Status of proposed transfer rules

[MNHockeyFan]

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.

The issue here is obviously to not penalize a kid in situations involving regular family moves. These could be job related, divorce related, or just instances of parents deciding to buy a different house (newer, bigger, in a better neighborhood, on a lake, etc.). There are very few parents willing to buy and sell a house just so their kid can transfer to a new school to play a sport (although switching apartments if that all it involves is a lot easier). If they are hell-bent on changing the rules then I do think this exception has to be made.

[xk1]

True, they could move for any or all of those reasons but if they also decide to send their child to a private school not in the same ISD as their new dream house she has to sit out a year. By they way, you are way wrong if you don't think lots of people don't move just for athletics, I know of several.
<edit>
Also, why is OEing to 9th grade just for athletics OK?

[Zamman]

there is another topic just like this on the boys side. Remeber that the district for the private schools, actually the catholic schools in the Archiocese of MPLS St Paul.....

[ghshockeyfan]

there is another topic just like this on the boys side. Remeber that the district for the private schools, actually the catholic schools in the Archiocese of MPLS St Paul.....

Great point.

[MNHockeyFan]

True, they could move for any or all of those reasons but if they also decide to send their child to a private school not in the same ISD as their new dream house she has to sit out a year. By they way, you are way wrong if you don't think lots of people don't move just for athletics, I know of several.

xk1, I've followed your posts in this thread and I've generally agreed with everything you've said. I also don't disagree with your main point here, except I seriously doubt that it's "lots of people" who move just for athletics. Has anyone figured out how many actually do this? I know there have been several high profile transfers that have created this "crisis" but does it really make sense to pass new restrictive rules that may go too far and have unintended consequences for MOST kids? What I mean is that for the average-to-good athlete who will never get a Division 1 scholarship but just wants to play hockey or whatever sport they like - should these people be penalized if they want to switch schools for whatever reason?

I still find it amazing that any parent would go through the hassle and expense of selling and buying a home just so their kid can play on a different high school team. And you would think most who can afford to have kids playing hockey at a high level these days are not apartment dwellers, so how many in percentage terms could there be? It must be mostly the very wealthy who don't mind coughing up many thousands just so their kid(s) can transfer to play on a better team or for a different coach? If the real purpose is so their kid will get more exposure for a possible college scholarship, do not most college coaches manage to find the best players even if they are not on a super team?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but when in doubt I favor fewer rules, less intervention, and allowing individuals to exercise their freedom of individual choice as long as it doesn't cause undue harm to others. The main question is: do we really have enough of a crisis that justifies such punitive measures for the vast majority of student athletes that just want to go to a different school?

[xk1]

Obviously I made the suggestion knowing full well it was a stupid idea, just like the proposed rules are. I know one girl who moved to Bloomington from St Louis. Some come up with apartments for their kids but in the Metro, most just OE as it's easy to do with all the schools so close. Most of the people who change residence for athletics are in northern MN.

As far as doing this based on the percentage of people affected negatively that's hardly fair to the low percentage group is it.

Here is the rule the MSHSL is trying to write, if you played varsity sports at a HS the previous year, you have to sit out one year if you transfer to another school.
I suspect the percentage of varsity players that transfer, even by residence change, are likely doing so at least partially for sports. In any case the burden would be on the transferee to prove otherwise.

My personal opinion is the current rule is best because everyone has the right to move schools at least once, you just don't always know what's best in 8th grade and we don't want to analyze every transfer. We have to get over 1956 my town is best thinking and move on. Parents are going to do what is best for their kids, even if it just sports. In the metro area the community is about 2 million people and kids probably have more alegence to their Mall than their HS.

As far as exposure goes, I don't think people transfer for exposure when sports is the reason for transfer, they transfer for practice. If you are a D1 caliber player on a team of kids that have U12B level skills, you aren't going to get any better during the season. You aren't going to be challenged there or in games as these kinds of teams usually seek out the weakest schedules imaginable. Given that such a player will likely make Varsity in 7th grade, it means they had to figure out what they were going to do by 6th grade with this proposal. It's just wrong.

[ghshockeyfan]

I found this interesting...

http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2006/12/2 ... column.txt

[MNHockeyFan]

I found this interesting...

http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2006/12/2 ... column.txt

If accepted as proposed, I would envision a lot of transfers to private schools. That would be a public school athlete's only real option - besides moving - to get out of a situation he or she didn't like.

[ghshockeyfan]

I found this interesting...

http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2006/12/2 ... column.txt

If accepted as proposed, I would envision a lot of transfers to private schools. That would be a public school athlete's only real option - besides moving - to get out of a situation he or she didn't like.

If they can afford it...

[hshockeyfan91]

As far as exposure goes, I don't think people transfer for exposure when sports is the reason for transfer, they transfer for practice. If you are a D1 caliber player on a team of kids that have U12B level skills, you aren't going to get any better during the season. You aren't going to be challenged there or in games as these kinds of teams usually seek out the weakest schedules imaginable. Given that such a player will likely make Varsity in 7th grade, it means they had to figure out what they were going to do by 6th grade with this proposal. It's just wrong

I agree with that totally. Very good insights.

Why is it so bad if someone does transfer? What if a good player lives in some small town with a very marginal team. Wouldn't it be a good move for that player to open enroll? It would probably make everybody - old and new teams - happier. Why is it ok to transfer for math or chemistry, and not sports? There's almost a default attutude of "transfer for sports" being bad. Why?

I like the "plusone" idea - force teams that take more than [n] amount of players to play at a higher class - or just make up a premier class - like in soccer. The bottom line is trying to stop people from moving for sports based reasons is bound to fail. Yes, the MSHSL can make it tougher, but if they make it too tough then people will opt out for other non-MSHSL leagues.

Also, what if we applied these "tighter" transfer rules to adults? For example, no one could coach Varsity (JV would be fine) at a new school until there was a one year gap since the last time he/she coached? That would be fair, wouldn't it? Just like apparently many people want to limit exceptions for the kids, there should be no exceptions for a coach either, right? Let's be consistent!

[hockeyrube7]

Agree with you an that. And besides, no matter what they come up with, there are ways around it no matter which way the rule gets stated, and if someone really wants to transfer, they will.