You can call it what you want. I was with Clay on a fishing trip and he said to me that he had to wait to see if his firm would be purchased and if it was he'd have stayed in Ashland with the new firm. However, it was not and he had no options. Some of you would like to make it out like he was gonna stay and flip burgers at McDonalds until Dakotah graduated. He literally waited until the last minute for the company to make a decision. Like I said, call it what you want.

Sounds like LABS was right when had heard this could be an inside job from disgruntled parents in the community.

Hard to ever question LABS.

This is my first post on thie message board. I get on here and read from time to time. I am a Scott County parent that has sat back and watched this situation grow into a monster. I am here to let you know where 75% of the Scott County parents stand on this issue. We are disheartened that our sons have spent countless hours, trips to the emergency room for stitches from diving into bleachers and given up and sacrificed for this program. Our kids went 33-6 in 8th grade, 25-10, and only lost 6 games as freshman. They were coached by an outstanding coach (Lisa and Casey Sparrow)that truly cared for them and teaching them about life and basketball. They can play ball too when given the chance and would start for a lot of teams in the state. They have now been pushed to the end of the bench. There is NO loyalty. Don't get me wrong if they could not play and were not hard workes it would be different but they aren't. I know that middle school ball is not a predictor of high school ability. But I also know that there are a few of these kids that should have been given a chance. I can also tell you that when my son played the "Patriots" in AAU (we were playing for Scott County) There was a comment made that those 3 young men in question would transfer to Scott County for high school ball to become teammates of those they were playing against at the time. This comment was made from one of their parents to another parent at the time. I know this for a fact. This was a planned thought out move. I also know that some Scott County parents are so angry they are ready to turn everything they know in to the KHSAA. One already has. Take this post for what you want.

I take it as very interesting ...

This is my first post on thie message board. I get on here and read from time to time. I am a Scott County parent that has sat back and watched this situation grow into a monster. I am here to let you know where 75% of the Scott County parents stand on this issue. We are disheartened that our sons have spent countless hours, trips to the emergency room for stitches from diving into bleachers and given up and sacrificed for this program. Our kids went 33-6 in 8th grade, 25-10, and only lost 6 games as freshman. They were coached by an outstanding coach (Lisa and Casey Sparrow)that truly cared for them and teaching them about life and basketball. They can play ball too when given the chance and would start for a lot of teams in the state. They have now been pushed to the end of the bench. There is NO loyalty. Don't get me wrong if they could not play and were not hard workes it would be different but they aren't. I know that middle school ball is not a predictor of high school ability. But I also know that there are a few of these kids that should have been given a chance. I can also tell you that when my son played the "Patriots" in AAU (we were playing for Scott County) There was a comment made that those 3 young men in question would transfer to Scott County for high school ball to become teammates of those they were playing against at the time. This comment was made from one of their parents to another parent at the time. I know this for a fact. This was a planned thought out move. I also know that some Scott County parents are so angry they are ready to turn everything they know in to the KHSAA. One already has. Take this post for what you want.

 

Good points made.................if someone associated with Scott Co. is guilty of talking to these kids, the KHSAA should hammer them.

Here's the thing though. Sure the move was legit, but the area chosen and school chosen were without a doubt for athletic purposes.

 

1) Dakotah is a UK recruit. Makes sense to move to Lexington.

 

2) Both Euton and Jackson played AAU with Guyn. Again, makes sense to transfer to SC and play with one of your AAU running buddies who is also a top D1 recruit and try to get a state title.

 

The KHSAA knows the kids transferred for athletic purposes. Honesty or not by Clay and JAckson, the bottom line is THEY BROKE THE RULES with their comments and reasoning so why should they be eligible???

 

And for the last time, WHY ISN"T ANYONE TALKING ABOUT SHOTWELL BEING INELIGIBLE????. Again, just goes to show the khsaa made the right decision and those who think this will be overturned are blind to the facts out there.

 

 

Can you explain the Shotwell situation? I don't believe any of us really know much about that.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and I disagree, but one thing we did agree on is the KHSAA has handled the situation very poorly.

 

Another point I have is there is this big gray area where a situation can be deemed an athletic move. It sounds to me like this is a scary situation where a lot of kids on the move can be ruled ineligible because of this.

Can you explain the Shotwell situation? I don't believe any of us really know much about that.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and I disagree, but one thing we did agree on is the KHSAA has handled the situation very poorly.

 

Another point I have is there is this big gray area where a situation can be deemed an athletic move. It sounds to me like this is a scary situation where a lot of kids on the move can be ruled ineligible because of this.

That is the thing that I have been trying to clear up. The KHSAA did not rule him ineligible. He was ineligible the second that he enrolled in Scott Co. Bylaw 6 says it. It is the responsibility of the transferee to prove that they meet one or more of the rights for wavier, and that they did not fall into one of the exemptions to the rights to waiver. Apparently, they did not prove the exemptions to a move for athletic purposes.

 

People are bashing the KHSAA, but the fact is that these players made themselves ineligible when they transferred, it is their job to prove and receive a waiver.

I am sorry if I step on toes here but from an outsider, this does not sound like a disgruntled parent but rather a parent who loved the situation and the dealings in Scott County as long as their child was benefitting from it.

 

As soon as their child became a victim, in their opinion, rather than the benefitee of the Scott County mindset, than they became upset with it.

 

If it was wrong when it affected your child, it was wrong when it affected someone else's child.

That is the thing that I have been trying to clear up. The KHSAA did not rule him ineligible. He was ineligible the second that he enrolled in Scott Co. Bylaw 6 says it. It is the responsibility of the transferee to prove that they meet one or more of the rights for wavier, and that they did not fall into one of the exemptions to the rights to waiver. Apparently, they did not prove the exemptions to a move for athletic purposes.

 

People are bashing the KHSAA, but the fact is that these players made themselves ineligible when they transferred, it is their job to prove and receive a waiver.

 

And I think there is way too large of a gray area for the acting officials at the KHSAA to judge. Thats like Tate Cox. Hes a very good ball player who has transferred from June Buchanon to Knott Central. Well June Buchanon really fell off and there has been some issues over there with the team. I can't prove it, I maybe dead wrong, but it could be judged that the move had something to do with basketball. So if that is the interpretation by the KHSAA he won't be able to play.

 

My point is this could set a bad precedent for a lot of kids who had a reason to move (Euton's obviously had a reason besides basketball too) not to be able to play.

I don't think there is any grey area. If you transfer after 9th grade and have played any varsity sport, then you are ineligible. That's it. You can present a case to the KHSAA and you may regain that eligibility, but it is not guaranteed.

 

 

 

Bylaw 6. Transfer Rule

 

 

Sec. 1) Domestic Students

 

Any student who has been enrolled in grades nine (9) through

twelve (12) and has participated in any varsity game in any sport

at any school following enrollment in grade nine (9) and who then

transfers schools shall be ineligible for interscholastic athletics at

any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in

the new school.

 

 

 

I don't think there is any grey area. If you transfer after 9th grade and have played any varsity sport, then you are ineligible. That's it. You can present a case to the KHSAA and you may regain that eligibility, but it is not guaranteed.

 

 

 

 

In dealing with parents of athletes, I have learned it only matters what they want the situation to be and not what the rules obviously say.

 

You are right, it is very clear.

 

Since it is dealing with a child, that card is going to get played, that the KHSAA is picking on some poor kid. When it very well may be a slick dealing parent that is involved.

 

And that last comment is a general statement and addresses NONE of the parties involved as I personally know nothing about any of them.

That is the thing that I have been trying to clear up. The KHSAA did not rule him ineligible. He was ineligible the second that he enrolled in Scott Co. Bylaw 6 says it. It is the responsibility of the transferee to prove that they meet one or more of the rights for wavier, and that they did not fall into one of the exemptions to the rights to waiver. Apparently, they did not prove the exemptions to a move for athletic purposes.

 

People are bashing the KHSAA, but the fact is that these players made themselves ineligible when they transferred, it is their job to prove and receive a waiver.

 

You really do bring up a good point that I originally missed.

In dealing with parents of athletes, I have learned it only matters what they want the situation to be and not what the rules obviously say.

 

You are right, it is very clear.

 

Since it is dealing with a child, that card is going to get played, that the KHSAA is picking on some poor kid. When it very well may be a slick dealing parent that is involved.

 

And that last comment is a general statement and addresses NONE of the parties involved as I personally know nothing about any of them.

 

Your right, people think that eligibility it something that you take with you and the KHSAA can take it away. If fact, if you transfer, you surrender your eligibility and have to ask the KHSAA for it back, and there is a good chance that they will not give it back.

And I think there is way too large of a gray area for the acting officials at the KHSAA to judge. Thats like Tate Cox. Hes a very good ball player who has transferred from June Buchanon to Knott Central. Well June Buchanon really fell off and there has been some issues over there with the team. I can't prove it, I maybe dead wrong, but it could be judged that the move had something to do with basketball. So if that is the interpretation by the KHSAA he won't be able to play.

 

My point is this could set a bad precedent for a lot of kids who had a reason to move (Euton's obviously had a reason besides basketball too) not to be able to play.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to Mike Mitchell and Highlands?

 

If memory serves, you seemed to feel like Mitchell shouldn't have been on the field when Highlands beat Bell County in 2004? You apparently feel that Euton should be granted eligibility.

 

What distinction do you make between the Mitchell and Euton cases?

How many of you think, that since both Euton and Jackson, left "the same school" and then were going to attend "the same school", factored in the KHSAA ruling as they did.

Very much so. If one of them leaves Rose Hill for Scott County, it can be explained away as an isolated incident.

 

Given the circumstances of the two transfers, and that of one of their AAU teammates, it certainly looks orchestrated.

Do you believe, that if only one were going, the decision would be the same?

Maybe, but Clay Euton's comments (and perhaps those of Chad Jackson) certainly would have been factors to consider.

Do you believe, the comments from Mr. Euton, were the underlying reason, in the decision?

Maybe not the underlying reason, but certainly a factor.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to Mike Mitchell and Highlands?

 

If memory serves, you seemed to feel like Mitchell shouldn't have been on the field when Highlands beat Bell County in 2004? You apparently feel that Euton should be granted eligibility.

 

What distinction do you make between the Mitchell and Euton cases?

 

If Euton does not get eligible he should not be allowed to play. Mitchell never got eligible. At some point whether forced or not the KHSAA has to acknowledge Euton is allowed to play in order for him to be able to play.

 

I also acknowledged on another thread I believe, that I did not know all the details of the Mitchell ruling and that perhaps he should have been granted eligibility. The difference is these boys have not played in any high school games like Mitchell did.

 

What I am saying here is a disagree with the decision and if I knew the details of that decision I may disagree with that as well.