Transfers 2013?

[sinbin]

SECoach, thanks for your response. I'm in total agreement on the rules and the loopholes that are exploited. I've seen enough stories about the empty apartments where mail piles up and this is legally defined as "residency" within the Minn rules, but primarily for sports other than hockey, although I'm sure this is pervasive across almost all sports. I agree that for some, the grass will always be greener and I can certainly see that many coming from "lesser" hockey schools would want to attend stronger hockey schools if that was their primary HS focus. But, then wouldn't we see more of this happening at Tonka, Edina, EP, Roseville, etc., traditionally strong hockey schools? Maybe someone else can speak to the non-Tonka schools on this list?

Or, have we now circled back to the "recruitment" issue, where this issue exists primarily at the privates and those publics with a history of "recruitment"? I would contend that this is by definition primarily hockey-related where you have a small cadre of schools that live and breath this philosophy while for the others, any transfer is an unexpected bonus. If you're recruited in to play hockey, I don't think that you can deny that the reason you moved is to play hockey. Even my HS kids, who are marginal to solid athletes, but by no means stars, received plenty of helpful "suggestions" in 7th and 8th grade about where to attend HS, what sports to play, what positions had holes, which of their friends might join them, etc., and my curent middle schooler is facing those same questions and suggestions, but is thankfully shrugging them off. My discussion has focused on those who have either moved or transfered of their own volition, not those who have been swept up in the recruitment machines. So, we're probably talking apples and oranges here or at least Braeburn vs. McIntosh (sorry, couldn't think of any apples that were really sour and left a bad taste in my mouth the way that recruiting and HS rules do).

[SECoach]

Circling back to the recruitment issue. My personal opinion. observations, and experience leads me to say that there are circumstances where coaches "recruit". I don't believe it's very common, and some are much better than others at flying under the radar. Most just enjoy the benefit of players showing up that will help their program.

More common is the practice you mentioned which is families that "encourage" other families to make a move or decide to attend other than their community school assignment.

Even more common are families that take it upon themselves, with no help from others, to make these decisions. My personal opinion is that the most prevalent reasons are thinking that the player is not getting a fair shake at their present school, believing that you need to be in a top program to "get noticed", and lastly, plain and simple, wanting the experience of being a champion or close to it.

I think there are a couple reasons why you don't see it more at Roseville, Mtka, Edina, etc. First, they are all strong "homegrown" programs in which you better be pretty good, or you may end up not getting time there. For example, many boys have transferred or enrolled at Hill Murray, only to end up getting cut and ending their hockey career. Probably not the case in most girl's program, but something to consider. Secondly, and I know this is probably a controversial opinion, but moving to a private school gives the family an instant reason that it was a religious or academic move and not for athletics. Expensive way to go about it, but the hockey player gets some other bennies along with it. I'll call it saving face if you will. They also tend to be strong programs and provide a great chance of being part of a successful team. I almost think it seems self explanatory why boys that transfer from White Bear Lake choose Hill Murray over let's just say Forest Lake.

Some of these opinions come from my personal belief that students that are academically talented will be top performers and receive a great education at most metro area high schools without transferring. Many students that are not at the top academically won't become much better students by transferring. There are clearly exceptions, but I think they are just that.

[allhoc11]

and 0% of the movement was exclusively hockey-related

Sinbin, I would have to respectfully disagree with this part of your previous statement. There is one player who transferred there (and 3 other schools prior that was a hockey driven decision). The family I'm sure said it was for other reasons, but when you look at the schools/programs this athlete had applied to/been part of most the decisions they made were trying to chase down a D1 scholarship. In addition I live in a neighboring community and am active with the school board, and let's just say your district isn't making many friends with the way they are actively recruiting students at the elementary age from select pockets of neighborhoods outside their district. They are having success with that currently, and the sheer numbers should lead to increased success across the board at the HS level years down the road.

[sinbin]

allhoc1, if we're thinking about the same person, it might be a little more complicated than that, and I suppose we can debate the meaning of exlusively vs. primarily, but I understand your point.

Also, I think Tonka has been ahead of the curve in recruiting open enrollees due to a declining school-age population in the Tonka School District. I'm sure that this has been to Tonka's benefit (increased funding, etc.) and likely to the detriment of those neighboring communities. I HOPE that it has been to the advantage of the vast majority of those kids making the move, since that's what matters most in the end. This increased enrollment MAY help with hockey, but with 15 girls playing HS varsity hockey out of about 1400 in the HS (not counting 8th graders), that's about a 1% participation rate, so I suppose that the incremental open enrollment increases could help the success of hockey and other programs down the road. It would be interesting to see how many varsity players there are 5 - 10 years from now who were originally in EP, Hopkins, Chan, Chaska, and other neighboring school districts and, of those, how many had a significant impact on the team.

[Slap Shot]

You state that you won't make assumptions....but then proceed to do just that. Lots of folks may transfer into Mtka for lots of reasons, but the hockey players transfer for hockey.

I only ask because I have no idea, but how many on the Tonka roster recently and/or next season were/are transfers?

[36Guy]

Tonka had one girl on last years team that did not play in the youth program and the same will be the case this year and SECoach could not be any more incorrect.

[SECoach]

Tonka had one girl on last years team that did not play in the youth program and the same will be the case this year and SECoach could not be any more incorrect.

I stand corrected, ever since my post of Sunday, June 30th, 10:15pm, but I'm happy to stand corrected again.

[Tigers33]

I think he said it pretty accurate. Why don't you respond as to where you think he was incorrect.

[U10Father]

36Guy would know the reasons that transfer happened. You should probably just go with him on this.

[Tigers33]

Yes indeed he would, but I stand by the fact that most players transfer because of hockey. I can understand that academics might play an important role in deciding, but ultimately it boils down to hockey.

Would all the kids that go to benilde still go there if ther hockey program wasn't any good? I don't think so. Same goes true for hill Murray. Ultimately it comes down to hockey. So what! But if that's the reason then just come out and say it. People in your own community from where you are from might respect you more for being honest with them.

Like I said the examples I know of were hockey driven. Parents just aren't willing to admit it.

[cigar]

Tiger33,

i don't agree with your reasons why these people transfer and i also think very, very few are "recruited"...

i have personally had conversations with many parents as to why a child transfered and if the child was "recruited"....

i have yet to find a parent that would admit the child was "recruited", that doesn't mean that all these children were not, but it is an indication that most were probably not..

the reasons the kids transferred had more to do with academics, religious affiliation, wanting to go to school with friends and reputation of school when colleges come calling.... hockey has never been the primary reason but the particular school having a good program never hurt. but many of these kids would have transferred regardless of the strength of the hockey program...

and for the state, country, cities, coaches, parents, fans, etc... to attempt to deny a parent or child the right to chose where to go to school is a violation of a persons rights... if i had a child and i wanted him/her to attend some school 100 miles away and the child wanted to play sports and was penalized because of it i would not hesitate to sue the hell out of who ever restricts this right...

if a parent or student wants to transfer every year and "chase" after the best hockey program so the child/parent can gloat over winning all these championships so be it... their will always be spoiled kids and parents that are asses.... that can't be prevented, that is life... live with it..

[SECoach]

Tiger33,

i don't agree with your reasons why these people transfer and i also think very, very few are "recruited"...

i have personally had conversations with many parents as to why a child transfered and if the child was "recruited"....

i have yet to find a parent that would admit the child was "recruited", that doesn't mean that all these children were not, but it is an indication that most were probably not..

the reasons the kids transferred had more to do with academics, religious affiliation, wanting to go to school with friends and reputation of school when colleges come calling.... hockey has never been the primary reason but the particular school having a good program never hurt. but many of these kids would have transferred regardless of the strength of the hockey program...

and for the state, country, cities, coaches, parents, fans, etc... to attempt to deny a parent or child the right to chose where to go to school is a violation of a persons rights... if i had a child and i wanted him/her to attend some school 100 miles away and the child wanted to play sports and was penalized because of it i would not hesitate to sue the hell out of who ever restricts this right...

if a parent or student wants to transfer every year and "chase" after the best hockey program so the child/parent can gloat over winning all these championships so be it... their will always be spoiled kids and parents that are asses.... that can't be prevented, that is life... live with it..

"Recruiting" is probably most often done by the parents of the child being "recruited". No rule against that. IF other recruiting is done, it is often very, very subtle. Others, not so much. I will simply point to a single Northern Minnesota town for circumstantial proof of my theory.

The law allows kids to open enroll to the school of their choice, if accepted by the school they want to go to. The statutes I'm sure are very complicated so I won't begin to claim expertise. If you want to sue for the right to be eligible for varsity athletics after such a move, you better hire a good attorney to sue the MSHSL then, because they have rules that govern that activity. If they want to transfer every year they will likely be chasing a JV trophy while you spend years in court. Playing high school athletics is not a "right". Just ask the kids that get cut.

These situations are not absolute. For every kid you know that transferred for academics, I probably know one that transferred for hockey. The truth is rarely admitted in the latter, so maybe we can all agree that all transfers are for academic or religious reasons.

The only way I would take 36guys responses as absolute is if he is the Mtka coach (not sure how he would be sure either) If he's the parent? Well, read above for my thoughts on that.

I will say again, I don't personally care if kids transfer if it's within the rules. I'm just calling BS on why they do it. The rules are in place to help keep our leagues from becoming ridiculously non competitive (although I don't think it's working in boys hockey). The term student/athlete is in that order for a reason.

[cigar]

SECoach,

the problem i see are that laws are in place that supercede the constitution... any such law is invalid.. and to allow double standards penalizing athletes and not penalizing anyone else that takes part in an extra curricular activity is a civil rights violation.... so now we penalize the hockey player but not the cheerleader? that is a violation.....

regardless, because of the crappy job the state, league or whoever makes up these silly rules runs things the choice will soon be:

1. many more schools moving to the co-op route
2. more schools going the SSM route
3. schools no longer offering athletics...

i think we will see some of option 2 with some private schools and the rest will be relagated to option 3.. which in my opinion would be sad but it never was the responsibility of a school to provide athletics, it is to educate, which most can't even do...

[SECoach]

SECoach,

the problem i see are that laws are in place that supercede the constitution... any such law is invalid.. and to allow double standards penalizing athletes and not penalizing anyone else that takes part in an extra curricular activity is a civil rights violation.... so now we penalize the hockey player but not the cheerleader? that is a violation.....

regardless, because of the crappy job the state, league or whoever makes up these silly rules runs things the choice will soon be:

1. many more schools moving to the co-op route
2. more schools going the SSM route
3. schools no longer offering athletics...

i think we will see some of option 2 with some private schools and the rest will be relagated to option 3.. which in my opinion would be sad but it never was the responsibility of a school to provide athletics, it is to educate, which most can't even do...

Although I have read the constitution and it's amendments I must admit I'm not an attorney. I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night though, and would conclude that among the many rights it affords us, the right to play high school sports when and where we want, is not one of them.

[cigar]

SECoach,

it is obvious you are not an attorney..

i guess if one has graduated from high school you have a valid point in that they can no longer choose to play high school sports when and where they want....

otherwise, we can choose where we want to go to school and with that comes all of the extra curricular activities that school offers...

if one claims we can choose what school we can attend but can not choose to participate in its extra curricular activities that is where the problem arises... and this is where we find ourselves today... the high school league picks and chooses what activities a student can or can't participate in... and people actually think that is OK? so a person can go to a school in a different district and participate on the cheer squad, band or choir but this person can't do so as a player on the soccer field? and people sit back and accept that... and you think that is ok? no violation of this persons rights?

so where at your holiday inn is it accepted/permitted to discriminate against athletes? this is a violation and until some parents have the nuts to sue the high school league it will continue... and yes, no question the parents would win every time...

and yes, with free individual rights we have the freedom to choose when to play high school sports where and when we want...just as we have the right to choose to go to the school that has the great physics program and actually be allowed to study that program without the high school league denying this right...

with all due respect to you, if you are actually are a coach i could not trust you to coach any child i know......

nuff said........

[SECoach]

SECoach,

it is obvious you are not an attorney..

i guess if one has graduated from high school you have a valid point in that they can no longer choose to play high school sports when and where they want....

otherwise, we can choose where we want to go to school and with that comes all of the extra curricular activities that school offers...

if one claims we can choose what school we can attend but can not choose to participate in its extra curricular activities that is where the problem arises... and this is where we find ourselves today... the high school league picks and chooses what activities a student can or can't participate in... and people actually think that is OK? so a person can go to a school in a different district and participate on the cheer squad, band or choir but this person can't do so as a player on the soccer field? and people sit back and accept that... and you think that is ok? no violation of this persons rights?

so where at your holiday inn is it accepted/permitted to discriminate against athletes? this is a violation and until some parents have the nuts to sue the high school league it will continue... and yes, no question the parents would win every time...

and yes, with free individual rights we have the freedom to choose when to play high school sports where and when we want...just as we have the right to choose to go to the school that has the great physics program and actually be allowed to study that program without the high school league denying this right...

with all due respect to you, if you are actually are a coach i could not trust you to coach any child i know......

nuff said........

I'm speechless, and that doesn't happen very often.

[Tigers33]

Cigar - you are so far off base and what you are saying makes no sense.

You can go to any school you want in the entire state as long as you live within the boundaries of the school district. Pick any school you want and move there. Simple as that. Could you imagine what things would be like if any kid could drive any amount of distance to go to any school they want...meaning no boundaries. It would be like a circus. Ha!

[Hansonbrother]

SECoach,

it is obvious you are not an attorney..

i guess if one has graduated from high school you have a valid point in that they can no longer choose to play high school sports when and where they want....

otherwise, we can choose where we want to go to school and with that comes all of the extra curricular activities that school offers...

if one claims we can choose what school we can attend but can not choose to participate in its extra curricular activities that is where the problem arises... and this is where we find ourselves today... the high school league picks and chooses what activities a student can or can't participate in... and people actually think that is OK? so a person can go to a school in a different district and participate on the cheer squad, band or choir but this person can't do so as a player on the soccer field? and people sit back and accept that... and you think that is ok? no violation of this persons rights?

so where at your holiday inn is it accepted/permitted to discriminate against athletes? this is a violation and until some parents have the nuts to sue the high school league it will continue... and yes, no question the parents would win every time...

and yes, with free individual rights we have the freedom to choose when to play high school sports where and when we want...just as we have the right to choose to go to the school that has the great physics program and actually be allowed to study that program without the high school league denying this right...

with all due respect to you, if you are actually are a coach i could not trust you to coach any child i know......

nuff said........

Cigar, you would be the parent that would allow your kid to switch schools midway through a season if your kids team wasn't doing what you thought it should...Listen to yourself. MSHSL is trying to keep a rules for all teams to play by. But you seem to be one of those who want to look at the rules and see how you can twist them into your favor somehow. I say, send your kid to any school every year, but don't get offended if someone calls them a gypsy or unloyal.

[InigoMontoya]

Cigar - you are so far off base and what you are saying makes no sense.

You can go to any school you want in the entire state as long as you live within the boundaries of the school district. Pick any school you want and move there. Simple as that. Could you imagine what things would be like if any kid could drive any amount of distance to go to any school they want...meaning no boundaries. It would be like a circus. Ha!

Wouldn't that be called Open Enrollment?

[luckyEPDad]

Cigar - you are so far off base and what you are saying makes no sense.

You can go to any school you want in the entire state as long as you live within the boundaries of the school district. Pick any school you want and move there. Simple as that. Could you imagine what things would be like if any kid could drive any amount of distance to go to any school they want...meaning no boundaries. It would be like a circus. Ha!

Wouldn't that be called Open Enrollment?

Funny how none of the open enrollment nightmare scenarios discussed 20 years ago have come to pass. I get the feeling that MSHSL eligability rules are meant to protect against percieved problems that never existed and would never come to pass.

Though I think it a bit crazy to pick a school for their hockey program, is that any any less reasonable than going to a technology magnet school because you love computer programming. In both cases you should get a well rounded education and there is no harm if you find your aptitude lay elsewhere.

[royals dad]

Cigar - you are so far off base and what you are saying makes no sense.

You can go to any school you want in the entire state as long as you live within the boundaries of the school district. Pick any school you want and move there. Simple as that. Could you imagine what things would be like if any kid could drive any amount of distance to go to any school they want...meaning no boundaries. It would be like a circus. Ha!

Wouldn't that be called Open Enrollment?

Funny how none of the open enrollment nightmare scenarios discussed 20 years ago have come to pass. I get the feeling that MSHSL eligability rules are meant to protect against percieved problems that never existed and would never come to pass.

Though I think it a bit crazy to pick a school for their hockey program, is that any any less reasonable than going to a technology magnet school because you love computer programming. In both cases you should get a well rounded education and there is no harm if you find your aptitude lay elsewhere.

Lucky, you might be surprised to find that the Eagles have a rich history surrounding the origin of the transfer rules. In fact back in the day (2005-6) people used to refer to them as the SW Metro All Stars. Fact is the top players all play together in the summer, if there are no transfer rules what is to stop the senior Caps or Cats doing a LeBron, D Wade, Bosh type deal. It would just kind of wrecks the sport.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... +transfers

[luckyEPDad]

Lucky, you might be surprised to find that the Eagles have a rich history surrounding the origin of the transfer rules. In fact back in the day (2005-6) people used to refer to them as the SW Metro All Stars. Fact is the top players all play together in the summer, if there are no transfer rules what is to stop the senior Caps or Cats doing a LeBron, D Wade, Bosh type deal. It would just kind of wrecks the sport.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... +transfers

I'm not surprised by that at all. Quite a few times during summer hockey people have felt an obligation to educate me about EP's nefarious past. This is usually followed by a ritual cleansing.

My daughter is red and black through and through. Her hockey friends from other schools feel the same allegiance to their schools. Even if those schools don't have a winning hockey record. There would have to be a compelling reason for any of these girls to leave their friends and their team to go to another school to play hockey. From what I see three days playing at the Xcel is not a compelling enough reason.

Though I'd much rather watch an EP hockey team composed of girls my daughter grew up with I still don't see a real problem with her playing with whomever is enrolled at the school. I think it is easy to argue that enrollment restrictions are causing more problems than they have cured.

[royals dad]

Lucky, you might be surprised to find that the Eagles have a rich history surrounding the origin of the transfer rules. In fact back in the day (2005-6) people used to refer to them as the SW Metro All Stars. Fact is the top players all play together in the summer, if there are no transfer rules what is to stop the senior Caps or Cats doing a LeBron, D Wade, Bosh type deal. It would just kind of wrecks the sport.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... +transfers

I'm not surprised by that at all. Quite a few times during summer hockey people have felt an obligation to educate me about EP's nefarious past. This is usually followed by a ritual cleansing.

My daughter is red and black through and through. Her hockey friends from other schools feel the same allegiance to their schools. Even if those schools don't have a winning hockey record. There would have to be a compelling reason for any of these girls to leave their friends and their team to go to another school to play hockey. From what I see three days playing at the Xcel is not a compelling enough reason.

Though I'd much rather watch an EP hockey team composed of girls my daughter grew up with I still don't see a real problem with her playing with whomever is enrolled at the school. I think it is easy to argue that enrollment restrictions are causing more problems than they have cured.

I wonder if you might change your stripes if your daughter was cut from her team when 5 or 6 upperclassman transfers came in or when the red and black was knocked out of sections by a team like Chas/Chan if they were to get 5 or 6 transfers. The rules serve a purpose and for the most part they work as designed, I don't think it is a constitutional or legal issue, I just think it is trying to balance open enrollment with the integrity of competition in the High School League. To say it is a heavy handed response to an imaginary problem (paraphrased) seems weird if you had been aware of the history.

[luckyEPDad]

I wonder if you might change your stripes if your daughter was cut from her team when 5 or 6 upperclassman transfers came in or when the red and black was knocked out of sections by a team like Chas/Chan if they were to get 5 or 6 transfers. The rules serve a purpose and for the most part they work as designed, I don't think it is a constitutional or legal issue, I just think it is trying to balance open enrollment with the integrity of competition in the High School League. To say it is a heavy handed response to an imaginary problem (paraphrased) seems weird if you had been aware of the history.

Those are emotional arguments. There are a lot of things I don't like, but it doesn't mean they are wrong or bad. I don't like it when my daughter is cut for any reason, but it has happened and is something she deals with. I don't like when EP loses to Benilde, a team you could argue is completely composed of transfers. But I don't like it any better when they lose to Minnetonka. My emotions are bad guides. I try not to listen to them when making important decisions.

There is plenty of inequity in HS sports. Communities aging or losing jobs causes far more havoc than open enrollment has (if it has at all). Where are the MSHSL rules to fix those problems? This feels very much like Eden Prairie's response to Minnesota Made. We didn't like what MM was doing, we thought it could lead to problems, and our response was emotional and not thought out.

[royals dad]

Those are emotional arguments. There are a lot of things I don't like, but it doesn't mean they are wrong or bad. I don't like it when my daughter is cut for any reason, but it has happened and is something she deals with. I don't like when EP loses to Benilde, a team you could argue is completely composed of transfers. But I don't like it any better when they lose to Minnetonka. My emotions are bad guides. I try not to listen to them when making important decisions.

There is plenty of inequity in HS sports. Communities aging or losing jobs causes far more havoc than open enrollment has (if it has at all). Where are the MSHSL rules to fix those problems? This feels very much like Eden Prairie's response to Minnesota Made. We didn't like what MM was doing, we thought it could lead to problems, and our response was emotional and not thought out.

I am not sure how to argue with that, if you don't make any decisions that involve emotion, is that some kind of Vulcan thing. Bottom line to me is that having a 10, 11, and 12th grader play JV for a year if they are not moving into the district or have a qualifying hardship is not that hard of a rule to comply with. Every individual case I have heard about was resolved in favor of the athlete and there have been few questions about all star teams (with the exception of the privates and Marvin Windows). I am glad there is the rule in place. I don't expect the MHSL to go overboard with rules trying to level playing fields for every issue in the world but this was the right reaction to a real problem.