Tracking the Transfer Rule
September 19, 2017
We are not the first generation of school leaders to be concerned about athletic transfers in secondary school sports.
Lewis L. Forsythe, in his 1950 book Athletics in Michigan High Schools, described his era and earlier this way: “... there were enough who transferred for advantage, as they thought, in athletic opportunities to give wide currency to the term ‘tramp athletes.’ These were usually students who became ineligible in schools in which they had first enrolled, or became otherwise disaffected in their home situation and went elsewhere to continue school. It was possible, for example, for a boy to play football at Ann Arbor one season, drop out of school until the next March first, and then enter Jackson High school. Here he could make himself eligible for baseball and track by merely ‘passing’ in ten hours (later twelve hours) of work from time to time according to the reporting methods of the school, and then leave without taking final examinations. The next semester he might enroll in Detroit High School, and, by satisfying eligibility requirements for the current semester, play football in that school. With no age limit and no required check-up on eligibility in another school, this could go on for at least five years.”
Mr. Forsythe, writing in 1950, cited concerns as early as 1901, which led the state athletic committee to adopt the first transfer rule for school sports in Michigan. It required a student going from one secondary school to another to present a certificate from administrators of the school left that the student was eligible under the athletic rules of the time. The issue of the time was that students who were performing poorly in the classroom of one school would attempt to escape ineligibility due to academic deficiencies by transferring to another school
Two years later, a rule was adopted to address undue influence (recruiting) that required all schools to sever all relationships with a school that attempts to influence any athlete to change schools.
A year later (1904), this proposal was debated: “A student who has played on a football team, or on a baseball team, or who has taken part in any track events, going from one school to another, shall be ineligible to enter any secondary athletic contest for one year, unless the parents of such student move from one school district to another ...”
It took 20 years for a rule change to actually be made in this direction: “No student who has been enrolled as a high school student in any high school shall be permitted to participate in any interscholastic contest as a member of any other high school until he has been enrolled in such school for one full semester, unless the parents of such student actually change their residence to the second school district. In the latter case, the student will be as eligible as he was in the school from which he withdrew.”
There, in the first code of rules promulgated by the Michigan High School Athletic Association in 1924, is the core of our 2017 rule ... ineligible for one semester, with the exception for an actual change of residence.
Today we debate that the period of ineligibility is too short and the residency exception is too lenient.
As for the period of ineligibility, across the U.S., one year is more common than one semester. As for the residency exception, it exists everywhere. In fact, in some places the “transfer” rule is referred to as the “residency” rule.
Penalty Points
August 26, 2016
The five years that followed the adoption of a tougher transfer rule in the early 1980s were the busiest ever for Michigan High School Athletic Association lawyers. The tough rule made sense to parents until it applied to their own children, and was defended by coaches until applied to their own players.
The most recent five years have provided the most significant toughening of MHSAA rules in the 30 years since the contentious early ‘80s, most notably (1) adopting the athletic-related transfer rule (“links law”) that doubles the length of ineligibility for some transfer students who do not make a full and complete residential change, and (2) lengthening the maximum penalty for undue influence from up to one year to up to four years for students and adults involved.
Predictably, the recently enhanced rules have led to increases in challenges to the enforcement of those rules. What were good rules in theory sometimes have been challenged when put into actual practice. Ironically, the MHSAA has received criticism from some insiders that penalties have been too severe, and from a few outsiders that penalties have been too light. Which means we are reading these situations just about right.
It is MHSAA policy not to issue statements at the time penalties are assessed unless the penalties have a direct and immediate effect on MHSAA postseason tournament eligibility or progression. This is fitting for a voluntary association of schools which have the legal responsibility of enforcing rules as to their own students, coaches and others. The MHSAA does not want to embarrass member schools; and in those rare instances when it is necessary to issue a public statement of an action taken or to clarify an MHSAA policy or procedure, the MHSAA avoids identifying minor students and most adults who are the subjects of penalties.
While these procedures have served school-sponsored sports well in Michigan since the founding of the MHSAA, it is possible that the increase of 24/7/365 electronic communications produced by decreasingly professional/experienced/ethical personnel requires change. Taking full-body slams by media who have less than half the facts is not just a nuisance to the MHSAA, it’s disparaging to the goodness of the school sports brand.