So according to the KHSAA Shotwell would be elgible next year at LCA....but if he moved back couldnt the KHSAA rule him inelgible for moving for athletic reasons?? IMO the problem with KHSAA transfer policy is its not black and white but left up to opinion...in WVA if player lives in district they are elgible with no questions asked at start of year....whats going to happen is that parents are going to start transferring out of state to get their kids exposure......kinda like Rondo!

I am of the opinion that Euton will or should be found eligable to play. Bylaw 6 -section h-3 should be ruled unconstitutional. No one should have the right to impede your choice of schools as long as a bona fide change in residence, necessitated by employment, is made. This move , no matter to where, should negate section H-3 added to qualification as a stipulation. In the event he enrolled prior to the official moving date , the KHSAA should overturn their initial finding when appealed. Mr. Eutons statement to the press should have no bearing on the finding of the KHSAA. Basically , Mr. Euton simply said - I have to move to get a job and my son wants to play ball. It just happened to be at Scott Co. There is nothing wrong with that. I think some of the KHSAA rules need to be disposed of.

As a Scott County parent I can tell you that rules have been broken. My son has "laced" up his shoes and went to work for several years. Sacrificing much along the way-just like all athletes do.I know my sons ability. Had the transfers not came he would have received playing time this season. I know the transfers are better than my son. I don't argue that. What is frustrating to the "basketball family" is that this was not done legally. Also, since they have transfered in the "all stars" are now the only ones that get individual workouts. All other kids are pushed to the side. Not even allowed to stay in the gym during these individual workouts. These players also eat there lunch in Coach Hicks office..it is brought to them by coaches. There is already a division on the team. We will have the talent but we won't get the job done. it will be just like the year we had Haddix, Walls, and Mackey....not enough basketball to go around....bad chemistry....and placing blame on one another...it has already started. The big question around the state is why not 2 schools in Scott County? Well, the community is ready for 2 schools. We WANT 2 schools. But winning at all cost is placed first in every sport in Scott County. The spring sports received sanctions earlier for rules violations. We do like to win but it is time that we win with Scott County kids.

As a Scott County parent I can tell you that rules have been broken. My son has "laced" up his shoes and went to work for several years. Sacrificing much along the way-just like all athletes do.I know my sons ability. Had the transfers not came he would have received playing time this season. I know the transfers are better than my son. I don't argue that. What is frustrating to the "basketball family" is that this was not done legally. Also, since they have transfered in the "all stars" are now the only ones that get individual workouts. All other kids are pushed to the side. Not even allowed to stay in the gym during these individual workouts. These players also eat there lunch in Coach Hicks office..it is brought to them by coaches. There is already a division on the team. We will have the talent but we won't get the job done. it will be just like the year we had Haddix, Walls, and Mackey....not enough basketball to go around....bad chemistry....and placing blame on one another...it has already started. The big question around the state is why not 2 schools in Scott County? Well, the community is ready for 2 schools. We WANT 2 schools. But winning at all cost is placed first in every sport in Scott County. The spring sports received sanctions earlier for rules violations. We do like to win but it is time that we win with Scott County kids.

 

 

All of the above sounds like a Coach Hicks issue and has nothing to do with the new kids.

I am of the opinion that Euton will or should be found eligable to play. Bylaw 6 -section h-3 should be ruled unconstitutional. No one should have the right to impede your choice of schools .

 

Who says his choice was impeded? No one at the KHSAA said he could not attend Scott County.

So according to the KHSAA Shotwell would be elgible next year at LCA....but if he moved back couldnt the KHSAA rule him inelgible for moving for athletic reasons?? IMO the problem with KHSAA transfer policy is its not black and white but left up to opinion...in WVA if player lives in district they are elgible with no questions asked at start of year....whats going to happen is that parents are going to start transferring out of state to get their kids exposure......kinda like Rondo!

But don't you think that most of the exposure kids get is out on the AAU circuit? I went to the King James Classic in Akron this past spring. Top players were there competing and many high D1 coaches.

Who says his choice was impeded? No one at the KHSAA said he could not attend Scott County.

 

So if he can't play , do you think he will stay ?

So if he can't play , do you think he will stay ?

 

Irrelevant to the point. He said it was unconstitutional. No one has said the boy cannot enroll at Scott County. I'm sure he's quite welcome.

 

I would hope Mr and Mrs Euton didn't make this decision for basketball reasons only. If I'm correct and if the KHSAA wins out, he'lll not play this season, continue to play AAU ball , retain his scholarship offer, play his senior year, and then matriculate 15 miles down the road to Lexington.

Ring up the KHSAA website and you'll see that the "varsity" aspect is NOT irrelevant. If you havent played ANY varsity sport yet, you can switch every year and be eligible immediately.

 

LMB - yes as long as he has played NO varsity sport at all. We see that all the time.

 

Correct...only varsity experience is the issue. That means stepping on the playing surface as a player for one second during a game/match/competition.

So according to the KHSAA Shotwell would be elgible next year at LCA....but if he moved back couldnt the KHSAA rule him inelgible for moving for athletic reasons?? IMO the problem with KHSAA transfer policy is its not black and white but left up to opinion...in WVA if player lives in district they are elgible with no questions asked at start of year....whats going to happen is that parents are going to start transferring out of state to get their kids exposure......kinda like Rondo!

It is black and white. If you transfer after or during your 9th grade year and have played any varsity sports, you are ineligible for one year. Plain and simple. That is the rule. You can appeal and you may get your eligibility back, but it is not guaranteed. Given the first two paragraphs of Bylaw 6, you should expect to be ineligible if you transfer.

We do like to win but it is time that we win with Scott County kids.

I promise I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm just curious what you define as "Scott County kids"?

Irrelevant to the point. He said it was unconstitutional. No one has said the boy cannot enroll at Scott County. I'm sure he's quite welcome.

 

I would hope Mr and Mrs Euton didn't make this decision for basketball reasons only. If I'm correct and if the KHSAA wins out, he'lll not play this season, continue to play AAU ball , retain his scholarship offer, play his senior year, and then matriculate 15 miles down the road to Lexington.

 

Since he plays basketball, lets assume that is to be included as a part of his attending Scott Co. In reference to unconstitutional , that applied to bylaw 6 setion h-3 , Not his enrollment. If his parents want to dig in for a legal battle, I think they can win !!

I am of the opinion that Euton will or should be found eligable to play. Bylaw 6 -section h-3 should be ruled unconstitutional. No one should have the right to impede your choice of schools as long as a bona fide change in residence, necessitated by employment, is made. This move , no matter to where, should negate section H-3 added to qualification as a stipulation. In the event he enrolled prior to the official moving date , the KHSAA should overturn their initial finding when appealed. Mr. Eutons statement to the press should have no bearing on the finding of the KHSAA. Basically , Mr. Euton simply said - I have to move to get a job and my son wants to play ball. It just happened to be at Scott Co. There is nothing wrong with that. I think some of the KHSAA rules need to be disposed of.

 

It would be interesting to see where the courts would come down on the constitutionality.

 

In the case regarding whether a school can require a drug test or not for athletes, the Supreme Court took the position that athletics was a PRIVILEGE and not a right and schools were constitutionally allowed to require drug testing.

 

It seems logical that the same leap of judgement could be used that athletics is a privilege and not a right and requirements could be placed upon an athlete.

 

Now are these requirements allowed or too much would be the question.

 

The right is an education that schools provide NOT an athletic career. Their right of an education for their child has not been infringed upon.

 

Since each and every individual school has the right to make a proposal to get rid of KHSAA rules and then vote on whether they should be removed or not, you can contact your local AD and/or principal to put together a proposal to remove the rules.

It would be interesting to see where the courts would come down on the constitutionality.

 

In the case regarding whether a school can require a drug test or not for athletes, the Supreme Court took the position that athletics was a PRIVILEGE and not a right and schools were constitutionally allowed to require drug testing.

 

It seems logical that the same leap of judgement could be used that athletics is a privilege and not a right and requirements could be placed upon an athlete.

 

Now are these requirements allowed or too much would be the question.

 

The right is an education that schools provide NOT an athletic career. Their right of an education for their child has not been infringed upon.

 

Since each and every individual school has the right to make a proposal to get rid of KHSAA rules and then vote on whether they should be removed or not, you can contact your local AD and/or principal to put together a proposal to remove the rules.

You can bet that if Euton were # 15 on the bench and his dad said to the press"my son is not very good ,but he wants to be on that bench, and I have to move anyway for a job" NOTHING would be said, except by #16s dad whos son didn't make the team!!

Regarding the typo in the letter that Jackson received, I have to think some of the language in the letter he received must have referenced being ineligible. I can't believe the letter was worded such that omitting the "in" from eligible led him to believe he was eligible. It seems as if the media wanted this to be a bigger story, possibly to bring out the discussion or get everyone talking, who knows.