Is new CIF transfer rule merely all for show?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The first test case of a new CIF transfer rule has raised questions as to whether the rule is all for show because, apparently, it doesn’t seem to stop what it was intended to stop.

A state CIF appeals panel on Wednesday overturned a decision by City Section Commissioner Barbara Fiege, who declared basketball transfer students Mat and Willie Hankins ineligible after they enrolled at Van Nuys because they left Sylmar, along with two other players, arriving at their new school who’s new basketball coach, Charles White, formerly coached at Sylmar.

The new transfer rule was created as the tough part of an agreement that loosens transfer requirements in allowing freshmen a one-time free transfer opportunity. The new rule is supposed to prevent athletes from following a former club coach or assistant coach to a new school. The rule makes a player ineligible until they can prove there was no undue influence involved.

The Hankins brothers successfully won their appeal by showing that they weren’t recruited to Van Nuys and merely switched schools for academic reasons. While others wonder if the decision leaves the transfer rule as nothing more than a feeble attempt to scare off people, Fiege insists it still has credibility because players have to prove they weren’t recruited.

But the key to overcoming the rule, it appears to me based on the appeals panel decision, is to stick by the notion that the transfer was for academic reasons and not dare mention it was for athletic reasons. How’s anyone going to prove it wasn’t for academic reasons? This was the same dilemma years ago when the City Section and Southern Section tried to cut down on transfers. It didn’t work then and it isn’t going to work now.

-- Eric Sondheimer