The "Transfer Epidemic" Cause and Effect?

Army · Post by **Army** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:26 pm

gahs4ever wrote:So if a kid lives in say Chillicothe and his dad takes a job in Columbus...the kid sits? 100 miles is an arbitrary number dont you think?

Parochial schools have profited from the public schools in metro areas forever. How do you police that, and why would you want to try?

Have you ever noticed that all of the argument is about athletes who transfer? Ive never heard band directors on here yelling about losing tuba players to an adjoining district, or NHS members going to schools with better math or science depts.

At our school (like most others I would think), we've been on both sides of this argument. Over the years we've seen our share of kids transferring in, and in recent years the pipeline seems to be travelling one way out of town. No one has ever read one of my posts criticizing other schools for "recruiting" or lambasting them for needing "our kids" to win.

Transfers and their reasons for transferring are none of my business, and I try to keep it that way.

Good Post

Hopper 11 · Post by **Hopper 11** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:11 pm

That is what is wrong with sports today. It is all about (ME), not the team. These are team sports you are talking about not individual sports. Where has the school loyality went to. If a kid's parents move for employment reasons, that is totally different. Kids need to be loyal to thier school and coaches to thier kids. So when your school wins, it is your school not someones all star team.

db98 · Post by **db98** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:21 pm

I came out of the Columbus City League which has open enrollment through all of it's 16 high schools. What that district has become (first with bussing, then with OE) is a fractured community.

You don't drive down a columbus street and see yard signs for "go warriors" in every yard because one kid is a panther, another a bruin and so on.... It is not uncommon to go to a basketball game and have 30 paying fans for a "mid level team" game. Most boosters clubs have 15 or less members. It is not uncommon for brothers and sisters to play against each other in a league game.

IMHO open enrollment has done to Columbus what free agency has done to baseball, killed home town support and let a few good programs monopolize all the talent.

I heard an interview with Storm Klein where he talked about what it was like growing up playing football in Licking Valley. he said he remembered in middle school thinking how great it would be to play for his high school coach. His coach came to middle school games and talked up all the players. In Columbus, the coaches cannot talk to middle school athletes about sports because it is considered recruiting. The kids literally choose the coach and program they want to play for by what they see from the outside. I have seen athletes tell a coach in the middle of a game that they "have a better offer" at a rival school as they walk out of the gym.

Now how does this support the ideals of athletics? Athletics are supposed to teach kids teamwork, ethics, confidence, respect for authority, fair play, sportsmanship, etc..... This is not served when a kid sees athletics only as a business and not an activity to be enjoyed and learned from.

To paraphrase OHSAA Comissioner Dan Ross "High school athletics is not a minor league or feeder program for college or pro athletics"

It is time we start seeing athletics as less of a business and more of a learning experience. In today's world of the internet and instant video a kid that has enough talent to go to the next level will be discovered and recruited. They do not need to change programs to get noticed, in fact, sometimes it hurts them more to start over somewhere else.

BTW the kid with the "better offer" did transfer and was 3rd string their senior year at the new school.

bengalfan76 · Post by **bengalfan76** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:24 pm

Hopper what does a kid do when the coach takes a dislike to him based on his dislike of the players father? What is a kid to do when the district continues to hire undeserving and non qualified coaches to caoch the game based on their relationship to the administration. The kids only have on shot at High school and many on one shot at playing the game. should the kid just not play and stay at the school or move on? There are many reason why a kid chooses to leave his friends and go to a new school. It sometimes is the hardest thing a parent and players has to do.

Onthefence · Post by **Onthefence** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:32 pm

This may have already been brought up. However do you notice it is only certain athletes that get people upset when they transfer? I can't figure out why people don't get upset when some athletes transfer. However if their tailback (that set a school record his sophmore year) transfers, everyone is ready to burn him at the stake. I do think this issue should be policed better. I just don't think we should close the door completelly. There are acutally a few transfering for legitimate reasons...

falconflyer · Post by **falconflyer** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:38 pm

There should be a strict ban, enforcement, and punishment for indirect or direct recruiting. Anyone should be allowed to go anywhere at the end of the school year. Make your program good enough that your players want to be there.

db98 · Post by **db98** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:49 pm

There should be a strict ban, enforcement, and punishment for indirect or direct recruiting. Anyone should be allowed to go anywhere at the end of the school year. Make your program good enough that your players want to be there.

The problem there is that you have to define "indirect recruiting". Does that apply only to coaches or does it go out to school employees, parents, boosters, local business owners, etc....... I would like to hear your ideas on this though.

We've also got to remember we are talking about 13-18 year old kids who are attending school to get educated and prepared for life. I have found that you learn more from sticking through a tough situation than running from it.

caglewis · Post by **caglewis** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:05 am

We've also got to remember we are talking about 13-18 year old kids who are attending school to get educated and prepared for life. I have found that you learn more from sticking through a tough situation than running from it.

Make that same argument regarding adults and you would be saying that no one could ever change jobs to seek a better opportunity or to avoid harassment; no one could ever leave the community where they, their parents/grandparents, grew up without being labled "disloyal", and no one could ever choose to live anywhere else without being labeled an "outsider".
People make decisions to seek opportunities, to improve their situation, or to attempt to extricate themselves from bad situations all the time.
Those kinds of choices and decisions are considered "inalienable rights" or "smart and responsible" - indicative of "ambition" or "effort", for adults to make. Minor children do not legally have those same rights - they are at the mercy of their parents' choices [good or bad].
But shouldn't parents also have the right to "consider" ["cater to", "exploit", or "ignore", depending on your definition of their actions] their own children's welfare and best interests in making these decisions rather than being "locked in" by accident of birth or address to any one particular situation for life, no matter what, with no alternative choices permitted?

gahs4ever - I absolutely agree with everything you've said on this subject.
This subject never comes up in regard to academic or musical or artistic abilities and the potential opportunities offered by one particular school over another in those areas - only "athletics" is ever accused or meant by the term "recruiting". GOOD programs in any discipline, any area, make their mark, achieve recognition, and are in and of themselves "attractive".
On the college level, aren't certain schools particularly known for their "engineering" or "music" or "business" programs, as well as for their athletic achievements? Why shouldn't high school students [or their parents on their behalf] seek out - and have a choice about - the school that best fits, and provides the best foundation for their needs and talents?

fbsb fan · Post by **fbsb fan** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:04 am

hawkeye, just to let you know, the ray family did MOVE to Chillicothe. They moved for various reasons. His mother has worked there for 6 years and his dad now works in Columbus. Perhaps you may want to explain why some of the boys left for basketball. When families actually move the kids should not be penalized by sitting out a year.

db98 · Post by **db98** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:01 am

When families actually move the kids should not be penalized by sitting out a year.

I absolutely agree with this.

Cag, I have no problem with adults moving to better their life (otherwise most of us would still be in Europe) , but this forum is dedicated to athletics. 3% of high school senior athletes in most sports will have the opportunity to play at the collegiate level, 1.5% will receive some sort of scholarship. Far fewer than that will go on to a professional sport. If you move or transfer a kid for athletic reasons that is not in that top 1-3% what have you accomplished? You may have bettered their athletic experience, but couldn't they have enjoyed the sport playing rec ball just as much? I would say the same thing about transfers for band, drama, math, etc...

There are too many parents that are now willing to parade their kid from one district to another in the hopes of getting a scholarship or winning a championship. I'm not saying you need to be locked into a school from birth, but in most cases changing schools hurts more than it helps.

Transfers should be reserved for those who are being physically or mentally abused, or are being academically failed by their school Extracurricular activities should not be a valid reason to transfer.

But hey, I am open minded, so if anyone has good arguments I'll listen.

Post by **Orange and Brown** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:32 am

I agree with that one but if the OHSAA starts making more rules concernning transfering then I beleave that there will be a hole lotta problems. If a school goes pay to play, should the parent be allowed to transfer there kid? If jr wants to move in with dad can he play sports now. so on and so on...... There are a lot of reseons that do have to do with sports. where do you draw the line.

eagles73Taylor · Post by **eagles73Taylor** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:47 am

Open enrollment might have been started for educational purposes, better schools with better academics transfer. However, they quickly turned into the private versus public sports debate. Parochial schools for years had the ability to take in whomever they wanted from whatever district as long as the parent could pay and get them there. Now public school kids can transfer wherever they want as long as there districts touch. It evened the playing field for kids wanting different oppurtunities.

I bet if you look back at the program you follow you will find where transfers helped you and hurt you. Do some programs really gain, sure but they are playing by the rules.

Post by **Orange and Brown** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:51 am

The times they are a changin'. I guess you can't blame a kid for playing within rules made by adults.

falconflyer · Post by **falconflyer** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:07 am

The answer to indirect recruiting is if it can be traced back to a shool employee. To police transfers it takes superintendents with the guts to ask OSHAA to investigate. The best I can tell none have the guts to do it because they don't want to offend the other school and they are afraid of what might be learned.

Post by **Orange and Brown** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:12 am

It has gotten to the point where it is rutine so now school admin. don't really give it a second thought. I don't think its about not wanting to police it. Most schools have an everybody does it attitude so its OK.

caglewis · Post by **caglewis** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:46 am

db98 wrote:
When families actually move the kids should not be penalized by sitting out a year.

I absolutely agree with this.

Cag, I have no problem with adults moving to better their life (otherwise most of us would still be in Europe) , but this forum is dedicated to athletics. 3% of high school senior athletes in most sports will have the opportunity to play at the collegiate level, 1.5% will receive some sort of scholarship. Far fewer than that will go on to a professional sport. If you move or transfer a kid for athletic reasons that is not in that top 1-3% what have you accomplished? You may have bettered their athletic experience, but couldn't they have enjoyed the sport playing rec ball just as much? I would say the same thing about transfers for band, drama, math, etc...

There are too many parents that are now willing to parade their kid from one district to another in the hopes of getting a scholarship or winning a championship. I'm not saying you need to be locked into a school from birth, but in most cases changing schools hurts more than it helps.

Transfers should be reserved for those who are being physically or mentally abused, or are being academically failed by their school Extracurricular activities should not be a valid reason to transfer.

But hey, I am open minded, so if anyone has good arguments I'll listen.

OK - wrong sport, wrong forum - but take the case of O.J. Mayo.
I know nothing [and have no connection] personally to him, his family or their decisions.
But can anyone say that his multiple "transfer" decisions harmed him?
I know, I know - he falls in that upper fractional percent of exceptionally talented [in any category] kids.
But when rules are made specifically to restrict the choices of those kinds of kids, the "law of unintended consequences" will somehow end up making the decisions of many other kids [and their parents] much more difficult or seriously reduce/eliminate their choices altogether.
I recognize the problem and understand the need for rules and standards; but why do they always end up penalizing the wrong people?

Post by **Orange and Brown** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:50 am

so true. and it always seems to hurt the ones without money