Will the ruling on Euton scare Zollo off at GRC?

[Trojans]

If the KHSAA doesn't make the rules then why are people blaming them for enforcing them correctly?

[Zoolander]

If the KHSAA doesn't make the rules then why are people blaming them for enforcing them correctly?

The rule is too broad as written and applied here. If this ruling sticks, the rules needs to be revised, or many other innocent kids/families will be penalized wrongly.

[Eta Rho]

The rule is too broad as written and applied here. If this ruling sticks, the rules needs to be revised, or many other innocent kids/families will be penalized wrongly.

 

How is it too broad? It clearly states everything in black and white regarding transfers for athletic reasons. Why should one kid be given a special privelege just because of who he is but not others?

 

And I ask you this question. WOuld you or a lot of the others blaming the KHSAA feel the same way if Euton wasn't a UK recruit?

 

Also as stated before, the schools make the rules for an even playing field so you don't have incidents like this happening where you get 3 top players in the state in a span of 2 years.

 

The KHSAA made the right decision by enforcing the rules.

[Zoolander]

How is it too broad? It clearly states everything in black and white regarding transfers for athletic reasons. Why should one kid be given a special privelege just because of who he is but not others?

 

And I ask you this question. WOuld you or a lot of the others blaming the KHSAA feel the same way if Euton wasn't a UK recruit?

ABSOLUTELY! This has nothing to do with granting special privileges because of who someone is, or how they're connected.

 

If they rule Euton ineligible, they have to rule everyone in the same circumstance ineligible. That would be absolutely wrong... especially for kids who will never play past their four years of high school. Being high profile worked against him.

 

This is a horrible ruling based on a horribly written rule.

 

Also as stated before, the schools make the rules for an even playing field so you don't have incidents like this happening where you get 3 top players in the state in a span of 2 years.

There is no such thing as a "level playing field" anywhere in our society. Insisting that everyone abide by the same rules and laws is one thing, but artificially tinkering with things in an attempt to ensure that everyone is equal is a losing proposition from the start.

 

The KHSAA made the right decision by enforcing the rules.

If this is true, the rule being enforced is wrong.

[Eta Rho]

ABSOLUTELY! This has nothing to do with granting special privileges because of who someone is, or how they're connected.

 

If they rule Euton ineligible, they have to rule everyone in the same circumstance ineligible. That would be absolutely wrong... especially for kids who will never play past their four years of high school. Being high profile worked against him.

 

This is a horrible ruling based on a horribly written rule.

 

There is no such thing as a "level playing field" anywhere in our society. Insisting that everyone abide by the same rules and laws is one thing, but artificially tinkering with things in an attempt to ensure that everyone is equal is a losing proposition from the start.

 

If this is true, the rule being enforced is wrong.

 

 

If that's how you feel maybe you should go to each member school around the state and tell them. All the KHSAA did was enforce the rules which were WRITTEN and up with by all participating schools of the KHSAA.

 

It may be wrong to rule him ineligible since it's not in the best interest of the KID, but his parents and he knew that he would be ineligible as soon as he left Rose Hill. His waiver was denied because when choosing the area and school to go to, athletics played a part in it. I don't care who you are, if you're that good, it shouldn't matter where you play. This was obviously planned and the KHSAA isn't dumb. They knew too.

 

Also what does a level playing field in society have to do with high school sports? The rules that were come up with were to ensure there would be a level playing field and to keep incidents like this from happening.

 

SC, Euton, and Jackson will still get a year together. They just won't get the back to back rings like they had PLANNED from the beginning.

[FANOFTHE11th]

ABSOLUTELY! This has nothing to do with granting special privileges because of who someone is, or how they're connected.

 

If they rule Euton ineligible, they have to rule everyone in the same circumstance ineligible. That would be absolutely wrong... especially for kids who will never play past their four years of high school. Being high profile worked against him.

 

This is a horrible ruling based on a horribly written rule.

There is no such thing as a "level playing field" anywhere in our society. Insisting that everyone abide by the same rules and laws is one thing, but artificially tinkering with things in an attempt to ensure that everyone is equal is a losing proposition from the start.

 

If this is true, the rule being enforced is wrong.

But the fact of the matter is it is written. That being the case people should read it. The perception by most is that when a student transfers he is eligible until ruled ineligible. As the rule reads a student athlete that has participated in a varsity sport is ineligible the minute he or she transfers. To participate they must be granted a waiver by the KHSAA.

 

I believe that there is also a section in the bylaws that spells out what is considered recruiting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it could be considered recruiting if a parent of a child attending a school tries to recruit an athlete from another school. Now we all know that this goes on and would be very difficult to police, but the appearance is a little fishy when 3 players that played on the same AAU team for years transfer to a school that another one of their AAU teamates plays for.

 

Also I don't think it is very smart when one of these parents gets loud and argumentative with others in the stands at a recent summer ball game about the transfers eligibility and how everyone should be able to put a team together like this.

 

My advice would be to keep quiet, fly under the radar, and make my case with the KHSAA. It just might be to late for that.

[Eta Rho]

But the fact of the matter is it is written. That being the case people should read it. The perception by most is that when a student transfers he is eligible until ruled ineligible. As the rule reads a student athlete that has participated in a varsity sport is ineligible the minute he or she transfers. To participate they must be granted a waiver by the KHSAA.

 

I believe that there is also a section in the bylaws that spells out what is considered recruiting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it could be considered recruiting if a parent of a child attending a school tries to recruit an athlete from another school. Now we all know that this goes on and would be very difficult to police, but the appearance is a little fishy when 3 players that played on the same AAU team for years transfer to a school that another one of their AAU teamates plays for.

 

Also I don't think it is very smart when one of these parents gets loud and argumentative with others in the stands at a recent summer ball game about the transfers eligibility and how everyone should be able to put a team together like this.

 

My advice would be to keep quiet, fly under the radar, and make my case with the KHSAA. It just might be to late for that.

 

Game, set, match. Well said. :thumb:

[westsider]

I realize that facts aren't always popular, but when I read quotes like, "A lot of the locals are kind of fed up with the whole situation that has been going on there for years." it just amazes me.

 

Scott County did not grow in population at all between 1900 and 1975, but will triple in population by 2010. That means that nearly two-thirds of the current population has moved into the county in the past generation, household income has doubled, quality of life (including brand new elementary, middle and high schools) is off the charts and yet people are getting fed up with all the transfers?

 

Unbelievable...

Perhaps the locals know a lot about what has gone on behind the scenes ...

A guy loses his job and has to relocate for his new job. He chooses a good school in a growing community for his kid, and you get people on here suggesting he should commute 240 miles and four hours a day with gas at $4 a gallon so his kid could stay at his old school ...

Who said that?

... and the KHSAA says it's a move for athletic purposes... amazing.

An entirely defensible position, given Clay Euton's comments to the media.

There's not a school in Central Kentucky where Euton or Jackson could have transferred that it wouldn't have caused big problems for somebody.

Yeah, but it also just happened to be a school that has a history of getting big-name transfers in mid-career, including three Division I prospects in less than one calendar year.

[leatherneck]

That guy was also quoted as saying part of the move was for athletic reasons as well. Whether you want to admit it or not, those FACTS make the kid ineligible. As Ram has said many times, the day they left Rose Hill they became ineligible. It is up to them to get eligibility back, but when you're going to make bonehead comments and admit the inevitable, yea you're going to pay the consequences. Like it or not, get over it. The SCHOOLS made the rules and the KHSAA just enforces them.

 

Also this isn't the first time the Euton's have tried to find a way to get to Rupp, and I'll leave it at that, as to keep from breaking a BGP rule.

 

I don't think the bolded part of your post is accurate. The by law says the transfer cannot be motivated by athletic intent. From what I know at this point, the transfer was not motivated by athletic intent; rather it was motivated by the father losing his former job in Ashland and needing to find a new job which was in Lexington. Perhaps someone from Ashland can correct me if I'm wrong, but Ashland's economy is not exactly booming right now. I have to assume that (actually for reasons I can't disclose, I know that) if there was a lot of work for engineers in Ashland, his former employer would not have closed its Ashland office. Which meant that he was going to have to find a new job in a new locale. Thus, from what I know the motivation for the transfer was to find a new job so the father could provide for his family.

 

The selection of the high school may have been based on its athletic program, but so what. As a parent I can assure you that if my law firm opened an office in Louisville, Lexington, Athlanta, LA, NYC or anywhere in the country and I was transferred there, I can assure you that as a parent (and I think anyone on here that is a parent would agree with me here) I would consider many factors in selecting the best high school for my sons. Since they play athletics, the athletic programs would figure in, heck should figure in, to my selection along with the academic programs of course. And my sons should not lose one of only four years of high school eligibility because of a move that may have been totally out of my control.

 

I think a lot of the posters upset about the kids going to SC are doing so out of emotion and not logic. Some of the emotion is to put in bluntly, jealously of SC's basketball program; some of it is jealously of the quality of life in Gerogetown; some of it is because they know if these kids play at SC it will be harder for the posters' programs to win state this year; and some of it is simply driven by the knee jerk over-reaction to wanting the KHSAA to crack down on the rules. But taking emotion out of it and looking at this logically, barring some evidence to the contrary and based only on what I know to date, I don't think the transfer was not motivated by athletic intent; rather it was to find a new job because he lost his job in Ashland (its totally possible that the KHSAA has other evidence that supports its position, but I don't know what it is and my guess no one else on here does either, so the posts to date are probably based only on what we've read in the newspaper articles and that info does not support the transfer was for athletic intent argument).

 

To some my position may seem like semantics; it is not. It is based on subtle nuances of the facts and the law. Subtle nuances that unfortunately are lost on some people, but generally are not lost on lawyers and judges.

 

I will say that I would look at this situation totally different if the father had voluntarily quit a good job in Ashland and took another job in Lexington for roughly the same amount of pay, with the same responsibilities and the same perks that he had in Ashland. But that is not the case here; not even close.

 

And this match I have a feeling isn't close to being over.

[jonathan.fraysure]

I don't think the bolded part of your post is accurate. The by law says the transfer cannot be motivated by athletic intent. From what I know at this point, the transfer was not motivated by athletic intent; rather it was motivated by the father losing his former job in Ashland and needing to find a new job which was in Lexington. Perhaps someone from Ashland can correct me if I'm wrong, but Ashland's economy is not exactly booming right now. I have to assume that (actually for reasons I can't disclose, I know that) if there was a lot of work for engineers in Ashland, his former employer would not have closed its Ashland office. Which meant that he was going to have to find a new job in a new locale. Thus, from what I know the motivation for the transfer was to find a new job so the father could provide for his family.

 

The selection of the high school may have been based on its athletic program, but so what. As a parent I can assure you that if my law firm opened an office in Louisville, Lexington, Athlanta, LA, NYC or anywhere in the country and I was transferred there, I can assure you that as a parent (and I think anyone on here that is a parent would agree with me here) I would consider many factors in selecting the best high school for my sons. Since they play athletics, the athletic programs would figure in, heck should figure in, to my selection along with the academic programs of course. And my sons should not lose one of only four years of high school eligibility because of a move that may have been totally out of my control.

 

I am in no way disagreeing with you, if it was my kid, I want him/her to go to the best school for whatever skill they possess.

 

If someone else has brought this up, disregard it, but it's hard to go through multiple threads to see a particular point. I think a fundamental flaw in this entire process, at least in Euton's case, is the bolded above.

 

I'm assuming that it's true they moved to Lexington (i.e. Fayette County), yet have chosen to attend Scott County. I don't know the particulars, but isn't Lexington as a whole "zoned" so that where you live, you have to go to a particular school?

 

I guess my question is, if the Eutons had enrolled Dakotah at the school in his neighborhood in Lexington, whichever one that may be, would any of this be controversial? (This of course is based on the assumption that Jackson is not part of the equation).

 

Again, I don't disagree that you should be able to choose the best school for your talents, which in this case is obviously athletics. But I guess if the family had moved to the Georgetown/Scott County district, this could be sort of a moot point, past the automatically being ineligible when you transfer. Just a thought.

[Eta Rho]

I don't think the bolded part of your post is accurate. The by law says the transfer cannot be motivated by athletic intent. From what I know at this point, the transfer was not motivated by athletic intent; rather it was motivated by the father losing his former job in Ashland and needing to find a new job which was in Lexington. Perhaps someone from Ashland can correct me if I'm wrong, but Ashland's economy is not exactly booming right now. I have to assume that (actually for reasons I can't disclose, I know that) if there was a lot of work for engineers in Ashland, his former employer would not have closed its Ashland office. Which meant that he was going to have to find a new job in a new locale. Thus, from what I know the motivation for the transfer was to find a new job so the father could provide for his family.

 

The selection of the high school may have been based on its athletic program, but so what. As a parent I can assure you that if my law firm opened an office in Louisville, Lexington, Athlanta, LA, NYC or anywhere in the country and I was transferred there, I can assure you that as a parent (and I think anyone on here that is a parent would agree with me here) I would consider many factors in selecting the best high school for my sons. Since they play athletics, the athletic programs would figure in, heck should figure in, to my selection along with the academic programs of course. And my sons should not lose one of only four years of high school eligibility because of a move that may have been totally out of my control.

 

I think a lot of the posters upset about the kids going to SC are doing so out of emotion and not logic. Some of the emotion is to put in bluntly, jealously of SC's basketball program; some of it is jealously of the quality of life in Gerogetown; some of it is because they know if these kids play at SC it will be harder for the posters' programs to win state this year; and some of it is simply driven by the knee jerk over-reaction to wanting the KHSAA to crack down on the rules. But taking emotion out of it and looking at this logically, barring some evidence to the contrary and based only on what I know to date, I don't think the transfer was not motivated by athletic intent; rather it was to find a new job because he lost his job in Ashland (its totally possible that the KHSAA has other evidence that supports its position, but I don't know what it is and my guess no one else on here does either, so the posts to date are probably based only on what we've read in the newspaper articles and that info does not support the transfer was for athletic intent argument).

 

To some my position may seem like semantics; it is not. It is based on subtle nuances of the facts and the law. Subtle nuances that unfortunately are lost on some people, but generally are not lost on lawyers and judges.

 

I will say that I would look at this situation totally different if the father had voluntarily quit a good job in Ashland and took another job in Lexington for roughly the same amount of pay, with the same responsibilities and the same perks that he had in Ashland. But that is not the case here; not even close.

 

And this match I have a feeling isn't close to being over.

 

I guess this is one thing we'll have to agree to disagree on LN.

 

From what I know, someone correct me if I'm wrong, the company as a whole wasn't shutting down, but rather the Ashland office, and it wouldn't shut down, until the end of this year.

 

Also, while I have said all along the MOVE was legitimate, I just don't think the school chosen was and that it was all planned in order for his son to have a chance to play at Rupp before the end of his high school career, which in the bylaws is a NO NO and breaking the rules. To be honest had Clay not made those comments, his son would be eligible today, but he did make them so it's something he and his family will have to deal with.

 

I guess I know a little more about the Euton family and some of their recent traits of trying to get to Rupp, which is why I am so firmly against him going to SC. Let's just say the 11th region isn't the only place that had a few players Euton thought he could get a ring with. I will leave it at that.

[leatherneck]

I guess this is one thing we'll have to agree to disagree on LN.

 

From what I know, someone correct me if I'm wrong, the company as a whole wasn't shutting down, but rather the Ashland office, and it wouldn't shut down, until the end of this year.

 

Also, while I have said all along the MOVE was legitimate, I just don't think the school chosen was and that it was all planned in order for his son to have a chance to play at Rupp before the end of his high school career, which in the bylaws is a NO NO and breaking the rules. To be honest had Clay not made those comments, his son would be eligible today, but he did make them so it's something he and his family will have to deal with.

 

I guess I know a little more about the Euton family and some of their recent traits of trying to get to Rupp, which is why I am so firmly against him going to SC. Let's just say the 11th region isn't the only place that had a few players Euton thought he could get a ring with. I will leave it at that.

 

You are correct in that the company did not shut down totally, just its Ashland office. I do not know if Mr. Euton was offered another job in one of the company's other offices. But lets say he did and it was in the Cinti office and he accepted the job offer. You are saying it would have been wrong for the parent to decide to send his kid to CovCath, or Holmes, or Highlands or whatever school he selected, based on the strength of that school's athletic program. I surely do not. Not for a second.

 

I usually agree with you and respect your positions highly. I have to continue to respectfully disagree with you based on the "facts" of this situation as I know them. .

 

As to the bolded part, this attorney disagrees with your conclusion as to the reading of the by law. Again, if you lose your job and you have to relocate to another town in order to find work (which is the case here as I understand it; if I'm wrong, someone please let me know), that is the basis or reason for the transfer. Period. A father gets transferred into Boyle County by his employer, and the father selects Boyle over Danville because he thinks Boyle's football program is better (sorry Ad fans, it just a hypothetical:D), would that be wrong? I don't think so. Bottom line unless there is evidence that the loss of the job in Ashland was sham or the new job in Lex is a sham or there has not been a bona fide change in residence, then its a legit transfer in my mind. And then its simply a parental decision as to what high school would be best for his child.

 

I won't question what you know; not for a minute. And really, I feel the way I do, not based specifically on the Euton case, just the scenario in general. And maybe, I don't know, Mr. Euton is one of those 10% of parents that re-arranges his and his families entire lives to see his child play in Rupp, or Papa Johns or whereever, but unless there is proof that he intentionally took part in making his employer shut down the Ashland office, then I think we have to assume the transfer was legit. While I understand that the rule is that the kid is ineligible for a year if he played varsity sports at his former school, and remains ineligible unless an exception is met, I personally feel from the little I know at this point that if the facts support the exception then the kid plays as the KHSAA is supposed to be about participation, isn't it? Isn't that what the KHSAA nobly talks about all the time; about how important participation in the athletic process is in the educational framework? About all the values learned by kids participating in athletics? I personally lean heavily to the side of parents having the right to make to select the high school that the parents feel is best for their kids, even knowing that there is the 10% out there that will make the selection for the wrong reason in your mind and my mind. I lean heavily on letting a kid get to participate in athletics because I have personally experienced and have seen the wonderful things that high school athletics has done for many, many kids. So unless there is some violation of some hard and fast rule (over 19 before August 1 for example), I think we should give the benefit of any doubt to the kid and let him/her participate. Its a philosophical thing to me.

[Trojans]

I am in no way disagreeing with you, if it was my kid, I want him/her to go to the best school for whatever skill they possess.

 

If someone else has brought this up, disregard it, but it's hard to go through multiple threads to see a particular point. I think a fundamental flaw in this entire process, at least in Euton's case, is the bolded above.

 

I'm assuming that it's true they moved to Lexington (i.e. Fayette County), yet have chosen to attend Scott County. I don't know the particulars, but isn't Lexington as a whole "zoned" so that where you live, you have to go to a particular school?

 

I guess my question is, if the Eutons had enrolled Dakotah at the school in his neighborhood in Lexington, whichever one that may be, would any of this be controversial? (This of course is based on the assumption that Jackson is not part of the equation).

 

Again, I don't disagree that you should be able to choose the best school for your talents, which in this case is obviously athletics. But I guess if the family had moved to the Georgetown/Scott County district, this could be sort of a moot point, past the automatically being ineligible when you transfer. Just a thought.

 

 

I think they did move to Georgetown.

[Trojans]

While we a lot of us continue to disagree over whether Euton should be eligible can we at least conclude that Chad Jackson should be ineligible?

[Zoolander]

While we a lot of us continue to disagree over whether Euton should be eligible can we at least conclude that Chad Jackson should be ineligible?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Based upon what facts?

 

No one is talking as about much about Jackson because the details in his situation have not been publicized. I do know his stepdad and father of his younger brother works at Toyota. Jackson may have as good a reason as anybody.

 

I've never seen a bunch of adults so eager to take something away from good kids who genuinely don't deserve such hostility.