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.

Ram, I’ve read all of your posts in these threads, and understand that as written, Bylaw 6 can be interpreted as starkly as you suggest it should be.

 

After reading and rereading Bylaw 6 however, I am convinced that this harsh interpretation is not what is in the best interests of individual student athletes caught in situations beyond their control. Kids forced to relocate for reasons that have nothing to do with sports in any way, shape or form should be entitled to reasonable relief/waiver of absolute ineligibility. That’s the justification for the eight waiver exceptions (a-h) included in Section 1. If a child/family fulfills even one of these exceptions to the letter, waiver should be automatic.

 

The onus should then be upon the KHSAA to prove why such waiver should be denied. Of the five “exceptions to the exceptions” number three is

 

“3) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school;”

 

While I have mild exception to the “motivated in whole” statement, I have a huge issue with the “or part” inclusion. This is what makes this rule subjective, arbitrary, and absurd. To suggest that parents should in no way consider athletics in their evaluation of a new school for their child, (or at least don’t tell anybody you did, even though we all know we would if we were in your shoes,) is beyond ridiculous.

 

The KHSAA either needs to employ the Amazing Kreskin to devine each family's true thoughts and intentions, or simply punish the honest ones and reward the sneaky ones as is evident in this case.

 

It needs to be rewritten, and may be the precise grounds this ruling is overturned in the courts… whether the KHSAA accepts such a ruling or not.

 

The fact that 98% of all other students making the exact same transfer for the exact same reasons and receiving their eligibility because they are not high profile enough to have someone question them and then publish their words is what makes this rule inequitable.

Edited June 20, 200818 yr by The Mole

Ram, I’ve read all of your posts in these threads, and understand that as written, Bylaw 6 can be interpreted as starkly as you suggest it should be.

 

After reading and rereading Bylaw 6 however, I am convinced that this harsh interpretation is not what is in the best interests of individual student athletes caught in situations beyond their control. Kids forced to relocate for reasons that have nothing to do with sports in any way, shape or form should be entitled to reasonable relief/waiver of absolute ineligibility. That’s the justification for the eight waiver exceptions (a-h) included in Section 1. If a child/family fulfills even one of these exceptions to the letter, waiver should be automatic.

 

The onus should then be upon the KHSAA to prove why such waiver should be denied. Of the five “exceptions to the exceptions” number three is

 

“3) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school;”

 

While I have mild exception to the “motivated in whole” statement, I have a huge issue with the “or part” inclusion. This is what makes this rule subjective, arbitrary, and absurd. To suggest that parents should in no way consider athletics in their evaluation of a new school for their child, (or at least don’t tell anybody you did, even though we all know we would if we were in your shoes,) is beyond ridiculous.

 

The KHSAA either needs to employ the Amazing Kreskin to devine each family's true thoughts and intentions, or simply punish the honest ones and reward the sneaky ones as is evident in this case.

 

It needs to be rewritten, and may be the precise grounds this ruling is overturned in the courts… whether the KHSAA accepts such a ruling or not.

 

The fact that 98% of all other students making the exact same transfer for the exact same reasons and receiving their eligibility because they are not high profile enough to have someone question them and then publish their words is what makes this rule inequitable.

 

The rule is clean and clear. They broke the rules with the comments. Like it or not, that's facts. It may not be in the best interst that they have to sit out but it's not also in their best interest to transfer for athletic purposes and if you don't think it's solely that you're blind to the facts and comments.

Mole I understand what you are saying. And if I have not said it in this thread, I have absolutely no hard feelings toward any party in the this case. By all accounts the two families involved in this transfer are good people, and I have absolutely no doubt that they just want what is best for their children.

 

But, some good people are going to have to be affected to put a stop to these transfer situations. I have no doubt that most, a high percentage, of transfers are for athletic reasons. Now, that is not to say they are not partly for academic reasons also. I have found that most, if not close to all, high schools that do well in athletics, generally do very well academically as well. It's not all inclusive, so don't hammer me on this.

 

So, if almost all transfers are for athletic reasons, why don't we see more that have to sit out a year? The reason is quite simply, the KHSAA normally has to go on testimony from the parents, coaches, and administrators. The KHSAA simply does not have proof to dispute the testimony of people who normally do not want to fight the transfer because they do not want to punish the child because of the actions of parents or other coaches.

 

This case however, has such proof. The parent of one transfer and the other transfer him self provided that proof. So they are going to be made example of. Every transfer that has been penalized in the last several years has had such proof against them. The rest, that were granted waivers, did not have such evidence against them, so they received their waiver.

 

Simple fact is that if the transfers did not supply their own evidence against theirselves, they probably would have received their waiver.

Edited June 20, 200818 yr by Ram

Everyone says, “The rules say...” this, that or the other. No one has yet explained why this is a good rule/ruling, and a parent in Clay Euton’s shoes should not be allowed to consider the best move for his family after losing the family’s primary income generating job, relocating for the new job, and where his D-1 recruit son will play his final two seasons of high school ball.

 

The hypocrisy is that other than being open and honest with a reporter for the LHL, any responsible parent in Mr. Euton’s shoes would have done exactly what he did… and, other than being open and honest with a reporter for the LHL, everyone seems to think it should have been okay for his son to receive full eligibility.

 

The fact everyone seems to agree that if the facts in this case were exactly the same and if Clay Euton had simply said “no comment” instead of telling the truth, it would be okay for his son to receive eligibility, tells me there is something wrong with the rule as it is written and applied here.

 

As far as a 16 year-old kid (Chad Jackson) talking to the “Cat’s Pause” of Xavier University. What’s he supposed to say to the school he hopes will invest tens of thousands of dollars toward his college education precisely because he can dribble, jump and shoot so proficiently? “I’m really hoping I’ll be more challenged in Calculus class, and I’ve heard their horticultural extracurriculars are exceptional.”

 

Give me a break.

 

Bylaw 6. Sec. 1) a) 3) stinks as it is written and enforced.

 

A community can legislate a law permitting law enforcement officers to shoot parking violators on the spot. That doesn’t mean the law will stand up to appeal to a higher court. Unfortunately, the overturning of such an idiotic law does not restore health to parking violators previously shot under the law.

 

I have no doubt that the Commissioner is a wonderful individual with good intentions. She is unfortunately constrained by a very poorly written rule.

Sorry, wrong thread

I think Bylaw 6 is about as good as it can be, unless they decide to allow any and all transfers. The Bylaw is written in favor of honesty. You are ineligible and have an opportunity to prove that you are not transferring for the wrong reasons. You actually have a very good chance of winning this argument, as has been proven for years. Most win their eligibility back. So, the table is already slanted toward the player getting his eligibility back.

 

But, as for the parties involved in this case. Why would the parents not want their sons to go to the best academic school in the area in which they just moved? By all accounts, Euton is a D1 player who has already verbally committed to UK, after playing at one of the smallest schools in the state. Would UK not want him anymore if he was playing for any other school in the Lexington/Scott Co area? Was he going to hurt his college prospects by going to any school in Lexington? They all play a tougher more glamorous schedule then Rose Hill. They are all close to UK, and will garner attention. Why would you say that Scott Co offered the most competition, the best athletic advantage? Why would you say that?

 

Personally, I was shocked when I read Clay Euton's comments in the paper. I could not believe that he made those comments. I could believe that he believed them, but I could not believe that he said them.

 

Once again, personally, I think his comments were fluff. I know Scott Co is going to be good, I believe they have a good school, I believe that Dakota will be better after two years there. But, what is he going to get at Scott Co, as far as basketball, that he would not get at any Lexington school? The fact is that Dakota is going to get better because he plays basketball year around against the best competition that he can. He plays AAU, summer ball, and high school ball against great competition. It has been said on BGP many times that college recruiting is done in the summer/AAU leagues. It has been said that players get better in the summer/AAU leagues. Why is the the high school and strength of schedule so important for a future UK player?

 

Simply, it wasn't about those things. It was about playing the game that he loves with his friends that he played AAU with, winning a State Championship, and dad wanted his son to sound good in the papers.

So... to completely fulfill the requirements of the rule, dad Euton should have scribbled the names of every school within a 20 minute drive of his job, tossed them in a hat and blindly picked a winner?

 

Not trying to be a smart aleck... just trying to understand.

So... to completely fulfill the requirements of the rule, dad Euton should have scribbled the names of every school within a 20 minute drive of his job, tossed them in a hat and blindly picked a winner?

 

Not trying to be a smart aleck... just trying to understand.

No, that is not what I mean. If you have a son who is already going to UK on a basketball scholarship, why would you have to say those things? Find the best school that you can, academically, violence, way of life, and let you son play basketball. He has won the prize already, don't try to make him sound like a free agent. He will still get better competition then Rose Hill, no knock on Rose Hill. Plus, will be playing Summer/AAU basketball against great competition.

 

I have no doubt that the real reason that they moved to Scott Co was because Dakota has friends there and if they had to move, that is where he wanted to go. Why not just say that? I will bet that the Eutons did not tour any facilities of any other schools. I bet they did not shop around. I bet they did not talk to any other coaches about their son playing for them. The comments were to promote his son, and were what caused the problem. Why not just say, Georgetown is a nice place to live and is close to my new job, and Dakota has several friends at Scott Co and it was a natural fit? Would those things not be all true?

Sometimes the it is better to say nothing than to say something even if it is the truth.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

Your boss asks you "Do I look stupid to you?"

 

Your girlfriend asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?"

 

My point is we should often use discretion as to what we say. A simple no comment from Clay Euton may have got the job done.

 

 

You should politely tell your boss he does look stupid, it may save him/her from making a big mistake by knowing this tidbit.

 

If your GF ask you that question, she already knows she looks fat in that dress, so why lie to her on top of it. Politely tell her the truth. Are you gonna tell your GF "no comment"? :lol:

 

I can't believe this Hicks character, if what daybyday says is true. Private workouts for stars only?!? Lunch in coaches office?!? Lunch delievered by coach?!? Is this the wa it is today? No wonder half these players are head cases when they leave school.

No, that is not what I mean. If you have a son who is already going to UK on a basketball scholarship, why would you have to say those things? Find the best school that you can, academically, violence, way of life, and let you son play basketball. He has won the prize already, don't try to make him sound like a free agent. He will still get better competition then Rose Hill, no knock on Rose Hill. Plus, will be playing Summer/AAU basketball against great competition.

 

I have no doubt that the real reason that they moved to Scott Co was because Dakota has friends there and if they had to move, that is where he wanted to go. Why not just say that? I will bet that the Eutons did not tour any facilities of any other schools. I bet they did not shop around. I bet they did not talk to any other coaches about their son playing for them. The comments were to promote his son, and were what caused the problem. Why not just say, Georgetown is a nice place to live and is close to my new job, and Dakota has several friends at Scott Co and it was a natural fit? Would those things not be all true?

We're getting much closer here. I agree that in hindsight, "PR issues" coulda-woulda-shoulda been handled much differently.

 

My entire point is that by simply saying as you suggest, "Georgetown is a nice place to live and is close to my new job, and Dakota has several friends at Scott Co and it was a natural fit." then in your opinion, and a vast majority of other's opinions Dakotah coulda-woulda-shoulda been ruled eligible.

 

Murder is murder whether you confess it or not. (Dramatic hyperbole intended.)

 

Confessing that you did it might bring more attention to your crime sooner, but confession cannot make you more or less guilty of the actual crime. Either you did it or you didn’t. You should be punished for the crime, not the confession itself.

 

What I’m hearing here is that if Clay Euton had just said the right things, Dakotah would be eligible today, but because Clay Euton said the wrong things, leading some to believe he did something he shouldn’t have done, Dakotah is ineligible.

 

So, to continue the dramatic, there’s no corpse, no one is reported missing, but because he said the wrong things he’s guilty… the confession is the crime.

 

I don't know anywhere in the U.S. that would be considered fair, right or acceptable.

Maybe they should change the rule and ban the parents/guardian from attending all home games for a year:D. I think under the circumstances Chad and Dakotah should be eligible.

We're getting much closer here. I agree that in hindsight, "PR issues" coulda-woulda-shoulda been handled much differently.

 

My entire point is that by simply saying as you suggest, "Georgetown is a nice place to live and is close to my new job, and Dakota has several friends at Scott Co and it was a natural fit." then in your opinion, and a vast majority of other's opinions Dakotah coulda-woulda-shoulda been ruled eligible.

 

Murder is murder whether you confess it or not. (Dramatic hyperbole intended.)

 

Confessing that you did it might bring more attention to your crime sooner, but confession cannot make you more or less guilty of the actual crime. Either you did it or you didn’t. You should be punished for the crime, not the confession itself.

 

What I’m hearing here is that if Clay Euton had just said the right things, Dakotah would be eligible today, but because Clay Euton said the wrong things, leading some to believe he did something he shouldn’t have done, Dakotah is ineligible.

 

So, to continue the dramatic, there’s no corpse, no one is reported missing, but because he said the wrong things he’s guilty… the confession is the crime.

 

I don't know anywhere in the U.S. that would be considered fair, right or acceptable.

If Clay Euton believes what he said is the truth, his son should be ineligible. But, I don't believe that he believes those comments to be true. If part of the reason for the transfer was for his son to have a overwhelmingly, good chance of winning a State Championship, then his son should be ineligible. If he only moved because of basketball, his son should be ineligible.

 

If he moved for financial needs and a school that his son has friends at and in a nice area, then his son should be eligible.

 

It is not about what he said. I am not saying he should lie, or with hold information. I think that the education and way of life should have been the reason for choosing the right school.

 

I think that it was possible for Dakota to stay at Rose Hill, if that is what was wanted. I am not saying, like some people have implied, that Clay Euton should have went to work at McDonalds. But, if it was needed for him to stay at Rose Hill, it could have been done. I have friends who work in Lexington and commute from Ashland. I have friends who commute to Charleston West Virginia to work from Ashland.

 

I had a friend in high school who was a very good baseball player and committed to Georgetown. His family lived in Worthington, his father's job was transferred to Lexington. His father commuted to Lexington until his son graduated, and then moved to Georgetown. It is possible. I am not saying that the Eutons should have done this. But, I am saying that it was possible.

 

It doesn't matter to me, if they wanted to move, that is fine. But, the level of competition was not the reason.

 

Let me ask you this: What if Dakota had played at Scott Co from kindergarten until his sophomore year of high school, with the talent that is at Scott Co now. Clay Euton's job was moved to Ashland, so he had to work in Ashland. Would Dakotah finish his basketball career at Scott Co. or would he move and play at Ashland, Boyd Co, or Rose Hill?

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 I can say about this is WOW!!!! Good luck with your son.

Let me ask you this: What if Dakota had played at Scott Co from kindergarten until his sophomore year of high school, with the talent that is at Scott Co now. Clay Euton's job was moved to Ashland, so he had to work in Ashland. Would Dakotah finish his basketball career at Scott Co. or would he move and play at Ashland, Boyd Co, or Rose Hill?

If I could answer that question, I could get a job at KHSAA reviewing transfers to devine their genuine motives... :lol:

 

This is silly... the guy lost his job, had to find a comparable new job, did, bought a house, moved, enrolled his son in the school he felt best for his son. Whether sports had anything to do with it or not is a secondary concern. The primary reason for the move was the dad's job.

 

Anyone in the exact same situation ( a D-1 recruit son ) that would make such a move without considering athletics as part of the equation is either inept, slow witted or a deceiver.

 

The fact that there's a loophole on the books prohibiting any parent in a similar situation from reasonably considering "athletics" is an abominable misappropriation of authority.

 

I can see why we wouldn't want families moving about for sports only. I cannot see why parents aren't permitted to consider sports as part of their overall evaluation in situations such as this.

 

I really can't understand how lying about or concealing it makes it better, but according to numerous posters this is what they should have done.

 

Rules are rules, but that one stinks as is.

Edited June 21, 200818 yr by The Mole

Come on, we are talking about being honest when making statements. You know as well as I do that if the above scenario had happened, Euton would not transfer form Scott Co. to any school in Boyd Co.