When asked how they felt about the new proposed “Transfer Bylaw,” here’s what some of Ohio’s ADs said…
JJH Competitive Balance Coverage
Bonus Question: Additional Comments
*Note: If you are an Ohio AD who has note voted on the poll and wants to, please email me at email@example.com. I will send you a link for the survey).
Bonus Question: Do You like the new transfer by-law? Do you think it will cause issues?
AD answers…Thoughts from Ohio’s athletic admins:
*No most people are finding ways around the current rule. I believe 80% of the transfers are for some athletic reason
*No to liking the law. Yes to I think it will cause issues.
*I think it will open up the ability of dishonest coaches to recruit kids away.
*Just another thing that will allow certain schools to recruit.
*I think there have been and will continue to be issues as long as there is open enrollment.
*I dislike the 50% for every season. I would be ok with 50% of the season during the transfer. From then on, 100%.
*I think it will cause major issues. If an athlete wants to transfer schools because of sports and their school offers the sport, they should have to sit a year.
*The law has us in a corner.
*It is a step in the right direction. I still don’t believe it addresses the main issue.
*People will always find a loophole. I feel a student should be able to play right away as long as they did not play the sport at the previous school. If they played, they should have to sit out the next season no matter if they go private to public or public to private.
*No, it is an absolute joke! The OHSAA has always tried to prevent students for changing schools due to athletic reasons. This new transfer by-law would actually promote students changing schools due to athletic reasons. My understanding is that if a kid’s football team started off 0-2, he could transfer and become eligible after sitting out half of the remaining season at another school. You will see schools stack up their roster with club teams. They will be eligible come tournament time.
*I wouldn’t mind the change if exceptions 5 and 6 were kept, however this will be difficult to keep track of and will open the lid a little on transfers. Not sure how this one will play out.
*To easy to move because they do not like the coach. Who is going to monitor the 50%
*It’s time to get rid of this bylaw. It’s unnecessary
*Will be more work tracking what they played at other schools.
*Although difficult to enforce, we need to hold the line against athletes freely transferring whenever and to wherever they wish.
*Any rule causes issues. I do not think it will have a great impact
*It will cause issues, but it should simplify the process
*No, I do not like it, and yes there will be issues. Too much involvement by state legislators.
*It appears on the surface that this stance opens up more issues in enforcement than what we currently have. Presently, I like the portion of the transfer law that asks the question whether or not the transfer is athletically motivated. This has only been in place a short while, why abandon it already.
*We have the most complicated transfer rules, even though every time we call we get told how easy it is to understand. Again, the masses get penalized because we refuse to go after those that cheat.
*NO. The 50% will still dissuade enough kids from transferring for the wrong reasons.
*Too easy for kids to transfer, get teammates together from AAU, JO teams etc.. to transfer, sit out 50% of season then come in and play
*Yes it will cause RECRUITING of athletic teams!!!
*Not just players.. We all know that most of our public kids do not attend for the education, they attend because they were told by a coach that they can attend for “free” and play. Many times they are also told that they have better chances of getting college scholarships.
*I like it better than the old one, but any sit out is not fair in a state where school choice is so accessible.
*Better than other plans.
*I do like the new transfer by-law and it most likely will not cause anymore issues than the current by-law.
*Not sure about the issues. there always seems to be issues no matter what the decision
*Saves OHSAA potential court time and costs. I still think there will be problems as some transfers will still go to court to oppose any penalty. In general, the idea of doing what is possible to eliminate athletics as a reason to change schools is sound for education based athletics.
*I think it will cause issues!
*I like it and I think it will reduce some of the issues
*I like it, but it will cause kids to move around trying to find a good team for the playoffs….
*I believe you will see a significant amount more transfers with this change. An athlete that can compete for half of the season and the post-season can make an big impact on programs.
*Like it better than the old one, but still not enough.
*Not really sure about it to vote one way or another. Have to really read it well.
*How could freely changing schools and still being able to play 1/2 season and tournament possibly cause a problem?
*Better than before
*I do not think that it will cause issues
*Much more fair for those that transfer legitimately
*Although I completely disagree with the way parents act nowadays, the fact is so many parents want the ability to move their kids, so stop fighting them and let them do it. The only thing I haven’t been able to confirm is that you can’t go to three different schools in the same year. That should never happen.
*Seems like it is student based and with any measure there are issues, plus it makes you miss half of seasons
*I have advocated for a one time transfer exception, reason does not matter. *Another transfer in your 4 years will require a one year ineligibility. The change of residence would stay as an exception and be more strictly enforced.
*Yes, I like the new transfer law. I think it will benefit private schools.
*If you thought recruiting was bad before….watch it now if this passes—which it won’t.
*The little “guy” who tries to follow the rules is the one who is always punished by these rules. The “cheater” will always find a way to get around the rules.
*I’m sure it will eliminate some current problems — but I am also sure that it will create some new ones. There will always be people who “bend the rules.”
*I like it as long as schools don’t intentionally try to beat the system. Too often we have un-ethical actions on the part of some schools, coaches, and/or administrators.
The OHSAA needs to put the power back into the hands of the Superintendents. It surely would save on litigation fees for the OHSAA.
*Am really up in the air on this one. I think they are taking the easy way out. Got themselves in a situation they can’t manage as a staff and also financially per organization (legal issues).
*If you can’t control it, then it should be done away with.
*Both, its good for bigger city schools that lost plays, and it will cause issues.
*I do not think it will cause any issues.
*Transfer bylaw simplifies things and it also eliminates the one way transfer issue from private to public but not public to private. Not perfect system but better then what we have.
*Something really should be done about the foreign exchange rules – J1 visa permitted to play but F1 visa’s not? J1 visa’s are often funded (tuition completely covered) while F1 at least the kids pay their own way…why can’t they play? Why not the same transfer rule as anyone else?
*It will make the process of transferring easier on administrators.
*I am not familiar with the wording, so I need to learn more about it to be informed.
*I asked in the discussion meeting if someone was able to play 3 different sports in 3 different schools in the same year and the person running the meeting said yes. If this athlete did this year after year they would only have to sit out the first half of each season and still be able to play the last half of the season including tournaments. I don’t believe this is fair and could result in many schools trying to recruit for specific sports.
*Once they figure out they can move around and still get to play in the play-offs or tournament it will become a free fall.
*We will not support anything that takes away a students athletes “free pass” to leave a private school and come to the public school of residence.
*Do not like the new by-law, it will decimate small schools and provide an unfair advantage to “powerhouses”
*Why should a parent be restricted on where they want their children to attend school if they move into that district for whatever reasons.
*The 50% rule makes sense, but it makes no sense to eliminate Exception 5 (return to public school). That rule was put in to allow for families in financial trouble, eliminating that means that is gone and is not good for kids or families.
*I believe that if it is athletic purpose, then they should sit for the whole year.
*Don’t foresee any real issues with it.
*I believe it gives an unfair advantage to the private schools. Someone needs to move into a public school before they can attend the school. Anyone can transfer to a private school without moving..
JJH Competitive Balance Coverage
JJHuddle CBP Article
JJHuddle CBP Article