Zoolander

:lol: :lol: :lol: Based upon what facts? No one is talking as about much about Jackson because the details in his situation have not been publicized. I do know his stepdad and father of his younger brother works at Toyota. Jackson may have as good a reason as anybody. I've never seen a bunch of adults so eager to take something away from good kids who genuinely don't deserve such hostility.

ABSOLUTELY! This has nothing to do with granting special privileges because of who someone is, or how they're connected. If they rule Euton ineligible, they have to rule everyone in the same circumstance ineligible. That would be absolutely wrong... especially for kids who will never play past their four years of high school. Being high profile worked against him. This is a horrible ruling based on a horribly written rule. There is no such thing as a "level playing field" anywhere in our society. Insisting that everyone abide by the same rules and laws is one thing, but artificially tinkering with things in an attempt to ensure that everyone is equal is a losing proposition from the start. If this is true, the rule being enforced is wrong.

I did, and I stand by that statement. I wasn't referring to you, your child or any kid you know that is in the gym at 6:30 am shooting, lifting weights, and jumping rope before school, and then in the gym again after school working to develop strength, speed and skills totally apart from mandatory team workouts. My hat's off to anyone working half that hard. I am referring to the many kids more concerned with hanging out at the mall, or spending hours in darkened rooms plugged into Halo 3 or Guitar Hero scarfing up cheese doodles, or hanging out with their buds on skateboards and their jeans hanging off their butts. I'm not saying that makes them bad kids, just that times have changed and there are too few kids/adults who understand the rewards of hard work and discipline. We have too many people who prefer to point out how things aren't fair if they don't get handed what they think they're entitled to simply because they exist. I realize this view makes me terribly old fashioned, politically incorrect and anti-socialist. I'm good with that. :thumb: I still haven't named an individual child, and pointed out his/her shortcomings. You are free to say anything you want, but I contend that if anyone said the exact same things you have said about Euton, about you or your kid on a public internet forum, you wouldn't like it. I agree 100%, but from the opposite direction. The consensus of opinion is that if Clay Euton had gone about things exactly as he did, but simply said nothing to the newspaper, Dakotah would/should be eligible today. Had Euton not been a high profile athlete, his dad's comments wouldn't have been printed or mattered to anyone. So, the fact that he is a high profile UK recruit is precisely the reason he has been ruled ineligible. That's not right or fair by any reasonable standard.

The rule is too broad as written and applied here. If this ruling sticks, the rules needs to be revised, or many other innocent kids/families will be penalized wrongly.

So... It's okay to point out all the reasons a junior to be isn't a major D-1 college athlete just yet, and express doubt that he ever will measure up, But, it's not acceptable to make positive statements about his prospects until we see how he performs for two more years? We are not talking about all the other kids. I have yet to make one negative comment toward any child on BGP. I did not say "he works harder than any other kid in the state." If I can't complement one kid without complementing all the kids, how can you hammer one kid without... nevermind, you can't see it? Why pick on the kid, when it sounds like your problem is with the parents? If you have solid information, it sounds to me like you need to speak with the KHSAA, not air your differences here.

You're right, you aren't the only poster who's said bad things about a genuinely good and decent kid, but why be so negative toward a kid who's only guilty of working his butt off to be the best he can be... whether anyone thinks that's good enough or not? If more kids had the focus and work ethic this kid does, we'd be a much greater country than we are today. The odds are so stacked against any child in Kentucky actually accomplishing what Euton is attempting to do, I would think that people would be cheering him on and encouraging him... not pointing out his flaws, and positioning to crow should he ever fail. "I told you he couldn't do it. Read my post from 2008... see, I said he'd fail." I'd rather be the guy that believed a kid could do what seemed impossible.

This line of reasoning is absurd. If a rule exists that can prevent a kid from playing ball because his family needed to relocate, that rule needs to be removed. If anyone can prove that one guy singlehandedly brought about the closing of an entire engineering office, causing dozens of employees to hit the bricks in search of work, just so he could have a seemingly “legal” excuse to go school shopping for his kid, I'll concede my point and assist in his capture and punishment. Otherwise, this family had a 100% legitimate reason to seek new work and a new residence if necessary. Nothing else about where they end up should have any bearing on the case at all... UNLESS it could be proved that the receiving school recruited them. (Policing member schools should be the number one duty of the athletic association.) Anyone who can look at the facts and completely overlook the number one, huge, in-your-face reason the family relocated and insist it was an athletic move has a twisted agenda. That’s fine, you can have agendas all you want, but a kid should not be prevented from playing ball just because someone has an axe to grind. If this decision sticks, we all lose.

I don’t know if you’re old enough to be a parent or not, but if anyone said the things about your child that you’ve said about Dakotah Euton, you wouldn't like it too much. If you wouldn’t want somebody saying that about your child, why would you say it about someone else’s child… even if he is 6’ 8” and 230 pounds? As far as predicting that a kid doesn’t have what it takes to play at UK… being negative and predicting NO is the safe bet by such astronomical odds, it’s doesn’t even count as a legitimate prediction. There are 4,206,074 people in Kentucky. There are 1,001,046 kids under 18 in Kentucky. There are about 58,885 kids per grade level in Kentucky. 51% are female. 49% are male. That means there are 28,854 boys per grade level in Kentucky. UK has 16 boys on their roster, with only 3 from Kentucky. So, on average only about one kid per graduating class earns a shot at playing for the Wildcats… 1 chance in about 30,000. The real risk is taken by the person willing to say, “I think Euton will earn a scholarship at UK and contribute to the team’s success.” I’ll take that one-in-30,000 chance.

Thank you Sir! :thumb: I admire your ability to cut through the fog as well. I realize that facts aren't always popular, but when I read quotes like, "A lot of the locals are kind of fed up with the whole situation that has been going on there for years." it just amazes me. Scott County did not grow in population at all between 1900 and 1975, but will triple in population by 2010. That means that nearly two-thirds of the current population has moved into the county in the past generation, household income has doubled, quality of life (including brand new elementary, middle and high schools) is off the charts and yet people are getting fed up with all the transfers? Unbelievable... A guy loses his job and has to relocate for his new job. He chooses a good school in a growing community for his kid, and you get people on here suggesting he should commute 240 miles and four hours a day with gas at $4 a gallon so his kid could stay at his old school, and the KHSAA says it's a move for athletic purposes... amazing. There's not a school in Central Kentucky where Euton or Jackson could have transferred that it wouldn't have caused big problems for somebody. I've said for a long time it's not the kids that are the problem, it's the adults. Threads like these, and rulings like Euton's prove it. The KHSAA needs to do a better job policing its member schools who might actually be recruiting, and let parents do what they think is best for their kids. Recruiting NO, parental choice YES.

Euton shined in the King of the Bluegrass, the Nissan Shootout, the All A Regional and State tourneys for Rose Hill the past two seasons as a freshman and a sophomore. Last week, he had 20 rebounds and 24 points vs. South Laurel. 15 rebounds and 23 points vs. Franklin County and 14 rebounds and 18 points vs. Jeffersontown. I don’t know what kind of numbers you consider decent, but those are pretty good in my book. I realize of course that none of these teams can hold a candle to Holmes in your eyes, but Euton is far more effective than you give him credit for being. And FWIW, he is still growing, maybe not so much up as across. He grew so fast from 0 to 16, that his muscles are just now getting to catch up with his bones. As he gets stronger, he becomes more mobile. There’s not a harder working kid in the state. I have all the confidence in the world in this young man, and look forward to watching him prove you wrong in Wildcat blue. :lol:

What does not crack me up are adults who slam minors on the internet. You don't have to like certain schools. You don't have to like certain coaches. You don't have to like the KHSAA. You don’t even have to like certain kids, but you really don't need to pick on them to make your point. But then, it's obvious in several threads, you don't have to listen guys like me either.

When I read quotes like these, it starts to sound like the wheels are coming off the Welcome Wagon in Scott County… and I don’t just mean the school. It sounds like some people want all the perks of growth and prosperity, without having to share it with the people that made it possible. Scott County is the third fastest growing county in Kentucky, and one of the top 100 fastest growing counties in the U.S. That means lots of new families are moving there with kids. In just the past 15 years, the total households in the county grew from 8,506 to 14,500, income grew from $27,563 to $50,774, and the percentage of people living below poverty dropped by a third. More jobs, better pay, more amenities, restaurants, retail stores, hotels, and a much higher overall quality of life… including newer and bigger schools to contain all the new kids that have moved into to the county. I don’t know what some folks consider a “Scott County kid” but over half the current population of Scott County was not born and raised in Scott County, and any of the families with kids who moved in over the past 20 years or so for better jobs and homes would be very selfish to complain about others doing exactly what they did. If people are going to be upset with anyone, be mad at the state and county officials who wooed Toyota and other businesses into locating in a traditionally rural county.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not picking on you CC, but you just happen to be the most recent post making this point. We all can see that if Mr. Euton had not made certain comments to the LHL, his son might very well be eligible today. This is not warfare. Deception should never be a required element in making a successful transfer from one school to another. The rules should be more clear and less subjective than they currently are. The fact that Mr. Euton could have thought the things he thought, and come to the same decision about where to enroll his son, and done everything else exactly as he did it, but simply not told anybody what was going on, and received a waiver making his son eligible tells me there's something very wrong with the process. When we punish the honest and reward the sneaky, something needs to be fixed... immediately.

By making athletics a "right", every child that wanted to participate would have to be placed on a team. Then, every child would have to be ensured some fair and reasonable amount of actual game time, regardless of his/her personal work ethic, commitment, talent, etc. Winning and losing would be meaningless, and soon, the values of discipline, hard work, perseverance, etc. would mean nothing. Actual participation may be a "privilege" that rewards those who have that talent and work the hardest, but the reasonable expectation to be eligible to participate (try out and possibly make the team) is a "right" that should be extended to every child in every school. Limiting one's "right" to eligibility should be backed by significant evidence justifying such a ruling.

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

I agree 100%. Please explain how the Euton situation is "primarily" motivated by sports? Are you telling me that if you were in dad Euton's situation, lost your job, sought and found a new job two hours from your family you would keep two homes, or commute four hours round trip five days a week, or would you simply move your family to your new community? Having made the choice to move the whole family, are you telling me you would not try to put your child in the best possible situation, including considering athletics as part of the equation?

The bottom line is the primary reason for the Euton move was job related. Why should a parent not be allowed to also consider what school is best for his/her child? Or be forced to lie and mislead to cover up the considerations any responsible parent should have? Why doesn't someone outline what the Euton family could have/should have done differently in their situation to make this work out to everyone's satisfaction?

:lol: Last time I checked, I don't have a child named Chad or Dakotah. Wouldn't mind if they were mine, they are both outstanding young men. Not my dogs, not my fight. Poor rule IMO. :thumb:

For the record, I have no dog in this fight. The whole situation sickens me. It is a ridiculous surrender of personal liberty for the KHSAA to have the authority to restrict parents (by way of withholding athletic eligibility) from enrolling their children in any school they should choose, for any reason the parents deem appropriate. I understand there have been horrible abuses in the past, by both conniving and clueless parents out there, that have necessitated a steady tightening of the rules, but we have reached a point of absurdity. In reading all six pages of “KHSAA Bylaw 6 - Transfer Rule”, several notable highlights emerge. The backbone of the bylaw is the assertion that any student in grades nine through twelve that has already participated in any varsity game in any sport at any school who then transfers schools shall be ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics at any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in the new school. Pretty clear cut, but on its own would result in some very unfair treatment of kids whose circumstances required them to change schools during their four years of high school. For this reason, there are currently eight exceptions that could justify a waiver of ineligibility. First on the list is “a bona fide change in residence by the parents and student that precedes a student’s change of schools.” No problem here for Euton, Jackson or others who have moved their entire households into a new school district. The hook is there are five “exceptions to the exceptions”, that can nullify one of the eight original exceptions, thereby allowing the Commissioner in his/her full discretion to refuse to grant a waiver. Number three reads: “3) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school;” This is what is being used to hang Euton and Jackson, and is a “NO WIN” situation for honest/intelligent parents. This is one of the most feebly constructed “Catch 22” rules on the books. IMO it should be referred to as the “Liar or Moron” clause. In cases with clearly talented student athletes whose families need to relocate for a completely legitimate reason, only a liar would deny that athletics are a part of their evaluation process for which neighborhood and school district they ultimately move. Only a complete idiot would neglect to consider how athletics might better equip their child for the opportunity to continue their education in college. For less talented kids… who cares? I mean really, if they can make the team, let ‘em play. This is absolutely absurd as it is written. The saddest part of all is that only a completely honest and thoughtful parent can be nailed down by this rule. (Liars, cheaters and complete idiots have the best chance to sneak past it.) For those of you who want to slam dad Euton, or a 16 year-old kid (Jackson) for stating (what any sensible person already should know is) the truth publicly, (and would at least have thought yourselves—if not actually said out loud—if you were in their shoes) as if by keeping their mouths shut they could have “sneaked a couple past” the KHSAA shame on you. Why have a rule so poorly written that it encourages (and by ineffective application rewards) dishonesty. Is that the kind of integrity we should be teaching our kids? Not in my house, not in my state, not in my country. Stomp out recruiting. Punish the offenders. But where no recruiting has taken place, don’t take away the freedom of parents to choose and do what they feel is absolutely the best for their children. It’s time to rewrite a truly horribly constructed rule. This rule is a blatant assault on our liberties. Our children are not the property of our state, the KHSAA or our school systems. I can’t believe anyone in the United States of America could calmly stand by and watch this freedom be stolen so boldly. It’s time to wake up.

Yes, and a lot of families canot afford to send their kid(s) as far in school (college) as their athletic abilities may take them. I know many adults with decent careers today, because they were able to get four year degree because of athletics. Some of them are even teachers. We can't consistently focus on the lowest common denominator (chicken poop) without tearing down the achievers (chicken salad.)