So who transfered or is new to teams?
Woodbury HS - lost Lisa Tuuri to Stillwater (9th grade center/LW); Nicole Welch (Junior LW/LD - Woodbury's top returning scorer) and Maggie Pendleton (9th grade forward/LD) to Cretin Derham Hall; Callie Stromm (11th grade goalie) to N. St. Paul.
Open Enrollment/Transfers
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Mound Transfers
I heard the Ketchum girls transferred from Mound to EP
From the Online Strib...
No more free agents.
That was the message sent Wednesday by a Minnesota State High School League committee that has spent three months studying the issue of student-athletes changing schools. If the committee's recommendations are instituted, the landscape of high school sports in the state will change dramatically.
New rules could take affect as soon as the 2007-08 school year.
Under current MSHSL bylaws, student-athletes are allowed to change schools once with no penalty. If they transfer a second time, they must sit out the first half of a varsity season before becoming eligible. The new recommendations, made during a meeting at the MSHSL's Brooklyn Center offices, will make those restrictions much tighter.
The recommendations include these main points:
•Any athlete who changes schools, without a corresponding change of family residence, after the first day of ninth grade will be ineligible for varsity competition in all sports for one year. Further transfers by the same athlete will mean additional one-year periods of ineligibility.
•If an athlete competes on the varsity level as a seventh- or eighth-grader, any transfer after that will mean a loss of eligibility for one year.
•The new rules should take affect June 15, 2007. That means any athletes who want to transfer without a change of residence would have to do so before that date to be eligible for the 2007-08 school year.
•For purposes of interpreting the transfer rule, the committee also recommended that the MSHSL institute attendance boundaries for private schools. If that happens, students transferring to a private school must live within the attendance area of the public school district in which the private school is located. If not, they will be ineligible for one year.
The next step in the process will come when the MSHSL board of directors meets on Dec. 7. If the board approves the recommendations, they will be passed along to the 16 region committees around the state. If at least nine of the 16 region committees green-light the recommendations, the final step is approval by the MSHSL representative assembly. That group will meet Feb. 12.
If approved, the recommendations also would affect participants in MSHSL-sponsored fine arts activities, such as solo/ensemble music contests and state tournaments in debate, speech and drama
No more free agents.
That was the message sent Wednesday by a Minnesota State High School League committee that has spent three months studying the issue of student-athletes changing schools. If the committee's recommendations are instituted, the landscape of high school sports in the state will change dramatically.
New rules could take affect as soon as the 2007-08 school year.
Under current MSHSL bylaws, student-athletes are allowed to change schools once with no penalty. If they transfer a second time, they must sit out the first half of a varsity season before becoming eligible. The new recommendations, made during a meeting at the MSHSL's Brooklyn Center offices, will make those restrictions much tighter.
The recommendations include these main points:
•Any athlete who changes schools, without a corresponding change of family residence, after the first day of ninth grade will be ineligible for varsity competition in all sports for one year. Further transfers by the same athlete will mean additional one-year periods of ineligibility.
•If an athlete competes on the varsity level as a seventh- or eighth-grader, any transfer after that will mean a loss of eligibility for one year.
•The new rules should take affect June 15, 2007. That means any athletes who want to transfer without a change of residence would have to do so before that date to be eligible for the 2007-08 school year.
•For purposes of interpreting the transfer rule, the committee also recommended that the MSHSL institute attendance boundaries for private schools. If that happens, students transferring to a private school must live within the attendance area of the public school district in which the private school is located. If not, they will be ineligible for one year.
The next step in the process will come when the MSHSL board of directors meets on Dec. 7. If the board approves the recommendations, they will be passed along to the 16 region committees around the state. If at least nine of the 16 region committees green-light the recommendations, the final step is approval by the MSHSL representative assembly. That group will meet Feb. 12.
If approved, the recommendations also would affect participants in MSHSL-sponsored fine arts activities, such as solo/ensemble music contests and state tournaments in debate, speech and drama
-
hshockeyfan91
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm
I disagree...
I don't like the proposed MSHSL rules. While in some situations open enrollment does get abused, in other cases it helps.
For example, I know a kid involved in sports who transferred to another school because she was hanging with the wrong crowd at the old school. While sports wasn't the #1 reason for a switch, I doubt she would have left knowing that she wouldn't be able to play Varsity sports (and JV sports are NOT the same as Varsity for a player able to compete at a higher level).
Another example involves goalies. If you live in Edina, Wayzata or White Bear Lake you've probably never had to worry about this, but from time to time the well does come up pretty empty internally in smaller programs. At the same time a larger program might be cutting a pretty good goalie. Isn't it a win-win for everyone if that goalie open enrolls somewhere else?
In a third example what if a coach and a kid just don't click? Why is the coach free to leave, but the player must stay or quit the sport? If limits are put on players leaving then I think coaches should also be banned from coaching all Varsity sports a a different school for a year. Let's not become another NCAA (coaches can earn bazillions annually, move freely, etc., but the kids are much more tightly locked in...and they better not get a free lunch or something!).
Do we REALLY have a problem that must be solved? What percentage of kids open enroll after ninth grade anyway - 1/2 of one percent? It isn't many many after you count all the athletes.
If we must do something, how about some compromise positions? I know some city run adult softball leagues say that all the players on a team must either live or work in the city, but they often grant an exemption for a set number of players - 3 typically. What if the MSHSL did something similar to keep the EP girls hockey, Hopkins boys basketball type schools from dominating? For basketball maybe it's 2 kids, maybe 3 in hockey, maybe 5 or 6 in football, but there is some limit on "non-hometown" kids on the team. If 5 kids open enroll, they are fighting for 3 spots. That should help insure that athletes who legitimately need to leave a school don't all wind up in the same "elite" program and that many slots remain for hometown kids in every program.
Bottom line is that the proposal as written is a mistake. I would even go so far as to forecast that if passed there will be more and more movement to Shattuck / Thoroughbred, etc. type programs. There will probably be new alternatives to the MSHSL programs that start developing (over time).
For example, I know a kid involved in sports who transferred to another school because she was hanging with the wrong crowd at the old school. While sports wasn't the #1 reason for a switch, I doubt she would have left knowing that she wouldn't be able to play Varsity sports (and JV sports are NOT the same as Varsity for a player able to compete at a higher level).
Another example involves goalies. If you live in Edina, Wayzata or White Bear Lake you've probably never had to worry about this, but from time to time the well does come up pretty empty internally in smaller programs. At the same time a larger program might be cutting a pretty good goalie. Isn't it a win-win for everyone if that goalie open enrolls somewhere else?
In a third example what if a coach and a kid just don't click? Why is the coach free to leave, but the player must stay or quit the sport? If limits are put on players leaving then I think coaches should also be banned from coaching all Varsity sports a a different school for a year. Let's not become another NCAA (coaches can earn bazillions annually, move freely, etc., but the kids are much more tightly locked in...and they better not get a free lunch or something!).
Do we REALLY have a problem that must be solved? What percentage of kids open enroll after ninth grade anyway - 1/2 of one percent? It isn't many many after you count all the athletes.
If we must do something, how about some compromise positions? I know some city run adult softball leagues say that all the players on a team must either live or work in the city, but they often grant an exemption for a set number of players - 3 typically. What if the MSHSL did something similar to keep the EP girls hockey, Hopkins boys basketball type schools from dominating? For basketball maybe it's 2 kids, maybe 3 in hockey, maybe 5 or 6 in football, but there is some limit on "non-hometown" kids on the team. If 5 kids open enroll, they are fighting for 3 spots. That should help insure that athletes who legitimately need to leave a school don't all wind up in the same "elite" program and that many slots remain for hometown kids in every program.
Bottom line is that the proposal as written is a mistake. I would even go so far as to forecast that if passed there will be more and more movement to Shattuck / Thoroughbred, etc. type programs. There will probably be new alternatives to the MSHSL programs that start developing (over time).
-
Thunderbird77
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:01 pm
Hshockeyfan91 has proposed an elegant solution. Why not put a limit on the number of 'transfers' that a team can have, FOR ANY REASON. The definition of transfer would be someone who has already played a season of Varsity athletics and then switches to another school and wants to play varsity athletics in that same sport. This would equalize the playing field for all schools (public and private), put some of the responsibility on the schools to manage the number of transfers they accept and take the advantage away from the wealthy (or determined) parent who is willing to lease an apartment or move in order to be on a particular team. In addition, this policy will be a whole lot easier to implement.
I'd like to hear from those who are in favor of the new rules whether or not you find this a reasonable alternative.
I'd like to hear from those who are in favor of the new rules whether or not you find this a reasonable alternative.
-
defensedad
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:17 pm
Re: I disagree...
[quote="hshockeyfan91"]For basketball maybe it's 2 kids, maybe 3 in hockey, maybe 5 or 6 in football, but there is some limit on "non-hometown" kids on the team. If 5 kids open enroll, they are fighting for 3 spots. That should help insure that athletes who legitimately need to leave a school don't all wind up in the same "elite" program and that many slots remain for hometown kids in every program.
quote]
I think that this is not an option at all. If you think maybe 3 for hockey, and you mentioned EP, well here you go. The 3 Kennedy transfer girls scored 5 of 6 goals against a very good Burnsville team. What percent of goals scored this year will come from them 3, not to mention the other 3 or 4 girls that tranfered in. What percent of the points will be actually scored by their homegrown talent. I would guess 25 percent. I may even be a little high on that!
quote]
I think that this is not an option at all. If you think maybe 3 for hockey, and you mentioned EP, well here you go. The 3 Kennedy transfer girls scored 5 of 6 goals against a very good Burnsville team. What percent of goals scored this year will come from them 3, not to mention the other 3 or 4 girls that tranfered in. What percent of the points will be actually scored by their homegrown talent. I would guess 25 percent. I may even be a little high on that!
private school transfer rules
The proposal as it applies to private schools goes way too far.
It costs big bucks to keep a kid in a private school and if a family cannot afford it anymore are you telling me the kid would sacrifice a year of eligibility due to financial hardship because they had to return to public school? A parent loses their job things are hard enough but the kid must suffer too?
It costs big bucks to keep a kid in a private school and if a family cannot afford it anymore are you telling me the kid would sacrifice a year of eligibility due to financial hardship because they had to return to public school? A parent loses their job things are hard enough but the kid must suffer too?
-
Jethrotull
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:43 am
To be tranfered or not, That is the question
It is impossible to predict every situation that may happen. The rule as it stands now is to liberal and allows transfers on strictly sports related issues.
This year we are seeing groups of kids from one school transferring to another solely to play sports on another team. This is an abuse of the system and needs to stop. I trust the MHSL will allow hardship cases to transfer without penalty but the kids that jump around to play on the best team should be stopped. I speak from experience as I have a child that transferred and as a responsible parent and can tell you that sports are at the bottom of list when it comes to school in our family.
This year we are seeing groups of kids from one school transferring to another solely to play sports on another team. This is an abuse of the system and needs to stop. I trust the MHSL will allow hardship cases to transfer without penalty but the kids that jump around to play on the best team should be stopped. I speak from experience as I have a child that transferred and as a responsible parent and can tell you that sports are at the bottom of list when it comes to school in our family.
I hope this does pass. There are too many kids in all sports jumping to play for a champion. How many kids on Hopkins basketball teams are actually from that district? As for the private school players, don't some or most of the private schools offer financial packages in cases of financial hardships? I don't see a problem with setting boarders for the private schools. In case nobody notices, Emily Brookshaw that played for Hill Murray a few years ago was from Webster, Wisconsin. Are there no private schools in Wisconsin?
Rumor has it that a certain goalie for a team with a Pony as their mascot lives in Wisconsin too... How does this work?taz91 wrote:I hope this does pass. There are too many kids in all sports jumping to play for a champion. How many kids on Hopkins basketball teams are actually from that district? As for the private school players, don't some or most of the private schools offer financial packages in cases of financial hardships? I don't see a problem with setting boarders for the private schools. In case nobody notices, Emily Brookshaw that played for Hill Murray a few years ago was from Webster, Wisconsin. Are there no private schools in Wisconsin?
Open enrollment!! I actually know nothing about the team in question. I just live in the town.hotdog wrote:Rumor has it that a certain goalie for a team with a Pony as their mascot lives in Wisconsin too... How does this work?taz91 wrote:I hope this does pass. There are too many kids in all sports jumping to play for a champion. How many kids on Hopkins basketball teams are actually from that district? As for the private school players, don't some or most of the private schools offer financial packages in cases of financial hardships? I don't see a problem with setting boarders for the private schools. In case nobody notices, Emily Brookshaw that played for Hill Murray a few years ago was from Webster, Wisconsin. Are there no private schools in Wisconsin?
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Maybe the solution is to have community based athletics all the way through HS. So, the Privates can put AAA teams on the ice like SSM & TB if they wish, but not MSHSL teams. You simply have to play your "HS" athletics at the attendance area HS that your residence is in. Go to whatever HS you want for school (public/private/post-secondary/ALC/homeschool/etc), but play your sports in your home area HS attendance area (your community HS) - else move your residence if you want to play sports in another area with other kids/coaches/HS programs.
This way, you aren't playing for your HS so much as your community I guess...
Sounds like too much & crazy, right? Well, that's where we're headed it seems.
There is no perfect solution, and kids need the right to a choice for education...
This way, you aren't playing for your HS so much as your community I guess...
Sounds like too much & crazy, right? Well, that's where we're headed it seems.
There is no perfect solution, and kids need the right to a choice for education...
I heard on the radio this morning (they were discussing the issue) that certain parents from the Hudson area rent apartments in Stillwater for the mailing address. The person saying it (Jay Kohls) is the father of a national development camp U14 player. He did not mention names or sports, just to be clear about that.
Gardez toujours votre bâton sur la glace...
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
This is a good point. I also believe though that there would be more emphasis placed on building strong community sports if they were through HS needs. There are some lessons about working through issues here for all in a community as well, but I don't believe in blocking kids form getting the best education experience and I've said myself that athletics are very important to kids lives and have an impact in the classroom and how they conduct themselves, etc.xk1 wrote:I wonder how many kids quit sports becasue they don't like the people running the community sport but are prevented from playing anywhere else?
-
Jethrotull
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:43 am
District transfers
Great point. I seldom heard of youth players moving around. Only goalies because of shortages in some towns.
-
finance_gal
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:58 pm
Whats wrong with having kids transfer freely, Hows this any different than having russian gymnasts moving to america and competing in the olympics for america...there is no diference. the problem that i see by reading this is that people are upset because they don't get to coach a superstar that happens to live in there area....Grow up, you can change jobs cause you don't like your boss but you won't let kids change schools cause they don't like the coach...this sounds more comunist than anything. a kid can want to change schools for any number of reasons, and you people want to restrict this..maybe the best coaches should be coaching the best kids and the mediocore coaches get to coach the mediocore atheletes
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
Bottom line: There is no perfect solution.
Question: Is it wrong to transfer for athletics?
Consideration: What if athletics are what keep a child on the right track in life? Does this have an impact on answering the above question?
I'm not entirely being sarcastic about my "modest proposal" of just doing community based HS athletics and letting kids go to whatever HS they want for school. But does this solve the problem of the kids that want a better athletic experience than their community can provide? No.
Question: Is it wrong to transfer for athletics?
Consideration: What if athletics are what keep a child on the right track in life? Does this have an impact on answering the above question?
I'm not entirely being sarcastic about my "modest proposal" of just doing community based HS athletics and letting kids go to whatever HS they want for school. But does this solve the problem of the kids that want a better athletic experience than their community can provide? No.
Re: private school transfer rules
So far, we have been given an overview of the propsal that will be sent to the MSHSL to review. The committee that is recommending this rule change was apparently using the Wisconsin rule as a guide. In the Wisconsin rules, I believe there is a provision provided for a student to petition for a transfer that will not affect their eligibility. I can only assume that the private school tuition affordability issue would be one of the situations that could apply to the unpenalized transfer petition.trilogy wrote:The proposal as it applies to private schools goes way too far.
It costs big bucks to keep a kid in a private school and if a family cannot afford it anymore are you telling me the kid would sacrifice a year of eligibility due to financial hardship because they had to return to public school? A parent loses their job things are hard enough but the kid must suffer too?
Its a little early in the game to get up in arms over the transfer rules, since the entire rule has not been released.
I think OE has really trivialized the importance of high school sports in the grand scheme of things. Before OE, a community could really get behind the local HS team; whether it be football, hockey, basketball. etc. The community would be united in cheering for their HS team. It was really a big deal in many communities. There were many fans in the stands who were not parents or relatives of the players. They were at the game because they wanted to see their team beat the other team.
Now, are their really many residents of say EP who would get very excited about seeing their hometown team beat (fill in blank)? I think not.
From a community standpoint, I think HS sports was much more important pre-OE. However, from an individual athlete's perspective, OE is probably better. I think everyone is coming to realize that you can't have both.
Now, are their really many residents of say EP who would get very excited about seeing their hometown team beat (fill in blank)? I think not.
From a community standpoint, I think HS sports was much more important pre-OE. However, from an individual athlete's perspective, OE is probably better. I think everyone is coming to realize that you can't have both.
-
hshockeyfan91
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater
The MSHSL's misguided attempt to "close the door" just squeezes the issue in other directions. It is way too draconian.
First of all, again and again in the comments I see people pointing out specific players who have transferred from one program to another. Very few of those kids move a second time. Usually they leave a school with a team that is not as good to move to another school that is perceived to be of better quality. The proposal will do nothing to stop these one time moves, other than it will only make them happen earlier.
A parallel could be drawn to the NBA draft when it was opened up to the Kevin Garnett’s of the world - lots of players came out for the draft early - after HS - a few made it; most were never heard from again - but that didn't stop kids from trying in future years.
All that will happen is that people will look at a weaker program and transfer earlier - before 9th grade. That will help no one. The kid that transfers might indeed turn out to be a superstar at a big time program, but the school is just as likely to get kids who think (or who's parents think) they'll be stars, but aren't. Instead of staying with a weaker school for a few years - and maybe developing the whole program, kids will just move earlier. Making decisions earlier will force more and poorer choices. Bad for everyone.
Also, what about those poor EP and SSP "hometown" kids that get squeezed off the Varsity roster (or off the 1st two lines)? (This proposal doesn't stop the moves, it just makes them come earlier.) Shouldn't these hometown kids have the right to move to another school if they're locked out at their own school, or are they just out of luck?
Again, if you want to solve "elite" team issues, put a limit on number of "non-home town kids" that can be on a team. Or, alternatively, embrace "elite" teams and create a new "Premier tier" with unlimited transfers - maybe only a dozen schools will choose to compete at that level. I'd rather have a premier tier here, than have a kid off in a (boys) Michigan type NDP program.
Finally, is it wrong to leave a hometown school at all? Are there exceptions? Why? When? There must be some. Is anyone thinking about the kids that will get hurt about this, or are people just so mad at AHA, BSM, SSP and EP's that they don't care. Truly this new MSHSL recommendation is a knee-jerk proposal that is not well thought through. Sad.
First of all, again and again in the comments I see people pointing out specific players who have transferred from one program to another. Very few of those kids move a second time. Usually they leave a school with a team that is not as good to move to another school that is perceived to be of better quality. The proposal will do nothing to stop these one time moves, other than it will only make them happen earlier.
A parallel could be drawn to the NBA draft when it was opened up to the Kevin Garnett’s of the world - lots of players came out for the draft early - after HS - a few made it; most were never heard from again - but that didn't stop kids from trying in future years.
All that will happen is that people will look at a weaker program and transfer earlier - before 9th grade. That will help no one. The kid that transfers might indeed turn out to be a superstar at a big time program, but the school is just as likely to get kids who think (or who's parents think) they'll be stars, but aren't. Instead of staying with a weaker school for a few years - and maybe developing the whole program, kids will just move earlier. Making decisions earlier will force more and poorer choices. Bad for everyone.
Also, what about those poor EP and SSP "hometown" kids that get squeezed off the Varsity roster (or off the 1st two lines)? (This proposal doesn't stop the moves, it just makes them come earlier.) Shouldn't these hometown kids have the right to move to another school if they're locked out at their own school, or are they just out of luck?
Again, if you want to solve "elite" team issues, put a limit on number of "non-home town kids" that can be on a team. Or, alternatively, embrace "elite" teams and create a new "Premier tier" with unlimited transfers - maybe only a dozen schools will choose to compete at that level. I'd rather have a premier tier here, than have a kid off in a (boys) Michigan type NDP program.
Finally, is it wrong to leave a hometown school at all? Are there exceptions? Why? When? There must be some. Is anyone thinking about the kids that will get hurt about this, or are people just so mad at AHA, BSM, SSP and EP's that they don't care. Truly this new MSHSL recommendation is a knee-jerk proposal that is not well thought through. Sad.
-
Jethrotull
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:43 am
Transfers
There are alot of interesting opinions being said today. Both sides (Good idea/ Bad idea) have made good arguments but know one has brought up the fact that the MHSL in years past had a rule that all transfers would be followed by a period of ineligibility. Are we not just going back to the old rules. By the way, does anyone remember why it was changed to todays rules. My guess is that eveyone was complaining, just like they are now. If the wyners and complainers of this world every out number everyone else, we will end up with AAAAAAAA hockey. Nuff said