn't it possible that the privates just split off and we go back to the two systems, like before 1971? But like GHS says, what problem is this solving?

Yes they do pay for it!
But what is it? Education or academics or both?
Nobody will say you cannot go to another school Private or Public,
Just a little more planning will be needed why not send them from 6th -10th

And please believe me I am not trying to bash Private schools, I think they are great if you can afford to send you kid to one. But not all of us have the means, and by me not having the means does not make my kid any less of a student and also does not mean they are not a good athlete.
But if for some reason I won the lottery and I would send my kid to a private school I would not expect my kid to jump on the Varsity team I do not think she should be treated any different no mater what school she transferred to.

http://www.startribune.com/526/story/876911.html

Compromise is needed on transfer issue

Emotions are running high on the proposed rule changes, and a little give and take might be needed to achieve the desired results.

John Millea
Last update: December 14, 2006 – 7:57 PM

MSHSL transfer rules

Prep Sports

All you have to do is say the words "athletic transfers," then stand back and watch the venom spew.
The Minnesota State High School League is taking steps to dramatically tighten the rules for athletes who change schools without changing residences. Here are excerpts from some of the latest e-mails I have received on this issue:

• "The implementation of this regulation would help curtail the recruitment of top athletes by private schools, particularly in the metropolitan area."

• "If the private schools want their own agenda for athletics, then their lawyers can maybe figure out how they can break away and form their own league and have their own state tournaments."

OK, OK, let's all take a deep breath ... inhale ... exhale ... inhale ... exhale.

Now, let's try some rational thinking. The MSHSL has proposed that all athletes who change schools (without their family moving) be ineligible for varsity sports for one year. Currently, athletes can transfer once with no penalty, and a second transfer means they are ineligible for the first 50 percent of the varsity season.

The proposal also would institute attendance boundaries for private schools, coinciding with the boundaries of the public school districts where the private schools are located. That's the big sticking point, and the reason why the MSHSL board of directors last week delayed moving the proposal closer to implementation.

The board will discuss the proposal at its February meeting, and the MSHSL representative assembly could approve the new rules in March. If that happens, the changes would be effective June 15, 2007.

But first, there is some tinkering that needs to be done. I have spoken with people from private schools, and they all seem to agree that: 1) the transfer rules need to be tightened; 2) attendance areas for private schools is a deal-breaker.

Jerry Pettinger, the Benilde-St. Margaret's athletic director and a member of a MSHSL committee that studied the transfer issue, said, "We feel that boundaries for private schools is a bit touchy and needs to be explored a little more."

Brian Budish, the Meadow Creek Christian athletic director, was a bit more blunt. "It's kind of asking private schools to do things a little differently than they have for 100 years," he said.

My theory is that the MSHSL would be willing to pull the attendance boundaries from the proposal if private schools would accept the rest of it. MSHSL executive director Dave Stead has denied that there's a negotiating tactic in play here.

"We're still talking," he said Thursday. "There are still issues that need to be addressed. My concern is how do you treat each school equitably, whether it's public or non-public?"

This is uncharted water, telling private schools that they must have attendance areas just like public schools. The MSHSL could ram this thing down the throats of the private schools, because the 20-member board of directors includes only one person who represents private schools and the 48-member representative assembly includes only six people from private schools.

But there will be no ramming.

"There are two things that are most important," Stead said. "No. 1, to do it right. And No. 2, to make sure people know what the issues are."

No. 2 will come before No. 1. More talking and explaining -- and possibly horse-trading -- is needed.

"As private schools, we all agree that the current system is broken," said St. Thomas Academy basketball coach and dean of students Mike Sjoberg, also a member of the representative assembly. "In general, privates believe there have to be penalties for kids who just transfer from one school to another. ... But everybody hopes there can be some sort of compromise before there's litigation. Nobody wants that."

In other words: inhale ... exhale ... inhale ... exhale.


John Millea • jmillea@startribune.com

ghshockeyfan wrote: "There are two things that are most important," Stead said. "No. 1, to do it right. And No. 2, to make sure people know what the issues are."

No. 2 will come before No. 1. More talking and explaining -- and possibly horse-trading -- is needed.

In bold above it what I've been saying all along... What are the issues and what is the correlation to what is being consider rule-change wise...

The issue seems to be that transferring schools for athletic reasons is bad. If this is the case then ALL transfers, regardless of address change, should sit out a year. Moving a few miles to play hockey somewhere is no different than changing to a private or OEing a few miles. They are looking for a single uniform rule to apply equally to all so why make exceptions.

Well said!