HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

And if this example is representative, then there is no teeth to enforcement. If they want to get tough, they could go NCAA route and ban a program from sectionals/State for a year or two. Which would really stink for the other kids on that team...so maybe a year-long suspension for the head coach would be more appropriate? (since he is in a position to decide whether a kid is on or off the team).[/quote]



Almost as Happy- Love your idea of a one year suspension for the coach! It really does start and end there. The current transfer rule is a joke since there are no meaningful penalties. If it is important enough to have a rule in place, then there should be penalties that matter when the rule is broken, or as mentioned before, circumvented.

The really irritating things about the current status from my perspective are:
The people I've seen intentionally go around the rule seem to have a sense of entitlement and smirk about it.

The coaches that knowingly take in the transfers seem to care more about the new kids than the ones that have been in their program since mites, especially when it comes to cutting seniors that have been there for 12 years.

IMHO it comes down to coaches ethics vs. coaches egos. So when ego wins penalties for coaches certainly makes sense!

Bobby C wrote: Almost as Happy- Love your idea of a one year suspension for the coach! It really does start and end there. The current transfer rule is a joke since there are no meaningful penalties. If it is important enough to have a rule in place, then there should be penalties that matter when the rule is broken, or as mentioned before, circumvented.

The really irritating things about the current status from my perspective are:
The people I've seen intentionally go around the rule seem to have a sense of entitlement and smirk about it.

The coaches that knowingly take in the transfers seem to care more about the new kids than the ones that have been in their program since mites, especially when it comes to cutting seniors that have been there for 12 years.

IMHO it comes down to coaches ethics vs. coaches egos. So when ego wins penalties for coaches certainly makes sense!

The key word here is "knowingly." I would want a pretty high burden of proof before that kind of sanction was handed down on a coach.

The rule talks about a family's intent to live indefinitely at the new location...if the parents say that they intend to live forever and ever within the new high school collection boundaries what is the coach supposed to do? Hire a private investigator? Go check out the new digs at night and see if the lights are on? You could always demand proof that the family has sold their old house, but with the real estate market the way it is, there are far too many people who are being forced to pay two mortgages because they had to move but can't sell the old house. You could demand proof of intent to sell the old place, but that's easily worked around...just put your old house on the market with an asking price that is ridiculously high, and it won't sell.

And if you want to focus on ethics vs. egos, you need to look beyond just the coaching staff. If it's a situation where a really questionable transfer makes the team over a senior, the parents of that senior would obviously be upset. But what would the other parents in the program think? How many of them wouldn't care (because it wasn't their kid that got cut and/or they believe that the new guy is going to help the team win)?

It's easy to shake your head and lament the willingness of some parents that are willing to shell out thousands of dollars on an apartment lease just to get their kid in the "right" program to play high school sports. Then again, I'm sure that the parents of kids who play other sports look at all hockey parents and shake their heads over a more general willingness to spend $200 or more on a stick, or thousands on goalie gear.

almostashappy wrote:The rule talks about a family's intent to live indefinitely at the new location...

Very interesting rule.

With many parents moving for different reasons, or not owning houses, this seems like a silly clause to me.

Does anyone know what the rules are when a student changes schools after their freshman year that are within the same school district but don't relocate? I ask as some students in the Duluth School District transferred to Duluth Marshall after their freshman year who did not move to a new residence.

northern blueliner wrote:Does anyone know what the rules are when a student changes schools after their freshman year that are within the same school district but don't relocate? I ask as some students in the Duluth School District transferred to Duluth Marshall after their freshman year who did not move to a new residence.

They can only play JV sports that year

gardetto wrote:

northern blueliner wrote:Does anyone know what the rules are when a student changes schools after their freshman year that are within the same school district but don't relocate? I ask as some students in the Duluth School District transferred to Duluth Marshall after their freshman year who did not move to a new residence.

They can only play JV sports that year

I don't believe this rule applies to transferring in/out of private schools. But it's possible I'm wrong.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

gardetto wrote:

northern blueliner wrote:Does anyone know what the rules are when a student changes schools after their freshman year that are within the same school district but don't relocate? I ask as some students in the Duluth School District transferred to Duluth Marshall after their freshman year who did not move to a new residence.

They can only play JV sports that year

I don't believe this rule applies to transferring in/out of private schools. But it's possible I'm wrong.

It applies to private and public alike. Here's the MSHSL definition of "transfer student":

"A transfer student is one who discontinues enrollment and attendance in any high school, public or non-public, located in a public school district attendance area and enrolls and attends classes in any high school in Minnesota, or outside of MN. Essentially, a transfer occurs anytime the school of record changes."

KrautBache wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:

gardetto wrote: They can only play JV sports that year

I don't believe this rule applies to transferring in/out of private schools. But it's possible I'm wrong.

It applies to private and public alike. Here's the MSHSL definition of "transfer student":

"A transfer student is one who discontinues enrollment and attendance in any high school, public or non-public, located in a public school district attendance area and enrolls and attends classes in any high school in Minnesota, or outside of MN. Essentially, a transfer occurs anytime the school of record changes."

Ha, yes, you are right. A transfer is when you moves schools, anytime. I was referring to sitting on JV.

From what I have seen/heard, students to transfer to/from private schools can still play varsity. Perfect example is Anders Lee; went to St Thomas from 8th-10th grade while living in Edina, then transferred to Edina where he played two full seasons.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

KrautBache wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote: I don't believe this rule applies to transferring in/out of private schools. But it's possible I'm wrong.

It applies to private and public alike. Here's the MSHSL definition of "transfer student":

"A transfer student is one who discontinues enrollment and attendance in any high school, public or non-public, located in a public school district attendance area and enrolls and attends classes in any high school in Minnesota, or outside of MN. Essentially, a transfer occurs anytime the school of record changes."

Ha, yes, you are right. A transfer is when you moves schools, anytime. I was referring to sitting on JV.

From what I have seen/heard, students to transfer to/from private schools can still play varsity. Perfect example is Anders Lee; went to St Thomas from 8th-10th grade while living in Edina, then transferred to Edina where he played two full seasons.

I think Lee switched to Edina before the current rules were in effect. My understanding is that the rules are applied the same for public and private. If residency requrements are not met, the student athelete is required to play a year on JV. One exception is when going from private to public families can apply for economic hardship and may be granted the waiver without penalty.

There are several each year. Some totally legit but 5-6-7 a year don't pass the smell test. Frankly, they're violations. The unfair part is that some kids transfer and play JV a year and other waltz in without penalty.

observer wrote:There are several each year. Some totally legit but 5-6-7 a year don't pass the smell test. Frankly, they're violations. The unfair part is that some kids transfer and play JV a year and other waltz in without penalty.

Are you ineligible for any varsity extra-curricular activities?

It's a bummer for students who are transferring for the "right reasons," or thinking about it and don't, and this comes into play for them.

Are there any exceptions for schools without programs/facilities? What about co-ops? What if you are transferring to a school within your co-op? Just curious if anyone knows.

Pick any school for 9th grade is the way it's done. That's it.

Almost all the others, and certainly the ones we're curious about, are violations of the transfer policy and shouldn't have been allowed.

Again, I know kids that have transferred after 9th grade and played a season of JV, as they should. How do they feel watching others work a scam?

I guess what I am still curious about is when a student lives in the duluth school district and would normally go to either Denfeld or East, but chooses to enter Duluth Marshall as a sophmore, junior or senior. Are they to play JV for a year as they obviously can not fulfill the "move residences" rule.

northern blueliner wrote:I guess what I am still curious about is when a student lives in the duluth school district and would normally go to either Denfeld or East, but chooses to enter Duluth Marshall as a sophmore, junior or senior. Are they to play JV for a year as they obviously can not fulfill the "move residences" rule.

Here is the rule. If an athlete go's to East or Denfeld in 9th, 10th, 11th grade and transfer's from that school during school year in the month of (example) December 1 2011, then said athlete must sit out varsity in all sports athlete plays until December 1 2012 one full calendar year. If said athlete go's to new school for one day, doesn't practice with new team and then decides to go back to orginal school said athlete can go right back and play with his team as long as coach agrees to take player back. (example) A kid from a school in section 6AA did this in Jan 2011, he was at new school for x hrs then told parents that this doesn't feel right and I want to go back to old hs. He was allowed back into old school and was playing hockey the next day again for old hs hockey team.

almostashappy wrote:

Bobby C wrote: Almost as Happy- Love your idea of a one year suspension for the coach! It really does start and end there. The current transfer rule is a joke since there are no meaningful penalties. If it is important enough to have a rule in place, then there should be penalties that matter when the rule is broken, or as mentioned before, circumvented.

The really irritating things about the current status from my perspective are:
The people I've seen intentionally go around the rule seem to have a sense of entitlement and smirk about it.

The coaches that knowingly take in the transfers seem to care more about the new kids than the ones that have been in their program since mites, especially when it comes to cutting seniors that have been there for 12 years.

IMHO it comes down to coaches ethics vs. coaches egos. So when ego wins penalties for coaches certainly makes sense!

The key word here is "knowingly." I would want a pretty high burden of proof before that kind of sanction was handed down on a coach.

The rule talks about a family's intent to live indefinitely at the new location...if the parents say that they intend to live forever and ever within the new high school collection boundaries what is the coach supposed to do? Hire a private investigator? Go check out the new digs at night and see if the lights are on? You could always demand proof that the family has sold their old house, but with the real estate market the way it is, there are far too many people who are being forced to pay two mortgages because they had to move but can't sell the old house. You could demand proof of intent to sell the old place, but that's easily worked around...just put your old house on the market with an asking price that is ridiculously high, and it won't sell.

And if you want to focus on ethics vs. egos, you need to look beyond just the coaching staff. If it's a situation where a really questionable transfer makes the team over a senior, the parents of that senior would obviously be upset. But what would the other parents in the program think? How many of them wouldn't care (because it wasn't their kid that got cut and/or they believe that the new guy is going to help the team win)?

It's easy to shake your head and lament the willingness of some parents that are willing to shell out thousands of dollars on an apartment lease just to get their kid in the "right" program to play high school sports. Then again, I'm sure that the parents of kids who play other sports look at all hockey parents and shake their heads over a more general willingness to spend $200 or more on a stick, or thousands on goalie gear.

You bring some other good points: I am sure there are coaches playing "Don't ask, don't tell" with respect to living situations.

And in particular you bring up good point about Parent involvment. It is a sad but correct commentary to see the number of parents managing their child's hockey "careers" , even to the point of helping facilitate people moving in to take spots from neighbor kids. I admit I do not have a good solution, other than banning all transfers which is not practical. But the politics and intensity of high school hockey in some of these places where the transfer crap is going on is not healthy for the sport. But then niether is the expense

The SPUDS Leabo is a prime example of circumventing the transfer rules. He is from Fargo where his parents live and his older sister has an apartment in Moorhead. She was given custodial rights to him and he is legally a Moorhead resident and has been fully eligible for I believe the past 2 years. The above info came from a Fargo Forum arcticle last year. Unnamed (per Fargo Forum arcticle) Moorhead individuals hired an attourney to investigate the eligibility.

shotpassskate wrote:

northern blueliner wrote:I guess what I am still curious about is when a student lives in the duluth school district and would normally go to either Denfeld or East, but chooses to enter Duluth Marshall as a sophmore, junior or senior. Are they to play JV for a year as they obviously can not fulfill the "move residences" rule.

Here is the rule. If an athlete go's to East or Denfeld in 9th, 10th, 11th grade and transfer's from that school during school year in the month of (example) December 1 2011, then said athlete must sit out varsity in all sports athlete plays until December 1 2012 one full calendar year. If said athlete go's to new school for one day, doesn't practice with new team and then decides to go back to orginal school said athlete can go right back and play with his team as long as coach agrees to take player back. (example) A kid from a school in section 6AA did this in Jan 2011, he was at new school for x hrs then told parents that this doesn't feel right and I want to go back to old hs. He was allowed back into old school and was playing hockey the next day again for old hs hockey team.

I'm guessing, I could be wrong though, that just like you can claim economic hardship, you could claim the opposite and have it be okayed. "we always wanted him to go there but didn't have the money until now.

Still curious about the fringe cases. The player that travels to another school daily to play a sport he loves because of a co-op, but would prefer to simply go to that school so he wants to transfer. That wrong? I can think of handfuls of hypothetical cases that while hypothetical can come up and I'm sure do every year.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

shotpassskate wrote:

northern blueliner wrote:I guess what I am still curious about is when a student lives in the duluth school district and would normally go to either Denfeld or East, but chooses to enter Duluth Marshall as a sophmore, junior or senior. Are they to play JV for a year as they obviously can not fulfill the "move residences" rule.

Here is the rule. If an athlete go's to East or Denfeld in 9th, 10th, 11th grade and transfer's from that school during school year in the month of (example) December 1 2011, then said athlete must sit out varsity in all sports athlete plays until December 1 2012 one full calendar year. If said athlete go's to new school for one day, doesn't practice with new team and then decides to go back to orginal school said athlete can go right back and play with his team as long as coach agrees to take player back. (example) A kid from a school in section 6AA did this in Jan 2011, he was at new school for x hrs then told parents that this doesn't feel right and I want to go back to old hs. He was allowed back into old school and was playing hockey the next day again for old hs hockey team.

I'm guessing, I could be wrong though, that just like you can claim economic hardship, you could claim the opposite and have it be okayed. "we always wanted him to go there but didn't have the money until now.

Still curious about the fringe cases. The player that travels to another school daily to play a sport he loves because of a co-op, but would prefer to simply go to that school so he wants to transfer. That wrong? I can think of handfuls of hypothetical cases that while hypothetical can come up and I'm sure do every year.

I don't think that the MSHSL rule attempts to say whether it is "right" or "wrong" for someone to want to transfer schools during their high school years. There can be all kinds of very valid reasons for switching schools. The rule merely attempts to prevent transfers that are purely for HS sports. Whether having the rule in the first place is good or bad is clearly debatable, but since it is in place it should be enforced. If it's not going to be enforced, or enforced only in the "easy" cases, it should be repealed.

What I've heard is fair minded families move their player and he plays JV a year as the rule states. Families that fuss and want it their way can hire an attorney and threaten the MSHSL with a lawsuit. The MSHSL isn't interested in litigating these cases so they're allowed. Totally unfair but then look at the parents behind the questionable transfers. Slippery. That's why some of the privates end up with a bunch of nutty players, with nutty parents, that don't play well together. They're spoiled.

The rule says move your kid in 9th grade. Period.

My apologies to families with legit reasons because there are a few. Most? Not.

observer wrote: What I've heard is fair minded families move their player and he plays JV a year as the rule states. Families that fuss and want it their way can hire an attorney and threaten the MSHSL with a lawsuit. The MSHSL isn't interested in litigating these cases so they're allowed. Totally unfair but then look at the parents behind the questionable transfers. Slippery. That's why some of the privates end up with a bunch of nutty players, with nutty parents, that don't play well together. They're spoiled.

The rule says move your kid in 9th grade. Period.

My apologies to families with legit reasons because there are a few. Most? Not.

Insightful. Thanks. But I'd bet there are a few attorneys out there who would be more than happy to defend the MSHSL pro bono in these cases!

KrautBache wrote:

observer wrote: What I've heard is fair minded families move their player and he plays JV a year as the rule states. Families that fuss and want it their way can hire an attorney and threaten the MSHSL with a lawsuit. The MSHSL isn't interested in litigating these cases so they're allowed. Totally unfair but then look at the parents behind the questionable transfers. Slippery. That's why some of the privates end up with a bunch of nutty players, with nutty parents, that don't play well together. They're spoiled.

The rule says move your kid in 9th grade. Period.

My apologies to families with legit reasons because there are a few. Most? Not.

Insightful. Thanks. But I'd bet there are a few attorneys out there who would be more than happy to defend the MSHSL pro bono in these cases!

I don't think that to many attorneys would since Minnesota youth hockey lost in court. I would almost bet there would more attorneys that would take the case for the player over the MSHL 50-1

gardetto wrote:

KrautBache wrote:

observer wrote: What I've heard is fair minded families move their player and he plays JV a year as the rule states. Families that fuss and want it their way can hire an attorney and threaten the MSHSL with a lawsuit. The MSHSL isn't interested in litigating these cases so they're allowed. Totally unfair but then look at the parents behind the questionable transfers. Slippery. That's why some of the privates end up with a bunch of nutty players, with nutty parents, that don't play well together. They're spoiled.

The rule says move your kid in 9th grade. Period.

My apologies to families with legit reasons because there are a few. Most? Not.

Insightful. Thanks. But I'd bet there are a few attorneys out there who would be more than happy to defend the MSHSL pro bono in these cases!

I don't think that to many attorneys would since Minnesota youth hockey lost in court. I would almost bet there would more attorneys that would take the case for the player over the MSHL 50-1

Lost what in court? This has nothing to do with youth hockey - its about MSHSL rules. And I know many attorneys who love to go up against blustery blowhard attorneys making specious threats, no matter what the cause!

I believe it's healthy to debate the issue of transfers of our high school athletes. However to single out any one athlete and to do so with incorrect information is reckless and cowardly.

Knowing the family that the author references personally I can assure you all the following:

1. The student athlete based his decision to transfer to Edina for several reasons the least of which was to "win".

2. The athlete and family did move to their Edina residence as required by the rules.

Until such time that transferprobs produces proof (which he won't be able to) of his so called knowledge of the athlete not moving he is nothing more than a lying,ignorant and most likely non athlete bitter little man.

Former Edina Varsity Hockey Alumni

Edina Hockey, losing luster fast.

Lonegoose wrote:I believe it's healthy to debate the issue of transfers of our high school athletes. However to single out any one athlete and to do so with incorrect information is reckless and cowardly.

Knowing the family that the author references personally I can assure you all the following:

1. The student athlete based his decision to transfer to Edina for several reasons the least of which was to "win".

2. The athlete and family did move to their Edina residence as required by the rules.

Until such time that transferprobs produces proof (which he won't be able to) of his so called knowledge of the athlete not moving he is nothing more than a lying,ignorant and most likely non athlete bitter little man.

Former Edina Varsity Hockey Alumni

This is funny on so many levels.