Legal - Illegal???

 

Posturing and favorable rulings by local courts can make a lot of illegal things legal. Pressure put on the KHSAA can make illegal things legal also - look at basketball.

 

Instead of spliting the atom and trying to justify something illegal, maybe the question needs to be Ethical or Unethical????

 

That question seems a lot easier to answer.

Legal - Illegal???

 

Posturing and favorable rulings by local courts can make a lot of illegal things legal. Pressure put on the KHSAA can make illegal things legal also - look at basketball.

 

Instead of spliting the atom and trying to justify something illegal, maybe the question needs to be Ethical or Unethical????

 

That question seems a lot easier to answer.

 

Then don't leave us hanging, if it is easy to answer then answer it.

 

What was unethical?

Legal - Illegal???

 

Posturing and favorable rulings by local courts can make a lot of illegal things legal. Pressure put on the KHSAA can make illegal things legal also - look at basketball.

 

Instead of spliting the atom and trying to justify something illegal, maybe the question needs to be Ethical or Unethical????

 

That question seems a lot easier to answer.

 

:thumb::thumb: This was my point all along. Yes, it was unethical.

:thumb::thumb: This was my point all along. Yes, it was unethical.

 

Unethical for whom, and why?

:thumb::thumb: This was my point all along. Yes, it was unethical.

 

Correct, the KHSAA has acted in an unethical way IMO

I think, primarily, it was unethical of the Mitchells to do what they did. Clearly the intention of the KHSAA's rule was to prevent families from switching schools to get their students into a more desirable athletic program. They took advantage of poorly written rules, even though it is pretty easy to see what the rules are trying to enforce.

 

Highlands was not as unethical, in my opinion, but there's still something to be said for the fact that they allowed one of their student athletes to skirt and exploit the system.

I think, primarily, it was unethical of the Mitchells to do what they did. Clearly the intention of the KHSAA's rule was to prevent families from switching schools to get their students into a more desirable athletic program. They took advantage of poorly written rules, even though it is pretty easy to see what the rules are trying to enforce.

 

Highlands was not as unethical, in my opinion, but there's still something to be said for the fact that they allowed one of their student athletes to skirt the exploit the system.

 

Brace yourself.

Let me also say that I have no doubt that this has happened in other schools and in other sports. I can actually think of a couple of Northern Kentucky families in particular who did the same thing by getting apartments in Finneytown so their sons could play sports at St. Xavier in Cincinnati. Those cases, and any others like them, are just as unethical in my eyes. I'm not trying to simply "bash Highlands". The simple fact of the matter is, this thread is about the situation with Highlands and Mike Mitchell.

Brace yourself.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I think, primarily, it was unethical of the Mitchells to do what they did. Clearly the intention of the KHSAA's rule was to prevent families from switching schools to get their students into a more desirable athletic program. They took advantage of poorly written rules, even though it is pretty easy to see what the rules are trying to enforce.

 

Highlands was not as unethical, in my opinion, but there's still something to be said for the fact that they allowed one of their student athletes to skirt and exploit the system.

 

So, just to take this to an extreme level, as this thread has done a few times, to eliminate the "not as unethical" behavior on Highlands' part, the school should have inferred what the poorly written rules should have been written as, and applied them in that fashion, while no one else in the state was required to follow their (Highlands') interpretation?

Unfortunately this whole situation is about what you 'can' do and not what you 'should' do. The transfer from one school to another put alot of people involved in a 'no win' situation. If the move were not about athletics, there are many other options for a fresh start academically, or for an apartment for health reasons that would have been just as good, if not better than the move to Ft. Thomas. IMO everyone involved did what they could do, but maybe not what they should have done.

So, just to take this to an extreme level, as this thread has done a few times, to eliminate the "not as unethical" behavior on Highlands' part, the school should have inferred what the poorly written rules should have been written as, and applied them in that fashion, while no one else in the state was required to follow their (Highlands') interpretation?

 

It's not like the KHSAA rules were written in Sanskrit here...they say (paraphrasing) that an athlete has to sit a year after transferring districts unless they have a bona fide change of address.

 

The Mitchells "moved" with their high school senior son into an apartment in Ft. Thomas after a fairly public (at least amongst the Cov Cath community) departure from Cov Cath after airing numerous grievances about his football career at CCH. The Mitchells did, however, maintain a house in Florence and had family members living in that house. It seems pretty evident what the apartment situation was about - regardless of the fact that their "move" would keep them within the required guidelines, no matter how marginally.

 

Now, Highlands could have chosen to not play Mitchell. They could have taken the high road (no pun intended - at all) and said, "Look, we see what you're doing here, you're trying to work the system, and we don't appreciate it. Please don't send your son out for the football team, because we won't allow him to play. It will reflect poorly on our program." They didn't do that though. They decided to let the Mitchells do what the letter of the law (or more appropriately, the poor writing of the law) allowed. It was legal, yes. However, the repercussion on the school is the fact that now there are many folks looking poorly at Highlands for their decision.

 

Also, I understand your argument that Highlands would have been holding themselves to a higher standard than other programs in the state. So to that, let me ask this: isn't a program of excellence based around holding yourself and your program to a higher standard?

 

Some schools have higher academic standards than others. They also have higher academic standards for athletic elegibility "while no one else in the state was required to follow their interpretation". Covington Latin School comes to mind here. Now, based on their students' ages and rigorous academic requirements, CLS has historically obviously lacked in the athletic department. However, I see nothing but praise going their way for the achievements of their school and their students.

It's not like the KHSAA rules were written in Sanskrit here...they say (paraphrasing) that an athlete has to sit a year after transferring districts unless they have a bona fide change of address.

 

The Mitchells "moved" with their high school senior son into an apartment in Ft. Thomas after a fairly public (at least amongst the Cov Cath community) departure from Cov Cath after airing numerous grievances about his football career at CCH. The Mitchells did, however, maintain a house in Florence and had family members living in that house. It seems pretty evident what the apartment situation was about - regardless of the fact that their "move" would keep them within the required guidelines, no matter how marginally.

 

Now, Highlands could have chosen to not play Mitchell. They could have taken the high road (no pun intended - at all) and said, "Look, we see what you're doing here, you're trying to work the system, and we don't appreciate it. Please don't send your son out for the football team, because we won't allow him to play. It will reflect poorly on our program." They didn't do that though. They decided to let the Mitchells do what the letter of the law (or more appropriately, the poor writing of the law) allowed. It was legal, yes. However, the repercussion on the school is the fact that now there are many folks looking poorly at Highlands for their decision.

 

Also, I understand your argument that Highlands would have been holding themselves to a higher standard than other programs in the state. So to that, let me ask this: isn't a program of excellence based around holding yourself and your program to a higher standard?

 

Some schools have higher academic standards than others. They also have higher academic standards for athletic elegibility "while no one else in the state was required to follow their interpretation". Covington Latin School comes to mind here. Now, based on their students' ages and rigorous academic requirements, CLS has historically obviously lacked in the athletic department. However, I see nothing but praise going their way for the achievements of their school and their students.

 

First, a friendly word of warning. This post is getting dangerously close to being very "Leatherneckesque"!

 

It seems that a lot of posters in this thread believe Highlands should have done a better job interpreting and enforcing KHSAA rules. While abiding by those rules is an obligation of membership, enforcement of the rules is up to the KHSAA. Since there was confusion as to the interpretation of the rules, the Mitchells sought a higher authority's assistance.

 

Lastly, as to the thought of taking the high road, I believe your take on the high road leans towards the KHSAA's interpretation, versus the student's and school's interpretation.

Now, Highlands could have chosen to not play Mitchell. They could have taken the high road (no pun intended - at all) and said, "Look, we see what you're doing here, you're trying to work the system, and we don't appreciate it.

So, violating the law is "taking the high road." Umm, okay...:eek:

So, violating the law is "taking the high road." Umm, okay...:eek:

 

Violating the law? As far as I know they weren't "required" to play Mitchell, were they? I'd assume they have the option at Highlands to cut a football player if they deem so...