Open transfer season in Southern Section
- Thread starter jaymel911
- Start date
While I think unequal application of transfer rules brought these changes about, I do not totally agree with this result. I think transfers should not be made too easy. It is not in the best interest of most student athletes. It might encourage to many not well thought out decisions. We don't want to regress to players changing teams every year. I do think it is a good idea that they are finally acknowledging that to some athletes an athletic program is as important as an academic one. It can make a difference in what college they have the opportunity to get a scholarship too. It might also be especially important to those that see a professional career in the future.
I don't know why players shouldn't change teams every year. Is there something intrinsically wrong with that? If the family thinks that's best, why should administrators and bureaucrats have the power to overrule the family in determining what's best for the child?
I don't mind players moving every year either. I think for most players it is a mistake, but that is for them and their families to decide.
Here is another article. Think the rule will be statewide
http://www.latimes.com/sports/highs...ncil-approves-major-1491603446-htmlstory.html
In the Norcal Open transfers is coming soon. CIF SJS AFTER LAW SUIT WILL BE THE SAME .Socal a parent sued the CIF for taking parents rights away right to take their child to another school. The judge rule Each parent have the right to change school when ever they want and they can participate in the same sport. This student also doesn't need a scholarship anymore because the VID IS pay for the child pain and suffering.
In the south soon in the north the handcuffs are off these kids from all the coaches that tell the player that they would have to sit all year if they leave. I think now the coaches will be like the NBA nice to the player before they get fired or the player transfers. So if a players want to transfer to a coach that can coach at their level of play!!!!
In the south soon in the north the handcuffs are off these kids from all the coaches that tell the player that they would have to sit all year if they leave. I think now the coaches will be like the NBA nice to the player before they get fired or the player transfers. So if a players want to transfer to a coach that can coach at their level of play!!!!
I'm sure all of the coaches are anxiously awaiting the newly emboldened parent demands based on this new rule. On the other hand, I'm guessing Sue Phillips is already drafting a statement telling the current parents that she will not be having any conversations with them about transfers, unless it is an explanation of why their daughter has already transferred. Just a guess though, as I have no connection to the Mitty program other than spectator.
What difference does it make? Coaches will have to adjust, just as they have from the time when they could scream at players and abuse them verbally with no consequences.
Good coaches will still be good coaches, and if a player moves on, oh well ... the young person is more important than a couple wins -- and that's the real point: How much difference does one player make in the win and loss total at the end of the season? Let's call it three, though that's actually a lot if you analyze it closely. So a team goes 17-10 instead of 20-7. Is that difference worth forcing a family to stay at a school they don't want to be at?
And 20 years from now, will anyone remember Ukiah's won-loss record this year? The players, though, will remember how they felt about their experience, and why is it necessary to force a player to go through an experience she doesn't want to go through?
Good coaches will still be good coaches, and if a player moves on, oh well ... the young person is more important than a couple wins -- and that's the real point: How much difference does one player make in the win and loss total at the end of the season? Let's call it three, though that's actually a lot if you analyze it closely. So a team goes 17-10 instead of 20-7. Is that difference worth forcing a family to stay at a school they don't want to be at?
And 20 years from now, will anyone remember Ukiah's won-loss record this year? The players, though, will remember how they felt about their experience, and why is it necessary to force a player to go through an experience she doesn't want to go through?
The biggest impact of the new rule will be public school will be eventually stronger than private school. Just think parents won't have to pay tuition to play for a good coach. The only way right now to play with the best is pay the private school. Players could choose a public school to make STRONG by 4 to 6 players transferring to the same school. Some public school will hire coaches that don't teach. There some school like that all ready. This transfer rule will change the look from private school being the STRONG to the public school STRONG.
This is another point that will happen to private school. These great players out will get paid to play. Think about greats players won't have to go to private where alumni pay for tuition. They would have to pay the player too or they will group up and make another public school stronger. Private school will have to pay the player to make them happy. No people won't know how they get paid just like people don't know now how tuition is paid buy alumni.
This is another point that will happen to private school. These great players out will get paid to play. Think about greats players won't have to go to private where alumni pay for tuition. They would have to pay the player too or they will group up and make another public school stronger. Private school will have to pay the player to make them happy. No people won't know how they get paid just like people don't know now how tuition is paid buy alumni.
I think you're wrong on just about every point. Public schools could mostly care less about having great sports teams, especially girls teams. Just a fact. And how many taxpayers are going to vote for higher parcel taxes so that their high school can have better sports teams? Zero. So the number of public schools willing to pay for better coaches, or pay a coach just to coach and not teach is incredibly small. And private schools paying high school players isn't going to happen in our lifetime either. I think your expectation of the general public's (and even the sports community's) interest in high school sports is bordering on delusional.
Southbay
It's already happening in high and have been for some time. Check economics of some of these kids that play for this private school. They would never at these school if some wasn't helping them pay their tuition. I can name about 10 public school that have hired coaches that don't teach.
Southbay do you remember the days when Independence High School was the best school in San Jose. New transfer rule will hurt the private schools just like it hurt Independence High School. Private school would have to pay more the tuition.
WILL THE MONEY PERSON FROM PRIVATE SCHOOL PAY THE PLAYERS SOME HOW???? Yes if the want the program to stay successful? There are many AAU coaches will take the stipend of $5000 to $10000 to coach to help them get to the next level which is college. There are a lot good AAU coaches that will take this school from being non competitive to State Champs.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THIS WILL YOU ARE CRAZY. AAU world the kids get paid by teams sending parents on flights and hotels on the AAU teams expense.
It's already happening in high and have been for some time. Check economics of some of these kids that play for this private school. They would never at these school if some wasn't helping them pay their tuition. I can name about 10 public school that have hired coaches that don't teach.
Southbay do you remember the days when Independence High School was the best school in San Jose. New transfer rule will hurt the private schools just like it hurt Independence High School. Private school would have to pay more the tuition.
WILL THE MONEY PERSON FROM PRIVATE SCHOOL PAY THE PLAYERS SOME HOW???? Yes if the want the program to stay successful? There are many AAU coaches will take the stipend of $5000 to $10000 to coach to help them get to the next level which is college. There are a lot good AAU coaches that will take this school from being non competitive to State Champs.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THIS WILL YOU ARE CRAZY. AAU world the kids get paid by teams sending parents on flights and hotels on the AAU teams expense.
I think it's a bad idea but understand both sides. Think of what would happen if the NCAA allowed open transfers? It would be utter chaos! My thing is what is it teaching the millenials today...if things are tough, leave every year? I think its setting up kids for long-term failure. A kid should be able to transfer one time and after that, it should only be if they moved residences. Clay, any word on if that's gonna happen here in Norcal? As they say, as the Southern Section does...everyone else follows lol
There's still the 30-day sitout period, though in the past there was a special section for players who transferred more than once.
But what's wrong with playing for two or three high schools? If that's what the family thinks best, who are we to say it isn't?
But what's wrong with playing for two or three high schools? If that's what the family thinks best, who are we to say it isn't?
So it sounds like if you transfer one time and play then transfer another you have to sit out at least 30 days and maybe the whole year based on this special section about transferring more than once that Clay is referring to? Or do we not know those details yet?
I would agree with RespectBB on this. Maybe not to the degree but generally speaking yes. If you are someone who does not think kids and families are being paid or receiving extremely reduced tuition rates at private schools already you are wearing blinders. It is an arms race for athletes at private schools and some schools are better equipped at making sure they get kids enrolled.
I agree that families are getting reduced tuition. Let's say the tuition is $15K for the year and the families income is $100K for the year. They aren't getting assistance. You might think so but it doesn't work like that. California isn't Texas. If the family is at $60-75K then they will get some assistance. As for paying players, be realistic. As someone said, it's girls basketball. Unless you are invested with your daughter, niece, granddaughter, girls basketball doesn't make the much of a splash in 90% of the populations eye. For example, I live in the Walnut Creek area and was at a sports bar watching UConn vs Oregon. As Sabrina is shooting free throws they put on the screen her hometown of Walnut Creek. I was in Walnut Creek and people had no idea who she was. The chatter was who is she? Did she go to Las Lomas or Northgate? Go to Walnut Creek and ask people if they have heard of her. Then go to Oakland and ask if they have heard of Ivan Rabb. I coached both boys and girls, and I will say the girls get short changed. So no one is going to be paying families so their daughter will go to a school to win basketball games. People will only give money when they can make money in return.
I will say that if it comes down to an athlete and just another student, they will give it to the athlete. I've seen that happen but only on the boys side and usually it's football.
Sorry Coach, but your information is outdated. A lot of private (not so much independent) schools have "merritt based scholarships" so long as a certain part of the school population is paying full tuition. Lets say a school A has 1000 kids attending. 600 would be full paying tuition, 200-300 would be partial or some need based scholarship, and the 100 students plus could get merritt based (something along those lines). It happens at ALL of the catholic schools for both the boys and girls. More are given to boys, but there are significant scholarships given to the girls.
Also, did you forget the Paris twins renting out an appartment in Piedmont for pennies on the dollar because the owner of Otis Spunkmier cookies wanted his daughter to win a state championship? It happens but not so much on the girls side.
Girls get short changed, but it is getting better!
Also, did you forget the Paris twins renting out an appartment in Piedmont for pennies on the dollar because the owner of Otis Spunkmier cookies wanted his daughter to win a state championship? It happens but not so much on the girls side.
Girls get short changed, but it is getting better!
Last edited:
Private schools have a significant motivation to have quality sports teams, both boys and girls, as they serve as free advertising as well as an attraction. Private schools need enrollment, and thus having students and parents walking around wearing "Bishop O'Dowd" gear is constant marketing. Add to that headlines in what's left of local papers, discussions on line, etc., and successful athletics' programs can lead to increased enrollment.
And it doesn't take many extra students to pay for the difference between a mediocre team and an exceptional one, as most of the cost exists regardless of the quality of the program.
Magnet schools and charter schools, though technically public, also benefit from enrollment and so a school like Sacramento High, which can draw from the entire Sacramento area, benefits by attracting students, as each student means more state money. Clayton Valley Charter has the same motivation.
So knocking $5,000 off the tuition for a top girls' player at a WCAL school, say, is not uncommon, and neither is a greater discount. How much brand awareness does Aquira DeCosta generate for St. Mary's of Stockton, and how much would it cost the school to get the same coverage if it was paying ad rates?
Rest assured the marketing, development and admission departments can do the math.
And it doesn't take many extra students to pay for the difference between a mediocre team and an exceptional one, as most of the cost exists regardless of the quality of the program.
Magnet schools and charter schools, though technically public, also benefit from enrollment and so a school like Sacramento High, which can draw from the entire Sacramento area, benefits by attracting students, as each student means more state money. Clayton Valley Charter has the same motivation.
So knocking $5,000 off the tuition for a top girls' player at a WCAL school, say, is not uncommon, and neither is a greater discount. How much brand awareness does Aquira DeCosta generate for St. Mary's of Stockton, and how much would it cost the school to get the same coverage if it was paying ad rates?
Rest assured the marketing, development and admission departments can do the math.
The situation is a little bit different when children of a professional athlete are involved. I'm sure they didn't need a discount on their rent.
Yep. They weren't paying anything at MC and wanted to move closer to the Bay Area. Rent in Piedmont is astonomical and just because your dad was a professional athlete doesn't mean you still have a lot of money. Just think about all the broke stars in professional sports...
Spunkmeyer did come through bigtime allowing them to stay in one of his houses for less than a car payment.
Spunkmeyer did come through bigtime allowing them to stay in one of his houses for less than a car payment.
The problem with that is the assumption the parents know what's best for the kid athletically. I'm sure as a long-time coach Clay you know from experience parents are often not in a position to objectively determine the best situation for their child athletically. Too many tend to be impatient because they badly want their child to shine, so they overestimate what they think they should be contributing then what they are... and they pull them from school to school chasing something that isn't there.
That being said I do think when push comes to shove, if that's what the family wants, then so be it. I also like the dropping of banning athletically motivated transfers because I don;t think they should be any different than a kid going to a school for and program, academic or extracurricular. Now kids and parents can be more honest about their motivations instead of having to make up or exaggerate reasons for leaving that school.
Last edited:
Of course parents and young people are unrealistic -- but that doesn't stop them from transferring to join a better choir or become part of a stronger drama program. One point has always been "Why should athletics be treated any differently?".
And better the parents make an uninformed decision than the section officials, who work hard and are well-meaning but can't possibly know the family's entire situation.
Finally, your point about honesty is really well taken. It's even worse when families have to lie, or at best simply not mention, their real reasons for transferring. That's not the kind of modeling we want to do ...
And better the parents make an uninformed decision than the section officials, who work hard and are well-meaning but can't possibly know the family's entire situation.
Finally, your point about honesty is really well taken. It's even worse when families have to lie, or at best simply not mention, their real reasons for transferring. That's not the kind of modeling we want to do ...
Similar threads
