Logo

Lacrosse Logic

March 6, 2012

Sometimes the administrators of school sports will be heard to say, “Is ours the only sport program that cares about kids’ well-being?”  Or, “Are we the only folks willing to both make and enforce rules to protect the program and its participants?”

So, there are feelings of vindication and validation when we read about other sports programs which see and do some things somewhat our way.  And it appears US Lacrosse is one of those groups.  Here’s some of what is included in its Oct. 30, 2011 Position Statement:  “Boys’ and Girls’ Youth Lacrosse Participation Recommendations.”

“1. Athletes at all level of play should have 1-2 days off per week from competitive athletics and training to allow for recovery.
“2. Athletes at the U-9, U-11, U-13 and U-15 level should have at least 2-3 months away from sport specific training and competition during the year.
“3. Athletes at the U-9, U-11, U-13 and U-15 level should play on only one lacrosse team during a season.  If an athlete is playing on more than one team in the same season, they should not participate for more than 16-20 hours per week.”
“6. Encourage participation in multiple sports throughout the year and avoid sports specialization before the U-15 age group (high school).  Those athletes who choose to specialize in the sport of lacrosse in high school will need to take extra precaution with regard to overuse injuries and burnout.  While there may be potential benefits to extra training, the risks of becoming one-dimensional at a young age needs to be evaluated on a seasonal basis.  Furthermore, specialization does not guarantee improved play or college acceptance and only an estimated 5 percent of high school senior athletes progress to play some form of collegiate sports.  Some researchers believe there is a benefit to multiple sport participation throughout high school.”

Transfer Impasse

February 21, 2017

Transfers by students for athletic reasons is a chronic, nationwide, reputation-damaging nuisance for high school sports.

It’s not a new issue. The Michigan High School Athletic Association has been toughening transfer rules repeatedly for 35 years. Unfortunately, many schools do not use the tools that already exist to delay or deny athletic eligibility to students who transfer for athletic-motivated or related reasons.

It’s not unique to Michigan. Every state we contact – whether it has the same rules, tougher or weaker – cites transfer troubles. Unfortunately, some states which pushed their rules too far have lost them altogether because of pushback from lawyers and legislators and the growing school choice movement that advocates transfers any time to any place for any reason.

Statistically, total transfers are few, and student-athlete transfers are a very small percentage of those. But when the extremely few high-profile athletes in high-profile sports switch schools for sports, and those schools experience increased success, it grabs headlines, generates social media chatter and batters the brand of educational athletics, which is supposed to put school before sports and promote competitive equity between school teams.

Over the past decade, in response to concerns similar to ours, our counterpart organization in Ohio has seen its transfer rule come and go and return again. The current rule is tougher on those who have participated in school sports in 9th grade or beyond, as opposed to those students who have not; but the list of exceptions to the one year of ineligibility for past participants is now up to ten categories. The result is a rule in Ohio that differs little from our own in Michigan.

Our counterpart organization in Indiana averages about 4,200 students who transfer each year out of approximately 160,000 students who participate on interscholastic athletic teams each year. That’s just 2.6 percent. For the current school year, through Jan. 31, 2017 ...

  • 680 transfers never played school sports before and were eligible immediately;

  • 944 transfers made a bona fide change of residence and were eligible immediately;

  • 14 transfer students were ruled ineligible at any and all levels.

While the perception may be of an epidemic, the actual percentage of transferring student-athletes is a small fraction of a small fraction. Of course, that percentage may increase, and the perception get even worse, as the team-hopping, non-school sports mentality further infects school sports.

Still, reluctance remains among leadership here and in our counterpart organizations across the country toward adoption of tougher rules to govern such small percentages of students when there is at least as much clamor for more exceptions to existing rules, and significant reluctance to use the tools that current rules provide to clamp down on athletic-motivated and related transfers.