Breaking News: 30-day sit-out rule for transfers passes by ONE vote, 41-40, at CIF-Southern Section vote this morning … Watch PrepXtra Replay with CIF spokesperson Thom Simmons, Aram, Steve and I discussing today’s events

Story: One vote.

That was the margin by which the CIF-Southern Section Council approved one in a series of transfer proposals for high school athletes that figures to change the complexion of prep sports for the foreseeable future.

The most controversial proposal, loosely referred to as the “30-day sit-out rule,” passed 41-40. If it is approved at the state level, the rule would force athletes who change schools without changing their address to sit out 30 days before gaining eligibility.

BREAKING NEWS: Aram tweeted that the 30-day, sit-out transfer rule was voted in at the CIF-Southern Section meeting this morning, passing by ONE VOTE, 41-40. The proposal still has to pass at the state level during other section votes for it to go into effect for the 2012-13 season, but passing the Southern Section is a huge step. We will have more later. You can follow Aram on Twitter @ChemicalAT

What’s at stake in this morning’s preview: The complexion of the CIF-Southern Section’s transfer policy on high school athletes is set to get a major makeover today.

Representatives from the 86 leagues that comprise the Southern Section will vote on a proposal that will dramatically revise the rules for transfers in all varsity sports. The new transfer rule proposals will be the headliner of what should be the most anticipated Southern Section council meeting in recent history.

It begins at 9 a.m. at The Grand in Long Beach.

Below: Players like Kurt Scoby, who transferred from Charter Oak to Duarte earlier this month, could be eligible to play by Oct. 1 under the new 30-day sit-out rule passed at the Southern Section meeting this morning. Scoby could be eligible sooner with a valid change of address or hardship, but his worst-case scenario under the new proposal is that he and other players in his situation will not be forced to sit a whole season.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Digg Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email
  • HOPE

    Hope this is approved, the exit from Damien Baseball will be huge.

    Albert, your coaches are going to bury you sooner or later..

    Too many “I” coaches on our field…

  • Time will tell

    A coach has to be repected by his players to perform to their best potential. Not saying they need to be babied, but if you ever have heard Clappord’s mouth and his approach with players will explain why he’s a hated coach by Damien players. Wasn’t a loved coach at Citrus either and probably why he didnt win the big one!

    Only reason he’s at Damien, we’ll it’s not for the love of coaching, its to protect and influence Leyva with his grandson.

    This rule will clean up more than anyone can image and will hold coaches accountable too!

  • OHHH Jeeez, the worms are about to sprint out of the can.


    DUARTE (KURT SCOOBY) vs AZUSA AZTECS! Game should be good! Get’em ready SCHERF!

  • Old Skool

    Don’t like this. Don’t like it one bit! This is the beginning of the end for High School sports if this rule change passes. It’s not about competition, it’s about “THOSE PARENTS” and “THAT PLAYER” getting exactly what THEY want! This STINKS and mark my words…High School Sports and the High School Athlete as we all know it is about to CHANGE FOR THE WORSE!!!!

  • Agree w/ Old Skool.

    Hopefully a bunch of kids in middle school decide they want to play together in high school and don’t let anyone screw them up.

  • Prep Fan

    The sky is not falling, in the past you got one free teansfer prior to the start of your sophomore year. Now you get ONE Transfer with a sit out period you can use any time in your career for any reason. Believe it or not most transfers ARE NOT athletically motivated and the old rule was resulting in a bunch of kids who were moving for “the right reasons” not being able to play.

    The fact is times have changed, the courts and the state legislature have been demanding more parental choice and if CIF did not make this move the legislature was going to pass something worse for them.

    The idea that missing a 3rd of your season is an insignificant deterrent does not hold water. The Sac-Juaquin section (the second largest in the state) instituted this exact rule a few years ago and transfer numbers actually went down.

    The kids who want to move will move (just as they have done in the past). If a few kids make purely athletically motivated switches that is a small price to pay for the vast majority of kids who make the move for other reasons and will now still have the opportunity to play.

  • RudONE

    No matter how you put it Skip is bad for the program. He is arrogant, condescending and flat out rude. His influence is well beyond his role and its not a healthy environment for developing young men. The players cant stand to be around him because he be-littles them just because they cannot execute to his expectations.
    The parents are tired of over lack of respect he gives to families and the Damien institution. Previous bloggers are correct Skip is the biggest I person ever and the irony is he talks so bad about players who are I players. Skip doesnt walk the walk, what he does is just conveniently skips around it.
    The rule change will open the door and many Damien baseball players will walk through it, ultimately costing the program dearly.



    Tomorrow will be a BIG DAY for the ST. LOUIS RAMS!! Draft Day!! COME ON ST. LOUS RAMS and DO THE RIGHT THING!


  • Old Skool

    Prep Fan-The sky is definately falling if this goes through. You already get one chance to move/attend a school out of your district. This is nothing but an accomodation for THOSE PARENTS AND PLAYERS. Super teams? Yeah, right….We have all seen what team cancers can do to a team. Just wait until all the junior T.O. types AND THEIR PARENTS come to your team. You know the guy…sits by himself when he’s not talking to all the coaches about what his son is/isn’t or should be doing. The end of a good thing could start today….I for one, hope it gets voted down!!!

  • Step in the right direction. It doesn’t interfer with kids who want to play for simple recreational purposes, and allows those kids (and yes their parents) who want to play on a competitive basis to have more controll over of deciding where they play and for whom they play.

    I think more could have been done i.e. allow kids to play where they want as long as the school district allows them to enroll. Think about it, the 2 or 5 best players for any one position, is not going to transfer to a school with a top pick. For example, what quarterback in the S.G. Valley is going to transfer to PHS to compete as Cox for the starting position? Point I’m making? As a friend of mine, who’s been coaching for quite sometime, once said “If you want to know who the best players on your team are, ask the kids.” It’s true. Kid’s won’t be transferring to schools they know where competition is strong….or challenged. This issue of transfers can’t survive.

    Big applaud for CIF and the member schools. Thank you for recognizing that our kids want to play. Athletic Directors around the area, I’m sure, can appreciate your ruling.

    Laurence Todd

  • Don

    I’ve agreed with a lot of what the Prep Fan has posted on this subject, but in this: Believe it or not most transfers ARE NOT athletically motivated . . ., I believe he’s wrong. I think that families ALWAYS consider the effect of a school change on their varsity athlete’s career.

    People change residences all the time and leave the kid for a year or two in the old school, sometimes turning him into a commuter to stay and play where he began. The reality is that most of the transfers made by varsity athletes are made intending to improve their circumstances in a sport. Heck, sometimes parents even move the family, sometimes multiple times JUST to find the fit they like the best. Sometimes the moves work, sometimes they don’t. Think that matters to the mom and dad who long to see their kid star, especially on a winning team? Me neither.

    I think that for every Nick Grigsby story there are ten or 20 that didn’t play out the way mom and dad thought they should have.

    Will it be different with the change? Sure. Worse? Probably not.

    1. There just aren’t enough real game changers out there to make this more than a nuisance for most.

    2. Most Coach’s won’t provide the playing time and position package required by the little star’s folks.

    3. Most families aren’t delusional enough to jump around, even if they could.

  • Spell it out for me, again, please

    Basketball player has played varsity for two years (Freshman and Sophmore). Valid change of address during sophmore year was taken and transfer made to neighborhood high school. Now, as a junior to be, what if he/we want to move to a different school, for whatever reason? He can do it, but sit 30 days from the first day of the basketball season until December 1st, right?

  • Prep Fan

    Old Skool
    By your own logic teams that allow unlimited transfers at the expense of team chemistry will be hoisted by their own petard.

    Why is it a given that a coach will let Johnny take over a starting spot after another kid has held it for a third of the season while Johnny has not even been allowed to play JV games?

    A family that is making a move to get noticed is going to think that missing a third of a sports season has no consequence?

    If a family is willing to endure a sit out period to find a better opportunity for their son or daughter, why shouldn’t they be able to, and why shouldn’t athletics be allowed to be a consideration, even a primary consideration,in determining where their son or daughter can have the best experience?

    Have you stayed in every bad situation you have encountered, or have you looked for better opportunities (however you define them) and taken them when they presented themselves? Why does it make sense to lock a 13 year old into a decision when circumstances change or they realize they made a wrong choice.

    Guess what, if you have good coaches and a solid program, the kids will come their freshman year and stay. If schools choose to hamstring themselves when hiring coaches and running programs the kids will not show up and the ones that do will leave.

    Just because a community builds a school does not mean students should come and stay for no other reason then it is there. You have to give them a reason to come and stay, and the best reason is not a winning program. It is a quality education and great coaches who turn young boys and girls into men and women of character. If you do that, the kids will come and the winning will follow. If schools are losing players they need to look to their own house and ask why, rather then blaming the schools the kids are going to for offering a better product.

  • Old Skool

    I don’t know what kind of “BAD” situation while playing HS sports could be “SO BAD”? My son isn’t getting a fair shake? My son is better than the guy playing in front of him? The coach is a jerk and doesn’t know what he’s doing? The coach is playing favorites? Really? How BAD can it be? You’re in HS for jaspers sake!!! AND get it right Prep Fan…Pahleezzee…..Make no mistake about it….it’s not BAD for johnny the athlete….it’s BAD for MOM AND DAD the parents of johnny the athlete! Agree w/Dan as my guess is that 90% of the transfers are athletically motivated in some way shape or form. It’s a BAD rule change and I hope it STILL loses!

  • Prep Fan

    Don, there were over 12,000 transfers in California last year of students that wanted to play sports at their new school. Over 11,000 of them were change of address transfers. The vast majority of those transfers were made due to changing family circumstance and had nothing to do with athletics.

    I will agree with you that the change of schools without an address change (about 500 last year) almost always involve consideration of athletic opportunity.

    My personal belief is that it would be hypocritical not to expect that if we also want to argue that athletics are an important part of an educational based co-curricular school program.

  • Prep Fan

    Old Skool,
    Glad to know that when you have a bad boss and are held back from advancement opportunities you feel that is not so bad and just wait it out.

    Others may disagree.

    Again, have a total program (educational and athletic) and kids will stay. Is competition that scary for coaches? Interesting.

    With the southern section and LA City Section already voting to approve, this rule change will pass.

  • Prep fan: Great points!

    “Guess what, if you have good coaches and a solid program, the kids will come their freshman year and stay.”


    “It is a quality education and great coaches who turn young boys and girls into men and women of character. If you do that, the kids will come and the winning will follow. If schools are losing players they need to look to their own house and ask why, rather then blaming the schools the kids are going to for offering a better product.”

    Laurence Todd

  • Old Skool

    Prep Fan – Nobady said anything about JOBS and the big boy world. As a matter of fact, my sarcasim specifies HIGH SCHOOL. And please don’t think that just because someone actually moved (change of address) that it wasn’t athletically motivated, you know better than that. You can pound the numbers into saying anything you want on this board. I know of four people in the last two years alone that have rented homes just to move their “johnny” to another school for sports.

  • Contradictions

    Prep Fan – in one post you wrote “resulting in a bunch of kids who were moving for “the right reasons” not being able to play.” and then you post numbers that only 500 put of 12,000 were denied!

    THAT’S a bunch of kids?

  • Fred Robledo

    The decision of where a kid attends school or how many times they change schools should always rest with the parents and the school districts, not coaches or athletic directors. CIF should have a part, but a small part in determining eligibility once a kid is enrolled in a school. As long as a person is in school making the grades and is a good citizen on campus, let them play.

  • Prep Fan

    Most transfers go through, CIF officials felt that most of the ones that were being denied they would have rather been able to say yes to.

    You can parse that distinction however you wish.

    I was also making the point that of course everyone who applies for an athletic transfer cares about whether or not they get to play, or else they would not be applying to play.

    Just because I believe athletics are (and should be) a consideration in those moves does not mean I believe it is the primary motivator in most transfers. CIF officials who deal with these transfers initially referred to these changes at “the minnow rule” because they felt they were catching to many of the wrong kids with the old rules.

    Remember, undue influence can still result in denied transfers even if this rule change goes through. It does not change nearly as much as everyone thinks.

  • Old Skool

    Fred-Parents do not always do what is right for their children and IF (remember the “if”)the reason is for education then I am all for the move. I do not believe that we are talking about education motivated transfer here on a SPORTS BLOG. There are rules in place to preserve the game, the sports ASPECT of High School. Whe people start to try and blend the two together while talking about sports you muddy the waters with criteria that, I BELIEVE, is BS in the conversation. These are athletically motivated transfers and nothing more! If the schools were so bad educationally, then all the 4.0+ STUDENTS on campus wouldn’t even exist OR maybe they already transferred to another school but nobody cared, right? It’s BS, there are not a bunch of scholar athletes out therte looking for a higher education to match their Blue chip status….it’s the terror parents who want to over manipulate the system to move their kid somewhere where the coach as smart as them and has them same exemplary eye for spoting talent like their son. It’s all a bunch of HOOOEY!!!!

  • Bulldogs have bite

    Imagine all those who contemplated tranfering and moving to another district that decided not to move out of fear of losing a season. This rule is a safety net. There could possibly be more valid change of adress and hardship cases filed as a by product of the rule change. Lots of transfers for those who could afford to move or in the very least rent a cheap apartment or house could be eligible to play from day one! Things are going to get interesting for sure if this rule passes.

    Anybody know how other big football states like Texas or Florida handle transfers?

  • Prep Fan

    Old Skool,

    The CIF should make educationally sound policies that support educationally based athletics (or else high school are no different then club teams and will bleed athletes to those programs at an even greater rate).

    Their rules should be based on how to best serve the majority of the 700,000 student athletes in the state, not the minority who transfer for reasons some on this board don’t like or agree with.

    The people in charge, who deal with these issues on a daily basis and with prodding from the legislature and state courts, have decided to try this option to better meet those needs. If more kids are ruled athletically eligible, why that is the point of the change, not the problem. If some kids take advantage of the rules and make changes for reasons most of us would not agree with, that is a price CIF, and the community (as shown by the legislature and courts) seem willing to pay.

    Again, if schools don’t want kids to transfer, give them a product worth staying for. A quality coach and program will have no problem getting stars and backups to stay. Poorly run programs might lose kids.

    CIF’s job should not be to make kids stay in school for whatever esoteric ideal you believe it trains them for. It is to create a level set of rules for all schools to abide by while promoting athletics as the co-curricular education program that it is.

    This rule may be better for that, it may be worse, time will tell. What is clear is that the status quo, and the time and money spent to support it, were no longer tenable to those put in the position to have to enforce it, nor to the majority of the schools that lived it.

  • People – it is common knowledge/practice that parents/kids are transferring for athletic reasons. Heck – I’ll give it to you – ALL TRANSFERS ARE ATHLETICALLY MOTIVATED.

    High school sports today is not what it was 10-25 years ago…or five years ago. It’s no longer a recreational sport (Yes, I said it) it’s competitive – especially football, basketball, and track & field. Schools are investing millions of dollars on new stadiums; selling merchandise like crazy across the nation, attacking major news coverage from icons like Foxnews/sports, ESPN; coaches are hedging careers on their programs, etc. By all accounts high school sports is an industry. An industry that we all can participate, casts our votes and what have you, but tell our parents and their kids that they have no decision in the process? Or (again, I’m letting you win the argument) tell them that they can’t decide where to display their best realize their benefits, if any? Which, by the way, especially for football, all they can ever hope to achieve is a four year ride to a major college. Really? NEWS FLASH – THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH ATHLETICALLY MOTIVATED TRANSFERS!

    Let me them play. Wherever for whomever. If you want them, create a program, headed by a coaching staf, that they will want to play for.

    Laurence Todd

  • Old Skool

    Well, the powers that be have spoken….now all the “Yes” vote leagues can go lay in their “pimped out” beds. The rich always get richer and the poor will be left to survive on their left overs. Maybe other options should have been explored but I really don’t think this was the answer. Only time will tell.

  • Me

    Can we get 3 or so 6′ at St Lucys for basketball šŸ˜‰

  • Chu Chu chuga chuga Chu Chu

    For my entertainment, this is the greatest day in the history of CIF. I can’t wait to sit back and watch this train wreck unfold over the next few years. I’m just glad that my kids have already moved through the system.

    Prep fan, it’s obvious that your a CIF insider who’s been all over the blog for the past few days trying to rally the general public for support of you new rule. I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find out that you are Commissioner Wigod himself.

    Since CIF is now pandering to whims of the “me myself & I parents, and passing new rules based on what these parents feel is best for their kid, here are some other rule changes that I would like to see:
    1. Steroids should be allowed/encouraged – after all, many parents might feel that it’s in their “mini me’s” best interest that he be bigger, stronger, faster then the other kids that he is playing against. Plus other kids are already using them and, well, it would be just too darn tough for CIF to do anything about it anyway.
    2. Red-shirt year should be allowed – I feel that my “mini me” would be best served to be awarded an additional year of eligibility because he stubbed his toe in his junior year and missed most of that year of football.
    3. Starting lineups should be determined by a majority vote of the parents in attendance, after all, I think we can all agree that it would be in the best interest of my “mini me” if this where allowed (subject of course to my veto if I don’t like how the vote goes – aka the “me, myself & I clause)
    4. The maximum age of players should be changed from 19 to 25 because I just feel that I need more options of where my “mini me” can play.
    5. All educational requirements should be abolished. I feel that it would benefit my “mimi me” if he only had concentrate football and didn’t have to be bothered with pesky subjects like math and science. After all, football is not an extra curricular activity it’s really a co-curricular activity (per Prep fan) Therefore, because the kids in the math club don’t have to play football why should my “mini me” have to learn math.

    In closing, why in the world would CIF want to create rules that would benefit 699,500 kids when they could be busy working on changing rules that would benefit 500 kids, errrrr parents.

  • More contradictions

    Prep Fan talk about “serving the majority” but suports a rule that effected only less than FIVE HUNDRED kids in the entire state!

  • Old Skool

    Ha,Ha,Ha!!!! Very good. “Reality Train” you hit the nail right on the head…..I here the train a comin, it’s comin round the bend….!!!!!

  • Prep Fan

    It does not serve the majority for CIF member schools to pay over a million dollars in legal fees every year in order to prevent 500 kids from playing sports, not to mention the cost in time it necessitates for those assigned to enforce the rules.

    The question can just as easily be turned around to ask why is it worth a million dollars to you to make sure these kids not have an opportunity to play?

    Let the parents parent and decide what is best for their kids.

    Will some make terrible decisions, of course, will some tell Johnny to stick it out for the life lessons that it will teach, many more.

    Why is it so important for others to interject their standards onto the situation?

    This is not a free transfer, missing a third of a season and not being able to even play JV has consequences. If a family decides the pros outweigh the cons, so be it.

  • 123

    wait so the freshman transfer rule is gone through this or is this just a vote on the 30 day sitout

  • Prep Fan

    The free transfer prior to the start of your sophomore year will be gone if this rule change is ratified at the state meeting next week.

    All first time non change of residence transfers will be under the sit out period.

  • 123

    those this mean your not allowed to practice??? during the SOP

  • Football follower

    The mafia (cif) has just made their job easier good thing they keep getting raises and spend our money on more non decisions. I see Glen Martinez has brought his forward thinking to CIF, things don’t change. When they should be tightening things up they open the door for madness.

  • Change is good

    Change is good. Everyone is acting like CIF can’t change the rules again. A few years from now new parents won’t even remember the old rules. If you don’t like this rule, then you don’t have to. Send your kid to one school and leave it alone. If 5 guys transfer, leave your kid there and be happy. It’s almost as if everyone wants the rule to be 1 school your whole career no matter what changes in the kids life. Coaches leave, teachers leave, admins leave, regular students leave, but some how the poor athlete owes his life to one program. That is BS. Some schools/coaches work hard to provide the best experience possible for their students, and some schools don’t. I thought tax payers pay for schools etc… Whatever happen to freedom? Whatever happen to coaches who play with kids who want to be there, win or lose, and don’t cry over it. Everyone is going to know if a good coach losses because of transfers and vice versa. Missing half of your senior year is a drag. Not to mention, if you go to a so called better school, and they go 0-5 in league and school you leave goes 5-0 and to the playoffs, then you don’t look so smart. Imagine how that kid will feel. The kids who left West co for BA, have to sit and watch wesco win 2 titles. Also, If you transfer, and get into it with your new coach, who has only known you for a week, you may get dogged and benched. Honestly people don’t want CIF to be strict on transfers. They are just made because A. Their kid is not good enough to be a sought after transfer and B. The school that they chose to send their child to is not attractive to transfers. Don’t hate the playa or the game…just become a playa and get some game. The real focus should be preparing your child to be the best player he can be. You have no control over who comes and goes. If you best friend leaves your job…you don’t get a new job, you just work with the replacement. Especially if you like your job. If you like your job b/c of who works there, then you will be working at 10 different places. Same here, if your kid likes the school and have a good experience. That’s all that matters. Worrying about what everyone else is doing will get you in trouble every time! People are always looking for someone to blame, when their pop warner star can’t cut it, or isn’t having the career they envisioned. Well that’s life! The vote shows people want change. CIF gave the people what they wanted. CIF is not your personal organization. It belongs to all of those who participate and work day in and day out. If all of the people who actually work in high school sports want to mix it up, so be it. SO BE IT!

  • Hello, McFlyyyy!

    Your naive if you think that the legal expense is going to drop to zero by next year. I’ll bet a weeks pay you don’t even knock 20% off that bill with this rule. Missing the first 3 or 4 games of the year is a joke. The only thing that matters is the regular season and playoffs. If you want to put some teeth into this rule then make the sop the last 3 games of the league season or better yet the entire playoffs. By the way $1,000,000 divided by 700,000 athletes is roughly a buck fifty per kid.

  • Prep Fan

    Nobody’s claiming the legal bill will go to zero. I will leave other to judge who is being naive if you think the legal bills won’t be much smaller when the relief a lawsuit would grant is no longer needed.

    Your second argument is meaningless, there are better ways to spend the money going to legal expenses no matter how much it costs per person.

    The students (through their taxes and tuition) are already paying your $1.50. The question to ask is what do you want them to spend that money on.

  • R Gary

    Need clarification as to when the clock starts on the 30 day rule. Is it the 1st day of practice in the sport, or when the games start?

  • Multi sport athletes

    Does a player who played 3 sports have to Sit out the 30+ days for EACH sport?

  • Prep Fan

    You have to sit out in each sport you played. So a three sport athlete playing the same sports at their new school would have to sit out in each sport.

    Since you can’t play the same sport at two different schools in the same season without a valid change of residence it should rarely matter whether you transfer before the games start (regular sit out period) or after (cannot play at your new school until following year).

    If you transfer after the start of the season but for some reason were not playing for your school at the time, you would need to sit out the equivalent number of days as those who transferred before the season started. In other words, if you transfer a week after the season begins your SOP would last a week longer then everyone else.

  • keep27

    The sit out period is not 30 days but a date. This year is October 1. If you have a zero week game, you would miss 6 games. If you play lower levels at all, then you are stuck at lower level and may not play varsity the whole year.
    If you go from private to public without moving you can go to any school you wish, but you must sit out until October 1st. If you were able to prove financial hardship on tuition etc, you USED to be able to get a hardship, but with the new rule, those are now gone.

  • R Gary

    All of the talk and examples refer to football. Is this 30 day sit out period only for Football? What about the other sports. If it’s Oct 1 for football, what are the dates for basketball and baseball, or for that matter any other sport.??

  • Tech Support

    Question for clarification…

    What is a student plays multiple sports?

    Let’s say a football/baseball player transfers after his school’s football season. I know he’ll have to sit out the 30 days for spring baseball, will he also have to sit out the 30 days for football the following fall?

    It seems to favor 2 sport players if he doesn’t have to sit out. Or what’s the stop a coach from stashing a football player on the track team (even if he doesn’t participate in any events) and on the roster?

  • Tech Support

    Whoops. Missed the answer to my question lower in the comments. Thanks for the information.

  • Prep Fan

    The sit out period for ALL FALL Sports is October 1st.

    The sit out period for ALL WINTER sports is December 31st.

    The sit out period for ALL SPRING sports is April 1st.

  • Fred Robledo

    A few things were clarified talking with Mr. Simmons.

    Example: If you played varsity football, basketball, and baseball at Charter Oak and transferred in June to West Covina without a change of address, the 30-day sit-out rule would apply for each sport.

    Also, lets say you’re on a terrible football team that starts 0-5. Yes, you could transfer without a change of address to a winning team and be set to go after 30 days, making you eligible for the playoffs.

  • Prep Fan and others,

    If you transfer after Oct. 1, like, say, on Oct. 2, then you sit out 30 days and you’re eligible again at your new school.

    So while the dates are important, there’s also stuff that could happen after those dates.

    I think the big thing is not the 30-day sit-out rule, but the valid residential change.

    We are back to a place where if you change addresses, you are very likely good to go. No more athletically motivated. In fact, there was a non-action item yesterday to get rid of the term of “athletically motivated”.

  • Trouble Trouble

    That is a very bad aspect of this new rule. CIF needs to tighten up that part of the rule. No player should be allowed to play on 2 separate varsity rosters in the same season without a change of address. With that loophole in the rule book, we are now talking about the potential for teams to bring in mercenaries for the playoffs.

  • Prep Fan

    Fred, I didn’t listen to Mr. Simmons conference call with you but I guarantee that if you call CIF back and ask,they will tell you students CANNOT play for two teams in the same sport in the same year without a valid residence change.

    I have heard that specific question asked and answered several times by several CIF officials and at no time has anyone ever suggested that a disgruntled Johnny could transfer after playing for team A and be eligible at his new school WITHOUT a valid change of residence. Schools would rightfully throw a fit if that was allowed.

    As to whether someone who transfers after 10/1 has to only sit out 30 days. I have been told they will have to sit out an equal number of days as those who transferred before the season, which in all cases is actually more then 30 days. Of course, all of the interpretations and implementation policies have yet to be ironed out so it is possible that they will decide to only use 30 days for late transfers but based on the discussions I have seen, I would be somewhat surprised if it is actually implemented in that manner.

    I do agree that an under-appreciated aspect of these changes is that CIF is mostly getting out of the athletically motivated business. Schools can still be accused of undue influence and if you leave after a documented coach confrontation your previous school can claim athletic motivation, but otherwise students who make a valid change are free to go. In fact, I think 90% of CIF schools would not even try to stop a transfer even if they felt a fallout between the player and coach was the reason for the move.

  • Don

    I find it hard to imagine this rule change, like any of the rule changes the CIF has made over the years, will be the undoing of prep sports. You still need, assuming no change of address, that combination of a restless family, an obliging coach, and most importantly, a school willing to take the transfer.

    That’s right sports fans, there may actually be that odd duck Principal out there not hankering for little Willie Wunderbar. I can think of at least one local school who values their test scores and class sizes over the odd import athlete. Crazy, huh?

  • Fred Robledo

    Prep Fan, listen starting at the 17:40 mark, I ask Thom that question when it pertains to transferring during the middle of the season.

  • Prep Fan

    I don’t know what to tell you other than either Simmons is wrong on this particular point or a whole bunch of people were misled. If you look at the CIF website you can see the agenda item and the rules that were passed. Rule 206(9) states that a student cannot play on two different teams in the same sport in the same year without a valid change of residence. This rule is part of the edited revisions that were voted in along with the sit out period, and is in fact unchanged from the current blue book rule. I have personally seen Mr. Wigod reference this statute when discussing transfers to support the idea that what you proposed could not happen.

    If I were you, I would of course trust Thom over me. I am suggesting however that you may want to follow up on that particular nugget because I assure you there would have been many more no votes if what you suggested was thought to be possible.

  • Prep Fan,

    I’ve used this example a ton of times. You must not visit my blog.

    Johnny Jr. transfers from Arcadia to West Covina WITHOUT CHANGING ADDRESS. He’s eligible Oct. 1

    On Oct. 15, Johnny Jr. and his dad get mad at Coach Maggiore and decide Glendora is a better place to play.



  • Aram is wrong – AGAIN

    Aram your response to Prep Fan is 100% wrong!!

    You obviously have not read the entire proposal.

    There is no 30-day waiting period and you this “sit-out” transfer can happen only once.

    A transfer after 10-1 must wait to the next eligibility date 12-31

    Try reading once and do some quality reporting. Wait, my bad, I forgot it’s you

  • Prep Fan

    Aram, I agree with you and my post is consistent with your understanding. You can only play for two schools in the same season WITH A VALID CHANGE OF RESIDENCE.

    Fred is trying to state (and Mr. Simmons certainly seemed to agree) that a student could be eligible at school B for the playoffs after transferring mid year and then sitting out.

    To my understanding (and yours and most everyone who has looked at this) this is not correct. You either make a mid year valid change and are eligible right away, or you don’t make a valid change and have to sit out the rest of the year no matter how many days of the season are left.

  • This is for the dork who posted under “Aram is wrong”


    Simmons was asked about THIS VERY THING at the 18-minute mark of our show. TRY AND WATCH IT and please resign yourself to letting the people with brains do the heavy lifting.


    Did he say “DEC. 31?” like you idiotically suggested?

    Do you understand this? Or is it too complex? Obviously it’s too complex for you.

    WHAT I SAID IS PRECISELY THE 30-DAY SIT OUT. If it was what you were saying, that athlete would be out until Dec. 31 because he transferred AFTER Oct. 1. WRONG WRONG WRONG.


    The dates apply TO THE SEASON.


    If you are a football player and transfer in August, you’re out until Oct. 1. If you transfer Oct. 2, you’re out 30 days … NOT UNTIL DEC. 31 like this jackass would have you believe.

  • Can the system be beat?

    So if a Varsity Basketball player transfers after/during the season, or heck even after the school year he would have to sit out until Dec 31 correct?

    What if that same Varsity Basketball player goes out for Football at his new school. He’s on the team and sits out until Oct 1. He never plays. He practices with the team. He dresses with the team. He’s on the roster except he has no intention of playing. He’s just on the team to avoid sitting out until Dec 31 in his sport of choice. Does the Winter Sport issue apply? So does that mean, if he really was a multi sport athlete who had previously played Freshmen Football before playing Basketball exclusively does this complicate matters?.

    Not knowing the answer and not trying to be a smart ass but could the kid beat the system in theory?

    I’m asking.

  • Steve Ramirez

    Beat the System: Thom addressed that too. If you are a multiple-sport athlete who competes in a fall sport, a winter sport and a spring sport and you transfer to school B, you are not eligible for the fall until Oct. 1; for the winter until Dec. 31 and for the spring until April 1. CIF has thought ahead. Think of it like the NCAA scholarship-limit rule, which states that if an athlete signs a track scholarship at USC, then decides to play football and makes the team, his scholarship counts toward the football limits, which are 25 per recruiting season and 85 at any one time. This prevents schools from exceeding the limits, which was at one time a common practice. Big Brother has thought of everything.

  • Prep Fan

    I think the confusion is over whether the transfer student played at school A. If he played at school A he can only play in the same season at school B with a valid change of address.

    If he has not played at school A during the current year (but did play the previous year) he can sit out for 30 days from the time of transfer. I think Mr. Simmons might have missed the implication in Fred’s question that the student was transferring after playing for school A.

    Again, this rule DOES NOT ALLOW students who have a falling out with coach or who lose their starting job early in the season to transfer to another school and play that same year unless the student completes a valid change of residence.

  • Keep 27


    Define transfer. When you say a kid “transfers” in on Oct 15, are you implying he comes in without moving? If so, you are saying he sits out 30 days from Oct 15. This would violate playing same sport at 2 schools rule in same season. If by transfer, you mean he moves into the area on Oct 15, the sitout rule does not apply because he is immediately eligible. This blog has taken a pretty simple rule and muddled it so bad with the what ifs. Simmons didnt help. you should have gotten Martinez or Wigod. Someone in charge of marketing is what youre depending on for an answer.

  • Keep 27,

    You are beyond confused here. And incorrect in your assumptions at the same time.


    That’s what the rule is all about.

    Secondly, you ask/say: When you say a kid “transfers” in on Oct 15, are you implying he comes in without moving?

    Whether he MOVES or DOESN’T MOVE it is a TRANSFER. If you’re going from School A to School B WITH or WITHOUT changing addresses, you are still no longer at School A any longer and thus have TRANSFERRED to School B.

    Athletes are allowed ONE sit-out period in their HS careers. If they’ve already used that ONE sit-out period, then they cannot transfer and gain eligibility again without a valid residential change.

    Now please, stop calling everyone else stupid and spreading misinformation when it is YOU that has proven incapable of grasping the new rules.

  • evanleigh31

    Keep 27

    You also obviously do not know what the different individuals do at the CIF office. Simmons is the PR guy, not the marketing guy… I would think as the spokesman he would be able to speak on a topic like this.

  • Prep Fan

    Aram and Fred, Mr. Simmons either misunderstood the question or does not know (or remember) that this cannot happen due to a different blue book rule which will remain on the books. If his statement is in fact correct, many people in this section have been misled as to the consequences of this rule change.

    I have previously given specific blue book evidence as well as anecdotal evidence for my position. I also heard Mr. Simmons concur with Fred’s proposition in the above video which contradicts my understanding.

    I still believe there is no way a student can play for team B after having played the same sport for school A in the same season UNLESS THEY MADE A VALID CHANGE OF RESIDENCE (I suppose they could also have a hardship appeal granted). I truly respect Mr. Simmons but I think he made a mistake in your interview (it happens).

    At this point you can check in again with CIF to confirm or you can choose to believe Mr. Simmons over me (which I would no doubt do if the situation were reversed). Either way, I suppose we will all have to wait to see the results after the first test case this fall to find out definitively how it will work.

  • whooo nellie

    I’m not a fan of this new rule, but I’m alot more comfortable with it if in fact Prep fan is correct, and a player can not play varsity for 2 different schools in the same year without a change of address. Can you imagine if a player played the first 4 or 5 games of the year with school A and then transfered to school B and school B was an in league rival and the 2 teams were scheduled to play their last game of the season against each other. Now all of a sudden school B has a kid on their sidelines with all the inside information anyone would want to know about school A. This would, far and away, be worse then what both Fred and Aram were complaining about last year when Monrovia brought on board an assistant coach that coached earlier in the season against potential playoffs teams that Monrovia might face.

  • Keep27

    CIF Blue Book
    Section 207 A 3
    g. No student shall be eligible to participate in the same sport at two different schools in the same school year unless the student changed schools as a result of a valid change of residence by the student and his/her parent(s)/guardian(s)/caregiver and sibling(s). In the event of a change of schools due to a valid change of residence, a student will be allowed to participate in the same sport at two different schools not to exceed, in total, the maximum number of contests in that sport as established by the Section.

    I was guaranteed by someone at the CIF office that this rule was to remain in the Blue Book after the sit out rule is passed next week.
    This means if you play any games in the 2012 season and change schools without moving, you are done. The question that was not answered was if you do not play in any previous weeks and you change schools will you be eligible Oct1? If you change on Sept 20 without moving are you eligible Oct 1? The answer I got was I will get back to you. If you change after Oct 1, my guess is that you will either be immediately eligible or you will ineligible until the following season because the sitout period has passed.

    Aram, I did not say you were stupid or anyone else was. I said Simmons misunderstood your question. I also said that the people on the blog have muddled this issue and should have said because of all the varying opinions.

    Aram, we know each other and respect each other. I would never call you stupid because you’re not. I may not agree with everything you write, but you’re not stupid. I’m trying to tell you what I know. PLease do not insinuate I know not what I talk about. This will all come out in the wash anyways. It will be a good rule in the long run.

    Good luck Aram. You will find the truth soon enough.

  • Aram is still wrong


    Once again I implore you to try READING the proposal. The document that was sent to every school in the Southern Section by the Commissioner and his detailed explanation of the rule as it will be established if cleared by the State Council

    Assuming you can read – you will then understand there is no such thing as a 30-day sit-out period. It is based on DATES

    Again – TRY READING Then maybe before you result to childish name calling you can actually make an informed statement in a public forum..

    FYI – Mr. Simmons is simply a media liaison. He, like you makes mistakes, but certainly not as often.

  • Prep Fan

    If a student has not played during the current season and transfers in September, the details need to be ironed out and confirmed, but I think the plan is for those students to sit out the same number of days as those who transferred before the start of the season.

    I.e. If it is 38 days between the start of the season and Oct 1. The late transfer would sit out 38 days from the time of transfer.

    They would only need to do this IF they played the sport the year before AND were not playing that same sport this season. A VERY, VERY small number of transfers would fit that bill.

    If a student has not played the sport in the previous 12 months, they are immediately eligible. If they played for school A the same season they transferred, they CANNOT play that sport at school B. 99% of the kids who transfer in September would fall into one of those two categories. That is why this issue has not been heavily debated and details already ironed out.

    This is not as hard to deal with as many people are implying.

  • keep27


    You’re on it. CIF State will have it ironed out tomorrow from what I’m told. My feeling after being told what I was told is it is October 1 or the next year. So if you change schools on Sept 29 and you hadnt played since last season, you will eligible Oct 1. No one will be made eligible after October 1 unless they move or have a hardship. The rule will allow those kids to change in spring and summer when they should change if they want to, and be very restrictive during season, which it should.

  • Prep Fan

    The more I think about it the more that letting them play October 1st makes sense. The student in these rare cases has already sat out by not playing for their current team.

    It does seem a little harsh not to let a kid play who transfers after that date, but how many kids will actually try and play a month into the season after not playing at the school they were at.

    Given how few kids this would effect maybe a simple has to transfer by 10/1 rule is the clearest and easiest to follow.

  • Interesting

    Does anyone else see the humor in the fact that when Aram starts spewing out innacuracy after inaccuracy, he gets corrected, he then goes on a temper tantrum and name calling fit like a 5-year old, he is given precise data on which his point is baseless, he then crawls away never to be heard from again?

    What a tool.