HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

All athletes shall have the right to transfer once after their sophomore year and be eligible to play immediately.
The current rule requiring a sit-out year is a vestige of the crusade to eliminate the "tramp athletes" who migrated from school to school in the early 20th century. Sure, rescinding that rule might cause some initial chaos. But the scholarship limits could be tweaked to offset an increase in defections; moves could be limited to a defined off-season period; and protections could be put in place for existing scholarship players so coaches wouldn't wantonly run off players to "trade up." As it is, coaches "transfer" all the time-and no one makes them sit out a season.

Of the state's 295,320 high school students, 14,485 transferred under open enrollment in the 2005-06 school year. Within that group, just 765 applied to participate in high school league sports and other activities.

Zamman wrote:Maybe if the reason for transfer is athletics then they sit.

hockeygod wrote:I really don't see the problem with someone transfering for athletics, If athletics are more important to a student than there friends they grew up with, there school, and sometimes there education then maybe OE and going to a school that has a better athletic program is whats right for them.

hockeyrube7 wrote:

hockeygod wrote:I really don't see the problem with someone transfering for athletics, If athletics are more important to a student than there friends they grew up with, there school, and sometimes there education then maybe OE and going to a school that has a better athletic program is whats right for them.

Great point!

hockeya1a wrote: I really see both sides and I understand where some of the rift comes from.
But here is the problem I have,

You have a girl from suburbia who has lived there her whole life, she has played team sports in that town and at that HS. She is not the best player in the world but she loves playing none the less, yes she made the team when some of the others got cut. We all know that happens in sports and in everything we do.
Now let’s say the girl from the town over is good not great, but she is good enough to make the Suburbia team, she already has a spot on her own HS team but she heard that the Suburbia town has a good shot at state next year and she would love nothing more than go to state. Or maybe she just heard that the coaches are great!
So she transfers, so now we have a team that will have to cut a home grown girl, because the girl from the town over wants to play at the suburbia school and she is a little better.
Why, I ask is ok to hurt the Suburbia girl’s chance at playing?
Should she now ask to go to another school so she can play there? Where will it end?
Please remember that when people transfer just to play, they are usually taking someone else’s spot. And that person is not any less important than the better Athlete from the next town over.
It just seams like nobody cares about the innocent person being displaced.
Is it because it is all about you!

nothernewguy wrote:
Seeing both sides comes down to this - when elite player Susie moves from her neighboring town to Suburbia, she also leaves an open spot where she left for the 20th-best player on that roster to fill. The transfer doesn't just displace a player on her new team, she allows a displaced player on her old team to now participate.

The 20th roster spot opens on her old team, the 20th roster spot on her new one closes.

So it's a zero sum game really. The only problem is the 20th-best player has fewer choices.

Lesson to learn? Don't be the 20th player, no matter where you are :
(

ghshockeyfan wrote: To punish a kid for seeking out the best hs experience is wrong. I hate to say it, but I don't think it's anyone's place but the kid/parents that are considering a move to decide what rationale is correct for their child.

Bottom line - come up with a fair way to deal with the OE/private power TEAMS, but don't hurt the kids by taking away their ability to play. That's just plain stupid if you ask me. Instead, create a mechanism to place the best teams in the top class (esp. private & OE).

hockeygod wrote:"I also hate to break this to everyone, but the bigger issue we have is substance issues, as well as not allowing inflated/weighted grades to cloud the need for more emphasis on academics. These are not G Hockey, or MSHSL issues alone. These are nation-wide issues. Maybe more time should be spent focusing on how we help kids in these situations"


These are huge issues even among the private schools, one of the reasons I take my family to see high school games and drive them to an from school rather than busing them and letting them go with there friends is to try to eliminate some of this type of influance on my kids but it's everywhere and it's out of control...I am getting more and more respect for Coach Goski the more he writes because he's not afraid to bring up issues like this.

hockeya1a wrote:

keepitreal wrote:
First off GHS I agree with you and other posts who concur that punishing the kids is the wrong way to go. I've made my point many times about making transfers inelligble for post-season as it still allows them to participate and practice, but won't contribute to their team's success in sections or state. It would also mess with team chemistry enough that I feel it would be a reasonably effective deterent, or at least a place to start.

Keepitreal and GHS,

I do like the post-season idea,
That would make the receiving school take a bigger share of the burdon.

I believe it would be highly effective. Imagine the effect of removing a couple of high-scoring transfers as your team goes into sectionals. It would mess up your lines and chemistry enough that you'd probably make an early exit.

Coaches would have to be much more prudent about depending too much on superstar O/E players during the season and there would be enough of a "punishment" shared by both the athlete, the team and the school, rather than the student alone--yet it would not stiffle the development of the player to any large extent, nor unduly punish a team from competing until that is, the hardware was on the line.

hockeya1a wrote:

nothernewguy wrote:
Seeing both sides comes down to this - when elite player Susie moves from her neighboring town to Suburbia, she also leaves an open spot where she left for the 20th-best player on that roster to fill. The transfer doesn't just displace a player on her new team, she allows a displaced player on her old team to now participate.

The 20th roster spot opens on her old team, the 20th roster spot on her new one closes.

So it's a zero sum game really. The only problem is the 20th-best player has fewer choices.

Lesson to learn? Don't be the 20th player, no matter where you are :
(

Why have HS teams then, lets just have all Select teams and do away with the HS teams.
I hate to say it but it is supose to be about the community HS!
the schools usually are mostly supported by the community and its taxpayers not from the other towns.

keepitreal wrote:

ghshockeyfan wrote: To punish a kid for seeking out the best hs experience is wrong. I hate to say it, but I don't think it's anyone's place but the kid/parents that are considering a move to decide what rationale is correct for their child.

Bottom line - come up with a fair way to deal with the OE/private power TEAMS, but don't hurt the kids by taking away their ability to play. That's just plain stupid if you ask me. Instead, create a mechanism to place the best teams in the top class (esp. private & OE).

First off GHS I agree with you and other posts who concur that punishing the kids is the wrong way to go. I've made my point many times about making transfers inelligble for post-season as it still allows them to participate and practice, but won't contribute to their team's success in sections or state. It would also mess with team chemistry enough that I feel it would be a reasonably effective deterent, or at least a place to start.

Now, which schools do you feel should be bumped up to the "top class" because of O/E, private or transfers that aren't already there? Which class A school is so dominant, has so many transfers, as to require this? I could have made an arguement for BSM a couple years back, but they're 2A now, AHA the same, likewise SSP had a few transfers that helped put them over the top for a while, but they're now coming back to the pack in 1A.

I maintain most of the issues revolve around the 2A schools because once a "tradition" is established, ala EP or BSM or AHA, as a "hockey school", this is where we've seen upperclassmen transfers en mass like at EP, or a kid float into BSM from far outside the immediate area for their junior and senior years. The revolving door at EP, the growing enrollment of players at "hockey schools"--are these not the high profile cases in girls hockey? Another thing to consider is just how good EP and Wayzata would be if they didn't loose so many talented players to privates.

The 1A schools don't have the depth to create a dynasty so their fortunes will change from year-to-year, unless you're talking about burgeoning enrollment schools like Farmington (now AA). Pockets of talents like the Kennedy (EP) girls you had or perhaps your emerging young group in Inver Grove move through but there is not always more talent underneath--Kennedy dropped off the radar completely. Also if transfers and O/E are tightened by whatever means, it will also discourage enrollment at privates among those whose overriding concern is varsity sports because you would have to pay tuition while sitting out your ineligibility, or you would be forced to move very young which will drastically increase the total tuition burden and may render it impractical or not worth the cost for the sports-minded people. It's one thing to "buy a little exposure" in your junior or senior year at a private; it's quite another to commit to 4-6 years worth of tuition for that brief opportunity.

I guess I really don't see this as a 1A problem, or even a private 1A problem when transfer rules are tightened. Again, I'm curious who are the girls O/E-transfer built hockey dynasties in 1A that your would elect to push up to 2A and by what justification?

keepitreal wrote:As long as some degree of control is exercised by whatever new OE/transfer rule strategy is adopted, I too believe we will see a strong return to normalcy (if it exer existed) in most sports. It will take a couple of years to wash, but then I see a lot of parity. Perhaps this one change and a degree of patience to let the effects sink in are really all that is needed.

Soon thereafter, the co-op movement will become the hot issue.