Logo

Tougher Rules for Transfers

May 31, 2013

There is an increased sense among the MHSAA’s constituents that it’s nearly impossible to advance deeply into the MHSAA’s postseason tournaments with “home grown” talent; that unless a team receives an influx of 9th-graders from other districts or transfers of 10th-, 11th- and 12th-graders from other schools, success in MHSAA tournaments is rare.

This is the predictable result of several factors, including (1) expanding schools of choice; (2) starving school districts of essential resources; (3) encircling schools with educational options; and (4) increasing dependence on nonfaculty coaches and the related increased profile of non-school youth sports programs.

In light of this, Michigan’s high school wrestling coaches and, more recently, Michigan’s high school basketball coaches, have proposed new rules and/or pled with MHSAA leadership to toughen the transfer rules for school-based programs.

On May 5, 2013, the MHSAA adopted a rule to take effect starting Aug. 1, 2014, that advocates believe is more straightforward than the athletic motivated section of the transfer regulation and is a needed next step to address increasing mobility of students between schools.  It links certain described activities to a longer period of ineligibility after a transfer.  It intends to catch some of the most overt and egregious of transfers for athletic reasons.

Specifically, after a student has played on a team at one high school and transfers to another where he or she is ineligible, the period of ineligibility is extended to 180 scheduled school days if, during the previous 12 months, this student . . .

  • Participated at an open gym at the high school to which the student has transferred.
  • Participated on a non-school team coached by any of the coaches at the high school to which the student has transferred.
  • Has a personal sport trainer, conditioner or instructor who is a coach at the high school to which the student has transferred.

  • Transfers to a school where his or her previous high school coach is now employed.

Unlike Section 9(E), this new Section 9(F) does not require one school to allege athletic motivation.  If the MHSAA learns from any source that any one of the four athletic related links, the MHSAA shall impose ineligibility for 180 scheduled school days.

There may be a large percentage of the MHSAA’s constituents who do not believe this new Section 9(F) goes far enough; that this should be applied to all students, not merely those whose transfer does not fit one of the 15 stated exceptions which allows for immediate eligibility.  That could become the MHSAA’s next step in fighting one of the most aggravating problems of school-based sports today.

5 Questions for 8-Player Football

April 10, 2017

The 2017 8-Player Football Playoffs will be conducted over four weeks in two divisions of 16 teams each for the 60-plus teams sponsored by Michigan High School Athletic Association Class D schools.

That much was decided by the MHSAA Representative Council on March 24.

There are five questions (at least) that the Council still must answer:

  1. How should teams qualify? Since the first 8-player tournament in 2011, teams have qualified by playoff point averages – the 16 highest qualified for the tournament. Should this be changed to a system of automatic qualifiers on the basis of wins, plus additional qualifiers on the basis of playoff points to complete the field – like the 11-player tournament operates?

  2. When should divisions be determined? Should it be in late March when division breaks for other “equal divisions” tournaments are set? Or should divisions be determined nearer the start of the season – say, September 1 – so all late additions, deletions, and cooperative program changes can be factored in before the two divisions, based on enrollment, are determined?

  3. Where will the championship games be played? Should the Council designate a doubleheader at the Superior Dome in Marquette so the MHSAA can focus all its resources on one climate-controlled facility? Or should two sites be designated now (perhaps the Superior Dome in Marquette and Legacy Field in Greenville), and the specific games and times assigned as the playoffs progress in an attempt to reduce travel times for teams and spectators?

  4. Should the maximum enrollment for the 8-player tournament be the moving target of the Class D maximum (203 in 2017) or a fixed number – for example, 215, the Class D maximum in 2011 when the 8-player tournament began? This decision could be deferred to the Council’s meeting in December.

  5. Should there be a “grace period” for schools that are eligible for the 8-player tournament one year but have enrollments that exceed the 8-player limit the next year – for example, eligible only the following year and only if the enrollment does not exceed the 8-player enrollment limit by more than 12 students? This decision could also be delayed to the December meeting of the Council.

As our excitement builds for the expanded 8-player tournament, so do the questions.