10:12 UPDATE: I just heard from Aram that the the CIF-SS council voted to vote yes on rule at the CIF State executive meeting. The CIF-SS vote was 41-40. There were five abstentions
Are the times a changin.’ That’s what most are expecting to happen at The Grand in Long Beach when officials for the 86 leagues that comprise the CIF-SS are slated to vote for a new transfer policy, which basically will allow non-change of address transfers to sit out just 30 days, as opposed to the present one-year requirement.
Personally, I think this new rule, while a step in the right direction, doesn’t go far enough. I would lift the sit-out time and have good ol’ open enrollment. This is America, after all. But that’s me. If anything, this should make CIF-SS’ job a little easier. Read staff writer Aram Tolegian’s story below, and you decide, and don’t be afraid to make a comment or too. Keep it civil. Looking for a good intelligent discussion. We will have a live show about 2:30 p.m. to discuss it, with myself, Fred and Aram.
By Aram Tolegian
Staff Writer
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.
Under current rules, the transfer of a student athlete with or without a valid change of address can be challenged by the student-athlete’s prior school under the pretense it was athletically motivated. If the student-athlete cannot prove otherwise, he orshe must sit out a calendar year before regaining varsity eligibility.
The new proposal will make it so that all student-athletes who produce a valid change of address upon transferring will gain immediate eligibility.
If the student-athlete transfers without moving, he or she will be forced to sit out 30 days from the date of the transfer before gaining eligibility.
For instance, a football player who transfers in August without a valid residential change will not be eligible until Oct. 1.
The controversial new transfer proposals came after CIF took considerable heat for the current format, under which many coaches, athletes, fans and parents have felt “athletically motivated” rulings have lacked consistency.
Others feel the new proposals are a swing too far in the other direction and if they are passed a major change will occur in high school athletics, with recruiters running wild, leading to the extinction of loyalty by student-athletes to their neighborhood schools.
Some local leagues already have disclosed to this newspaper how they’ll vote. The Mission Valley, Montview, Hacienda and Valle Vista leagues are expected to vote in favor of the 30-day sit-out proposal. The Sierra League has said it will vote against it.
The new transfer proposals are expected to pass, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be enacted. Because the proposals are a state measure, how the rest of California’s other CIF sections vote will determine whether the new rules will go into place.
CIF State voting is somewhat like the electoral college. The highest-populated sections have the most pull in the weighted vote. The proposals would need a majority of 137 possible votes in order to be passed. The Southern Section is worth 36 alone. So if approved, the Southern Section would put the proposals more than halfway to the 68.5 votes needed to pass.
If the new transfer policies pass, they will go into effect for the 2012-13 school year. Any student athlete currently ineligible because of an “athletically motivated” ruling would remain that way until their eligibility arrives.
Also on the agenda today is a measure to form an open division for the boys basketball playoffs. And leagues wishing to make a second appeal of the playoff grouping proposals also will be heard.
The Mission Valley and Montview leagues appealed the playoff grouping proposals for football last month and lost. Neither league decided to appeal a second time today.
aram.tolegian@sgvn.com
