Jump to content

Possible transfer rule change


Indian
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Announcements


  • Recent Posts

    • The winds of change are blowing in Hartsville.     Will be an interesting follow.   
    • Did he promise you a coordinator job or something if he ever got a head coaching job? He resigned? He was at the top of the dugout last night calling plays. I wonder if those 30+ parents would let him give their kids a ride. by the way the board meeting was last night and it was not mentioned. must have been at the work session earlier this week which is not public. must be trying to keep it quiet.  Since you know so much, how much is Robbie Atwood willing to pay Adam Cothron?  Didn't you slander Eden earlier on here? You also didn't know he was a faculty coach again so how much do you really know? Some people outside this county baffle me with their need to slander others.    
    • He resigned smh, and have you ever heard of charged but not convicted. Some people in this county baffle me with their need to slander others. Have you asked any of the 30+ parents that signed a petition to get him reinstated at the board meeting this week how they feel about this? Just let it play out, at the end of the day the only people that will bring TC back are the ones that know what its about at its core.    People hate losing and they aren't used to it at TC. I for 1, and I'm sure others too, understand having a dip in talent and not being able to compete for a state title every year. But in the past, TC teams have outworked more talented teams, they didn't continuously lose the turnover battle, they didn't commit 8+ penalties in several games each season, and I believe several of the folks in town that want Blake out feel as if he is neglecting the history of the program. This is from a source that used to be extremely close to the program (not me lol), Blake gets out of school midday and the players show up and there is no practice plan or itinerary.  I also understand those that are on team Blake, when he has loads of talent, he wins. He does know football and he is a tremendous DC, and if the rumors are true then he will do great things. As for the board member issue, it is what it is, everyone that's true to the county know that and nothing has changed. I agree though that they should strive to make the facilities as good as we can. And as far as potential candidates, I agree there is very few options. West, Vetetoe (yes I know), and couple others that could have some interest. Whatever happens is massive for the program during a pivotal time before the next big wave of stars make their way through. 
    • McKenzie had no trouble with Huntingdon.  
    • Has BA landed any cornfed cowboys to block up front?
×
  • Create New...