TSSAA tells Tennessee high school coaches one-time transfer bill ‘must be defeated'
The TSSAA sent a letter to Tennessee high school coaches on Sunday 'strongly' encouraging them to ask their local representatives to vote no on House Bill 25 and Senate Bill 16.
The TSSAA provided the letter to The Tennessean. It states that the bills, while amended to include similar language to a change the TSSAA Legislative Council made to its transfer rule earlier this month, would lessen the state high school association's ability to oversee its rule.
'If you want the member schools of TSSAA to continue to have control of transfer eligibility issues, we believe the bill must be defeated,' the letter says. " We strongly encourage you to prioritize some time on Monday to contact your representative to respectfully ask that they vote (no on the bills).This will allow the transfer rule that the TSSAA Legislative Council just amended to have an opportunity to take effect and avoid these unnecessary, unintended consequences."
HB25 advanced to the House Education Committee and will be heard Wednesday. SB16 passed the Senate Education Committee by a 6-3 vote last Wednesday and will be placed on the Senate calendar.
More: TSSAA still isn't serving athletes' best interests with new transfer rule | Opinion
More: Tennessee lawmaker slams new TSSAA one-time transfer proposal, calling it 'tone deaf'
More: Tennessee high school coaches sound off on TSSAA's latest one-time transfer proposal
The bills must be voted through the House and Senate to become law.
The bills were intended to provide student-athletes more freedom and initially threatened to change TSSAA transfer rules to allow athletes one free transfer without eligibility restrictions regardless of the reason.
The TSSAA's transfer rule, until the Council's provision on March 3, required athletes who transfer schools to be ineligible for one year unless they have a bona fide change of address. The provision loosened the TSSAA's rule, allowing athletes one free transfer to another school without loss of eligibility if the transfer is due to reasons of significant academic, social-emotional, environmental or mental health need. That's as long as the sending school's administration could attest within seven days that the move is not for athletic or disciplinary reasons.
TSSAA executive director Mark Reeves and association legal counsel Rick Colbert said, during testimony at the House Education Administration subcommittee hearing on March 18 and the Senate Education Committee's hearing last week, that the association will face serious issues if there are high school athletics transfer rules in state law. Colbert said the TSSAA is ill-equipped to handle the increased litigation he believes would take place, and that he foresees inconsistent court decisions from judges in different counties. The TSSAA member schools would ultimately bear the legal costs.
The House and Senate bills also do not address transfers in specific situations that would violate other TSSAA rules, such the coaching link and age rule. TSSAA rules don't allow students to be eligible if they're 19 on or before August 1 of a school year. Students are also ineligible if they transfer to a new school where an athletic coaching link exists in the past 12 months.
If Tennessee passes legislation regulating athletic transfer rules, the TSSAA believes it would lead to a landscape like the NCAA's where there are no transfer rules at all. The association has long said that its transfer restrictions inhibit illegal recruiting between high schools and uphold TSSAA core principles.
'Adding any TSSAA eligibility requirements to Tennessee State Law will eventually make it very difficult for TSSAA to have any transfer restrictions,' the TSSAA letter to coaches states. 'Putting eligibility rules into state law will make it unnecessarily difficult to adjust eligibility rules as needed.'
Tyler Palmateer covers high school sports for The Tennessean. Have a story idea for Tyler? Reach him at tpalmateer@tennessean.com and on the X platform, formerly Twitter, @tpalmateer83.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: TSSAA one-time transfer rule: Coaches urged to push back on Tennessee legislation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Schumer to Trump: No Nobel Peace Prize for ‘selling out Ukraine'
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tore into President Trump early Saturday after his high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska ended without a deal, accusing the president of 'selling out' Ukraine. 'Looks like once again Trump is selling out Ukraine and bowing down to dictator Putin,' he wrote on social media platform X. 'No Nobel Peace Prize for that.' His critique comes days after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quipped that she would nominate Trump for the coveted prize if he successfully squeezed a ceasefire agreement out of the Russian leader. Trump and Putin met at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday for a roughly three-hour discussion. While details of the conversation have not been released, the president touted the meeting as 'productive' and signaled that while progress was made, a deal was not yet on the table. 'We didn't get there, but we have a good chance,' he told reporters following the summit, but did not take questions. The president later briefed NATO and European leaders — who responded by doubling down on their support for Ukraine — on the meeting. Schumer, in separate comments late Friday, accused Trump of rolling out the red carpet for Putin, who he called an 'authoritarian thug.' 'Instead of standing with Ukraine and our allies, Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with an autocrat that has terrorized the Ukrainian people and the globe for years,' he wrote on X. 'While we wait for critical details of what was discussed — on first take it appears Trump handed Putin legitimacy, a global stage, zero accountability, and got nothing in return.' 'Our fear is that this wasn't diplomacy — it was just theater,' the New York Democrat added. Trump defended the outcome of the summit in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity late Friday, saying it is up to Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to come to an agreement. Trump and Zelensky are expected to meet on Monday at the Oval Office. Clinton earlier this week said she would support Trump's quest for a Nobel Peace Prize if he is able to negotiate an end to the more than three-year war that repudiates the Kremlin's claims to Ukrainian territory. The president later expressed gratitude for his former opponent's remarks. Zelensky has pushed back on Trump's suggestion that any truce would likely require a land swap of territories Russia has taken over since it's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 'We will never leave the Donbas,' the Ukrainian leader told reporters on Tuesday.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump warned by top Senate Democrats to rethink advanced AI chip sales to China
Six Senate Democrats on Friday released an open letter asking President Donald Trump to reconsider his decision to allow tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to sell AI semiconductor chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenue from the sales. The letter — signed by Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Christopher Coons, D-Del.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — was in response to an Aug. 11 announcement by Trump that Nvidia and AMD would pay the U.S. government a 15% cut of revenue from chip sales to China in exchange for export licenses. "Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies," the letter states. "The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm," the letter continues. Senators also warned that selling advanced AI chips — specifically Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips — to China could help strengthen its military systems, a claim that Nvidia denies. In a statement to CNBC, a Nvidia spokesperson said: "The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit." The letter from Senate Democrats also requests a detailed response from the administration by Friday, Aug. 22, regarding the current deal involving Nvidia and AMD, as well as any similar arrangements being made with other companies. "We again urge your administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership," the letter states. A request for comment from the White House and AMD was not immediately returned. Despite Trump allowing chip sales to resume, it has already become clear that China isn't welcoming Nvidia back with open arms, instead urging tech companies to avoid buying U.S. companies' chips, according to a Bloomberg report. "We're hearing that this is a hard mandate, and that [authorities are actually] stopping additional orders of H20s for some companies," Qingyuan Lin, a senior analyst covering China semiconductors at Bernstein, told CNBC. In a separate report, The Information said regulators in China have ordered major tech companies, including ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases until a national security review is complete. —
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
