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.
Sportsmanship and Success in Soccer
August 16, 2012
Ralph Polson, president of the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA), reports in the July/August 2012 Soccer Journal that there is a strong statistical link between sportsmanship and success in intercollegiate soccer. He cites the work of Tim Lenahan, head men’s coach at Northwestern University, who compiled total fouls, yellow cards and red cards for the 2011 season to create a “Fair Play Rating” (FPR).
Polson reports that 12 of the 20 teams with the top FPR made the NCAA tournament, while only one of the teams in the bottom 20 did. Of course, this is a statistical link, not necessarily cause and effect. But here’s how Mr. Polson concludes his column:
“How should we interpret this data? One direction is toward more disciplined teams. It seems to me the more a culture of sportsmanship and fair play is established, the more likely any team is to demonstrate the consistency needed for success. The data suggests those teams without entrenched standards, with respect to on-field behavior, should anticipate a higher likelihood of failure in today’s highly competitive environment.
“Play within the spirit of the game and more than just a win may be gained; play against the spirit of the game and much more than just a game may be lost.”
Dr. Brian Crossman, chair of the NSCAA Ethics Committee, contributes this to the discussion in the same issue of Soccer Journal:
“A five year study from 2007 to 2011 of almost 4,700 intercollegiate soccer matches in which only one player was red-carded during the match showed a strong likelihood that the player’s team would lose. Teams that had one player red-carded lost 67 percent of the matches, tied 10 percent of the matches and won 23 percent of the matches. In other words, a team that had a player red-carded at any time during the match was three times more likely to lose the match than win it. Taking steps to encourage clean and fair play, and thus to reduce the likelihood of having players ejected, will pay dividends in sportsmanship and should improve your team’s won-loss record.”
For more, go to www.nscaa.com.