Bill to prohibit UIL from penalizing athletic transfer kids

Postman said:
It's a no for me. To much of this already going on. We have schools that have over half their students coming from other school districts as it is.
Click to expand...
Without transfers, some schools would have to close their doors. However, many of those start moving students in when they are in middle or elementary school. They manage to keep their high school enrollment below 105 and have successful athletic and academic programs that keep their good athletes in their school. Occasionally, a high school student may move to the larger city that typically feeds School A's source of transfers. That student may enroll in School B without prior knowledge of what kind of academic or athletic environment they are getting into and maybe they are not good enough to get to play or get a proper education. So for some of the same reasons that many who support school choice, they should be able to transfer without punishment.

Alternatively, lets say there is an 11th grade student at School A that is a potential DI college prospect as an offensive or defensive lineman. That student may decide that School C provides a better academic and athletic program that would help meet his goals to become a true DI prospect. Why restrict him to Sixman football? Freedom to let parents decide what is best for their student/athlete can create competition for schools to offer better programs.
 
Recruiting seems to be an issue already. This would open it up. Even more I do not think it is a good idea for that reason. I understand some kids move because of split parents and things like that that the uil punishes. But to allow teams to stack up seems like a bad idea.
 
About 20 years ago UIL spoke at the sixman coaches clinic as they do every year. The UIL representative spoke on a topic somewhat similar to the bill proposed. The UIL told us that Florida( I might be wrong on the state) at the time were allowing student athletes to transfer from school to school for sports. Kids were transferring to schools that were successful each time one season ended football, basketball, baseball, track etc. UIL also said that many of the crowds at games diminished because of this. A bill like this is creating a non loyal environment with kids and the schools they attend. If this bill does pass I believe it will eventually lead to another bill in the future that will allow student athletes transfer from school to school with no repercussions, whenever they like, (under the disguise of school choice). Look at the Portal that was created for college. Good example.
 
Tom Duncan said:
Without transfers, some schools would have to close their doors. However, many of those start moving students in when they are in middle or elementary school. They manage to keep their high school enrollment below 105 and have successful athletic and academic programs that keep their good athletes in their school. Occasionally, a high school student may move to the larger city that typically feeds School A's source of transfers. That student may enroll in School B without prior knowledge of what kind of academic or athletic environment they are getting into and maybe they are not good enough to get to play or get a proper education. So for some of the same reasons that many who support school choice, they should be able to transfer without punishment.

Alternatively, lets say there is an 11th grade student at School A that is a potential DI college prospect as an offensive or defensive lineman. That student may decide that School C provides a better academic and athletic program that would help meet his goals to become a true DI prospect. Why restrict him to Sixman football? Freedom to let parents decide what is best for their student/athlete can create competition for schools to offer better programs.
Click to expand...
Agree on the first paragraph. Your second paragraph sounds like gov. abbott. Parents can decide, but if they transfer to another district, then they need to sit a year. If they move into that district, and can prove it wasn't for athletic purposes, then it's all good. I have no problem with the rule as it is. Families can choose to send their kids wherever they want, they just need to understand the consequences and live with it. Rules apply regardless if the kid is a "potential D1 athlete" or not.
 
She's a liberal and represents one of the largest school districts in 6A, Converse Judson. I find it ironic that she represents a school that has been investigated and punished for this in the past.
 
I am more open to this that I thought, especially after the personal stuff I had to go through this year. Also, this is going to be long and probably rambling. Sorry.

The bill would allow for a one-time transfer. After that, you must sit out a year.

Why I think this may be OK
It is really hard to prove that someone was recruited or why they moved and why they transferred. I know we all like to think we know (if it quacks like a duck...), but the reality is that there are many factors that could play into a transfer and/or move. Unless you are part of the family, you just don't know. I feel like it puts the UIL in a real tough position and many times they make the wrong one. The system is not fair as it stands. Not all DEC are created equal and the waiver process has something like a <5% acceptance rate. Just because a kid is a good athlete doesn't mean they transfer for athletic reasons.

Now I will admit, this probably sits different in cities vs. Class A school, but the reality is that the UIL has to have one set of rules and they do not always help student athletes.

People move and change schools. If you give the one-time transfer, you get rid of a lot of politics and good kids getting hosed.

Especially in cities, families must move. Most of the time it's due to economics. My son has a friend whose family was forced out of their house due to rising rents. They had to move further out of town and transfer. Ended up at a rival school. Now they have to explain to the schools/UIL their economic situation. Honestly, it is none of their GD business. Both kids in the family have been qualifying for regionals and state since freshman year. Had to compete as JV until cleared up. Not good for anyone.

Another went to a magnet school in middle school, then didn't go to either his local high school, nor the magnet high school. He went to a school in the same school district that had a specific honors program (aka he went for ACADEMICS). He was denied. This kid was an solid athlete and due to his family not really knowing their rights and the coaches being new and not wanting to rock the boat, he was on the JV all season winning every race he entered and missed an entire varsity season. The story gets worse. After the fall season, the kid starts feeling poorly. Goes to the doctor. He has Leukemia. He missed his only chance to compete in varsity in high school because of some stupid rules and lazy adults who interpreted them.

I personally had to go through a bunch of BS after my son transferred this past semester after his first semester of his freshman year. We didn't want to do it, but had to for his own mental health. Kid made straight A's and won the varsity 5A district XC meet, but was not doing well for other reasons. Needed to transfer. Got immediately denied varsity eligibility. He moved from 5A to 6A and our local school, three blocks away from our house. He had to go through the waiver process and share a lot of personal stuff that should be no business of UIL and the DEC. I won't get into the details, but despite the support of a counselor and coaches, an administrator on the campus he was leaving refused to support us in any written manner. We had to pay $100 and just wait for a decision. As a parent I have never been more angry at the UIL. Thankfully we were one of the <5%, but I had a lot of sleepless nights as we just waited.

This episode placed me in the shoes of parents whose kids MAY have transferred for athletic purposes, but I recognized there are also other factors as a parent. Sure your kid may want to play for a certain coach or a certain team. Why not just move schools? Maybe the coach is an a-hole or your kid is a basketball player at a school where the coach isn't any good. Why not move to provide opportunity and happiness? The reality is families do this all the time, but some DEC let it slide while others don't. Providing some rails (i.e., one free change) allows the field to be level to all.

I know a basketball kid whose family moved across town and into a different apartment just so the kid could play basketball at a better school. Everyone knew he was a D1 prospect and the DEC approved the kid to play varsity immediately as a sophomore. No questions asked. Why? Who knows? Some DEC just allow this sort of thing back and forth. If you don't question mine, I won't question yours. Happens all of the time.


Why NOT to compare this to the NCAA Transfer Portal as it exists today
The bottom line is college kids need to be allowed to transfer. If coaches can leave, why not the kids? The kids make that decision when they are 17 and believe it or not, we all make dumb decisions at that age. Maybe the school wasn't the right fit. Maybe a family member gets sick and you need to be closer to home. Maybe the coach changes your scholarship amount. The NCAA has been like the UIL is allowing some, but not all.

The Transfer Portal has made it fair for all.

The problem with the transfer portal if the lack of enforcement AFTER the one-time transfer. The NCAA is beginning to tighten this up, but was reluctant in the beginning.

It also appears to look bad because you are also allowed a grad transfer year AFTER your one free transfer, which is completely acceptable. You have your degree. You have eligibility. Why not go somewhere different and get another degree?

The problem is that with all of the extra COVID years of eligibility, this has ballooned. Thankfully, the final year those kids have is next year. Afterwards, that will all start to look normal.... hopefully.

Lots of rambling here... just not sure this bill is a horrible idea. Four years ago, I probably would be on the other side. Change is needed.
 
What I do not understand is why the final say goes through austin every time. Up here in the panhandle we are mostly rural and things get tricky with jobs and I bring up split divorced parents a lot because sometimes it's just temporary to live with the other parent.. if we had a rep per region. And the district OKs the kid because they know the deal. Then it moves up to let's say region 16 and they ok it. It should be a done deal.. but even when the district sees no issue and all schools agree the kid is not transferring for sports then Austin still says no that is when it is frustrating.. but to ok this bill I really believe we will go back to the 1950s days of recruiting and stacking teams.. sorry for the long rant. You are still the man granger
 
I could live with the rules remaining as is for transferring, residence, etc with the following change:

1 move without question between first instructional day of 8th grade through last instructional day of 9th grade. Any other move after freshman year or after the first move, keep as the same.

I do believe that in the instance of rising housing costs, it is a real issue & I don't believe it's unreasonable for the UIL to require documentation of the situation under the current rules. If the documentation checks out, it should be an automatic yes to eligibility.
 
I have read some good reasons to change the UIL rule on transfers but the best way to prevent the stacking of talent at any particular school would be to allow only two penalty free varsity transfers each year into any school varsity program. Only allow two players to transfer into any varsity sport and maybe have a ceiling on the total number of transfers per total sports and calendar year. First come, first served. Everyone else has to sit out the year to play on that program the following year. If the UIL allows the "Our rent went Up" excuse, every Tom, Dick and Harry will be claiming that and will have chaos in many metropolitan areas. Underlying cause is many athletes think they of themselves as exceptional athletes in this day and time. A good education is seldom mentioned.
 
coach_jshelton said:
I could live with the rules remaining as is for transferring, residence, etc with the following change:

1 move without question between first instructional day of 8th grade through last instructional day of 9th grade. Any other move after freshman year or after the first move, keep as the same.

I do believe that in the instance of rising housing costs, it is a real issue & I don't believe it's unreasonable for the UIL to require documentation of the situation under the current rules. If the documentation checks out, it should be an automatic yes to eligibility.
Click to expand...
The issue with tying it to first/last instructional day is that some schools actually have instruction to the final day. Some larger districts do not allow in-district transfers on the last week of a semester. Also school calendars don't match up across the state. Little things like that. If you did that, you would have to add like a 15-day window (and include the summer).

My issue with the housing issue, etc is that it shouldn't have to be public to the UIL. Simple as that. It is none of their business. It's not the school's business. If I want/need to move my child, here's my proof of residency and one shot.
 
Coaches are the issue hear, they always act like nothing happened, they move around like crazy and attract students to other towns, funny how no rules are in place for coaches kids, rules should apply for every student regardless if there parents teach or coach, it would slow down carousel as well, schools need to work better contracts for there teachers and coaches
 
6-Man King said:
Coaches are the issue hear, they always act like nothing happened, they move around like crazy and attract students to other towns, funny how no rules are in place for coaches kids, rules should apply for every student regardless if there parents teach or coach, it would slow down carousel as well, schools need to work better contracts for there teachers and coaches
Click to expand...
You have made a very good point. Some of that ring chasing steps on more than just a few toes. Coaches hopping corresponds to students hopping. Curious to where the carousel ends this season.
 
6-Man King said:
Coaches are the issue hear, they always act like nothing happened, they move around like crazy and attract students to other towns, funny how no rules are in place for coaches kids, rules should apply for every student regardless if there parents teach or coach, it would slow down carousel as well, schools need to work better contracts for there teachers and coaches
Click to expand...

Texlonghorn75 said:
You have made a very good point. Some of that ring chasing steps on more than just a few toes. Coaches hopping corresponds to students hopping. Curious to where the carousel ends this season.
Click to expand...

This bill is about kids that move for athletic reasons. Dad getting a new job at a different school isn't that. Can't punish the kid because dad got a new job. What's he supposed to do? Get his own place and a job and live there while dad moves to another town?
 
TheEqualizer said:
This bill is about kids that move for athletic reasons. Dad getting a new job at a different school isn't that. Can't punish the kid because dad got a new job. What's he supposed to do? Get his own place and a job and live there while dad moves to another town?
Click to expand...
No sir, he should have to sit out one year of varsity just like any other player that moves for athletic reasons.
 
Back
Top