Open Enrollment Solved!

hockeyparent1 · Post by **hockeyparent1** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:11 pm

That is a perfect solution, in a perfect world, in a perect hockey state. But we are not. Wishfull thinking, something has to be done.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:20 am

Here's my solution: Anyone that has recruiting evidence that is factual and not just misperceived and/or fabricated, take it straight to the MSHSL immediately. As of right now, that is the only part of OE that is against the rules - when it is initiated by recruitment. If people feel that additional rules need to be passed to further restrict OE'ers that play athletics, then I would think that this too has to be taken up with the MSHSL as well, or, better yet, your state rep. They are the only ones that can address this properly. My guess though is that a few things will happen: #1 - The MSHSL will point to the recently passed stronger OE rules as being sufficient and the steps in the right direction. #2 - No state rep in their right mind will launch a bill to curtail any part of OE. They would get crucified, especially when OE helps drive the notion of accountability in our schools for the product they offer, which seems to be something that the state is pushing as a key initiative right now with the possibility of increased compensation for teachers/schools that outperform the norm. The notion of accountability could be somewhat extended from an athletic perspective in that kids leave both teams and schools as a result of better offering elsewhere. Typically I believe both are better at the new destination of an OE? #3 - Both the MSHSL & State will point to the fact that children in sports do better than those that aren't - so any measure beyond what the MSHSL has already done is likely not good from this perspective. Lastly, if any coach denies an OE kid a spot due to them being OE, there are grounds for a lawsuit due to discrimination and the lack of equal opportunity (which, by the way, is what the purpose of OE was in the beginning I believe?). All this being said, I think I go back to my original point. When you consider the options, the best one may be the one that is already in place. No agreement is ever likely perfect for all parties involved, but it could be a lot worse! All it will take is one school/association to choose to field an AAA like HS team. Once this happens, it will greatly hurt the MSHSL true HS teams in that such an AAA team will attract the best players. I think that this is the fear for many that understand what the fallout would be from this sort of move. It would signify the move from MSHSL "community" based athletics that compete for a school championship, to an "AAA" based setup where you compete for U19 State with the TB & SSM teams for a shot at nationals. If one or more of these AAA teams started to compete against the TB & SSM teams, it would destroy MSHSL HS hockey as we know it. The MSHSL game would become what HS Soccer, Gymnastics, etc. is like - but worse I believe. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/10/06 12:24 am

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:14 am

So I have to wonder, is it OE that enrages people or the presumtion that OE is a result of recruiting? That is, it seems more acceptable that a parent may wish to OE for whatever reason but unacceptable when the so called recruiting exists. Perhaps the recruiting rules are what should really what need to be addressed.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:01 am

I think the issue is that everyone that sees OE as a threat sees it as a violation, when it isn't BY THE RULES. So, then immediately the assumption becomes that OE was induced by recruiting as surely the same coaches that are playing the more talented OE kid in front of less talented homegrown kids must be behind a huge conspiracy against said homegrown kid. The truth, as we all know, is that any coach will always play and take the best kids on their team unless they are "bought off" but who can really buy off people (coaches) that work for nothing? It may seem like they would be the easiest to "buy off" but the truth is that it's counterintuitive in that instead they don't NEED the $$$ usually if they work for so little and give so much in return... Also, remember that it is ILLEGAL for them to discriminate and not take an OE just on that fact... This aside, I think we also see a lot of problems with the teams with the most OE's at State time as this just illustrates how much this actually happens and also how successful such teams can be. I go back to what I think the real issue is at the root level: ================== What we have is a sport that is community based all the way up, and then when we get to HS that all changes due to privates, OE, etc. So, we have a group that believes that kids should play at their home area school (like youth). We have another group that believes that kids should be able to play wherever they want as long as they go to school there (like AAA/HS). What's really happening is that there is no way to make both sides happy. I proposed a "home area" and "HS/AAA" tourney as a "modest proposal" of sorts. It will never happen. What I guess I would really like to see is teams that are huge OE or private hockey powers opt out to AAA/MWEHL play like SSM has done. That's where those kids belong anyway in many respects competition wise. They could get more games, etc. and leave the MSHSL. It would be just like the old private school tourney situations that weren't MSHSL sanctioned events I don't believe years ago??? I'd even still allow these teams that leave the chance to play MSHSL teams. It would be the best of both worlds. They could compete for AAA State, Nationals, etc. too with their current teams. They could start in Sept when school starts, and play through the end of school if they wanted. They could put on their own MN state tourney at the end of the year, or just let the U19 State that WHAM & MN Hockey conduct be the State. They would compete against T-Breds and SSM there too. Then, the rest of the teams that don't choose to do this could play MSHSL A or AA, or even tiers, as maybe that's really what is more fair, to have the best/top half teams in AA no matter their size, and the bottom half teams in A. ================== BUT - keep this in mind - If one or more of these AAA teams started to compete against the TB & SSM teams, it would destroy MSHSL HS hockey as we know it. The MSHSL game would become what HS Soccer, Gymnastics, etc. is like - but worse I believe. AND - this would eventually likely destroy all our community based youth hockey in MN for girls. This woudl be a shame, and likely only make this elitist sport more so like it is in the majority of the rest of the country in non-community based setups. SO - All this being said, I think I go back to my original point. When you consider the options, the best one may be the one that is already in place. No agreement is ever likely perfect for all parties involved, but it could be a lot worse! THE ONLY REASON THAT A MSHSL TEAM HASN'T DONE THE AAA ALREADY IS THAT MOST COACHES CONSIDERING THIS REALIZE THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE VERY POPULAR WITH THEIR PEERS IF THEY DID (they'd get all the best kids, kill other programs, start the above explained sequence, etc.) - AND THEY MAY HAVE SOME OTHER BUSINESS, ETC. THAT COULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF SUCH A MOVE... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/10/06 11:06 am

hattrick91 · Post by **hattrick91** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:40 pm

Everyone who thinks that this issue is black and white regardless of what the MHSL decides is clueless. If a student starts out in a public school and transfers to a private school because of religious resasons, there is no court that will be able to upheod the penalty of a one year sacrifice of a varsity sport. I don't care what they do elsewhere in Florida, etc. this will not hold up in courts. The MSHL will be acting against the Constitiution and it will be challenged and upheld in the courts- there is much more at stake here then open enrollment, it is Constitutional freedom.

Nostalgic Nerd · Post by **Nostalgic Nerd** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Everybody should stop trying to find a resolution - there isn't one. What we need to do is continue to call out the teams that have OE players and then give all the credit to the teams that don't. Believe me it would effect the coaches/players when they win the state championship if nobody congratulated them or gave them the time of day. Just my toughts!<hr></blockquote> Assuming you can accurately determine who is and who isn't OEing/recruiting. I hear people here praising Roseau's program while another hints that they transfer themselves. In the end I see it being too difficult to make clear distinctions. And because these are our kids, I'm happy for any championship team because it is settled on the ice. The thought that I should boo CDH despite this being their first championship doesn't register with me. "Dream as if you'll live forever; Live as if you'll die today." --James Dean

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My suggestion? Make MSHSL HS State a "play where you're from" event for sections and state (no privates, no transfers playing with a team but their home area HS). <hr></blockquote> Perhaps off-topic, but attending a private school is not open enrollment. Many students attend public or parochial schools when they are younger with the full intent of transfering to a private school to prepare for college, i.e. a "prep school". You must meet a number of academic and/or religious requirements and compete against other applicants. You are required to test, are interviewed, spend time at the school during the school day where your interactions are observed, and in many cases the family must sacrifice to pay tuition. Only then does the SCHOOL decide if they want to choose YOU. This is not the case in O/E. I feel there is a strong distinction, and that is not to disparage O/E. I guess I object to privates being painted with the broad brush of O/E and the negative implications many seem to feel. (No offense to you GHS). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'd like to see them pay some sort of price for lacking the courage to be the best player at a lower school.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What we need to do is continue to call out the teams that have OE players and then give all the credit to the teams that don't. Believe me it would effect the coaches/players when they win the state championship if nobody congratulated them or gave them the time of day. <hr></blockquote> There are a number of reasons why a family transfers a student to a different school. In a sports forum, our cynicism tends to characterize every move by a student-athlete to be an effort to capitalize or maximize their athletic experience. I am not so naive as to suggest that doesn't happen, even frequently, but the hostility and attempts to ostricize high school students here speaks volumes. Not to preach, but let's try and keep this in perspective. It's just HS sports. FINALLY, to my point-- if athletically-motivated O/E is such a problem, the MSHSL could self-legislate to restrict POST-SEASON participation by a transfer for the first year. The existing O/E legistlation and intent could remain, the student who O/E's can benefit from their decision to move (whatever the reason) and contribute to the team's success during the season, but become ineligible during sectionals/state. A tough pill for the athlete, a "penalty" if you want to call it that, for the team, and an easy way to inhibit O/E for the "wrong" reasons. And I think it could hold water in the face of a legal challenge. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil">

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:48 pm

No offense taken, but that post/quote I wrote was early on in this discussion and is somewhat out of context. I think OE kids have a sacrifice too, just like private chosing kids. I know for a fact they do. I do agree about some differences though in privates/OE's. $, screening, etc. I tried early on in this thread to make it understood (by presenting all sides of this) that we have to be careful about how we approach this. If all the MSHSL rules are voided due to a challenge of a new tougher rule, then we may be in a lose/lose situation either way. Either kids will jump to AAA if a strict new penalty is upheld, or there won't be any rules at all if it is voided more than likely. We may not be too bad off as is. My guess on the O/E post season ban is that it would only have any chance of standing if you made it applicable to all kids - private kids too, and all kids that choose a school other than their home area public in grades 7-12. The first year that they participated in a sport at a school other than their home area pulic school team would need to be a post-season ineligible year then. If a kid played for a team as a 7th grader at a private/non-home-area-public they would sit post season, they would sit post-season again that first year each time they moved to another school. My guess is that this would be challenged too and overturned.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:56 pm

Sorry for taking you out of context GHS--not my intent to pick on you--moreso to address many who equate O/E with private school enrollment. Point taken. I ahve to agree under what I suggested, post-season ineligibility should indeed extend to private schools as well. Given that many private school students come on board in 9th grade, perhaps a family could "declare" enrollment intentions prior to 7th grade to allievate this, and extend this option to public schools as well? My thrust is, that if a student is transferring for the best intentions (academic, school/coach issues, etc.) or even improved athletics, they should be willing to accept some small degree of sanction that minimizes abuse of the O/E system, but not so much that it adversely affects their participation and development! This wouldn't have the punitive effect of a one-year "red shirt" as some have suggested (like the NCAA does), but it would provide enough teeth to make people think twice about their true motivations and what's really important for their child. Now why wouldn't this hold up legally if MSHSL adopted it (no easy task admitedly) as a self-governing policy? In terms of enforcability, isn't this no different than the one-year policy being bandied about and in place in other states? Curious.

Nostalgic Nerd · Post by **Nostalgic Nerd** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:24 pm

<a href="http://www.thisweek-online.com/2001/may ...  "How to transfer? If a student wants to transfer, he must notify his present school by Jan. 15 of the year he intends to transfer and detail which school. If the student reaches that goal, the next date that must be reached is Feb. 15. The receiving school must receive notice of the transfer. According to Skip Peltier, associate director of the Minnesota State High School League, if those dates are met the student is free to transfer. If the student misses the Jan. 15 deadline, the student would need permission from the superintendent of the school district to transfer. ï¿½If they donï¿½t meet the Jan. 15 deadline, schools can decline,ï¿½ Peltier said. The reason for the option to decline is that school boards and superintendents have already made plans for the upcoming school year, including the number of teachers needed, due to enrollment. But if you miss the Jan. 15 deadline, all is not lost. A student still can transfer if he gets permission from the superintendent. ï¿½Anytime you can get the superintendent from two schools to agree, that kid will be eligible anytime,ï¿½ Burnsville Athletic Director Jim Rohlik said. ï¿½Thatï¿½s the most common method people are using today in Minnesota to transfer from one area to another during the school year.ï¿½ If a student-athlete does receive permission from both schoolsï¿½ superintendents to transfer, he would have to sit out 15 days before he can become eligible to play in high school sports. Rohlik also said there is another way of transferring. ï¿½Wherever you are on the first day of school, youï¿½re immediately eligible,ï¿½ he said. ï¿½At the start of the school year, a kid could go from Hastings to Mounds View and wherever he is on the first day of school, heï¿½s eligible. Thatï¿½s the rule." ------------------ Oops. This is from five years ago. What's the deadline now? "Dream as if you'll live forever; Live as if you'll die today." --James Dean

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:39 pm

I believe that a MSHSL rule barring post-season play based on OE would be challenged as a parent will object to this being enforced and state that the MSHSL is limiting a child's participation unjustly based on legal OE by MN State Law. When governing bodies (MSHSL) of gov't funded organizations (schools) create rules that conflict with that which is legal under state law, you start to get some issues I believe. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that we haven't seen a challenge yet of the current MSHSL OE/transfer rules. I still haven't heard what the relationship is between the "rules" of HS sports governing bodies in other states and state "laws" are. If their (state) LAWS read that athletic limitations are placed on OE's/transfers - then that's why they haven't had legal challenges I'd guess. Our state "law" doesn't speak to this at all, instead the MSHSL has added that "rule." Huge difference in my mind and likely so from a legal challenge standpoint too I bet? It's one thing to challenge a state law, and another to challenge a sports assn. rule?

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:41 pm

I'm uncertain as to how this has changed in the past 5 years. It's been 15 since I (my parents) last looked into this (deadlines), and I was in 8th grade at the time!

hattrick91 · Post by **hattrick91** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:22 pm

The MSHL will not be able to change the open enrollment rules unless they change the state statutes on open enrollment. This is not really a sports rule, parents at any time should be able to put their child in a religious school without sports penalty throughout their high school career. The ability to not allow this will definately be challenged in the court system. Like it was said previously, students may be barred from a religious school because there is such high demand and their student will be allowed in later years due to sufficient openings- a student such as this, should not be barred from sports. Parents need to get over the notion that the world is like the 1950's- things have changed drastically and the corporate version of competition is upon us- no guarantee to play varsity sports. Parents and players need to get over it- life is not fair and competition is here to stay- quit trying to ammend the rules to protect your child. Maybe they do not deserve to play a varsity sport. The world has moved on- time you do also.

Nostalgic Nerd · Post by **Nostalgic Nerd** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is not really a sports rule, parents at any time should be able to put their child in a religious school without sports penalty throughout their high school career. The ability to not allow this will definately be challenged in the court system.<hr></blockquote> I'm not suggesting you are saying this, but the ruling again needs to be across the board to include public schools and all schools. "Dream as if you'll live forever; Live as if you'll die today." --James Dean

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:56 pm

Interesting: <a href="http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2006/03/2 ...

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:19 am

I agree that public school open enrollment is a completely seperate issue than private schools. Therefore, we do not have to apply the hypothetical "one year athletic waiting period" to private school transfers. The big difference between the two is tuiton $$$$$$$$$$, and lots of it. Tuition $ is a large barrier to entry when considering enrolling in private schools. There are very few barriers, if any, to open enroll in a neighboring public school. Bottom Line - If athletic are not the main motivation behind O/E, then the "1 year waiting period" shouldn't be a problem for O/E's. Private schools are a different animal completely !

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:52 am

To give some perspective, I hear that there is similar animosity in some private schools as there is in some public schools relative to athletic only student movement/enrollment. What I mean is that some legacy private or kids that have went to the proper private parochial feeders etc. are then displaced by private athletic only kids at the last minute, and this too creates some animosity from those that have been on track all along to have those spots - much like public kids displaced at the last minute by OE. The difference between these two scenarios is that privates can essentially choose to discriminate school attendance wise through their selection process, publics can't due to OE law. But, if a private doesn't discriminate well enough (so to speak) athletic only based kids will essentially be doing to private kids what some feel OE's are doing to public ones... Now, this being considered, which is worse? Is it a different scenario that allows the privates to police themselves for this reason, and how does their selection process/tuition scholarship potentials, etc. play in? How do we address this? And, could it be that some privates actually prefer the same treatment/enforcement of rules/etc. for ALL kids? I would say that neither is "worse" and that some privates may actually prefer the uniform rule for this reason. If they didn't support it, wouldn't they fight it as a group? I'm a little surprised that some private players haven't fought the rule as if they have the $ to attend a private school, they likely have the $ to fight the rule too. Note too that there are likely many differences degree of difficulty wise between fighting a MSHSL transfer "rule" (easier) and a Minnesota State OE "law" (harder). Maybe we just haven't seen a good enough challenge situation yet at the private level, or maybe these things get addressed quietly so there is no issue? Either way - this private mentality of different rules being fair will lead to a challenge soon and that too could nullify all MSHSL rules resulting in a catastrophic blow to HS G Hockey that would likely lead to more unrestricted transfers - or - if the rule is upheld or strengthened the potential for kids to just go AAA to T-Breds like teams.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:04 am

Rube, I agree with what you said about private schools but I think your statement... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bottom Line - If athletic are not the main motivation behind O/E, then the "1 year waiting period" shouldn't be a problem for O/E's. Private schools are a different animal completely <hr></blockquote> over simplifies a complex situation. Without a doubt there are those that use OE to move from one school to the next without any regard for the "academic" aspect of the transfer but there are also many student athletes that do it for both the academic and the athletic aspects. I don't think it is fair to penalize these players. I also don't see how the MSHSL can ever be in a position to police this so perhaps the current rule is the best possible solution that could possibly work, from the MSHSL perspective.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:22 am

An interesting potential proposal was discussed recently by some that I thought had potential, but many roadblocks... This was for the B&A teams to be allowed to play in MSHSL season. So, essentially they woudl be allowed to play the B&A GEL (Before & After Girls' Elite League) Fall & Spring, plus play some AAA events Sunday's and open Sat's - etc. We may not like this idea as HS coaches, but I think that many HS coaches don't realize how many of their players are playing other sports on Sundays & weekdays even! (soccer, fastpitch, etc.) already during the hockey season... Some even considered the posibility that the MSHSL teams may block certain weekends to allow some participation in some elite tourneys, etc. I think that this has some potential, but many road blocks. #1 a MSHSL rule that doens't allow for simultaneous participation in school and non-school teams in teh same sport, same season, etc. #2 the difficulty that blocking a few weekends would have relative to HS scheduling as usually all the weekends are needed to get the 25 games in, etc. MH removed the block B&A wise from their roster standpoint obvioulsy. Some do believe that a move like this would cut down on athletic based reasons to transfer in the same way that B&A GEL does too...

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:28 am

I believe they already allow you to compete in a non-HS events for skiing for this reason, if they didn't many would abandon HS Ski team.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:54 am

Seems the same rule should be applied to other sports as well... meaning if they do it for skiing, etc....

hockeyhead · Post by **hockeyhead** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:57 am

I'm not sure if many of you pay attention, but many other sports play a huge role in open enrollment. Hopkins Basketball is one of the worst! Both teams won state with many players open enrolling! Hockeyhead

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:05 am

Same too with Kennedy G Basketball ironically enough.

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:05 pm

hockeyhead, It's already out of control in many sports !!! I have spoken out against O/E on many, many threads. It will ruin the integrity of HS athletics eventually. Very sad to see - these championships are a little hollow IMO - the AAA vs. a true local HS team - we all know who is going to win that battle 98% of the time !!!!

hockeyhead · Post by **hockeyhead** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:06 pm

Rube, I agree! Hockeyhead

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Open Enrollment Solved!

Good Solution

Re: Good Solution

Re: Good Solution

Re: Good Solution

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!

Re: Open Enrollment Solved!