Will the ruling on Euton scare Zollo off at GRC?

[FANOFTHE11th]

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.

Really at the end of the day it's not your opinion or mine that matters, it will be in the hands of the KHSAA. You have posted that you think the rule is "poorly written", so I am assuming you think it should be rewritten. All I have stated in previous posts is that the rule that is written is what we have to go by at this point.

 

How this will turn out in the end I have no idea. I guess it could go either way.

[Zoolander]

Really at the end of the day it's not your opinion or mine that matters, it will be in the hands of the KHSAA.

I realize we're just going in circles here. :thumb:

 

It will be interesting to see how many of the Euton critics who think the ruling and rule are just fine as is will accept the authority of the KHSAAA if they do choose to reverse this ruling. Something tells me, they will not be so supportive of the KHSAA then.

 

I also find it interesting that no one will attempt to answer Question #3, I posted earlier: "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? "

[Log Mountain Boy]

I realize we're just going in circles here. :thumb:

 

It will be interesting to see how many of the Euton critics who think the ruling and rule are just fine as is will accept the authority of the KHSAAA if they do choose to reverse this ruling. Something tells me, they will not be so supportive of the KHSAA then.

 

I also find it interesting that no one will attempt to answer Question #3, I posted earlier: "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? "

 

Thats because they should be able to consider that. There has to be some regulations, but at some point there has to be some common sense too regarding decisions by a family.

[Zoolander]

Thats because they should be able to consider that. There has to be some regulations, but at some point there has to be some common sense too regarding decisions by a family.

Clearly, I agree. That's why I contend that this rule/ruling needs to be repaired.

 

It also cracks me up that "the rules are the rules" crowd are just fine with it, as long as it doesn't harm them or their family, but something tells me it would be a different story if the same poorly conceived rule was used against them. :lol:

[FANOFTHE11th]

I realize we're just going in circles here. :thumb:

 

It will be interesting to see how many of the Euton critics who think the ruling and rule are just fine as is will accept the authority of the KHSAAA if they do choose to reverse this ruling. Something tells me, they will not be so supportive of the KHSAA then.

I also find it interesting that no one will attempt to answer Question #3, I posted earlier: "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? "

The bolded is sort of a ridiculous in that whatever the ruling is it has to be accepted. All anyone should really be concerned about is what they can control.

 

With regard to #3, who says that families don't, my guess is it happens all the time, most just keep it to themselves instead of making it public.

[Zoolander]

So why have a rule on the books that is impossible to police, impossible to enforce fairly, and very likely unconstitutional in it's attempt to limit the freedom of parents to move and enroll their children anywhere they feel is best, for any reasons they deem best?

[Old ball coach]

We all know they picked Scott Co. for Basketball reasons and they got nailed for it . I totally agree with the KHSAA ruling. Does anyone know who the Assistant Coaches on there AAU Team were?

[martstone]

We all know they picked Scott Co. for Basketball reasons and they got nailed for it . I totally agree with the KHSAA ruling. Does anyone know who the Assistant Coaches on there AAU Team were?

 

We all also know the family first and formost made a bona fied move of necessity . Some of us beleive this is all that should be required, and after such move they should be able to choose where they want to go to school for what ever reason they choose ! This is America isn't it ? The KHSAA rules should not be such that you cannot select a school of your choice after you move into any area for the sake of employment and providing for your family. It again shouldn't matter who the AAU coaches are. AAU does not answer to KHSAA.

[Old ball coach]

We all have to live by the rules no matter what they are . We all have rules at our work, or home , or city and our state. He can go to Scott Co. if he wants but he just can't play basketball. Bottom line is that his dad shot off his mouth to the press about why he wanted his son to play at Scott and that made it a rules violation. The only person to blame here is the dad.

[gold sunrise]

Think this thread has run its course. You may start a new one...keeping it on the topic of the thread this one had gotten off topic.