The change seems like an over-reaction to me. The rule change is painted with a VERY broad brush. Too many legitimate reasons for changing schools are potentially dismissed, without so much as an appeal. IMO, the NJSIAA is implicitly acknowledging that they refuse to investigate the underlying reason(s) for transfers.
Agreed that PA should follow suit. It addresses both recruiting and transfers (wink wink) of which many are moving for sports related reasons.
Wouldn't most if not all of us pray for a transfer to go through that might benefit a athletically gifted child, hoping for a full or partial ride, with the bottom line being the projected college degree, not athletics?
Reddish has only been to two schools, and he left Haverford because the coach that recruited him left. But I think for sports like football, the 30 day sit out period is huge, unlike other sports the 10-15 games that students potentially play is all they have to show schools their skill set, and for students looking to play at the next level missing 2-3 games could be huge for a student. Yes there are 7v7 tournaments and camps but recruiters will tell you that they don't put as much stock into those things as they do actual games.
Not a good thing to the kids whose residency changes were created by a parent's death, divorce or loss of employment. My point is, it's too broad and may adversely affect kids who didn't transfer for athletic reasons.
Not really sure it will have as big an impact especially in District 12 because the ones who are getting tranfers in will be in the playoffs either way because they don't use the power point system the other districts use.
With no appeals, the kids sitting 30 days or whatever the mandatory term will be are swept up in the wide net cast by the rule. Imagine a kid who just lost his parent, had to move to another district, and is then told he has to sit out for a pre-determined time during a season just because the NJSIAA won't provide him with an opportunity to explain why he had to move.
