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.
Misdirection
March 2, 2018
Our big problem is that we are distracted by small matters. For example ...
I don’t think there is any close, thoughtful observer who can honestly say high school basketball is in better shape today than any number of years ago that one might pick ... 10, 20, 30 or more years.
Changes in students, schools, sports and society have not been kind to school-based basketball. Charter schools, school of choice, non-school sports, migration into other sports and activities, specialization in a single sport, and burnout leading to dropouts from organized sports are a few of many factors contributing to declining participation. And there is more competition for attention away from schools and away from school sports every single day. So the fault is not one thing only.
Girls basketball has been particularly hard hit by specialization in volleyball that was supercharged after the switch of basketball and volleyball seasons a decade ago. Girls basketball participation declined in every school year since the change of seasons before a 2.2 percent increase for 2017-18.
The days when most schools sponsor three basketball teams each for boys and girls – 9th grade, JV and varsity – are long gone; and that’s not just because we were forced to cram both genders’ basketball seasons into the winter. Many of those same schools now struggle to support one subvarsity team, and many have very short benches – only two or three subs – at the varsity level.
Every week the gap between the haves and have-nots grows wider and more obvious to all, with final scores so lopsided that the games could not have been a good experience for anyone – players or spectators, home team or visitor.
One would think that these matters would be on the minds of those who love and lead high school basketball and that they would be working diligently on initiatives to address the declining interest and growing imbalance in what was once the centerpiece sport of interscholastic athletics.
They would be asking, “What can we do at the junior high/middle school level to engage students ... to start them or keep them on the path to high school basketball programs? How can we encourage and equip high school coaches to attract to and hold in their programs more high school students? How can we help coaches increase all players’ game time? How can we help coaches teach players to value and grow from the experience of being a backup player?”
Surprisingly, the only proposals related to basketball that are advancing toward Representative Council action at this time are (1) seed MHSAA District tournaments, and (2) expand the coaching box.
Sadly, these proposals do nothing to reverse the decline of high school basketball. They are distractions from the hard work of reclaiming a healthy culture for the most historically important sport to schools in Michigan.
The culture shift needed is away from an all-star event for a few graduating seniors and toward ongoing educational programs for all coaches, every year. Away from national events and toward city, county and conference rivalries. Away from “elite” travel teams to K-6 development programs out of season. Away from creeping commercialism and professionalism and toward a recommitment to amateurism. Away from gamesmanship and toward sportsmanship. Away from running up the score – a lot – to allowing every team member to play – a lot.
The clock is ticking on the life of student-centered school-sponsored basketball. And a lot bigger proposals are needed than what we’ve been generating of late.