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.

Bowl Games Are Bad

October 6, 2014

The idea to conduct one or more high school football bowl games in Florida in late December is a bad idea on every possible level of consideration. The idea will triumph only if greed trumps good sense.

A misguided marketing firm is trying again, this time attempting to bribe schools and state high school associations to bend or break their rules. A national media chain is trumpeting the plan to give some legs to its foolish national rankings. So there is some buzz about the plan, but no brains.

At a time when concerns rage for excessive head contact and concussions in football, no responsible party would for a single second think seriously about adding more football practices or games for school-age players.

Well before late December, high school football has ended, and winter sports are well underway with practices and competition that are far more important than several more weeks of practice and another game of football.

How could we ever allow one team to have an extra month more of football practice than all others? How is that fair to all the other football teams?

The answer is that it’s not fair to the football programs of other schools; it’s not fair to the other sports at the school involved; and it’s not healthy for the football players involved.