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.

Best Practices

April 10, 2012

For decades, football has had the greatest participation among high school sports.  In recent years it’s become the greatest spectator sport as well. Today, MHSAA Football Playoff revenue exceeds that of Boys and Girls Basketball Tournaments combined. And if I ever want to generate comments to a blog, all I have to do is mention football.

I can write either the most inspired or inane words about most topics, and not generate a comment.  But mention “football,” and opinions come fast and usually furious.

So it was with my eyes wide open that I challenged some “sacred cows” in my posting of March 20, questioned some of the standard operating procedures of high school football practice, and predicted that we will soon be making some changes in the sport I played through four years of college and coached in high school and to which I owe more of my character development than any other sport.  I knew some readers would call me out of date and out of touch, knowing nothing of my past or my passion.

I knew some readers would challenge any comparison made with college and professional players, asserting that older players need fewer practices with less contact because they already have the skills and techniques of blocking and tackling.  However, they miss the fact that it is the younger and still growing body that needs more care and caution, not less.  Less hitting, not more.  More heat and humidity acclimatization, not less.

I knew some readers would complain about diminishing time to develop young players, overlooking the proliferation of camps, clinics, combines, 7-on-7 leagues and the like which have improved skills and conditioning for many athletes prior to the official start of practice.  If that were not true or if we would dial down the out-of-season demands, then I might not join the amassing advocates for reduced in-season practice demands.  But sadly, it is true; coaches already have these kids year-round.
 
On the same day that I posted predictions of changes for football practice policies in Michigan, including more days before pads and fewer days with double sessions, the Georgia High School Association adopted policies that did just that, requiring five days of practice before the first with full pads and prohibiting two-a-day practices on consecutive days.

Such changes reflect the growing body of evidence regarding “best practices” for high school football, including the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Federation of State High School Associations.  This train has left the station; and Michigan should be an early stop, an early adopter of practice policies modifications.  We put our players, coaches and selves in peril if we ignore the evidence.

I’m embarrassed to say that for too long I avoided this topic because I knew it would bring ridicule.  Then recently, a young but experienced head football coach told me that these are the kinds of changes that football needs.  Needs to keep the game attractive to kids; and needs to keep the game safe for kids.