Hawkness - tell me you are kidding. You realize the high percentage of transfers this year are playing and actually moved after Arland and Linda Bruce. So yes 90 days, but they applied for the exemption. The 2 reasons it was denied (we think since never really articulated) were dual residences and entire family move. We have sent all documents and info to the IHSAA that almost all the transfers still have a residence in their home state and that not all the entire families moved. Hell a Dowling player who is eligible is quoted as saying he and his Dad live in an apartment in WDM while still owning a house in Illinois where the Mom and siblings still live and drive up on Fridays to watch games. If you can explain to me the differences great.
Arland Bruce has arrived & is practicing w/ Brody Brecht at Ankeny. FINALLY, ON OCTOBER 1, Ruled ELIGIBLE to Play.
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Hawkness - tell me you are kidding. You realize the high percentage of transfers this year are playing and actually moved after Arland and Linda Bruce. So yes 90 days, but they applied for the exemption. The 2 reasons it was denied (we think since never really articulated) were dual residences and entire family move. We have sent all documents and info to the IHSAA that almost all the transfers still have a residence in their home state and that not all the entire families moved. Hell a Dowling player who is eligible is quoted as saying he and his Dad live in an apartment in WDM while still owning a house in Illinois where the Mom and siblings still live and drive up on Fridays to watch games. If you can explain to me the differences great.
I already have. Multiple times. You just don't want to acknowledge the difference. SHE IS PAYING $100 PER MONTH RENT FOR A ROOM IN A PLAYER'S HOUSE THAT SHE DOESN'T EVEN REALLY LIVE IN. The kid is crashing with a teammate while she drives back and forth. Most logical people can see that. Was that plain enough?
Plus, you're getting paid, so why NOT keep fighting this battle? Most lawyers wouldn't even take this case because they clearly could see how the Bruce case is different.
You are getting paid, right? Otherwise you're jeopardizing this kid's eligibility at Iowa, since you are an Iowa alum.
Fair points across the board. Hawkness - I respect you opinion and position. Sorry I shouldn’t be arguing with you on this stuff. My bad. You have totally fair and great questions. I will say a couple of your assumptions I don’t know are necessarily true. And maybe that has been the most difficult part. With the limited transparency we have received from the association we likewise have had to make assumptions on their reasoning. I will say we do know they are aware of multiple eligible transfers who qualified for the exemption who still have out of state residences and also those who didn’t move their entire family. Like I said, don’t want to argue. This whole deal kind of sucks all the way around. We have simply asked what their rules really say and just as importantly how they are applying them. But you have been a great “devil’s advocate” on this whole ordeal. Hope that kinda makes sense.
Hawkness - a couple things. First, I finally realized how to “respond” and see what “likes” are on the board. Second, I do appreciate your questions, comments and opinions. It helps make me focus on things. Sorry if I was a prick and do like what you post. So sorry and be more than happy to discuss. Weird world we live in.
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.
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.
Let the kid play. Who cares if a player transfers just to play sports. That has been happening for years. I remember watching Heelan in the 70's go out and recruit other teams top players. The Rubley situation at WDD is a perfect example. What is gained by punishing Arland Bruce? It is just another example of government bureaucrats trying to control peoples lives. Let the kid play!
The IAHSAA should have ruled all out of state transfers need to sit out 90 days, imo. Which is what I said in the beginning. None of them would be in Iowa if their home state hadn't postponed football. The only kid I'm aware of who seemed legit, in terms of a real move, was the Valley kid. Of course, he's here for football but by all reports his mom left their home completely and moved all the kids to Iowa. She has a permanent residence and a job.
That's the problem with exceptions though.
That's the problem with exceptions though.
I do. Many people do. You clearly don't. But your opinion isn't shared by everyone.
But would allowing Bruce to play be "fair and reasonable" for the others teams they would face?
Wow counselor! I agree with all you said. From a legal standpoint the issues I have had is they are your rules that people rely upon and you should not be allowed to add additional language or interpretations after the fact. Second, at least apply them equally. The crap thing is the Bruce family will be the only ones in Iowa for the next 4-5 years.
I disagree with Aurora in that I don't believe it's possible to have a "clear and unequivocal standard" for this set of rules. Living arrangements are often vague.
I had not heard that Hawkness. But you could be right. But on the “fair and reasonable” part I would guess you could ask the same question on the other transfers too. And we now have kids transferring from for example Roosevelt to Dowling in-season and will be taking some kids’ positions. The whole thing is quite strange.
But would allowing Bruce to play be "fair and reasonable" for the others teams they would face? It is not just Bruce who needs to be considered, it is the opponents and the efforts of the competitors as well.
Also, our esteemed lawyer on this case claims you broke the law by looking up information on the families:
Always going to be exceptions. There will always be family's that move for legit family reasons too. I kind of see both sides... yet again what is the problem with kids transferring for ANY reason? Only thing I can think of is that they might take another kids playing time...?
Similar to college, just open it up.... maybe limit the number of "penalty free" transfers.
Legend - you never disappoint. I said that in reference to asking the Association on info. on kids. Public records are obviously public. You have a serious problem. No you are just a prick.
It IS similar to college. You transfer and are usually required to sit out a year unless you are granted an exception.
For me it boils down to 90 days to sit out is not an unreasonable expectation. I can see very few circumstances that would require an exemption. 90 days requires a commitment from the family and is an adequate deterrent from a random transfer simply for sports. I've dealt with literally dozens of students who transferred and had to sit. I don't recall anyone challenging the rule.
I do know that. Was just poking a little. Need a little levity sometimes. Sorry.
Couldn't part of it also be that arlands move was questioned by third party and/or info was provided to the iahsaa so they felt obligated to scrutinize the move more thoroughly vs the other kids had no one raising a fuss about them so they were just given a cursory look and rubber stamp approval?
Gotcha.
I guarantee that there are more people, and parents, who are against this issue than for it. I've only heard one parent say they were happy to see the local team benefit from a star player transferring in, and that person happened to be the parent of a star player.
No less so than the other transfers who are in Iowa solely for football reasons. For the reasons laid out in my post, I'm not sticking my head in the sand and buying the "contemporaneous parental change of residency" ruse for the other kids.
Got it. Now this won’t change certain opinions at all on the merits of this stuff. But I will say what we just heard is total BS IMO. We got this morning an appeal hearing set for this Friday in the admin process. We just heard the head of the IHSAA wants to postpone it because “he can’t be available.” That is total crap.
Thanks Aurora for your previous post on this. None of this has ever made any sense. It's pretty obvious that the other transfers (that were approved) have similar situations, where part of the family is staying behind in the state where they came from. I don't see how they can approve Rubley and Vicelli and not Bruce. As to whether other parents on the Ankeny team want him to be eligible, is that a legitimate question? Is that the standard now?
This is all just too bad. Too bad on the states that we cancelling sports way back in August, and now it looks like they are going to play. Had they just not made rash decisions in August the players in question would have just stayed in place. Too bad on the dysfunctional IAHSAA for having such a non-transparent process. Welcome to 2020.
How do you decide a foreign exchange student enrolled for athletic purposes only? If they’re with a foreign exchange program then they’re eligible right away.
There is a clear standard. If you're transferring to Dowling, your good. Other than that, it's a crap shoot. Isn't that a long established precedent?
Nah . . . I'm betting it is the parents of kids who happen to be wearing jersey numbers in the upper 80s and are currently seeing playing time.
Is it "fair and reasonable" to the opponents of #1 ranked SE Polk that they have two transfers from Nazareth Academy in Illinois? One will likely end up in the MAC and the other will be playing in the FCS division or D-II.
Do you really believe that both of these kids' parent(s) suddenly and magically received job offers in the Des Moines area right at the time that the State of Illinois decided to cancel Fall football?
Just in case I haven't been clear. I fully understand why the IHSAA wants to discourage transfers. I fully support that position. I'm "old school" enough that I believe that high school sports teams should actually be kids from that particular district. If someone wants to recruit and build powerhouse teams, that should be the province of travel or club teams. To that end, I get why the IHSAA ultimately concluded that Arland Bruce is not eligible. However, if the IHSAA isn't going to strictly scrutinize the other transfers or (as I suspect) turn a blind eye to reality and accept fiction as being truth, then I think that Bruce is getting the short end of the stick.
According to the news, Dowling is getting a transfer from Roosevelt who is eligible immediately. He played for Roosevelt this season. There is a lot going on right now that is "unfair" to other schools, as well as the kids who play for the schools getting transfers. The issue, in my mind, is that you either allow it, or don't.
I honestly don't know how anyone could know that he will be eligible immediately. Same rules. Dowling has to gather information and make a determination. They then send it on for review. I'm pretty familiar with the process, and for the life of me can't think of a way around that. I suppose it's possible they've been working on it for awhile, but the IAHSAA won't even look at it until the kid enrolls.
Btw, @AURORA only one of the kids at SEP is eligible.
