I would have thought that Jackson would be the one ruled ineligible. Either way I don't see the KHSAA reversing their decision. Hate to say it but "I told ya so." I figured one of the two would be ruled ineligible and it just ended up being Euton, but guess the KHSAA saw more than we know of.

 

Either way I still see SC winning the state title this year, will just have a few more losses and tougher time doing it.

 

Today, 09:10 PM	#66
Eta Rho All State Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Fort Thomas, KY Posts: 1,886	Quote: Originally Posted by scheat40 You would just love to see that happen!.gif] Hate ta say it...but told ya so.   But as stated before, considering it's SC, I expect the ruling to be reversed. SC fans just better hope it's before the season is over.

 

 

Which is it?

I have wondered about this. If the KHSAA rules him ineligible at Scott County, can he play somewhere else? For example, could he got back to Rose Hill and be eligible? (not saying he could do this considering his dad no longer has a job there)

 

Or if he tries to go to another school, does the KHSAA have to rule on his transfer again?

 

Just wondering.....

Your always eligible somewhere...Im guessing Rose Hill, until a legit residence change not due to athletic purposes.

Guess he could move out of state and play somewhere. I heard of this earlier this year in Northern KY. A kid wasn't happy with the school situation, so his parents moved over the border into Ohio so he could play there.

This is probably just the beginning ... we'll probably be discussing this case well into next season.

If its undisputed that his dad lost his job , I don't see where the comments by the dad come into play. I would think its a simple argument: I lost my job. I found a new job in Lexington. I chose a school for my son that, yes, is a strong b-ball school.

 

I don't see the problem. If the move was necessitated by the loss of a job, why does it matter what the reasons were for choosing a new school?

Did the family actually purchase a home or are they renting (ala the Mitchell case)?

I don't see where the comments by the dad come into play.

There is a provision in the KHSAA bylaws that a transfer can be ruled ineligible if it is deemed as being "for athletic reasons" ... given Clay Euton's comments to the media after the move, I suspect that is what the KHSAA determined.

 

That scenario is one I suggested two months ago.

If its undisputed that his dad lost his job , I don't see where the comments by the dad come into play. I would think its a simple argument: I lost my job. I found a new job in Lexington. I chose a school for my son that, yes, is a strong b-ball school.

 

I don't see the problem. If the move was necessitated by the loss of a job, why does it matter what the reasons were for choosing a new school?

Excellent points Clyde… :thumb:

 

My hat's off to Mr. Euton for being honest instead of "crafty" and dishonest.

 

He lost his job of 20 years through no fault of his own and had to relocate… period. That was the motive for the family’s move.

 

Anyone who has a 6' 8" son that has already committed to a major D-1 program that says he does not consider where and how his son will develop and compete athletically his final two years of high school is either a liar or a moron. For the KHSAA to have a rule prohibiting the honest evaluation of schools by parents in this situation is entirely out of touch with reality, and what is genuinely in the best interests of individual student athletes.

 

Dad Euton was simply honest. All the KHSAA is doing with this ruling is encouraging others in similar circumstances to lie and conceal… which in the long run defeats the purpose of the rules and ultimately makes their job of policing transfers much more difficult.

 

If the KHSAA can determine that Dad Euton lost his job on purpose, just so he could relocate and get his son in another school, or can prove that Scott County “recruited” the family then they have a strong case. Otherwise, this just appears to be an attempt to enforce an absurd and arbitrary rule.

Today, 09:10 PM	#66
Eta Rho All State Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Fort Thomas, KY Posts: 1,886	Quote: Originally Posted by scheat40 You would just love to see that happen!.gif] Hate ta say it...but told ya so.   But as stated before, considering it's SC, I expect the ruling to be reversed. SC fans just better hope it's before the season is over.

 

 

Which is it?

 

 

Second was being sarcastic. Guess I didn't put the in there. Ha sorry

If its undisputed that his dad lost his job , I don't see where the comments by the dad come into play. I would think its a simple argument: I lost my job. I found a new job in Lexington. I chose a school for my son that, yes, is a strong b-ball school.

 

I don't see the problem. If the move was necessitated by the loss of a job, why does it matter what the reasons were for choosing a new school?

 

:thumb: I agree.

 

I wonder if Euton had enrolled at say GRC, Madison Central, Franklin County, Lafayette, or Dunbar if he would be eligble? Given Scott Counties past history with transfers and the outspoken comments, what else could be the reason?

But you didn't think that the Johnson brother should sit a year. Or that Housely should sit a year at Holmes.

Seems hypocritical.

 

Again...Johnson brothers attended Holmes middle schooling, left a year, and came back because of a mother's loss of job and getting another position in the Cov. schooling system. They also had legitimate residence changes which is why they were ruled eligible. (Not saying Euton's wasn't but these boys came back to their original school and only left because of a mother's job change.)

 

I don't know the specifics of the Housley transfer so I can't comment on it. Might want to PM baseballguy and he can give you an inside scoop if he chooses.

Again...Johnson brothers attended Holmes middle schooling, left a year, and came back because of a mother's loss of job and getting another position in the Cov. schooling system. They also had legitimate residence changes which is why they were ruled eligible. (Not saying Euton's wasn't but these boys came back to their original school and only left because of a mother's job change.)

 

I don't know the specifics of the Housley transfer so I can't comment on it. Might want to PM baseballguy and he can give you an inside scoop if he chooses.

 

First and foremost, what is the main reason for the Euton's leaving?

If its undisputed that his dad lost his job , I don't see where the comments by the dad come into play. I would think its a simple argument: I lost my job. I found a new job in Lexington. I chose a school for my son that, yes, is a strong b-ball school.

 

I don't see the problem. If the move was necessitated by the loss of a job, why does it matter what the reasons were for choosing a new school?

 

Did he get a job in Lexington??

Excellent points Clyde… :thumb:

 

My hat's off to Mr. Euton for being honest instead of "crafty" and dishonest.

 

He lost his job of 20 years through no fault of his own and had to relocate… period. That was the motive for the family’s move.

 

Anyone who has a 6' 8" son that has already committed to a major D-1 program that says he does not consider where and how his son will develop and compete athletically his final two years of high school is either a liar or a moron. For the KHSAA to have a rule prohibiting the honest evaluation of schools by parents in this situation is entirely out of touch with reality, and what is genuinely in the best interests of individual student athletes.

 

Dad Euton was simply honest. All the KHSAA is doing with this ruling is encouraging others in similar circumstances to lie and conceal… which in the long run defeats the purpose of the rules and ultimately makes their job of policing transfers much more difficult.

 

If the KHSAA can determine that Dad Euton lost his job on purpose, just so he could relocate and get his son in another school, or can prove that Scott County “recruited” the family then they have a strong case. Otherwise, this just appears to be an attempt to enforce an absurd and arbitrary rule.

 

I totally agree....:thumb::thumb:

Per the Herald Leader, Euton ruled ineligible to play for Scott County. Jackson ruled eligible. Nothing mentioned about Tanner Shotwell.

 

I am surprised as I expected the rulings to be Euton eligible and Jackson ineligible. Or both ineligible. Looks like the Eutons will appeal. My guess is the KHSAA reverses eventually and allows him to play in the end.

 

I just cannot understand Jackson. My understanding is his family (mom) lives in Scott County. He moved to Ashland to attend the Boys school there. Then was basically taken in by the Euton family. Both he and Euton played for Rose hill. Now his "caretaker family" moves to Scott County. Jackson moves home to live with his mom in Scott County.

 

HSBALL: I'll inform you that Jackson is not concerned whether you (or anyone else) "understands" or not. The problem with your comments and others is that you do not have the facts. You are stating simply what someone has told you or even what someone has stated on this site. Got news for everyone: People write things that aren't true on BGP!!!! I am sure one comment is very hurtful to the Jackson family. Chad's father is deceased. Any comments concerning his father is just plain outrageous!