Logo

Transfer Trends

January 23, 2015

One of the responsibilities that schools have asked our organizations like the MHSAA to execute is the management of transfer student eligibility. Historically, many associations have linked eligibility to residence ... thus, for some the regulation has been called the "Residency Rule" or "Transfer/Residency Rule," not merely the "Transfer Rule."
Over the years, as society became more mobile and families less stable, these rules became more and more complicated; and now, for most state high school associations, this is the regulation that consumes the most (or second) most pages of their Handbooks. Over the years, this has also been the regulation most frequently challenged in court.
Over the years, some states have relaxed their transfer rule and others have refined their transfer rule. In either case, the transfer rule remains an imperfect rule, an imperfect net. Sometimes this net snags students who should not be made ineligible, and for those situations all associations have arranged some kind of waiver or appeal process. 
And sometimes, and much less easily solved, the net fails to catch the situations it really should ... the transfers that are not hardship related or the result of some very compelling educational need, but those that are obviously for athletic reasons. It is those that we have been most focused on in Michigan.
Our first effort to get at the most problematic transfers was the adoption for the 1997-98 school year of what we called the "Athletic MOTIVATED Transfer Rule" ... Regulation I, Section 9(E). Examples of an athletic motivated transfer are included in the rule. The rule only applies to transfer students who do NOT meet any of the stated exceptions for immediate eligibility and are ineligible for one semester under our basic transfer rule. They become ineligible for 180 scheduled school days if there is a finding that the transfer was more for athletics than any other compelling reason.
This effort has not been successful enough because it requires a school that loses a student to another school to promptly allege to the MHSAA office, with supporting documentation, that the transfer was more for athletic reasons than any other compelling reason. The receiving school then must respond to those allegations. Then the executive director makes the decision. The unfortunate result of applying this rule is that it usually causes hard feelings between the schools, and hard feelings toward the executive director by the school decided against. In 17 years, schools have invoked this rule only 41 times.
Our more recent effort to address the most egregious athletic transfers resulted from requests from the coaches associations for wrestling and basketball which were watching too many students change schools for athletic reasons, usually related to an out-of-season coaching relationship. The new rule – the "Athletic RELATED Transfer Rule" -- is Regulation I, Section 9(F). The difference between Section 9(E) and the newer Section 9(F) is that in 9(F) one school does not have to make and document allegations before staff can act. If MHSAA staff discover or are informed of any of the circumstances listed in 9(F), we can act. Again, the rule only applies to those transfer students whose circumstances do NOT meet one of the automatic exceptions. It applies only to students who are ineligible for a semester under the basic transfer rule. If there is a finding that one of the athletic related "links" exists (usually an out-of-season coaching relationship), then this transfer student who would be ineligible for one semester is made ineligible for 180 scheduled school days.
So far, it appears that 9(F) may be a better deterrent than 9(E). It has been referenced when students are rumored to be transferring, and it has stopped many of those transfers before they occur. 
We have said that if this latest effort does not succeed in slowing athletic transfers, then the next step is 180 days of ineligibility for all transfer students who do not qualify for an exception that permits immediate play. I fear that would catch far too many students who should not be withheld so long from competition and could lead to a period like the early 1980s when the MHSAA, at the request of the state principals association, adopted the core of the transfer rule we have today and which resulted in a period of busiest litigation for the MHSAA when, at one time, the association had more than a dozen cases in court simultaneously on transfer matters. We’ve got to make the current rules work.

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.