HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Anyone know how the proposed rule will work retroactively?

Would it prohibit a freshman in 07-08, that already played varsity in 7th or 8th grader while in junior high in town A, from OE to a high school school of choice in town B and playing in 07-08?

Could a high school student transfer in the last few weeks of the 06-07 school year under the current rule to avoid application of the proposed rule in 07-08?

The last time I read it the rule would go into effect June 15. All transfers before that date are OK, all after are subject to the new rules.

SEMetro wrote:Anyone know how the proposed rule will work retroactively?

Would it prohibit a freshman in 07-08, that already played varsity in 7th or 8th grader while in junior high in town A, from OE to a high school school of choice in town B and playing in 07-08?

Yes. If they already played a varsity sport in 06-07, the proposed rule if adopted would make them inelligble for 07-08 on a varsity team at a different school.

SEMetro wrote:Could a high school student transfer in the last few weeks of the 06-07 school year under the current rule to avoid application of the proposed rule in 07-08?

I defer to xk on this.

The part I have never been clear on is if you just need paperwork in by June 15 or do you need to be accepted.

Either way I thing it is a poor way to do it, when WI did theirs they phased it in over 2 years I think so that everyone knew all the facts up front and could act appropriately.

keepitreal wrote:

SEMetro wrote:Anyone know how the proposed rule will work retroactively?

Would it prohibit a freshman in 07-08, that already played varsity in 7th or 8th grader while in junior high in town A, from OE to a high school school of choice in town B and playing in 07-08?

Yes. If they already played a varsity sport in 06-07, the proposed rule if adopted would make them inelligble for 07-08 on a varsity team at a different school.

SEMetro wrote:Could a high school student transfer in the last few weeks of the 06-07 school year under the current rule to avoid application of the proposed rule in 07-08?

I defer to xk on this.

I would imagine it would be best to declare your intention to xfer between the end of your school year and before June 15 as to not have to be held to the new rule that is to start on June 15 if as proposed?

Thunderbird77 wrote:GHS -

The current proposal at the MSHL is to make ANY transfer sit out a year. The reason I forwarded a different proposal, is that the current proposal will likely be implemented if no one comes up with any different alternatives. Modifying this proposal to allow a school to have a limited number of transfers on their team, moderates the current proposal. It prevents the situation where there are "transfer-based" dynasties (which seems to me to be the underlying concern regarding transfers), but still allows people to transfer, should there be a compelling need. In the proposal suggested, if someone ends up getting "cut" because the school has three other transfers (or whatever the limit turns out to be) which are better, they would then have to sit-out a year. This, would mean they would no longer be considered a "transfer" the next year.

TB77 -

I agree that we need to come up with some alternative ideas to address this issue, and part of that is also having well defined issues that need to be addressed and rules that at least appear to directly correlate to those issues.

First, we need clarification on the OE Law. From there, the MSHSL needs to clarify their philosophy based on that OE Law clarification.

I see two possibilities:

#1:

If the OE Law is interpreted to include "entire HS experience" considerations vs. just academics, then a MSHSL Rule that takes away something that a State Law supports will most definitely face a challenge and be thrown out entirely. If this happens, we'd have no OE/xfer rule at all! And so it would become a free-for-all and not sure that this is better than what we have now which could likely also be challenged based on the interpretation of the Law at this point in time.

#2:

If the OE law is interpreted to include "only academic" considerations, then a MSHSL Rule/Philosophy that supports this won't be challenged legally. From there, the MSHSL can determine how to deal with OE.

IMHO, if it is a #2 situation, then it seems better to me for kids to "punish" teams by putting them in one section if they're OE loaded public school teams, especially if they're loaded with NDP level OE's. Don't punish kids by making them sit out. Just let those teams fight it out in one section. Section 6AA has a couple of these teams now. It could be as simple as that all teams with one+ NDP OE play in one section? Don't make kids sit though...


NOTE - none of the above addresses PRIVATES. This is an entirely separate case from OE. You can't lump them together so easily I don't believe.

You could say that all top private teams go into that same 1+NDP OE section discussed above, but how do you determine "top" as we know in the Class A team ranking scenario it's all relative to the group you're ranking within....

Thus, really, truly, I only support any of the above if we go to a tier based two-tourney system - with the top 64 teams by computer ranking in T1 & the remaining teams in T2. If we do this, then all the privates & 1+NDP OE teams in the top 64 could go into 1 section, and then distribute the remaining teams at year end into the 7 other sections. You may want to consider however as to if you want to take the runner-up from the NDP-OE/Private section as you may find that nearly all your very top teams fall into that section!

NOTE - I would also say that then the NDP OE is applicable the entire career of the OE, not just year one for that team.

If you did this today, of the top 64 teams, these 12 would fall into that group I believe:

RK CL LPH RK SC RK TEAM RATING
1 AA 1AA 1 6 1 Eden Prairie 1801.293 (6 NDP OE?)
2 AA 2AA 2 6 2 Edina 692.740 (1 NDP OE?)
3 AA 5AA 3 5 1 Academy of Holy Angels 552.283 (PRIVATE)
4 AA 4AA 4 6 3 Benilde-St. Margarets 398.572 (PRIVATE)
7 AA 8AA 6 8 1 Bemidji 211.124 (1 NDP OE?)
8 A 1A 2 4 1 Blake 206.872 (PRIVATE)
11 AA 9AA 8 3 1 Centennial 154.151 (1 NDP OE?)
13 AA 11AA 10 4 1 Coon Rapids 137.777 (1 NDP OE?)
14 A 5A 4 5 1 Breck 130.716 (PRIVATE)
27 AA 19AA 22 5 4 Cretin-Derham Hall 60.281 (PRIVATE)
28 AA 20AA 23 2 3 Hill-Murray Pioneers 53.414 (PRIVATE)
34 A 7A 8 4 2 South St. Paul 34.239 (3 NDP OE?)


Then, you'd have to make 6-7 sections of 7-8 teams out of the remaining 52 teams: (I'd try to give the top 6-7 on this list their own section if at all possible and then do geographical considerations the rest of the way. In the metro, you could see the metro sections with even distributions, but outstate may be more difficult (N MN) and the few S MN teams may need to come to the cities to play in such a set-up unfortunately)

RK CL LPH RK SC RK TEAM RATING
5 A 2A 1 8 1 Crookston 248.680
6 AA 3AA 5 2 1 Roseville 227.325
9 A 4A 3 6 1 Alexandria 194.886
10 AA 10AA 7 6 4 Wayzata 172.287
12 AA 7AA 9 7 1 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton 144.345
15 AA 6AA 11 3 2 Stillwater 128.473
16 AA 13AA 12 8 2 Moorhead 127.621
17 AA 18AA 13 7 2 Grand Rapids/Greenway 109.053
18 AA 17AA 14 3 3 Blaine 94.698
19 AA 12AA 15 3 4 Irondale 86.084
20 AA 15AA 16 5 2 Eagan 81.454
21 AA 17 6 5 Hopkins 79.374
22 AA 14AA 18 7 3 Forest Lake 79.151
23 AA 16AA 19 5 3 Burnsville 77.932
24 A 10A 5 8 2 Warroad 76.616
25 AA 20 2 2 Hastings 65.474
26 AA 21 4 2 North Metro Stars 63.868
29 AA 24 1 1 Roch. Mayo 53.195
30 A 14A 6 1 1 Austin 52.405
31 AA 25 7 4 Duluth Central/Denfeld/East 47.691
32 AA 26 8 3 Elk River 42.982
33 A 3A 7 7 1 Hibbing/Chisholm 42.979
35 AA 27 4 3 Rob. Armstrong 31.865
36 A 8A 9 2 1 Farmington 31.776
37 AA 28 4 4 Anoka 28.812
38 AA 29 3 5 White Bear Lake 28.531
39 AA 30 5 5 Eastview 26.846
40 AA 31 7 5 Cambridge-Isanti 26.817
41 AA 32 3 6 Spring Lake Park/St. Anthony 25.046
42 A 6A 10 2 2 New Prague 24.300
43 AA 33 6 6 Minnetonka 21.983
44 AA 34 4 5 Maple Grove 20.184
45 AA 35 6 7 Prior Lake 19.759
46 A 12A 11 2 3 Richfield 19.568
47 AA 36 3 7 North St. Paul Polars 19.199
48 AA 37 8 4 St. Cld. Tech 18.964
49 AA 38 3 8 Mounds View 18.919
50 A 11A 12 5 2 Shakopee 17.364
51 AA 39 7 6 Proctor/Hermantown/Marshall 17.091
52 A 9A 13 2 4 Simley 16.104
53 AA 40 5 6 Apple Valley 14.871
54 AA 41 2 4 Woodbury 13.545
55 A 16A 14 7 2 Silver Bay/Two Harbors 13.505
56 AA 42 8 5 Brainerd 13.226
57 A 15A 15 4 3 Mahtomedi 12.488
58 AA 43 1 2 Lakev. North 12.138
59 A 13A 16 8 3 Roseau 12.107
60 AA 44 6 8 Bloom. Jefferson 12.011
61 AA 45 2 5 Henry Sibley 11.977
62 A 18A 17 1 2 Faribault 11.740
63 AA 46 7 7 Chisago Lakes/Pine City 11.355
64 AA 47 8 6 North Wright County River Hawks 11.073


The remaining teams would be in T2:

RK CL 1/11 RK SC RK TEAM RATING
65 AA 48 4 6 Andover 10.298
66 A 20A 18 3 1 New Ulm 10.269
67 A 19A 19 5 3 Mound-Westonka 10.218
68 A 17A 20 4 4 Totino-Grace 9.703
69 AA 49 8 7 Buffalo 9.031
70 AA 50 6 9 Chaska 8.196
71 AA 51 1 3 Lakev. South 7.783
72 AA 52 8 8 St. Cld. Icebreakers 7.565
73 A 21 1 3 Mankato West 7.365
74 AA 53 8 9 River Lakes Stars 7.156
75 A 22 6 2 Detroit Lakes 6.117
76 A 23 2 5 St. Paul United 5.923
77 AA 54 2 6 St. Paul Blades 5.895
78 AA 55 4 7 Champlin Park 5.491
79 A 24 3 2 Marshall 5.482
80 AA 56 2 7 Park of Cottage Grove 5.422
81 A 25 1 4 Albert Lea Tigers 5.208
82 AA 57 1 4 Winona Winhawks 4.559
83 AA 58 7 8 St. Francis/North Branch 4.114
84 A 26 5 4 Orono 3.735
85 A 27 5 5 St. Louis Park 3.237
86 A 28 6 3 Fergus Falls 3.072
87 AA 59 5 7 Minneapolis Novas 2.892
88 AA 60 5 8 Rosemount 2.610
89 A 29 8 4 East Grand Forks 2.571
90 A 30 1 5 Northfield 2.539
91 AA 61 4 8 Rob. Cooper 2.365
92 AA 62 1 5 Owatonna 2.220
93 A 31 8 5 International Falls 1.872
94 AA 63 4 9 Rogers 1.708
95 A 32 8 6 Lake of the Woods 1.509
96 A 33 7 3 Moose Lake 1.375
97 A 34 7 4 Eveleth 1.336
98 A 35 8 7 Thief River Falls 1.272
99 AA 64 1 6 Dodge County 1.077
100 A 36 6 4 Willmar 1.067
101 A 37 2 6 Red Wing 0.823
102 A 38 5 6 Hutchinson 0.801
103 AA 65 2 8 Tartan 0.756
104 AA 66 8 10 Sartell/Sauk Rapids Stormn Sabres 0.727
105 A 40 6 5 Long Prairie-Grey Eagle/Wadena-Deer Cr 0.668
106 A 39 4 5 St. Paul Saints 0.668
107 A 41 3 3 Fairmont 0.612
108 AA 67 1 7 Roch. John Marshall 0.503
109 AA 68 5 9 Bloom. Kennedy 0.413
110 A 42 6 6 Morris/Benson/Hancock 0.404
111 A 43 5 7 Litchfield/Dassel-Cokato 0.393
112 A 44 3 4 Luverne 0.345
113 A 45 7 5 East Range Lady Knights 0.245
114 A 46 7 6 Little Falls 0.225
115 A 47 3 5 St. Peter/Lesueur-Henderson 0.176
116 A 48 7 7 Princeton 0.169
117 A 49 1 6 Mankato East 0.154
118 A 50 1 7 Waseca 0.132
119 A 51 4 6 Minnehaha Academy 0.112
120 AA 69 1 8 Roch. Century 0.074
121 A 52 6 7 Park Rapids 0.058
122 A 53 3 6 Windom Area 0.027
123 A 54 3 7 Worthington 0.009
124 A 55 3 8 Redwood Valley 0.002

When is the MSHSL supposed to vote on this?

If someone transfers in the 06-07 year, they will be penalized in the 07-08 year. Look at the goalie from RIchfield, he transfered after the hockey season last year and had to sit out thee first 13 games of this years schedule.

Zamman wrote:If someone transfers in the 06-07 year, they will be penalized in the 07-08 year. Look at the goalie from RIchfield, he transfered after the hockey season last year and had to sit out thee first 13 games of this years schedule.

This is true. You don't want to transfer in-season ever if it can be avoided. There is a small window after school ends and June 15 and I woudl transfer then or prior to whenever this new rule set will start to be used.

SEMetro wrote:When is the MSHSL supposed to vote on this?

I heard that this was going to be waited on for a while, but couldn't remember as to how long that wait would be...

The motion to bring the proposal forward to the State legislature was tabled until Feb's meeting.

My thought and opinion

1) The public educational system was developed first and foremost for providing our communities a foundation for education. All the activities that go along with school are a big plus in a kid's life development, however the first priority is to educate the kids.
2) the O/E was created to provide increased educational opportunities and the creators were short sighted on how others would utilize the system for the benefit of school athletics.
3) I believe the O/E proposal is good and should be implemented
4) It does lack a provision for private schools which I believe some of the suggestions here help resolve that issue. I believe this was tabled because of the legalities involved with limiting the geographic area a private school can draw from. They are private institutions whose main source of revenue is private tutition dollars. The state legally can't do that with out forcing a huge lawsuit or entirely revamping the educational funding for private schools.
5) If playing a sport at a certain school is that important than physically moving to that community helps you avoid sitting.
6) This is the state of hockey- if you can't get noticed here you won't be noticed anywhere so is moving from one Lake Conference school to another really going to achieve the development and notoriety one is looking for?

I'm for instituting the O/E as proposed for public schools so enrollment actually takes place for educational reasons. Just so you know I am also for closing our national borders from illegal aliens.

In many posts on this forum, it has been stated that the purpose for open enrollment was for academic reasons ONLY. This is being cited as the reason why there is justification for forcing someone who has open enrolled to sit out of varsity sports for a year.


This presumption is in error. The law does not state or even imply that the reason someone should have for open enrollment should be strictly academics. The law actually acknowledges that there may be other reasons other than academics for someone to open enroll. The statue reads as follows: Before submitting an application, the pupil and the pupil's parent or guardian must explore with a school guidance counselor, or other appropriate staff member employed by the district the pupil is currently attending, the pupil's academic or other reason for applying to enroll in a nonresident district. The pupil's application must identify the reason for enrolling in the nonresident district.

So, if the law does not put a restriction on the reason for open enrollment, why should the .MSHL punish athletes who take advantage of this law? Note also that the proposed MSHL rule is not concerned with OE that occurs prior to the first day of 9th grade. If you've OEd prior to that date, there are no penalties. I interpret this to mean that the issue isn't with OE at all, it is with transfers.

So, why should the .MSHL be concerned with transfers? The only reason I can think of is that they are concerned about sports dynasties that are based on solely on transfers and the perception that HS coaches recruit from other high schools. Putting a limit on the number of transfers a team may have solves both these issues. @lus it has the added benefit of being able to be equally applied to public or private schools.

Putting the private schools in a separate league does not solve the issue. It only insures that the private school dynasties are separated from the public school ones.

T-Bird,

Good points all around. However, just because the statute allows O/E for reasons other than academics, doesn't necessarily mean it should be allowed for athletics only. I can think of plenty of reasons why the statute listed "other reasons" - for instance, a student may be the object of intense bullying, and need to move to another school to avoid future problems, etc. I would guess that past O/E applicants have not listed "I want to join your kick @*@* hockey team" as the sole reason.

I like your distinction between O/E and transfers. Somehow, an O/E prior to 9th grade seems less aggregious than a transfer in 10th-12th ???

IMO the MSHL is doing the right thing in placing some restrictions on O/E for athletics - I would imagine that the original intent of the drafters of O/E did not intend to have it used to build hockey dynasties. If you research the statute, you will find that "school choice" was driven by attempting to provide inner-city students the opportunity to O/E to a better school (suburban or charter). Placing geographic restrictions on privates is illegal, plain and simple.

Bottom Line - I hope something gets done at the February meeting that will place some restrictions on O/E, while still preserving the opportunities for students to have options.

I think the new proposal may work pretty good for most sports but hockey won't be one of them. Hockey players have options, Juniors for boys and AAA for girls. Families will need to decide their fate at an earlier age under the new proposals. I think now they tend to wait and give the local school a chance because it may all work out but if it doesn't they can transfer. Academics aside, the discontent with the local hockey program starts long before HS so they will be goving it thought.

It will be interesting to see how the new rules affect 7-8th graders. HS coaches will be wanting to "lock in" their youth stars as soon as posible, how many kids will be pulled up too early and what happens to the older kids they displace? It might be wise to finish U12 or do a year of U14 before comitting to HS sports because once you are there, your only out is AAA.

New rules work best when they are well thought out and are designed to cure specific issues, my fear is the proposal was conjured up as a response to some emotional parents and coaches.

I was just wondering if anyone has ever compiled stats of players that have transfered and compared them to there previous stats?

I would think that they might be scewed somehow based on a player getting older and more experienced.

I just looked at hartmans record from 2005-2006 and through 16 games last year she had 27g and 17a and this year 14g and 11a in the same amount of games. that is 19 less points than last year.

[quote="hockeya1a"]I was just wondering if anyone has ever compiled stats of players that have transfered and compared them to there previous stats?

I would think that they might be scewed somehow based on a player getting older and more experienced.

I just looked at hartmans record from 2005-2006 and through 16 games last year she had 27g and 17a and this year 14g and 11a in the same amount of games. that is 19 less points than last year.[/quote]

Now she's on a better team; only on the ice every 3rd shift, playing some but not all powerplays, and playing a tougher schedule. Yes, she's probably better this year than last, but stats don't say everything.

1) The public educational system was developed first and foremost for providing our communities a foundation for education. All the activities that go along with school are a big plus in a kid's life development, however the first priority is to educate the kids.
2) the O/E was created to provide increased educational opportunities and the creators were short sighted on how others would utilize the system for the benefit of school athletics.
3) I believe the O/E proposal is good and should be implemented
4) It does lack a provision for private schools which I believe some of the suggestions here help resolve that issue. I believe this was tabled because of the legalities involved with limiting the geographic area a private school can draw from. They are private institutions whose main source of revenue is private tutition dollars. The state legally can't do that with out forcing a huge lawsuit or entirely revamping the educational funding for private schools.
5) If playing a sport at a certain school is that important than physically moving to that community helps you avoid sitting.
6) This is the state of hockey- if you can't get noticed here you won't be noticed anywhere so is moving from one Lake Conference school to another really going to achieve the development and notoriety one is looking for?


Tomass has it correct on all acounts.

One side note - Since, on average less then 10% of student bodies are involved in sports at any given school I think the sports related OE's are out numbered and out voted by a huge margin. MHSL will always vote on the side of an education vs a competition.

Jethrotull writes; "OE was created to ptovide increased educational opportunities" The proposed rules now ammend this statement to say "OE was created to provide increased educational opportunities for NON-STUDENT ATHLETES."

Student-athletes take advantage of OE for many different reasons. Yet, time and time again I see in these posts the assumption that student-athletes who open enroll do so for only one reason; to achieve notoriety in their sport. This is a poor assumption - and one made out of emotion rather than logic or reality. What if student-athletes move from a top-ranked school to a non-ranked school? Is this still being done to achieve notoriety in sports?

With OE comes choice and with choice comes freedom to choose. Even if I never choose to exercise it, I don't want my child's freedom taken away or punished. So, to the EPs or Edinas of the world who have improved rankings due to transfers, while I may not like losing to you, I recognize that it is better to lose a game than my right to OE.

Deleting duplicate post.

Deleting duplicate post.

Thunderbird77 wrote: I see in these posts the assumption that student-athletes who open enroll do so for only one reason; to achieve notoriety in their sport. This is a poor assumption - and one made out of emotion rather than logic or reality. What if student-athletes move from a top-ranked school to a non-ranked school? Is this still being done to achieve notoriety in sports?

With OE comes choice and with choice comes freedom to choose. Even if I never choose to exercise it, I don't want my child's freedom taken away or punished. So, to the EPs or Edinas of the world who have improved rankings due to transfers, while I may not like losing to you, I recognize that it is better to lose a game than my right to OE.

1) If the student athlete transfer for reasons other than their sport, say for instance because of a great math program, then that is a higher (correct) priority to have and sitting out a sport for a year should not cause harm to that student. They could always play on a club team during the year they have to sit. It is not a poor assumption since we all see it happening time and time again.

2) O/E is not a right it was a educational policy adopted by the state goverment. It is not a right what so ever. If you believe so much in O/E then it is time for state tax credits or funding to be tied to every student in this state. That money then can follow the student to the school they choose to go to. The current O/E is not being used in the manner it was created. Not even close. It is far from a citizens right and thinking like that is why it has been abused as it has. It is no more a right than driving which is a stated granted, controlled, and monitored privilage that can be taken away from us when abuses occur.

I have never seen a committee of 40 agree on anything in my entire life, but this group did agree on the fact that major adjustments were needed for O/E. It was only tabled, as I stated before because of the lack of solutions for handling private schools.
[/b]

Thunderbird77 wrote:With OE comes choice and with choice comes freedom to choose. Even if I never choose to exercise it, I don't want my child's freedom taken away or punished. So, to the EPs or Edinas of the world who have improved rankings due to transfers, while I may not like losing to you, I recognize that it is better to lose a game than my right to OE.

Very well stated.

So 40 anti OE people got together and agreed something needed to be done, what a shock.

I believe when you OE State funds are directed to your new school.

I guess if I were TBird I would have used the term "choice" rather than "right" but the semantics aren't worth getting worked up about.

xk1 wrote:So 40 anti OE people got together and agreed something needed to be done, what a shock.

I believe when you OE State funds are directed to your new school.

I guess if I were TBird I would have used the term "choice" rather than "right" but the semantics aren't worth getting worked up about.

If you know anything about organizational behavior you know for 40 people to agree on anything is highly unusualy whether they are opponents or proponents of the same idea. Do you actually know the make up of the board?

Choices still exist, it is only being asked that parents and students put priorities to what those choices are and when they are made.

O/E is just another way for people to run away from the problems rather than trying to find solutions and fixing them. If you truly want choices and the ability to go to whatever school you want for what ever reason, then each student is equal to $$$$ and those dollars follow them to the school of their choice. Let the schools truly be in competition for excelling in areas of academics or athletics that they want to be the best in order to attract those particular athletes or students. If you really want choices then that is the way to do it to make it fair to both the system of education and the students.

The public education system was not created to provide unlimited choices via O/E that many students and parents utilize it for - athletics

the part of the state tax dollar is somewhat correct,

But the communities that allow O/E students in are also paying many of dollars for those schools and the transferee does not pay taxes in that town.
so if you live in town A but go to school in town B the people in town B are helping foot your bill to build more schools to handle the number of students in that area.

so the next time you go to vote on a school levee or referendom remember your tax dollars could be suporting a transfer student from another town who does not pay the same taxes as you.