Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:54 am

If the propoesed rules would have been the original rules, what would have been different (in girls hockey) about the last few years? What would the kids that have transferred have done?

(How about some non-emotional remarks)

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:58 am

Good question.......

IMO - a large % of the kids 9th grade and older would not have transferred via O/E to another public, perhaps they would have considered privates more ????? The new rule, if enacted with the 1 yr waiting like wisconsins law, may push more high level NDP players to privates.

Certainly, EP would be a different team today IMO.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:03 am

xk1 wrote:If the propoesed rules would have been the original rules, what would have been different (in girls hockey) about the last few years? What would the kids that have transferred have done?

(How about some non-emotional remarks)

Without asking each of them individually and taking a tally, you can only speculate what the overall change would have been. My guess is that the vast majority of girls that played varsity both at the old school and the new - maybe 80% of them - would not have transferred. Note that this isn't an endorsement of the rule change, but just an estimate in answer to your question. Maybe a better question is how many of the girls who have transferred believe it was beneficial for them to do so, and why. My guess is that the vast majority of them - maybe 90% - were glad they did.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:11 am

ghshockeyfan wrote:
TheGame wrote:Let us not forget. If the OE rule that player must sit for a year is enacted those players who still want to play hockey have a couple of options: they can play Thoroughbreds or they can join one of the U19 teams that are now in existence. After one year they can then go to the H.S. varsity that they OEd to.
If they have the money.

Also the Thoroughbreds only have so many spots available, and only a small percentage who would want to play for them (instead of JV or U19)would actually make their team. They have a full roster now of some very good players.

Maybe there will be other AAA teams formed so that the displaced girls caused by the rule change (if it goes into effect) have other options. I don't know anything about U19 but I can't imagine that the quality is very good.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:20 am

Without naming names, how many impact players actually OE'd in the last 4 years?

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:25 am

MNHockeyFan wrote: Also the Thoroughbreds only have so many spots available, and only a small percentage who would want to play for them (instead of JV or U19)would actually make their team. They have a full roster now of some very good players.

Maybe there will be other AAA teams formed so that the displaced girls caused by the rule change (if it goes into effect) have other options. I don't know anything about U19 but I can't imagine that the quality is very good.

I doubt TBreds is an option for all but the most highly skilled upperclassmen. On the other end, the level of play at U19 is not an attractive alternative for most 1st or 2nd line varsity players.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:29 am

xk1 wrote:Without naming names, how many impact players actually OE'd in the last 4 years?

Yes. Just to frame the scope of this issue, I'd be interested to see how many phase I NDP players OE'd.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:34 am

you know there are some pretty good JV teams out there
that is the options they would have if they OE
I would guess tha EP and Bville and LV's Combined and many others are not that bad. and the price is right.

TheGame · Post by **TheGame** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:40 am

On the EP team there are 4 that OEd after 9th grade and one before 9th grade

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:52 am

Stick to after 9th grade for scoping purposes.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:57 am

I take that back, before and after is good...

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:31 pm

hockeya1a wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:
TheGame wrote:Let us not forget. If the OE rule that player must sit for a year is enacted those players who still want to play hockey have a couple of options: they can play Thoroughbreds or they can join one of the U19 teams that are now in existence. After one year they can then go to the H.S. varsity that they OEd to.
If they have the money.

They are still allowed to practice and play JV

Boy I bet opposing JV coaches woudl love that!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:32 pm

xk1 wrote:If the propoesed rules would have been the original rules, what would have been different (in girls hockey) about the last few years? What would the kids that have transferred have done?

(How about some non-emotional remarks)

They would have rented apartments I'd guess.

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:46 pm

Sadly,

I think ghs is right, they would simply find a way around the rule, like renting an apartment. At which point I say one of 2 things need to happen.........
(1) include a clause in the new O/E that somehow requires the city of residence to be considered where the families main residence exists. This would prevent the rented aparments, living with cousins, moving in with friends, etc etc etc

or
(2) We tell people to get a grip - take a step back and consider your priorities before you lease that apartment to circumvent the rule.

rube

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:55 pm

hockeyrube wrote:Sadly,

I think ghs is right, they would simply find a way around the rule, like renting an apartment. At which point I say one of 2 things need to happen.........
(1) include a clause in the new O/E that somehow requires the city of residence to be considered where the families main residence exists. This would prevent the rented aparments, living with cousins, moving in with friends, etc etc etc

or
(2) We tell people to get a grip - take a step back and consider your priorities before you lease that apartment to circumvent the rule.

rube

This is true.

I should also add that someone emailed and told me that adjusting tourneys, etc. to accomodate super-teams (public OE or private) is treating the symptoms but not addressing the cause. I can see this as being true as well. I just don't believe in punishing kids for anything but true (non-transfer) rule violations...

Also, I'm sorry if some are not happy with my Class A vs AA discussion. I just don't feel that the A tourney is equal to the AA nor do I believe that equal tourneys are the goal of the MSHSL. That being said I think that what Class A does provide is wonderful for all the reasons that those have supported it, but I won't ever agree that it's equal in quality or purpose to the AA event.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:55 pm

Fear not rube, there is some language about residence that takes care of the more obvious tricks.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:53 pm

http://www.startribune.com/526/story/967893.html

MSHSL board will accept restrictions on transfers
By John Millea, Star Tribune
Last update: January 29, 2007 – 7:30 PM

The Minnesota State High School League board of directors is expected to approve sweeping changes in its transfer rules Thursday, moving the proposal one step closer to becoming reality.
The MSHSL has been studying the issue since last summer, and the board of directors will consider a proposal that has been tweaked in recent weeks. The major component of the proposal -- one year of varsity ineligibility for athletes who change schools without a change of residence -- remains intact and is expected to be approved by the board when it meets at MSHSL headquarters in Brooklyn Center, according to numerous sources.

Two other parts of the original proposal have been removed after several meetings between MSHSL officials and representatives from private schools. They are:

• A proposal that 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.

• A proposal that attendance boundaries be instituted for private schools, meaning students who transfer 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.

Whatever changes are approved by the board of directors will be passed along to the representative assembly, the MSHSL's 48-member legislative body. That group could vote on the proposal in March, and if approved the new rules could take effect for the 2007-08 school year.

John Millea • jmillea@startribune.com

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:57 pm

How would this affect student athletes that are already open enrolled?

I am assuming that they continue as is but you not what assuming does.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:01 pm

SportsMa wrote:How would this affect student athletes that are already open enrolled?

I am assuming that they continue as is but you not what assuming does.

I would hope that this wouldn't impact them.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:27 pm

Am I reading this right - do the changes to mean if a kid plays varsity at a public school in 9th grade, that kid cannot play in varsity games at a private school in 10th grade unless his parents move. And, hypothetically, the parents can move anywhere (even farther away from the private school or accross the street) as long as they move somewhere?

OR ...

Is the interpretation that if a kid plays varsity at a public school in 9th grade, the kid can play varsity at a private school without restriction?

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:42 pm

I read the info as the privates are different and the player would still be eligible. I am not sure how they would or could require residency change for privates.

That is simply how I read it above so someone with a better understanding I am sure will reply.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:03 pm

It's interesting... I wonder if the privates having the geographic area as initially proposed would have made kids eligible immediately if they had moved into that area? That concept I would have supported, but the rest of that language that was dropped was what was so problematic I assume...

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:15 am

the geographic restrictions originally proposed for private schools has been removed due to the legal issues it would created.

Basically there is no restrictions at the private schools in the new propsal because they are private businesses (in essence) and legally can not be regulated geographically.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:33 am

tomASS wrote:the geographic restrictions originally proposed for private schools has been removed due to the legal issues it would created.

Basically there is no restrictions at the private schools in the new propsal because they are private businesses (in essence) and legally can not be regulated geographically.

Agreed on legal issues, but interesting as my interpretation of the initial propsal may have given them something they don't have currently - the ability to make a kid eligible immediately if the kid's family just moved. I guess that was my point. Just an interesting twist to the initial proposal.

While I understand your second point, it would have been interesting to see how long it took to get a legal challenge. I bet all of 30 seconds at best.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:11 am

So - a kid could play at a public, then go private without penalty - but at no time could a private kid go back to his original public school unless he/she moved or wanted to sit out a year?

Also, a kid can hop from AHA, Cretin, Hill, BSM, Blake, etc. without penalty?

I can't imagine that this is permissible the new proposed rule. Need more details.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

O/E

question

Can't be