Will the ruling on Euton scare Zollo off at GRC?

[Eta Rho]

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.

 

A legitimate argument and I highly respect your points made as they're all very valid, but as I said before I guess this is something we'll just have to agree to disagree on.

 

The bottom line is this. While it isn't right for the kid to be penalized, it was done because his father made comments in the paper (which was not wise at all on his part), which showed that the transfer to a particular school chosen and area of residence chosen was in whole or partly for athletic reasons.

 

The publicized article is all the evidence the KHSAA needs to factor in to their decision. As you stated, there was a bonafide change of residence. BUT, if the residence chosen was for athletic purposes that gave the KHSAA a legitimate argument for their decision.

 

We could go on and on about this until blue in the face, but until we learn more facts, which the KHSAA may have, we'll keep making the same points.

[Eta Rho]

From the CJ:

 

Euton's family moved after his father's employer closed its office in Ashland, but the KHSAA said that because Euton's desire to attend Scott County -- based on public statements by his father, Clay -- was motivated in part to play basketball at the school, the waiver was denied.

 

Clay Euton was quoted in The Courier-Journal in March about Scott County: "He knew he would have some good teammates, and we looked at the facilities. A big factor was the schedule the team was willing to play. That's really what helped us make our decision."

 

The KHSAA also said that "concerns involving the recent transfer of other AAU basketball teammates to Scott County" factored into the decision.

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/SPORTS05/806190480

 

I rest my case your honor...no further questions.

[scheat40]

From the CJ:

 

Euton's family moved after his father's employer closed its office in Ashland, but the KHSAA said that because Euton's desire to attend Scott County -- based on public statements by his father, Clay -- was motivated in part to play basketball at the school, the waiver was denied.

 

Clay Euton was quoted in The Courier-Journal in March about Scott County: "He knew he would have some good teammates, and we looked at the facilities. A big factor was the schedule the team was willing to play. That's really what helped us make our decision."

 

The KHSAA also said that "concerns involving the recent transfer of other AAU basketball teammates to Scott County" factored into the decision.

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/SPORTS05/806190480

 

I rest my case your honor...no further questions.

 

It seems to be ok by you that the transfer coming in to Holmes is the same just a different bag it comes in?

[Zoolander]

I’m going to try a different approach here. I’m numbering them so you can just respond to the numbers instead of having to copy and paste the whole question:

 

1. Apart from all arguments about any specific kid’s eligibility, why should there be a rule that prohibits parents from considering athletics in whole or part in their decision making process in determining where to enroll their children in school?
   
2. Should this, “Athletic Purposes” rule override legitimate changes of address if a family moves for genuinely non-athletic reasons?
   
3. Why should a family, moving for non-athletic reasons, not be allowed to consider athletics as part of their secondary decision about where to buy a home and enroll their kids in school?
   
4. If you were in Mr. Euton’s shoes, making a legitimate move because of his job, would you not consider where your D-1 recruit son might best develop his final two years of high school?
   
5. Does anyone see this rule as being more focused upon protecting the potential revenues of member schools than in ensuring what is actually best for the individual students/families involved?
   
6. Do our schools exist to serve our children, or do our children exist merely to fuel the revenue stream of their schools?
   
7. In general, (not just extreme cases of idiotic parents) should parents or the government/school systems have more rights/leverage regarding what’s best for children?
   
8. Does our government exist to serve its citizens, or are citizens servants of the state?
   

[scheat40]

I’m going to try a different approach here. I’m numbering them so you can just respond to the numbers instead of having to copy and paste the whole question:

 

1. Apart from all arguments about any specific kid’s eligibility, why should there be a rule that prohibits parents from considering athletics in whole or part in their decision making process in determining where to enroll their children in school?
   
2. Should this, “Athletic Purposes” rule override legitimate changes of address if a family moves for genuinely non-athletic reasons?
   
3. Why should a family, moving for non-athletic reasons, not be allowed to consider athletics as part of their secondary decision about where to buy a home and enroll their kids in school?
   
4. If you were in Mr. Euton’s shoes, making a legitimate move because of his job, would you not consider where your D-1 recruit son might best develop his final two years of high school?
   
5. Does anyone see this rule as being more focused upon protecting the potential revenues of member schools than in ensuring what is actually best for the individual students/families involved?
   
6. Do our schools exist to serve our children, or do our children exist merely to fuel the revenue stream of their schools?
   
7. In general, (not just extreme cases of idiotic parents) should parents or the government/school systems have more rights/leverage regarding what’s best for children?
   
8. Does our government exist to serve its citizens, or are citizens servants of the state?
   

 

WELL SAID! :thumb:

[leatherneck]

From the CJ:

 

Euton's family moved after his father's employer closed its office in Ashland, but the KHSAA said that because Euton's desire to attend Scott County -- based on public statements by his father, Clay -- was motivated in part to play basketball at the school, the waiver was denied.

 

Clay Euton was quoted in The Courier-Journal in March about Scott County: "He knew he would have some good teammates, and we looked at the facilities. A big factor was the schedule the team was willing to play. That's really what helped us make our decision."

 

The KHSAA also said that "concerns involving the recent transfer of other AAU basketball teammates to Scott County" factored into the decision.

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/SPORTS05/806190480

 

I rest my case your honor...no further questions.

 

We aren't going to convince one another to change our position, so there isn't much use in posting a long response to your post, other than to point out that the comments from the father that you posted have more to do with the selection of the high school, not the reason for the transfer. And I think the reason for the transfer is the real issue and the "intent" of the by-law. Your motion is denied.

[SportsGuy41017]

We aren't going to convince one another to change our position, so there isn't much use in posting a long response to your post, other than to point out that the comments from the father that you posted have more to do with the selection of the high school, not the reason for the transfer. And I think the reason for the transfer is the real issue and the "intent" of the by-law. Your motion is denied.

 

:thumb:

[martstone]

We aren't going to convince one another to change our position, so there isn't much use in posting a long response to your post, other than to point out that the comments from the father that you posted have more to do with the selection of the high school, not the reason for the transfer. And I think the reason for the transfer is the real issue and the "intent" of the by-law. Your motion is denied.

 

I completely agree with you on this one. Section H-3 should not be under bylaw 6 . It should be a stand alone bylaw that does not apply when a move is necessary such as it clearly is in this case. H-3 was not thought out before it was put under bylaw 6. The real question they should look at in this case is , was it a bona fied move of necessity ? The KHSAA should do whatever is needed to make him eligible.:thumb:

[Zoolander]

I find it interesting-with all the activity in this thread-not one Euton/Jackson critic has elected to offer answers to the questions posted in #79 on this thread.

 

I'm not trying to entrap anybody. I'm genuinely trying to comprehend your logic apart from everyone's emotions. Everyone claims to want what's "fair". I'd like to know what you think is fair.

 

It's been almost 23 hours boys and girls. What do you have to say?

[FANOFTHE11th]

I find it interesting-with all the activity in this thread-not one Euton/Jackson critic has elected to offer answers to the questions posted in #79 on this thread.

 

I'm not trying to entrap anybody. I'm genuinely trying to comprehend your logic apart from everyone's emotions. Everyone claims to want what's "fair". I'd like to know what you think is fair.

 

It's been almost 23 hours boys and girls. What do you have to say?

I think that Euton has a legitimate appeal because of the situation with Woolpert and his job change. Yes his dad's comments to the media were damaging (he should have not commented). I think he has a good chance of becoming eligible unless there is more that we don't know about. By the way I have not posted that he should or shouldn't be eligible.

 

The thing that I have said is that I don't think it is a coincidence that Jackson and Flannery followed (all from the same AAU team). I do not know their story. All I have read is that Jackson wanted to continue to play with Euton and that he is originally from the area which brings to question, how did he end up at Rose Hill? Again I don't pretend to know their story and maybe the KHSAA doesn't know any more than I do.

 

I do not think that any of the coaches at Scott County recruited these players. If one parent talking to another is indeed recruiting according to the KHSAA, that could have happened, but I think that would be very difficult for the KHSAA to prove or police.

 

If they all are ruled eligible, the KHSAA may as well change their rules and give every player the freedom to transfer without the risk of being ineligible. They should also make recruiting at the parent level OK with their bylaws.

 

The bottom line is that there are only a couple of programs in the 11th that consistently get impact transfers year in year out. For the others that don't it is very difficult to compete.

 

Here's a thought, If the KHSAA put in their bylaws that you can recruit without penalty, then everyone would be on a level playing field.

[Zoolander]

1) I think that Euton has a legitimate appeal because of the situation with Woolpert and his job change. I think he has a good chance of becoming eligible unless there is more that we don't know about.

 

2) Yes his dad's comments to the media were damaging (he should have not commented).

 

3) I don't think it is a coincidence that Jackson and Flannery followed (all from the same AAU team). I do not know their story. All I have read is that Jackson wanted to continue to play with Euton and that he is originally from the area which brings to question, how did he end up at Rose Hill? Again I don't pretend to know their story and maybe the KHSAA doesn't know any more than I do.

 

4) I do not think that any of the coaches at Scott County recruited these players.

 

5) If one parent talking to another is indeed recruiting according to the KHSAA, that could have happened, but I think that would be very difficult for the KHSAA to prove or police.

 

6) If they all are ruled eligible, the KHSAA may as well change their rules and give every player the freedom to transfer without the risk of being ineligible.

 

7) They should also make recruiting at the parent level OK with their bylaws.

 

8) The bottom line is that there are only a couple of programs in the 11th that consistently get impact transfers year in year out. For the others that don't it is very difficult to compete.

 

9) Here's a thought, If the KHSAA put in their bylaws that you can recruit without penalty, then everyone would be on a level playing field.

Wow... I appreciate you stepping up to the plate with such a calm and rational response. We actually agree on several points. I’ve numbered your comments so I may respond to each without a bunch of copy and paste work:

 

1) First, I agree that Euton could/should be eligible upon appeal.

 

2) Yes, I think everyone would agree with a “no comment” in hindsight. I honestly believe the dad was so confident in the original motive of his move (job) and the strength of the Bona Fide Change of Residence Rule, he never thought where/why his son went to school would be an issue after that was met. If the rules are so convoluted that parents with average to above average IQs can’t clearly interpret them, they need to be revised.

 

3) It doesn’t have to be a coincidence to be fully legal. The circumstances of Jackson migrating to Ashland in the first place were probably more of a question than his family's return to the G-town area, but since he was only in 7th grade at the time of his move to RH, it's a non-issue. The real question is, “Is his family’s move to SC legitimate for reasons other than sports?” I think so.

 

4) I agree that there is no evidence of recruiting by anyone affiliated with SC.

 

5) I may differ with you on the issue of the KHSAA policing parents talking to one another. There is no reason whatsoever parents shouldn't be able to speak freely for or against a particular school or program. Unless they are paid employees of the school, this is a non-issue.

 

6) I view your point of transfer eligibility from the opposite direction you outline here. If Euton's eligibility is withheld, I see very few situations that others in his situation could or should be ruled eligible... ever... and that would just be wrong. If a hard line has to be drawn, draw it in favor of kids/parents.

 

7) I see no need for the KHSAA to legislate parents one way or the other. They have their hands full policing the member schools they do have jurisdiction over.

 

8) As I’ve outlined in considerable detail, SC is the 3rd fastest growing county out of 120 statewide, and about 88th out of all counties nationwide. It stands to reason that a county that has tripled in population would receive more quality transfers than 117 other counties in the state. It may not seem fair, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate.

 

9) I disagree. It may make the rules less subjective, but some schools and communities simply have more going for them than others. It might make enforcement easier and less subject to fickle opinions, but open recruiting would tilt the field even more. Police the member schools, not parents.

[westsider]

It stands to reason that a county that has tripled in population would receive more quality transfers than 117 other counties in the state. It may not seem fair, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate.

That might be the most creative explanation I've heard yet ... too funny. :lol:

[Zoolander]

People tend to migrate toward areas of opportunity.

 

They crossed open plains in covered wagons to build better lives 140 years ago. Moving to where the jobs and affordable houses are makes sense to me.

[kissinger]

2) Yes, I think everyone would agree with a “no comment” in hindsight. I honestly believe the dad was so confident in the original motive of his move (job) and the strength of the Bona Fide Change of Residence Rule, he never thought where/why his son went to school would be an issue after that was met. If the rules are so convoluted that parents with average to above average IQs can’t clearly interpret them, they need to be revised.

 

 

When one of the parents is the high school athletic director at the child's former school, there is no excuse for not having known that rule and then insisting on a brake pedal on the mouth of the other parent.

[KIDS FAN]

Who are the coaches and assistants on the AAU team? The answer will enlighten a few of you!