For me, the bottom line is that the issue of transfer eligibility should be governed by a clear and unequivocal standard; the standard should be neither vague nor ambiguous and not capable of varying interpretations depending upon the whims of the decision makers.
Sounds to me like the IHSAA does not want situations where kids transfer to a particular district solely for the purpose of playing sports and the transfer rule is designed to promote that policy/disincentivize that activity.
So . . . how do they do that? One . . . they create a 90 day rule in which transfers must "sit out." That's just short of 12 weeks. I can't comment on the length of all Iowa high school sports seasons but I'm pretty sure that 90 days all but kills any chances of competing in varsity events for that particular sport.
However, the IHSAA recognizes that, in addition to transfers which may be nefarious, there are "legitimate" transfers. What tests have they set up for what they deem to be "bona fide" transfers? One is the "contemporaneous change in parental residence" test. The IHSAA must feel that a student should be immediately eligible to participate in varsity sports so long as the student's transfer is the result of a "contemporaneous change in parental residence."
Sound like a good rule? Sure. Use Patrick McCaffrey as an example when he was still playing for IC West and participating in AAU ball. The IHSAA doesn't want on or more of McCaffrey's AAU basketball teammates from outside of IC moving into the McCaffrey house just so that the kid(s) can be on the IC West basketball team.
So . . . you have the "contemporaneous change in parental residence" test. If McCaffrey's AAU teammate has a "contemporaneous change in parental residence" to Iowa City, then it seems to carry some legitimacy.
Now you might be saying to yourself . . . "Sounds like the IHSAA got it right. There is no way that Arland Bruce transferred to Ankeny High School for anything other than to play football this Fall." And . . . I would agree. I firmly believe that if Olathe North High School committed to fall football, we wouldn't be typing about this.
But . . . hold on. Does anyone think that Jake Rubley transferred to West Des Moines Valley High School for anything other than to have the opportunity to play football this Fall? No way. If Highlands Ranch High School committed to playing football this fall (they have recently committed to salvaging a season), there is no way that Rubley would be in Iowa. In fact, hIs father, TJ, is still listed as the head football coach of the football team:
https://highlandsranchhs.rschoolteams.com/page/2936 Some simple digging will reveal that the Rubleys own a $500K+ in Highlands Ranch (an extremely desirable Denver suburb) which has neither been sold nor is it on the market. There has been vague mention of a "business opportunity" in Iowa for Rubley but it has not been elaborated upon. Does anyone truly think that, if the Rubley family intended to remain in Iowa, they wouldn't have their house on the market? In this market? Low interest rates are driving home prices upwards. Also, thanks to Jake Rubley trolling Ankeny's head football coach, you can see a reply tweet from one of the friends of Jake Rubley's younger brothers . . . that tweet reads "enjoy your time in Iowa." Yeah . . . there is no way that the Rubley family will be in Iowa in the Fall of 2021.
How about Dominic Vicelli? He transferred to Dowling after playing three years for a Catholic powerhouse high school in LaGrange Park, Illinois (Nazareth). Can anyone with a straight face really say that Vicelli is at Dowling for a reason other than to play high school football? He's quoted in the DMR as saying that his mother and siblings will be getting on the interstate to watch him play on Fridays. Is that a "bona fide" change in residency?
How about any of the other transfers?
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...ng-high-school-football-iowa-2020/3434669001/
Someone want to seriously argue that the transfer wasn't motivated because the high school from which they transferred hadn't either (a) committed to football this fall or (b) outright cancelled football this fall? Didn't think so. Further, with the exception of the kid who transferred to Clear Creek Amana, all of the transfers decided to go to NIAC power football schools. Coincidence? Didn't think so.
In light of what is unquestionably unchartered territory for the IHSAA and the unquestionable transfer of kids for the purpose of playing football, what standard is the IHSAA using to determine "contemporaneous change in parental residence?" Does it require the whole family to move? Not in Vicelli's circumstance. Does it require abandoning the prior residence or demonstrating the intent to sell the prior residence? Not in Rubley's circumstance. Seems like the IHSAA has interpreted the standard to require one parent to commit to being in the district full time. If that is the "test," then I guess Vicelli is lucky to have two parents so that one could stay behind in Illinois with his siblings while Bruce is unlucky to be the son of a single mother who is forced to drive the 2.5 hours back and forth to see her other kids. I believe it was
@David1979 who pointed out that it appeared the IHSAA was employing a standard that worked well for kids who came from families of means but created hardships for kids who came from more impoverished families.
Here's where I fall . . . it is a absolute farce for the IHSAA to stick its head in the sand and conclude . . . . "You know, all of these transfers occurred as a result of a contemporaneous change in parental residence and were not for the purpose of finding a school for the athlete to play football this Fall . . . with the exception of Arland Bruce. While we won't require all siblings to move to the district and we won't require the parent(s) to actually sell or get rid of their prior residence, we will not tolerate a situation where a kid's parent has to drive to/from suburban Kansas City to ensure that she can spend time with all of her children." That seems inconsistent and outcome determinative. It also seems to say "Hey . . . if you've got the financial ability to rent an apartment for the Fall and willing to move to the district for the Fall, we have no problem with you coming to Iowa solely for the purpose of picking and playing for a powerhouse high school football team. If you're poor, tough shit."
There is an "out" that the IHSAA could have employed. There is also a rule where the IHSAA can make an eligibility determination that is "fair and reasonable." In light of the IAHSSA's apparent willingness to accept the "farce" that other transfer were legitimate and bona fide situations where kids' parents just happened to be coming to Iowa for non-football reasons, it should have exercised its discretion and ruled that, at a minimum, it would be "fair and reasonable" for Arland Bruce to be eligible as well.