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.
Better Business
June 10, 2016
Maybe someday corporations that are generating increasing revenue by wringing money out of a decreasingly active population will realize that it would be a better business plan to promote more physical activity among what has now become the majority of young people – those who are not frequently active.
I am encouraged that “someday” may be coming soon when the symbol of business – The Wall Street Journal – features an article on the dangers of sport specialization that is too early and intense. The article promotes the benefits of balanced participation among youth.
In the May 17 issue, author Ben Cohen wrote this about NBA MVP Stephen Curry:
“Curry is already the most popular NBA player among kids. His approval ratings these days are close to ice cream’s. There was once a time when children wanted to be like Michael Jordan. Now they want to be Curry. But following his example doesn’t mean they have to grow up as the best shooter who ever lived. It may be as simple as dabbling in other sports when they’re still young.
“That’s because Curry is also the poster child for a saner approach to youth athletics. In an age of hyper-specialization, Curry has reached the pinnacle of his sport by doing the exact opposite. He played basketball, but he also played some baseball, football, soccer and basically everything else in a sport buffet. What worked for Curry, experts say, could work for everyone.
“As sports scientists continue to study how elite athletes develop, many of them have come to the conclusion that early specialization is the wrong approach. In the last five years, the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the International Olympic Committee have published research supporting the position that children should sample different sports, rather than picking one too early.
“They have found that specializing in one sport at a young age is unnecessary and may even be unhelpful. Early focus on one sport – and only one sport – can increase the risk of overuse injuries and raise the potential for burnout. It also robs impressionable athletes of a diversity of experiences that can benefit them as they develop both as athletes and adults. The final argument against specialization may be the most obvious of them all: It’s not as fun.”
There’s much more to what Cohen writes, and we have posted on our Health & Safety page. Here is the link.