Zoolander

You boys are funny. I reckon the workings of a zone defense are too deep even for the experts. Samsel played the point on offense and defense, Barber played the wing on offense and defense and some point on offense. Except a few breakaways and half court drives, neither one of these kids guarded the other much during the game. They both knew how to take advantage of a zone on offense though. Seemed like every time Samsel crossed half court, somebody yelled shoot it. He let several fly from 8 or 10 feet behind the arc. The laughing and egging on didn't happen until late in the game when Barber's team was up by 40 or 50. It was obvious these guys respected each other and were haveing a blast playing ball. I have no idea what either one of these boys will be doing for their school teams. Manual and Scott Co. are pretty deep, but I guaranty both of them would be starters and leaders on most other teams in the state. It's pretty sad somebody can;t give an update on some of the action from te camp talked about in this thread without people jumping in to disect kids playing a game. It makes me not want to post anything trying to give a kid props when I know its gonna draw out the naysayers with nothing better to do than pile on them.

I had the opportunity to see this evening's game featuring the Samsel kid from Manual against the Barber kid from Scott County. These two lit up the gym with both scoring over 40 points each against the zone D. Samsel drained a bushel of threes while the Barber kid hit threes, pull up twos and several put backs. I didn't keep track but Barber must've had 20 or more rebounds and a dozen assists. The best part was watching both kids go at each other hard, laughing, egging each other on and having a blast playing a game. This was a great show. :thumb:

You have pretty good list going, but if you're looking for kids with excellent potential to play beyond high school I have to add Robbie Barber and Tanner Shotwell at Scott County. Barber was a starter at Rose Hill as a freshman who put up some strong numbers for the Royals last season. Shotwell played at LCA as a freshman last year. I can’t imagine why they would want to transfer to a loaded SC team, and be stuck behind four or five older D1 recruits, but they are definitely improving in SC’s system. They could easily be starters on most varsity teams across the state. I’ve seen Barber play about three JV games against good competition this season. He had a double-double in every one. He’s a pure shooter with good elevation and a high release. He doesn’t force bad shots and connects on about 50% of his 3pt attempts. He also seems to enjoy crashing the boards and rebounding. I think Shotwell might be sitting due to eligibility issues, but he has insane hops and is a strong rebounder. I’ve kept my eye on both since grade school. You can count on them making big contributions at SC their Jr and Sr seasons.

If a family makes a bona fide change of address... the kid should be eligible.

I'm all for accuracy, and genuinely appreciate your corrections. :thumb: We can agree that the young man is in his third high school of his varsity career can't we? :lol:

Good catch... my bad. I should have said "Newport Catholic". :thumb: I'm confident the sequence was Holy Cross, Newport Catholic then Holmes. There are still three schools involved in his varsity career. Again, I have no problem with a kid being eligible. I just don't understand how some kids seem to move at will and retain eligibility, while some move with valid motives and are ineligible.

Ya' know, this brings up an interesting point. How is it that a kid who moves with a parent that's a coach can be eligible immediately following the family move for mom or dad to take on a new coaching job, when the whole reason for the move is for "athletic reasons"? I'm not knocking the Hall kid, or any other kid who moves with a parent that's a coach. I have no problem with them being eligible. It's not their fault their parents have to work and move. I'm just wondering how the KHSAA justifies separating these clearly athletic moves from parents moving for jobs outside of coaching.

Anywhere but SC these days and that would be more than a legit reason. :lol: It has to be legit. No one would move to SC for athletic reasons with Euton, Jackson, Flannery and Shotwell all ruled ineligible. Plus Phares, Guyn, Ford, etc. ahead of him. I wish the kid well, he's a tremendous young talent, with a lot of upside. He helped RH to a 20 win season last year as a freshman. :thumb:

I am really happy that Mr. Housely has been ruled eligible. Really, I don’t think any kid should suffer because some adults can’t play by the rules. I don’t know his full story or reason for moving, but if I'm not mistaken, he began his H.S. career at Holy Cross, then transferred to Cov. Cath following his freshman year, and is now at Holmes with a chance to help them earn a Regional Title. There is no doubt that he is an impact player in NKY and it’s hard for me to believe that he and his family don’t consider athletics “in whole or part” in their moves. The fact that he has been eligible at two NKY power programs, with his last move not more than 5 miles from Newport to Holmes causes me to wonder: How is it that Euton's Dad lost his job and moved the whole family 130 miles and is ineligible after three months in the system and Housely moves five miles to his third high school and is ruled eligible in the same week his application hit the KHSAA? 2 and 2 aren’t making 4 in this equation.

I'm really, really, really happy to see this kid eligible, and I really wish him the best. Didn't he transfer to Newport after playing for another school following his freshman season?

Gee, I hope none of their parents talked to each other while they were at nationals or the KHSAA might repeal their bronze medal. Oh wait, AAU isn't governed by the KHSAA yet. Maybe they should add another "A" to become AAAU, the "American Amateur Athletic Union" to distinguish themselves from socialist organisations.

We actually agree on this point, but why do you think so much effort is put into trying to level the field?

How much additional money does an outstanding science student generate for his or her school? How about a math whiz? How about artists and musicians? How many statewide organizations exist to ensure that these “academic” interests are governed and protected on a level playing field? People can spout all kinds of lofty thoughts about how academics should be paramount, but nobody truly gives one whit about the GPA and academic advancement of either Euton or Jackson. This is 100% about not letting a competing school in a booming community benefit from the transfer of yet another quality student athlete into their system. Everyone is so against the school continuing their success athletically they are completely ignoring what might actually be in the best interests of each individual student athlete and their family in this situation. Say what you will, but in my world, protecting the rights of individual student athletes and their families should be the top priority of any state athletic commission. Attempting to create a “level playing field” the only place it might ever remotely exist in this world, in an obvious effort to help more schools have an artificial opportunity to compete athletically against each other, thus spreading the revenues and rewards a much as possible, while completely ignoring the genuine circumstances and needs of each individual student athlete and their family. This is totally inside out IMO.

If all my cases were as clear cut as these two, my job would be easy. :thumb: Euton has a solid case and should be ruled eligible. Jackson's case is as strong as Euton's if all the facts are fully disclosed and considered. Appearances can be very deceiving… and they are in this case. I wish both young men nothing but the best.

Sure, if it wasn't for all the schools jealous of SC's good fortune, and ticked off they may not get an equal share of the loot. A very small percentage actually care about what's best for each of these young men, and simply can't stand to see SC benefit.

This is not about academics. Never has been, never will be. It’s all about the schools and the money. The kids are merely coal that makes that engine steam… and that is wrong… very wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol: We don't disagree. This is far more complicated than it needs to be. If the KHSAA is going to err, they should err in favor of each individual child every time there is even a grain of doubt. IMO, that's who they should be most concerned with. There's a truckload of grains involved in both these cases.

When I read threads like this one, it reminds me why our society needs attorneys and judges. It’s amazing how people can read the exact same details and all come up with different interpretations filtered through their own biases and agendas. Several have come right out and alleged “recruiting” but can’t state exactly how that happened… other than to say it smells funny. To the best of my knowledge, a funny smell in and of itself has never won a case in court. There are many school teams across Kentucky with a half dozen or more members of the same AAU team playing together. If SC is not guilty of “recruiting” any single one of them, they cannot be guilty of “recruiting” all of them. If SC didn’t recruit, it’s not recruiting. If it’s not recruiting, and there was a “bona fide change of address” the KHSAA shouldn’t be responsible for “why” a family chooses to move to a new school district. They have their hands full policing their own member schools. It really shouldn’t be their business to police the motives of families. Did a kid’s family actually move or not? Did the family have a realistic reason or motive for their move OTHER than simply athletics? That should be the end of their responsibility.

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?

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:

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? "

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.

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.

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’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: 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? Should this, “Athletic Purposes” rule override legitimate changes of address if a family moves for genuinely non-athletic reasons? 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? 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? 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? Do our schools exist to serve our children, or do our children exist merely to fuel the revenue stream of their schools? 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? Does our government exist to serve its citizens, or are citizens servants of the state?