Troublesome Transfers
September 8, 2011
The athletic eligibility transfer regulation adopted by MHSAA member schools, which states that all transfer students are ineligible for approximately one semester unless the student’s situation meets one of 15 stated exceptions, is an imperfect tool. It’s a wide and generally effective net that nevertheless catches some student transfers it should not and misses some transfers it should catch.
To release those students who should not have been snared there is a procedure by which schools may request a waiver from the MHSAA Executive Committee. During the 2010-11 school year, 320 requests to waive the transfer regulation were made by schools, and 219 waivers were approved by the Executive Committee.
The most troublesome aspect of the transfer regulation is that it does not stop or penalize all transfers that are primarily for athletic reasons. If a student is eligible under one of the stated exceptions, that student is immediately eligible regardless of the motivation behind the change of schools.
If, however, a student changes schools and that student’s circumstances do not meet one of the 15 stated exceptions that would provide immediate eligibility, there is a provision by which the school which lost the student may challenge that the change was primarily for athletic reasons. If that school alleges that this was an athletic-motivated transfer and documents its allegations on a timely basis, the MHSAA is authorized to investigate. If the MHSAA agrees, the student is ineligible for an additional semester.
The school which lost the student has the keys in its pocket. By rule, only that school can start the process.
The mere presence of this provision has discouraged many athletic-motivated transfers; and the more it is utilized, the more it will discourage these most troublesome transfers.
Building Future Support
December 19, 2017
Editor's Note: This blog originally was posted December 17, 2013, and the message still serves purpose today.
Most students would rather play sports than watch other people play.
This is obvious; but often we make both little decisions and large ones that seem to ignore this truth. More often than necessary we create more opportunities for watchers than we do for players.
Ultimately this leads to non-watchers because people – especially young people – tend to lose interest when they don’t play. We know this because, in school after school, we find that the best boosters – the most frequent and fervent spectators – are the students who participate on their school’s other teams.
It is also true that those who played sports when they were in school, and those whose children now play in school sports, are the people who will support schools most strongly in the future.
This too seems obvious, but still, many school districts all across this state and nation appear to make decisions like it has never occurred to them.
Every time we cut a kid from a high school team, we create critics of our programs – the student’s parents today and this student in the future. If the program has no room for a student today, why would we ever expect that student or his/her parents will support our programs tomorrow?
No-cut policies for all outdoor sports and larger squads for indoor sports – beginning at younger grade levels – will be among the policies of school districts which hope to retain school sports beyond the next generation or two.