I want to take a different angle for second. I have a question for those HHS' people "in the know" regarding this Mitchell situation. Let's leave the court decision completely aside for just one brief second. Based on the facts that you know to be true - and certainly HHS had to have done their own due diligence at the time in trying to decide whether Mitchell's move was legitimate - was his move indeed legitimate?

 

I ask because hopefully you can at least appreciate that to those of us that are "non-HHS'ers", this move sounds rather disingenuous and based in good part (if not solely) on athletics. Unfortunately, our court system makes mistakes all the time. The courts are run by human beings and human beings are not infallible. Does anyone think O.J. was innocent? The court says he was. But was he really?

 

I know the court says Mitchell was eligible. But was he really?

 

Yes.

I want to take a different angle for second. I have a question for those HHS' people "in the know" regarding this Mitchell situation. Let's leave the court decision completely aside for just one brief second. Based on the facts that you know to be true - and certainly HHS had to have done their own due diligence at the time in trying to decide whether Mitchell's move was legitimate - was his move indeed legitimate?

 

I ask because hopefully you can at least appreciate that to those of us that are "non-HHS'ers", this move sounds rather disingenuous and based in good part (if not solely) on athletics. Unfortunately, our court system makes mistakes all the time. The courts are run by human beings and human beings are not infallible. Does anyone think O.J. was innocent? The court says he was. But was he really?

 

I know the court says Mitchell was eligible. But was he really?

Cooperstown, Why would the Mitchell's decision to send their son to HHS shock anyone. They had a falling out with Covcath for one reason or another. Covcath is arguably one of the best schools in NKY. When they decided to sent him to another school, for whatever reason, why then would they not want to sent him to another fine academic and athletic institution. It would seem to me that alot of people are trying to become the thought police when it comes to trying to tell a parent what is best for their child. In the Mitchell's case, they thought it best to move to Ft. Thomas and send their child to HHS. That was their decision and who is anybody on this website to question what they thought was right for their child? JMO.

LN - any chance you could explain this to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out in SF? Sorry to be so off topic.

 

 

I am voting this, Post of the Year!

You nailed it right there! When you agree to become a member school (which is optional), you also agree to abide by their rulings and decisions (even when they do not go in your favor). That is an agreement that the KHSAA has with all of it's member schools. Good for the Whitley Co. AD, he made the right decision.

 

This is incorrect and has been pointed out already.

Yes

 

I want to take a different angle for second. I have a question for those HHS' people "in the know" regarding this Mitchell situation. Let's leave the court decision completely aside for just one brief second. Based on the facts that you know to be true - and certainly HHS had to have done their own due diligence at the time in trying to decide whether Mitchell's move was legitimate - was his move indeed legitimate?

 

I ask because hopefully you can at least appreciate that to those of us that are "non-HHS'ers", this move sounds rather disingenuous and based in good part (if not solely) on athletics. Unfortunately, our court system makes mistakes all the time. The courts are run by human beings and human beings are not infallible. Does anyone think O.J. was innocent? The court says he was. But was he really?

 

I know the court says Mitchell was eligible. But was he really?

You nailed it right there! When you agree to become a member school (which is optional), you also agree to abide by their rulings and decisions (even when they do not go in your favor). That is an agreement that the KHSAA has with all of it's member schools. Good for the Whitley Co. AD, he made the right decision.

 

That is a false statement ... Check out the bylaws before you say something that is not true

That is a false statement ... Check out the bylaws before you say something that is not true

 

 

This argument will go on till the end of time !

 

I kind of feel sorry for all the students and athletes from all the schools that are reading these posts , I wonder what they are thinking after reading this stuff.

 

This is my first and last post on this thread . Good luck on your arguements but in the end , it ain't going to matter what you say ,regardless of who you are!!!!! (Knock yourself out!!!) :deadhorse:

That is a false statement ... Check out the bylaws before you say something that is not true

 

What is false? If you are saying the player in question was eligible, maybe your statement is false?

I want to take a different angle for second. I have a question for those HHS' people "in the know" regarding this Mitchell situation. Let's leave the court decision completely aside for just one brief second. Based on the facts that you know to be true - and certainly HHS had to have done their own due diligence at the time in trying to decide whether Mitchell's move was legitimate - was his move indeed legitimate?

 

I ask because hopefully you can at least appreciate that to those of us that are "non-HHS'ers", this move sounds rather disingenuous and based in good part (if not solely) on athletics. Unfortunately, our court system makes mistakes all the time. The courts are run by human beings and human beings are not infallible. Does anyone think O.J. was innocent? The court says he was. But was he really?

 

I know the court says Mitchell was eligible. But was he really?

 

The list of very good athletes that have transferred during their HS years to another high school is very long:

 

Britt to Danville

Popp to Lex Cath

Euton to Scott County

Jones to Scott County

Hundley to Scott County

Jackson to Scott County

Moss to Boone County

Nevels to HHS

Stephanapolis to Boone County

Avery to Holmes

 

These are just a few off the top of my head and that list includes 2 Mr. Basketball's. I am sure there are many many more. In every single case the athlete moved to an athletic program that was arguably superior to the one they left behind. In every case the kid was ruled eligible by the KHSAA and allowed to play. If I gave my gut feeling on any of them I would say they were all athletically motivated, but I have zero proof (and likely the KHSAA didn't either or they wouldn't have been eligible); however, the KHSAA really needs to have more than a gut felling, IMO.

 

Now I ask you, why was the Mitchell situation different? Did the KHSAA have proof? Not sure any of us know the answer to that question.

The list of very good athletes that have transferred during their HS years to another high school is very long:

 

Britt to Danville

Popp to Lex Cath

Euton to Scott County

Jones to Scott County

Hundley to Scott County

Jackson to Scott County

Moss to Boone County

Nevels to HHS

Stephanapolis to Boone County

Avery to Holmes

 

These are just a few off the top of my head and that list includes 2 Mr. Basketball's. I am sure there are many many more. In every single case the athlete moved to an athletic program that was arguably superior to the one they left behind. In every case the kid was ruled eligible by the KHSAA and allowed to play. If I gave my gut feeling on any of them I would say they were all athletically motivated, but I have zero proof (and likely the KHSAA didn't either or they wouldn't have been eligible); however, the KHSAA really needs to have more than a gut felling, IMO.

 

Now I ask you, why was the Mitchell situation different? Did the KHSAA have proof? Not sure any of us know the answer to that question.

 

Hey you need to leave all the Scott Co people off of the list. We all know all those kids go there because the parents got new jobs. :lol::lol::lol:

Very funny, I guess in the end the attitude @ HHS is just win baby we'll go to court to give the appearance of doing it ethically after the fact. You know just schematics....:thumb:

 

A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the information the schematic is intended to convey, and may add unrealistic elements that aid comprehension.....

 

maybe, in this case, semantics, would be a better choice: The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection

 

...but I recieved my education at a CCHS, so I may be incorrect....:isurrender:

What is false? If you are saying the player in question was eligible, maybe your statement is false?

 

This is the false statement that Roman said before, "When you agree to become a member school (which is optional), you also agree to abide by their rulings and decisions (even when they do not go in your favor). That is an agreement that the KHSAA has with all of it's member schools."

 

That is false because the person DOES NOT have to abide by the decision the KHSAA makes unless it is the same decsion made by the courts. There is no agreement with the KHSAA and their decisions are final. The people that make the final decisions are the courts and in this case, Mike Mitchell WON the court case.

What is false? If you are saying the player in question was eligible, maybe your statement is false?

 

I believe he was replying to the part of your post that said that all members, by joining the KHSAA, agree to abide and be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. I understand your point and there is language to that affect I believe on the membership application, which is probably why you have that understanding.

 

The problem is that, while the application may contain such language, the due process procedure of the KHSAA specifically allows for appeals of their decisions to the judiciary. So there is some inconsistency of the two positions. On one doc it says members will be bound by the KHSAA decisions. In another doc it say members can appeal the KHSAA decisions to the judiciary.

 

Personally, I think it ludicrous for the KHSAA to attempt to require schools to be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. Again, the KHSAA is not some private club the schools truly voluntarily elect to join, with there being plenty of other options out there for the schools to join. I know that some people believe that the KHSAA is a voluntary association. But if a school wants to participate in official state sanctioned Ky high school athletics, a school has only one choice: join the KHSAA. It's like telling me that joining the Kentucky Bar Association is voluntary. I have to join the Ky Bar Association if I want to be admitted to and practice law in Ky. One could argue that it's voluntary because if I don't want to join I don't have to join. But if I don't join, then I can't practice law in Ky. Not really voluntary as I think of the word. It's the only game in town and if I want to play in the game, I have to join.

 

Furthermore the KHSAA, as an agent of the state, cannot legally require its members to waive their right to appeal to the judiciary. Believe it or not, at one point in time, not too long ago, the KHSAA tried to put language on its membership application that forced members to waive their state and federal constitutional rights as to eligibility decisions of the KHSAA! It blew my mind when I heard about that and I remember thinking to myself: just who does the KHSAA think they are? Fortunately the folks at the State Board and the LRC told the KHSAA to remove that language, although IMO the language wouldn 't have been enforceable any way.

 

You and others may not think this way, but the KHSAA is like every other state agency (K-OSHA, the Ky Office of Employment, Ky ABC, etc) in that their final administrative decisions are appealable to the judiciary, regardless of what language may be on membership applications, forms, etc. You may think the KHSAA is different, but that is false. I'm sure that some people at the KHSAA and maybe a majority of the schools would prefer that the KHSAA decisions would not be appealable to the judiciary, but it's not a matter of what they want. It's a matter of what the law requires. If you disagree on that point, I direct your attention to KRS 13B.140. Here is the link: http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/013B00/140.PDF.

 

Whitley County may have elected to not play the student even though the student got a temporary injunction of eligibilty. That was their choice I guess. Other schools may feel that to so decide is just a back door approach to undermine the statutory and constitutional rights of students to exercise their Chapter 13B rights and thus not elect to not play the kid on the principle of the matter.

 

As I have oft stated, I as an attorney find it bewildering that the educators involved with the KHSAA would even think of having themselves and other schools act in a manner that violates the Ky statutes and constitution. Perhaps some think I'm being polly annish, but I thought educators were supposed to teach and practice compliance with the law and the powers of the judicial branch.

 

I've heard it said that the KHSAA is opposed to allowing schools to appeal their decisions to the judiciary because it increases costs to the KHSAA (and ultimately the schools), takes time to handle the lawsuits, etc. There is no doubt that they are probably correct in those assertions. But those are not valid grounds for ignoring what our statutes and constitution state and require. A business can't choose to ignore a ruling of the court just because it will cause some costs to the business or make the business do additional things. You can't ignore an order of the court telling you to tear down a building that violated a zoning ordinance just because it will cost you money and time to tear down building. Putting the shoe on the other foot (and in an analogy more appropriate for the KHSAA's effort to force schools to abide by their final decision and not appeal it to the judiciary) , the city or county that you live in can't require you to waive your right to appeal a final decision of its Board of Adjustment to the judiciary (as a condition to you living in the city or county) just because your appeal may cost the city or county funds to handle your appeal.

 

I hope you consider my post with an open mind and I am not trying to be offensive. I know it's difficult for a lot of people (particularly school officials) to accept because school officials for a long, long time have felt that the KHSAA is some type of voluntary, private club that is free to do whatever a majority of the schools want it to do. Unfortunately, they have been mistaken for a long, long time.

This may be a little off topic but it is relevant to the discussion. So the problem with the Mitchell case and others is the "loophole" that if you move you don't have to sit out a year. This sounds too simple to not have been suggested before, but what if the KHSAA put a mileage on the move. For example, a varsity athlete who transfers is required to sit out a year unless the athlete's family moves more than 40 miles. Is there a reason why that language can't be used? I know there are still some transfers who have moved that far but if a family is willing to move that far so their child can play high school sports, then more power to them.

A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the information the schematic is intended to convey, and may add unrealistic elements that aid comprehension.....

 

maybe, in this case, semantics, would be a better choice: The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection

 

...but I recieved my education at a CCHS, so I may be incorrect....:isurrender:

 

Ok, you got me. I used the wrong word and that post was tongue in cheek to begin with. :thumb: I think it says alot about the arguments being made when incorrect word usage is pointed out