Let's Make a Difference: Advocate for Equitable High School Sports Policies

[Letkidshoop]

Dear NorCalPreps Community,

It's time to take a closer look at the transfer policies affecting high school sports across the North Coast Section (NCS), Central Coast Section (CCS), Oakland Section, San Francisco Section, and San-Joaquin Section. These policies impact all our student-athletes, boys and girls alike, creating barriers that limit their ability to compete, grow, and achieve their full potential.

A United Effort for Change

The restrictive nature of these policies doesn't just affect individual athletes; it challenges the very essence of high school sports. Our goal is to ensure every student-athlete, regardless of their sport or background, has equitable opportunities to succeed and showcase their talents.

Your Stories Are Key

The power of personal experience cannot be overstated. Whether you've been directly impacted by these policies or have seen their effects on others, your story is a vital piece of the puzzle. By sharing your journey, you highlight the need for a more supportive and fair system for all.

How to Help

We're looking to gather experiences from across the board — missed opportunities, navigating complex rules, or any other challenges these policies have presented. Your insight is crucial in painting a comprehensive picture of how these rules affect our student-athletes on and off the field.

Let's unite our voices for a cause that matters. Share your experience, and let's work towards creating a more inclusive and fair environment for high school sports.

Share your story, and be part of the change we all wish to see.
Email : Letkidshoop@gmail.com
Twitter : @Letkidshoop

 

[ClayK]

100% behind this. Let me know how I can help.

 

[bunnyhopninja]

I assume this relates to undue influence and sit out periods?

 

[ClayK]

To me, it's about the fact coaches and ADs can switch schools because they feel it's a better situation and be eligible immediately. Students, however -- the people the system is supposed to serve -- cannot.

When coaches and administrators have to sit due to undue influence (being offered a job while presently employed, or coaching in a club team with other coaches from a different school), then players can sit too.

 

[bunnyhopninja]

Interesting point. Playing devil’s advocate—the system is supposed to “protect” students, not “serve” students. Are we serving students by letting schools or coaches recruit them? Are we serving the student athletes of not so good teams by letting star players be recruited away?

 

[Streak One]

I think there should be free movement of players with the bar being the same as a regular student who changes schools.

And then an education on challenges of chagning schools in terms of social, eligibility, etc.

 

[becoolpt55]

Interesting point. Playing devil’s advocate—the system is supposed to “protect” students, not “serve” students. Are we serving students by letting schools or coaches recruit them? Are we serving the student athletes of not so good teams by letting star players be recruited aw

Oohhh no I see a Sue discussion on the horizon

 

[ClayK]

Do we feel that people are not intelligent enough to understand the motivations of those who try to sell us things, or, in this case, encourage a student's family to transfer? Sure, people will make bad decisions, but how is recruiting someone necessarily bad for them? If you get approached by someone offering you a job, would you rather know or not know? Should we prevent principals from reaching out to athletic directors when there's a job opening? Should we prevent ADs from reaching out to coaches when there's a job opening?

And as for the students who remain, they too have the option to stay or go if it makes sense for them. The point here is that families should be able to make the decisions they feel are best for the family, and not have those choices artificially restrained by a bureaucratic rulebook. If a coach feels his or her family is better served by moving to a new school he has been recruited to, he or she can make that choice without losing a significant percentage of his opportunity to coach. A student, though, cannot make that same choice.

And at the same time, a student who has been recruited for debate or drama or band does not face similar restrictions. Why are athletes singled out?

A longer discussion: https://newsbreakapp.onelink.me/211...//www.newsbreak.com/af-landing?docid=0prk3vBG

 

[northbaybbguru]

I've been saying it for years that it makes absolutely ZERO SENSE that the rules aren't the same in all sections. (For example) An athlete in the Southern section has a minimal or no sit out while the same in NCS may have to sit a year based on the commissioner's beliefs. Each section is different yet in the end everyone has to eventually play each other so how can the parameters be so different?

Level playing field is all I ask. The CIF needs to put out standards for the state and not leave it to the sections. I just don't understand how this is not the way it is?

 

[ClayK]

The CIF, sadly, is a federation, not an association. Rules are set by votes of the schools across the state, and regional power is seldom given up easily. In most states, the central authority is the only authority, but California is different.

A few years ago, they vowed to get the sections to agree on two things: 1) A common start date for the beginning of basketball practice; and 2) a basketball game limit for all schools. The first seems blindingly obvious to level the playing field, but nothing could be agreed on. Some wanted practice to start earlier, others later -- but no one could agree on what should be a very simple proposal. Same with the second.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Oohhh no I see a Sue discussion on the horizon

normally i can't stand your posts, but this one was VERY Funny!

 

[Marcskit]

Do we feel that people are not intelligent enough to understand the motivations of those who try to sell us things, or, in this case, encourage a student's family to transfer? Sure, people will make bad decisions, but how is recruiting someone necessarily bad for them? If you get approached by someone offering you a job, would you rather know or not know? Should we prevent principals from reaching out to athletic directors when there's a job opening? Should we prevent ADs from reaching out to coaches when there's a job opening?

And as for the students who remain, they too have the option to stay or go if it makes sense for them. The point here is that families should be able to make the decisions they feel are best for the family, and not have those choices artificially restrained by a bureaucratic rulebook. If a coach feels his or her family is better served by moving to a new school he has been recruited to, he or she can make that choice without losing a significant percentage of his opportunity to coach. A student, though, cannot make that same choice.

And at the same time, a student who has been recruited for debate or drama or band does not face similar restrictions. Why are athletes singled out?

A longer discussion: https://newsbreakapp.onelink.me/2115408369?pid=mp_1371923&msource=mp_1371923&docid=0prk3vBG&af_dp=newsbreak://opendoc?docid=0prk3vBG&af_web_dp=https://www.newsbreak.com/af-landing?docid=0prk3vBG

PEOPLE !, PEOPLE,! PEOPLE!
Again, look at the rules!!!!

PLAYING SPORTS ARE A PRIVALIGE !!! THEY ARE NOT A RIGHT !!!

That is the CIF statement. You do" NOT " have the right to do whatever you want. Things have disolved to the current state, true.
I personally would limit things to play in your district, that's it.

Here's wishing you great hoops

 

[bunnyhopninja]

Getting out my popcorn.

 

[northbaybbguru]

Another issue...

The commissioners of the sections are the judge, jury and executioners.... they answer to no one. So even if the commissioner is flat out wrong in his decision there is no way to appeal it.

Heaven forbid u get a commissioner with a grudge or agenda.... you're fuc*ed

 

[northbaybbguru]

In case anyone needs an example of an "agenda" by a commissioner.

How about a commissioner trying to push through competitive equity at the section playoff level. THE SECTION VOTES IT DOWN! Yet he still does it.....

Agenda...

 

[WivitBear]

In case anyone needs an example of an "agenda" by a commissioner.

How about a commissioner trying to push through competitive equity at the section playoff level. THE SECTION VOTES IT DOWN! Yet he still does it.....

Agenda...

If we can't keep the girls at our school, then i should have the option of paying my taxes to build a gym at the school where I live.

 

[ClayK]

Transferring to a school to further your ambitions, in whatever area, is not precisely "doing what you want."

Playing in the band is a privilege -- but you can go to a different district and not sit out a year. Being in a play is a privilege -- but you can go to a different district and still get on stage right away.

What is the difference in those activities?

And of course, coaches don't have to live in the district or teach at the school. Would you limit coaches to those who teach and/or live in the district?

 

[bb-hoops]

Transfers, all families should have a choice. That chance comes when they are entering high school as a freshmen, big decision for most. Option #1 you make your decision entering high school and that's your choice. How about teaching some life lessons to our kids and instead of running from an issue or problem, coach, playing time, don't like my team, not good enough all things parents and players need to consider before their onetime decision. It's not right for parents/players to be jumping all over from high school to high school looking for the right fit. Option #2 give the families a onetime chance to transfer after their freshman year. To compare coaches or real life employment leaving and not having to sit out in my opinion not apples to apples. If you want to to transfer after your sophomore year you sit one year. This would eliminate juniors from transferring. Thoughts?

 

[ClayK]

Life lessons -- so you take a job and never leave it? You marry someone and never divorce, no matter how bad the situation? You grow up in a town and don't ever move, regardless of opportunities elsewhere?

Granted, people need to stick with their choices up to a certain point, but let's remember that for most high school athletes, they have a three-year varsity career. So they can't just wait around and hope that things will get better a year or two down the road because they don't have time.

You can stick with a bad job for a couple years before moving on because your working life is 40 years or so. You can try to make a relationship work for a year or so because you have plenty of time to find a better one.

That is not true of a high school athlete. (And yet the coach, who can coach for 40 years, doesn't have to sit out when transferring. What's the justification for that? Love to get an answer to that question but I'm guessing I won't.)

 

[bunnyhopninja]

ClayK—should private schools be allowed to offer scholarships to athletes to entice them to transfer?

 

[Marcskit]

Transferring to a school to further your ambitions, in whatever area, is not precisely "doing what you want."

Playing in the band is a privilege -- but you can go to a different district and not sit out a year. Being in a play is a privilege -- but you can go to a different district and still get on stage right away.

What is the difference in those activities?

And of course, coaches don't have to live in the district or teach at the school. Would you limit coaches to those who teach and/or live in the district?

Teacher's are not student's. World of difference.

Here's wishing you great hoops

 

[ClayK]

>Teachers are not students. World of difference.

Of course there's a difference, but I'm not sure the difference justifies the artificial restraint of movement. Just because a person is not officially an adult does not mean they should have no rights or privileges. Why precisely should students be denied the right to change schools when teachers and, more to the point, coaches are allowed to?

>Should private schools be allowed to offer scholarships to athletes to entice them to transfer?

Of course. Private schools are a business, and successful athletic teams can be part of marketing for those businesses. Public schools will pay as much as they feel they can afford for administrators, and will try to pay teachers and classified employees as much as they can afford in order to attract students (which is how public schools are funded).

We live in a capitalist society, and to deny a young person the opportunity to attend a private school at no cost is at odds with the capitalist ethos. If someone's willing to pay you, you should be able to take the money.

 

[bb-hoops]

Answer, like i said Clay i don’t believe we are comparing apples to apples, i understand your examples, however, can we really compare high school kids to adults lively hood. Your examples; jobs and marriages are a bit dramatic. So you’re in favor of allowing transfers to come and go whenever something isn't going right for them. The transfer thing is what cause the equity of play to be so far apart. My post is for ideas and dialogue.

 

[MC415]

If you want a mercenary paid league than just have a separate division for mercenary academies and let the publics play with others who can’t pay mercenaries to arm their teams……….i like the one time no sit out transfer idea, yeah u can switch jobs and divorce as many times as u want but at some point that is occurring because you’re making really bad decisions if that’s a constant in your life

 

[ClayK]

Yes, I am in favor of allowing transfers at the start of each school year, with no restrictions.

And my point about "quitting" is that deciding a situation isn't right for you isn't a character flaw -- especially if your window of opportunity is very small. Having a horrible coach in a horrible program is not something that young people should be required to suffer through in the name of building their character. They should be allowed to enjoy their brief time as athletes (or drama students or whatever) as best they can. And again, why is it only athletes who are restricted? Why is it OK for a debater to change schools without penalty?

Finally, there are, always have been and always will be huge gaps in competitive equity. The most dominant athletic dynasties in high school sports -- including De La Salle -- all happened before transfers were allowed. High school sports have always have big-time powers that dominated a league, and teams in all sports that were horrid for years. Transfers may impact the degree of difference between top and bottom, but why is that a justification for preventing a student and family from transferring? And some schools have great choirs, and children will go to those schools to sing. Other schools have awful choirs, so should a potentially fine singer lose the opportunity to develop his or her voice because one choir is too much better than the other?

 

[ClayK]

If you want a mercenary paid league than just have a separate division for mercenary academies and let the publics play with others who can’t pay mercenaries to arm their teams……….i like the one time no sit out transfer idea, yeah u can switch jobs and divorce as many times as u want but at some point that is occurring because you’re making really bad decisions if that’s a constant in your life

You might want to ask around and see how much public school parents pay their football coaches. The numbers are pretty surprising. (There's a reason some coaches bounce around a lot ...)

To imagine that successful public schools are not mercenary is to ignore reality. One wonders, for example, how the Paris twins were able to afford to move from Modesto and live in Piedmont (a public school). And Miramonte (a public school) had running backs from Richmond for years.

 

[MC415]

You might want to ask around and see how much public school parents pay their football coaches. The numbers are pretty surprising. (There's a reason some coaches bounce around a lot ...)

To imagine that successful public schools are not mercenary is to ignore reality. One wonders, for example, how the Paris twins were able to afford to move from Modesto and live in Piedmont (a public school). And Miramonte (a public school) had running backs from Richmond for years.

You’re making my point exactly, the transfer mercenaries who amass teams which is pretty few and far between get placed in the Public Open, problems solved

The privates who are much well armed and deeper in California have a several loaded mercenary divisions and they play each other, another amazing solution

 

[bb-hoops]

You are going way to far Clay this is high school sports and it needs policy, rules, procedures. I get it and respect the fact of working for peoples rights. These transfers are what builds these powerhouse programs. Let’s face it, players who will be successful at the next level of play are usually going to be successful if they transfer or not. It feels like you just want to debate the subject and not come up with a solution. Should we let it go and have no transfer rules. And look for another solution to the equity of play. Do you like any of the early ideas of sitting out?

 

[ClayK]

I do not see why a high school student cannot transfer to another school and be immediately eligible.

I see no reason why policies, rules and procedures are in place for athletics and not for other extracurricular activities.

I see no reason why families should not be able to make choices on what they feel is best for their child.

I see no reason why coaches can "transfer" with no penalty but players cannot.

I see no difference in dominant teams or programs now and before transfers were allowed (De La Salle football is Exhibit A).

All I see is adults setting rules that deny children the right to participate in a selected extracurricular activity with no justification except an undefined concept of "competition" that has no basis in historical results.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Transferring to a school to further your ambitions, in whatever area, is not precisely "doing what you want."

Playing in the band is a privilege -- but you can go to a different district and not sit out a year. Being in a play is a privilege -- but you can go to a different district and still get on stage right away.

What is the difference in those activities?

And of course, coaches don't have to live in the district or teach at the school. Would you limit coaches to those who teach and/or live in the district?

I'll play devil's advocate. The band is an academic class that has afterschool performances. Very few schools (the southern section excluded) have basketball classes provided during the school day and are extra-curricular activities. In a lot of high school bands, they get academic grades or elective credit. At most schools, Band teachers are full or part-time employees that are faculty, pay in to PERS, and eligible for insurance. Coaches are part-time stipend employees that are "seasonal".

Both band and basketball/athletics serve the student body but one is academic and the other is not.

 

[observer22]

One wonders, for example, how the Paris twins were able to afford to move from Modesto and live in Piedmont (a public school).

Who wonders this? Their dad was a professional athlete making plenty of money to be able to facilitate such a move.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

I do not see why a high school student cannot transfer to another school and be immediately eligible.

I see no reason why policies, rules and procedures are in place for athletics and not for other extracurricular activities.

I see no reason why families should not be able to make choices on what they feel is best for their child.

I see no reason why coaches can "transfer" with no penalty but players cannot.

I see no difference in dominant teams or programs now and before transfers were allowed (De La Salle football is Exhibit A).

All I see is adults setting rules that deny children the right to participate in a selected extracurricular activity with no justification except an undefined concept of "competition" that has no basis in historical results.

what people forget, teachers, principals, AD's, and coaches are PROFESSIONALS. They (most) had to go to school, earn a degree, and go through certain training and their livelihood depends on work. They're adults and can make adult decisions about their life. parents could also make life-altering decisions about their kids' future but we both know that there are stupid parents who are impressionable and easily persuaded. Im on the fence with this topic but in keeping the game somewhat untarnished, I would slightly vote for keeping it the way it is.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Who wonders this? Their dad was a professional athlete making plenty of money to be able to facilitate such a move.

Dad had little to do with it. One of the parents on the team basically financed the entire thing. Charged them 400 dollars a month rent in a Piedmont mansion.

 

[northbaybbguru]

I agree there should be no transfer sit outs at all...let the families decide whats best for the kids.

What about undue influence stuff though? For instance what if an alumni/administrator/coach from a rival school went to a power 5 stud from a school in Norcal and gave her an offer she couldn't refuse? (For example.. a million$ to transfer to their school ?)... How would u police that? Or would that be fair game?

 

[northbaybbguru]

Question for the board?

Is cheerleadering now considered a "sport" in high school? I'm pretty sure it is in college.

Cause it occurs to me if it is..then if a cheerleader transfers schools does that sitout apply to her/him also?

 

[UncleYacht]

It's 2024, transfers should be allowed from a different block, mile, town, city, county, state, country and continent. Let's get with the times!

 

[Letkidshoop]

100% behind this. Let me know how I can help

100% behind this. Let me know how I can help.

We need as many stories as possible!

 

[ClayK]

It's one thing to write them. It's another to get them seen.

 

[Letkidshoop]

Interesting point. Playing devil’s advocate—the system is supposed to “protect” students, not “serve” students. Are we serving students by letting schools or coaches recruit them? Are we serving the student athletes of not so good teams by letting star players be recruited away?

Interesting point. Playing devil’s advocate—the system is supposed to “protect” students, not “serve” students. Are we serving students by letting schools or coaches recruit them? Are we serving the student athletes of not so good teams by letting star players be recruited away?

While the intention behind the current system’s design is to “protect” students from potentially exploitative recruitment practices, it’s essential to reevaluate whether these protections inadvertently hinder rather than help student-athletes. The argument that the system is there to protect implies a defensive stance, but education and athletics should also be about empowerment and opportunity.

Firstly, preventing schools or coaches from recruiting doesn’t necessarily serve students’ best interests. It assumes that all recruitment is predatory, ignoring that it can also represent life-changing opportunities for growth, exposure, and scholarships for many athletes. A more nuanced approach could distinguish between exploitative practices and genuine opportunities, ensuring athletes are both protected and served.

Secondly, the concern about “serving the student-athletes of not so good teams” by retaining star players overlooks the broader educational value of athletics. The focus should not solely be on team success but on each athlete’s development, well-being, and future prospects. Holding back talented individuals for the sake of team balance does a disservice to the athletes who have the potential to excel and achieve more in environments better suited to their skills and aspirations.

Moreover, implementing more flexible policies could encourage schools to enhance their athletic programs and support structures, fostering a more competitive and enriching environment for all student-athletes. This approach would shift the focus from preventing movement to improving quality and access across the board, ultimately benefiting a wider range of students.

While the intention to protect students is valid, the execution through restrictive transfer policies may not serve the best interests of student-athletes. A balanced approach that protects students from genuine exploitation while supporting their right to seek better opportunities could better serve student-athletes, promoting fairness, development, and equity in high school sports.

 

[Letkidshoop]

I think there should be free movement of players with the bar being the same as a regular student who changes schools.

And then an education on challenges of chagning schools in terms of social, eligibility, etc.

Agreed! Kids who play intstruments, do theater or art don‘t have to sit out of these activities! Why should atheltes??