Answering the big questions surrounding the Campanile vs. NJSIAA football transfer case

NJSIAA attorney Steve Goodell informed attorney Patrick J. Jennings that the state’s governing body for high school athletics will not retroactively punish any school found to have breached the transfer rule in a judge’s future ruling.

This was one of the biggest requests in the July 10 hearing , when Jennings sought that Bergen County Superior Court judge Darren DiBlasi − rather than the Commissioner of Education − decide on the NJSIAA’s transfer rule.

The rule mandates a mandatory sit period for senior athletes, but not for freshmen, sophomores or juniors who are transferring for the first time.

The judge agreed to hear the case, but no date has been set.

How did we get here?

Jennings is currently representing two football players.

Syracuse assistant coach Nunzio Campanile's son is the first . He left Bergen Catholic for Ramsey High School. The second is a transfer from Union High School to Don Bosco Prep. Both players are rising seniors who would be subject to sitting out 22 days of the football season.

“I can confirm that if this Court were to enjoin enforcement of the NJSIAA Transfer Rule, and that injunction were later reversed, NJSIAA would not take adverse action against a school or student who participated in sports in reliance on that injunction,” read Goodell's letter, sent last week.

Jennings said during the hearing that the NJSIAA had previously punished a school after a season ended, referring to a case involving the 2011 North Bergen football team, in which a judge later found the school used ineligible players and revoked its sectional title. Jennings clearly didn’t want either school punished later if the judge found the NJSIAA transfer rule binding and legal.

Here’s a deeper explainer on where the case stands now:

Why does it matter who rules on this case?

Jennings argued that his clients aren’t arguing over the enforcement of the rule, but the actual legality of the rule itself.

He used the example of a 17-year-old student and an 18-year-old student being treated differently for no other reason except for their age, which he alleged is unconstitutional.

In most controversies involving public school students and NJSIAA rules, the final verdict belongs to the New Jersey Commissioner of Education. For non-public students, cases are usually filed in court, since those schools aren’t bound by the exact same hierarchy.

This is a unique case in which both students are crossing over, one from a public school to a non-public school, the other from a non-public school to a public school.

The NJSIAA likely would have received a favorable ruling from acting commissioner Kevin Dehmer, who typically upholds the rules set forth by the organization.

Why does the NJSIAA have a rule like this anyway?

Transfers are a hot button issue not just in New Jersey, but across the country.

The NJSIAA was trying to get out of the ‘transfer business’ and loosely follow the model adopted by the NCAA, in which players have the right to transfer from one school to another without penalty.

When the NJSIAA adopted a new transfer rule in 2023, they kept in a short sit period for athletes who are seniors. At the time, they said it was to keep the playing field level, meaning they didn’t want a large group of prominent players to all join one team as seniors.

This rule passed the general membership of the NJSIAA (athletic directors, superintendents) by a large margin. But even at the time, there was some wonder if it would stand up in a court of law.

Does the NJSIAA have a leg to stand on?

Legally, this does seem shaky. How can you treat a sub-section of your athletes differently than others just because of their grade level?

But the NJSIAA can also cite that the sit period is uniquely short when compared to other states, and that education-based athletics should have a different set of standards compared to college sports, and that these rules were vetted and agreed upon by the standard policy makers.

The overall goal is to educate students, not to always win on the football field. Schools (and by proxy, players) sign up to compete under the NJSIAA banner and follow the established rules. If schools really don’t want to follow those rules, they can leave the NJSIAA.

What happens next?

It appears that Jennings will consolidate his clients into one case and represent both athletes seeking a temporary restraining order against the NJSIAA, which would keep the organization from enforcing the rule and allow both athletes to compete and practice for their new teams.

What is unclear is whether other student-athletes in the same situation will seek the same temporary restraining order. The case will certainly be monitored closely by the high school sports community.

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Answering the big questions surrounding the Campanile vs. NJSIAA football transfer case