Transfer Tools
February 7, 2014
On Oct. 15 I used this space to talk about “Transfer Trends”; and I took that topic on the road, including it in MHSAA Update meetings throughout the state. I described an “epidemic.”
As I have said and written before (including in this space on Sept. 27, 2011), our transfer regulation is an inadequate tool for the fight ahead of us. It has failed to slow the growth of athletic-motivated transfers even after adoption of a rule for that purpose in 1997. Too few schools have wanted the hassle of alleging and documenting that a transfer was primarily for athletic reasons. In 2012, the leadership of the basketball and wrestling coaches associations, observing that current rules permitted several high-profile transfers in their sports, asked for a much tougher transfer rule – one that would subject most transfer students to a full year of ineligibility. Recognizing its legal responsibility to enforce the most narrow proscriptions possible, the Representative Council responded with more precision.
The new athletic-related transfer rule adopted last May extends the period of ineligibility from one semester to two for those students whose circumstances do not fit one of the existing 15 exceptions to the transfer regulation and where the student has engaged in certain activities during the previous 12 months that link the student to the new school’s athletic program.
If a student played high school sports during the previous 12 months and did one of the activities that linked that student to the new school athletically, the new rule doubles the period of ineligibility. If, for example, this transfer student attended an open gym at the new school, played summer or non-school sports on a team coached by one of the coaches of the sport at the new school, or received instruction in strength or conditioning from a personal trainer who coaches at the new school, then the period of ineligibility would double.
In addition to narrowly tailoring the new rule to the most obvious and egregious examples of an athletic-motivated or -related transfer, the Representative Council also provided necessary notice. The rule has not been “sprung” on students who may have done things before the rule change that would have made them ineligible. Because the rule has a 12-month run-up to consider, the Council provided almost 15 months’ notice. The rule takes full effect Aug. 1, 2014.
This is another example of defining a problem and designing the policy with precision. It’s both most educationally sound and judicially defensible.
Travel Football
July 15, 2016
The University of Michigan will host a high school football game on Sept. 2, 2016. That would not make news, except that the game is between two out-of-state high school teams.
The teams are from New Jersey and Maryland, likely chosen to assist the Wolverines’ recruiting efforts in those states, and to help them make more waves in the college football world. Both high school teams are private schools, and each comes with heavy baggage.
Some public schools in New Jersey have boycotted playing the New Jersey school in football; the Maryland school is not a member of the MHSAA’s counterpart association in that state. One school is flaunting the rules; the other school has no rules to follow.
That major college football has been in an uncontrolled spiral of excess is not news; but its insidious damage to high school sports is finally making headlines.
NCAA rules have recently been robbing schools of winter and spring sports athletes as college coaches entice high school seniors to graduate at the end of their seventh semester and start practicing football with their future college teammates several months early. We are grateful to see Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby question the practice of enrolling players before their scheduled high school graduation.
Now, NCAA rules appear to invite universities to select high school football teams from anywhere there’s a great prospect or two, and transport the teams across the U.S. to compete in a nearly empty stadium, save for recruiting “gurus,” athletic apparel reps and a few media. We are hoping to see some college sports leaders step up to question this practice.
All of this leads to the rich getting richer – on both the college and school levels. All of which induces another updraft to the spiral of excess in what are supposed to be education-based programs.