How do you feel about the transfer rules?

[tm3308]

Originally posted by KidSilverhair:
But isn't the question of what makes a "legitimate move" really what we're all talking about here? I mean, if it was easy to determine how legitimate a student's change of district was, we wouldn't have anything to discuss, right?

I guess I'll rephrase and say a student is allowed one move (whether it can be proven to be legitimate or not) or open enrollment per school year and still have athletic eligibility for that year.

Say I'm a junior living in the CR Washington district. I play football for Wash and then want to open enroll to Prairie for wrestling, since there's no longer a 90-day penalty. I'm free to do so. However, my eligibility is tied to Prairie for the remainder of the school year; if my family happens to move to Lisbon during what's left of my junior year, I can't compete for Lisbon in any sport until I'm a senior.

Now I'm in my senior year. I play for Lisbon during football and want to open enroll for wrestling again. I'm still free to do so, but I am barred from open enrolling to any school I've attended previously. So I can't just keep hopping back and forth between the same schools based on what season it is.

That might sound a little convoluted, but setting a hard line of one transfer/move per year without penalty would keep things from going crazy.

 

[On Wings of Eagles]

I don't think anything can be done when a parent moves into a community for the sole purpose of creating an opportunity for their kid to be in a particular program. People do it all the time for other reasons than athletics. That's why they call it a bona-fide move. Who's going to hold a kid out of the math team competition for 90 days anyway? The rule was put in place to curb the intent of stacking the deck so to speak and having a few schools gain a serious advantage and becoming a nuisance.

However, I don't think the penalty is fair for all sports in the same way for non-bona-fide moves. Kid transfers in at the beginning of the school year and is a cross country or football player and is penalized right away, 90 days non-varsity only. Another kid transfers in but main sport is wrestling. He can go out for cross country or football and gain eligibility for wrestling and doesn't have to sit out. Kind of a crappy deal for the fall sport enthusiast.

Dropping the rule altogether is a bad idea. Some schools will become very aggressive at recruiting and just feed the parent frenzy of placing even more emphasis on athletics over academics, other activities etc... driving the "me" attitude about participating in public school athletic programs.

It's possible that some parents may also become very annoyed by the contacts being made from other schools about considering transferring their kid to their school. I believe that some shady deals could be offered that could lead to borderline bribery. Deals that go bad never end well either. That would more than likely result in a lot more complaints to the Association by both parents and school admins which they really don't want to have ringing their phone off their desks either.

Also, if it becomes a free agency market, is that good for competition when most of the best players end up in fewer programs? Not sure that is the mission of the Association for their member schools. I've seen this happen in another state when large metropolitan districts allowed open enrollment within their own districts which have many high schools. All of the Basketball players, Football players, Distance runners etc... end up at the school that had the better program based on perceived success. Kind of a buzz kill when kids coming up through your feeder programs leave for the other side of town and you never really get a chance to develop your program with good athletes. So the people here that are always saying "work harder" and stop complaining obviously don't understand that even consistently good programs have to have the horses to get the job done.

So, what is the solution? For now, I think it's as good as it gets. I've read back 45 years in our local paper to research what happened regarding this topic and the rule was the same here. Kid transfers across town, 90 days ineligible. One year, some kids admitted to drinking alcohol during the summer well after the football season was underway and they became ineligible immediately and the team had to forfeit all of their wins on their record because they used ineligible players. That hurt.

 

[rkhemp]

Times have changed. Cedar Rapids schools have open enrollment within the district. There is no mass recruiting that I know of. 99% of the time it is the parents who seek out the school. I would guess the majority of kids would rather play with the kids they have grown up with rather than transferring.

The rules just don't make sense to me. I'm still trying to figure out how 2 kids could transfer from out of state and still be allowed to compete in the same sport. How do you wrestle half year in Ohio, and then mid year you wind up in a small town in Iowa winning state championships? Is there a rule that would allow a kid to play football for West Branch until week 4 and then start at Clarion- Goldfield week 5?

 

[Ford26]

This is one rule I could get on board with, given present discussion. Has it not been asserted that Wisconsin does this sort of thing?

I've thought about where and why does this bother me, and I guess it is the "me-first" aspect of it. I understand that some people believe that it is okay to do whatever gets you ahead in the game of life, but I cannot believe that the higher values of humanity that athletics can embody can be truly achieved by the fair-weather athlete. The concepts of team, leadership, commitment, self-sacrifice, etc, become little more than words, instead of character builders. Of course these are not mutally exclusive, but an attitude of "self before others" does not make for a good team, family, or society. I believe that it matters.

The problem is, everybody, including me, can easily envision WHY a person might be enticed to play for a state-qualifying team, as opposed to a cellar-dwellar. There are many real reasons why a change might be a better move for the individual. To that end, to respect a person's right to freedom, etc....allow all transfers, but require the semester sit-out as ghost suggests. This would eliminate the casual transfer from one school to another 30 (or 60) minutes down the road. A family that moves across the state could be given special circumstance, probably. I can't see why this could not apply to parochial transfers as well.

 

[rkhemp]

Seems like star transfers always end up at power houses because of "family reasons" etc. Does anybody know of a star transfer who has ever ended up at a bottom dweller because of "family reasons" ?

 

[Pinehawk]

People generally move to better their lives. For both work and school opportunities.
I guess it's not a surprise that when the choice presents itself, they are going to make the decision to put themselves in the best possible situation.

 

[Ford26]

Originally posted by rkhemp:
Seems like star transfers always end up at power houses because of "family reasons" etc. Does anybody know of a star transfer who has ever ended up at a bottom dweller because of "family reasons" ?

A strange coincidence, nothing more.

 

[ghost80]

Everyone does have the right to attend or send their kid to the the school of choice for whatever reason BUT like any right the exercising of their right should not come at the expense or harm to others.

Anyone who doesn't think that there are instances of transfers who have caused harm to others is either fooling themselves or simply is the fool.

One needs to only look back to last season to find a central Iowa team which had to forfeit a game they had previously won because of a "bad" transfer and an ineligible player playing whom the coach and administration thought was clear to legally play.

The manditory 1 Full Semester Rule I propose would have prevented the confusion that accompanied this in season "new addition" to this school's football team. The kid would have automatically sat for a full semester and the issue causing his ineligibility would have worked itself out....one way or the other. Preventing this forfeited game would have also prevented the seniors on this squad from having their final season of high school football ending with a losing record.

Don't tell me others sometimes aren't impacted negatively because little Johnny wants to go play ball somewhere else....I won't buy it.



This post was edited on 8/8 6:21 AM by ghost80

 

[rkhemp]

Well, any coach or school that doesn't know the rules or contact the state about a questionable transfer is a fool. Let's not blame a kid for other's mistakes. If I was a coach, I would know the rule and have written response from the state before I would ever play a kid. The team was negatively impacted because of the failure to understand the complicated RULE. If the rule was less complicated or taken out, things like that would not happen. Teams have also forfeited games by playing players too many quarters. Is that the kid's fault or the coach's? Would the kid have been ineligible if it was a private school as well, or if the kid came from out of state?

But yes, kids do get negatively impacted by transfers. Kids who have been playing and working hard at a school their whole lives sometime get replaced by transfers.

Again, the semester rule would only hurt the fall sports for any kid transferring to a school during a new year. A senior wrestler or basketball player would be able to compete. If a kid's sport is football, he would be screwed.

This post was edited on 8/8 10:09 AM by rkhemp

 

[On Wings of Eagles]

That's what I was saying. So we agree. I have benefited from transfers that moved in with a bona fide move for fall and spring sports so I know the upsided when that happens. But I also have lost out on an out of state transfer because it wasn't bona fide that cost us a fall state title. The kid wasn't recruited and certainly didn't move in just to play a sport so it was too bad for everybody.

I would say that I do agree with others about programs that intentionally recruit (happens in one sport more than all others combined) and benefit from the timeframe that allows them to gain eligibility for their main sport and take the spot from a local student who has had tax paying parents (to that district) their whole experience. After watching this happen for years, there isn't going to be any changes as far as I can tell. Their loophole is that it's a bona fide move as long as a parent/legal guardian has a residence in that district. Then it's just wiggling around the rest of the rule to get what they want. Same rule for everyone and everyone can do the same thing if they want within the rules regardless of the intent.

On the flip side, a spot was vacated for another kid at the school he/she left behind. A good kid could transfer out of a large school to a smaller one to get a chance to play more even if they don't have intentions of continuing beyond high school. It happens but nobody mentions that because of the focus on the juggernauts at the top. Either way, another kid loses their spot.

 

[440runner]

I think a few of you, Blame in Particular, are mistaken on the Offensive Lineman for Regina. It was 2012 and he sat out all varsity competition that year per the 90 school day rule. See, it doesn't matter whether you transfer to a private school, or open enroll into a public school, if your family does not move, you can't play varsity competition for 90 school days.

The fact that any player, public, or private, moves into live with a relative, friend of family, or another player, DOES NOT make them immediately eligible to play. The player Blame and Bears Follower keep bringing up was not eligible to play, and did not play any varsity games in 2012. There was no advantage gained or "bending of the rules" as has been posted numerous times about this kid. He transferred, sat out his 90, then became eligible for varsity the following year, 2013. No different than if he drove the 50 miles every day instead of the 10 miles every day. This is the same rule for public open enrollment transfers. The fact he may or may not live with another family has NO RELEVANCE on eligibility or transfer rules. Living with another family did not make him eligible to play. It cuts down on a drive, but didn't get him around the 90 day rule.

IF this person had moved in 2012, AND played varsity competition in 2012 then not only would you have your "bend the rules" argument you would have an ineligible player. But he didn't soooooo......have the facts before you post.

However, Renting an apartment with your Mommy and being eligible immediately IS bending the rules. However I don't begrudge the kid for Solon last year or the kid for West Branch this year. They wanted to play somewhere else, Mom and Dad were willing to make sacrifices to move for a year to make it happen, more power to the kids. I wish them best of luck.
This post was edited on 8/8 11:20 PM by 440runner

 

[BlameIt]

fair enough
This post was edited on 8/9 9:00 PM by BlameIt

 

[cidhawkeye]

Quality post 440.

 

[long-may-u-run]

Who cares! There are no restrictions on coaches who pack up and leave to better their situations when they see the writing on the wall regarding talent in their particular school drying up. Coaches can leave on a whim with zero restrictions. Happens all the time. So a kid wants to leave for a better situation and gets penalized by having to sit out ninety days. Hell a coach doesn't even need to live in the district in which they coach. The whole thing is a joke. If I want to send my kid to different school because of academics, band, sports, whatever, why the hell do you care? I don't care where you send your kids or for what reason. None of my business. Let kids go where they want and we can get rid of the low performing lousy schools that exist. If schools want to retain kids get better on every level or dry up and wither away. Too many school districts, administrators etc. in Iowa now. Make schools compete like any other business does. We can't have that though. And everyone knows why. Public schools have been a failure on every level. Especially for the lower income and minority students.

 

[Ford26]

Again, the semester rule would only hurt the fall sports for any kid transferring to a school during a new year. A senior wrestler or basketball player would be able to compete. If a kid's sport is football, he would be screwed.

This post was edited on 8/8 10:09 AM by rkhemp

This is true. However, I would argue that "somehow" a kid/family might/would probably find a way to stay and play, as opposed to lose a season of eligibility. It seems too simple at present to fake and bake a transfer.

Of course my language is leading, in that it suggests any/all transfers are "fake" and we all know that is not true. But at current circumstance, it seems far too easy to "play the game". Second, things could be even MORE complicated if the rule was removed. What if lil' Johnny got scolded by coach and showed up at practice at cross-county rival next practice, ready to participate as immediate transfer. If "no rules" becomes "the rule" then how would a person govern such an extension?

It seems to me that stiffer rules would keep life more simple. And finally, I could be convinced to let sound/sane minds interpret individual circumstance to override the rule. But what the hel do I know.

 

[ghost80]

Norse is right. How often when there is a legit move and the kid is an upperclassman do they stay behind with a friend or relative or how often does one of the adults make the move and the kids are allowed to complete their high school where they started? It probably happens more often than the kid getting pulled to move their senior year (unless an outside factor including athletics is involved).

I have a friend whose wife accepted a dream job 235 miles away while they had a son who was a junior and a daughter a senior. She made the move herself and commuted back most weekends. She didn't miss a single football game or weekend wrestling meet of her son's. Her employer was touched enough by her devotion to her kids that they offered to let her work 4 10 hour days and even stack them between Monday off and Fridays off to allow a 4 day weekend every other week.

There are ways to work around a move. The notion that only the fall kids will be hurt under a 1 semester wait is working under the premise that all moves would happen during the summer. Moves could happen after the 1st semester to preserve fall participation.

A big reason for my proposed 1 full semester waiting period is to allow continuity for the team having players suddenly deciding to transfer out. Little Johnny suddenly decides to jump ship in the summer and play ball a few miles down the road in a phantom move. Where does that leave the coach and team if he is the QB or other key player? Not much time for development of someone else or a strategic shift in play. Was an opportunity created for someone? Yes it was but the timing might prevent if from being a real opportunity. Knowing that kid will leave a full semester before leaves a lot more time to begin preparing for a change. Yes injuries can cause the same effect but that is something you can't control...this is.

Can you imaging the cluster-fuster if all the transfer rules were dropped? It would be a chaotic mess. Johnny goes from team A to team B and displaces Billy. Billy wants to play so he jumps from B to C and displaces Eric who jumps to team D......This would undoubtedly spill over into the season and be a nightmare for any coach and probably would cause some coaches to quit.



This post was edited on 8/13 7:23 AM by ghost80