Possible transfer rule change

[Indian 217]

Right now just in the discussion stage..Meeting agenda

[osunut2 352]

Interesting.

[Red Rebels 1,619]

 

b. Proposed Changes to Article II, Sections 12 and 13 (Eligible and Ineligible

Transfer Students) of the TSSAA Bylaws:

This proposal is to replace Article II, Section 12 b (currently the bona fide change of residence rule) with:

Except as otherwise provided in Section 13 below, the following transfer students are eligible:

b. The student transfers to a new school that is outside the twenty (20) mile radius of the previous school, so long as the principal of the former school attests in writing that the move was not for athletic or disciplinary reasons (including bona fide change of residence).

This proposal also adds an item to Article II, Section 12. The new Article II, Section 12 k would read:

k. Other than reasons listed above within Section 12, a student with an athletic record may transfer with no penalty as long as the transfer is to a receiving school that is in a different classification or division from the departing school. The student must transfer before the departing school’s 1st day of classes in order to be eligible in the receiving school’s TSSAA sanctioned sports for the upcoming school year. If the transfer occurs during the school year, the student will be ineligible for the current school year in all sports in which he or she has an athletic record. A student may transfer under this rule one (1) time during his/her high school years.

Finally, this proposal removes Article II, Section 13 a-c (items currently dealing with students without a bona fide change of residence). The proposed Article II, Section 13 a would read:

The following transfer students are ineligible at the varsity level for a period of twelve months from the student’s last participation date:

a. A student who transfers to any school within a twenty (20) mile radius

of the athlete’s current school.

The proposal replaces any other reference to a bona fide change of residence with the concept of moving outside the twenty (20) mile radius of the athlete’s previous school.

Rationale:

There is widespread abuse of the current transfer loopholes (particularly involving “bona fide change of residence”). Even if a student has a “bona fide change of residence” that is within the twenty (20) mile radius, a maximum of twenty (20) miles is not an unreasonable burden for transportation. Precedence has already been established (with non-public schools) that a twenty (20) mile distance constitutes “territory.” This would eliminate manipulation of the current system and simplify eligibility. Additionally, a student with an athletic record may have one “penalty free” transfer during high school – due to the variety of reasons that students transfer. Many times, this is accomplished with falsified documentation. It is common practice for a student to transfer multiple times using the current change of residence rule. This new proposal would allow one legal “fresh start” over the course of a high school career. However, this one allowance must be to a school competing in a different classification or division and be done prior to the school year for full eligibility.

While some may argue that the current transfer policy is only an isolated problem in a few areas of the state and in certain sports, the policy does have an impact on the entire state once post season play begins. Those schools with multiple

transfers are often the same schools competing for state championships year after year.

Nebraska has a bylaw that supports each student-athlete a one-time transfer without a domicile change as long as the transfer is to a different division. Arizona considered a rule in 2013 that would have ruled student-athletes ineligible for one year if they transferred to a school within a 50-mile radius of their previous school.

Submitted by Collierville High School

[eers 185]

No way that works. No way that passes. 

[steelcityroller 79]

1 minute ago, eers said:

No way that works. No way that passes. 

I may not be reading it all correctly but it looks like this seemingly would hurt people in larger areas that may move within the city limits.

[Respect901fball 7]

Hmmm..

They need to revisit the hold back rule as well.  When you have 19 year olds playing against 15, 16, 17 year old kids guess whose gonna shine??  This is awful in the private schools.

" this kid is a monster and he's ONLY a sophomore"  geez 

Yeah, but how old is he???

[JohnnyLawrence 58]

“The Greenback Rule”

Don't @ me. 

[eers 185]

2 minutes ago, Respect901fball said:

Hmmm..

They need to revisit the hold back rule as well.  When you have 19 year olds playing against 15, 16, 17 year old kids guess whose gonna shine??  This is awful in the private schools.

" this kid is a monster and he's ONLY a sophomore"  geez 

Yeah, but how old is he???

But didn’t it say with disabilities and a waiver?

[eers 185]

4 minutes ago, steelcityroller said:

I may not be reading it all correctly but it looks like this seemingly would hurt people in larger areas that may move within the city limits.

Correct. It states 20 Miles is a reasonable distance for transportation, but what about the kids that have no option but to ride the bus? Basically you’re being punished for being poor or having parents working a job that doesn’t allow them to take their kids to school. 

[Red Rebels 1,619]

10 minutes ago, JohnnyLawrence said:

“The Greenback Rule”

Don't @ me. 

Submitted by Collierville High School

 

[TrenchDawg 2]

So the way I understand this is kids will get one transfer punishment free if it is to a different classification or division. Other than that it has to be outside the 20 mile radius. Is that what everyone else understands it as? 

[JohnnyLawrence 58]

34 minutes ago, Red Rebels said:

Submitted by Collierville High School

 

King of the cut and paste.