I have never understood why HHS fans get so defensive about this issue and argue about it to the bitter end. It was what it was. A player transferred between his Jr. and Sr. season for athletic reasons. This is EXACTLY what the rule was designed to prevent. The only argument is over schematics as whether or not his parents renting an apartment in Ft. Thomas for 1 year was considered a "bona fide" change is residence. The KHSAA, myself and pretty much everyone who is not involved in or a fan of the HHS program feels the same way.

To me it is like someone getting arrested and makes a statement to the arresting officer that incriminates them, leads to evidence that is irrefutable but the case and the evidence gets thrown out because they were not properly mirandized by the initial arresting officer. The offender won't be convicted but everyone knows they are guilty, well except for their family who refuse to admit it.

Mike Mitchell didn't transfer for the education because Cov Cath is just as highly rated if not higher an academic institution as HHS is. He switched schools for football and any argument over whether he should have been granted the waiver is unimportant in my opinion. If the Mitchell's had a reason to move to Ft. Thomas beyond their son's football interest then he should have been granted the waiver. The only people that feel otherwise are Birds fans. Just my thoughts...

Sorry TD, I agree with Gryche11, it's just a letter.:idunno:

 

The next time I need a legal letter written I will come see LN since he will only charge me .42 :dancingpa

I have never understood why HHS fans get so defensive about this issue and argue about it to the bitter end. It was what it was. A player transferred between his Jr. and Sr. season for athletic reasons. This is EXACTLY what the rule was designed to prevent. The only argument is over schematics as whether or not his parents renting an apartment in Ft. Thomas for 1 year was considered a "bona fide" change is residence. The KHSAA, myself and pretty much everyone who is not involved in or a fan of the HHS program feels the same way.

To me it is like someone getting arrested and makes a statement to the arresting officer that incriminates them, leads to evidence that is irrefutable but the case and the evidence gets thrown out because they were not properly mirandized by the initial arresting officer. The offender won't be convicted but everyone knows they are guilty, well except for their family who refuse to admit it.

Mike Mitchell didn't transfer for the education because Cov Cath is just as highly rated if not higher an academic institution as HHS is. He switched schools for football and any argument over whether he should have been granted the waiver is unimportant in my opinion. If the Mitchell's had a reason to move to Ft. Thomas beyond their son's football interest then he should have been granted the waiver. The only people that feel otherwise are Birds fans. Just my thoughts...

 

You do not speak for us all. I am not a Birds fan, yet I feel differently than you.

 

Too many look at what the Mitchell's did and their reasoning. That is a separate argument. The issue here is whether HHS should follow rulings of the KHSAA or our courts.

 

My focus is not on the Mitchell family and what they did, but HHS. The school and coach chose to follow a judge's decision, one that the Mitchell's sought. When no court ruling upheld the Mitchell's challenge, HHS did not play the young man. I have no problem with a school following the law. IMO, they did the right thing. The KHSAA does not trump our legal system.

If Ft. Thomas has so much power at the state level, then why has it not been able to change the KERA funding formula that has continually made it the worst (or next to worst) funded school district in the entire state? If Ft. Thomas has so much power, wouldn't they be able to stop the state from taking their "money" & redistributing it to the rest of the state?:confused:

 

I would like to see 94 Camel address this issue, also.

You do not speak for us all. I am not a Birds fan, yet I feel differently than you.

 

Too many look at what the Mitchell's did and their reasoning. That is a separate argument. The issue here is whether HHS should follow rulings of the KHSAA or our courts.

 

My focus is not on the Mitchell family and what they did, but HHS. The school and coach chose to follow a judge's decision, one that the Mitchell's sought. When no court ruling upheld the Mitchell's challenge, HHS did not play the young man. I have no problem with a school following the law. IMO, they did the right thing. The KHSAA does not trump our legal system.

 

So you feel Mike Mitchell transferred to HHS for reasons other than furthering his football career?

The next time I need a legal letter written I will come see LN since he will only charge me .42 :dancingpa

 

You are making an assumption, which is another in a long line of assumptions that you've made on the Mitchell case in your post, that A. The school board had their attorney review the letter, and B. that if they did have their attorney review the letter, it cost them additional legal expenses. It's very possible that he is on a fixed rate retainer for general legal services and hence the review by him, if it actually occurred, did not cost the school district any thing additional. You know what they say about people that assume.

 

Feel free to come see me when you need a legal letter written. Just keep in mind the old cliche: you get what you pay for. :ylsuper:

You are making an assumption, which is another in a long line of assumptions that you've made on the Mitchell case in your post, that A. The school board had their attorney review the letter, and B. that if they did have their attorney review the letter, it cost them additional legal expenses. It's very possible that he is on a fixed rate retainer for general legal services and hence the review by him, if it actually occurred, did not cost the school district any thing additional. You know what they say about people that assume.

 

Feel free to come see me when you need a legal letter written. Just keep in mind the old cliche: you get what you pay for. :ylsuper:

 

:thumb: noted

So you feel Mike Mitchell transferred to HHS for reasons other than furthering his football career?

 

Did you read nothing I said? The issue isn't about Mitchell's reasoning. It is about HHS following a court order. A court order supersedes that of the KHSAA. I'm not basing this on my "feelings" or "assumptions" but on the FACTS of the situation. HHS played the young man when the court injunction was in place and DID NOT play him when it wasn't.

You do not speak for us all. I am not a Birds fan, yet I feel differently than you.

 

Too many look at what the Mitchell's did and their reasoning. That is a separate argument. The issue here is whether HHS should follow rulings of the KHSAA or our courts.

 

My focus is not on the Mitchell family and what they did, but HHS. The school and coach chose to follow a judge's decision, one that the Mitchell's sought. When no court ruling upheld the Mitchell's challenge, HHS did not play the young man. I have no problem with a school following the law. IMO, they did the right thing. The KHSAA does not trump our legal system.

 

Thank you for the logic presented in your post!

 

Just to add on to what you stated, what do you suppose would have been the scenario for the school district if after the local court ruled he could play, that the coach/team did not play him? Would that decision likely cause the Mitchell family to take issue with the school then, for placing the KHSAA decision over the courts? I know it is a hypothetical situation, but one worth considering. There were a lot of ways this could have played out, and I am comfortable that the school made the right decision with the information they had at the time.

So you feel Mike Mitchell transferred to HHS for reasons other than furthering his football career?

 

Not addressing the Mitchell case in particular but transfers in general: It's not a matter of what any one, including the BOC, "feels" is the reason a player transferred. It's a matter of what the facts are concerning the transfer. If there were facts in the KHSAA record establishing that a player transferred in whole or in part for athletic reasons and the KHSAA thus, based on those facts, concluded and ruled the transfer was for athletic reasons, then it doesn't matter if there was a bona fide change of residence.

 

If however there are no facts in the record establishing athletic intent, then the BOC cannot, and should not, let their feelings, their hunches, their gut be the basis of their decision. The rule of law and fairness in this country requires courts and administrative agencies to base their decisions on the facts; not their personal feelings. Woe be all of society if courts, juries and administrative agencies can make decisions based on feelings and not facts.

You are making an assumption, which is another in a long line of assumptions that you've made on the Mitchell case in your post, that A. The school board had their attorney review the letter, and B. that if they did have their attorney review the letter, it cost them additional legal expenses. It's very possible that he is on a fixed rate retainer for general legal services and hence the review by him, if it actually occurred, did not cost the school district any thing additional.

 

Thank you. I was fairly certain that this was the way that it worked, but hesitated to post it. :thumb:

Did you read nothing I said? The issue isn't about Mitchell's reasoning. It is about HHS following a court order. A court order supersedes that of the KHSAA. I'm not basing this on my "feelings" or "assumptions" but on the FACTS of the situation. HHS played the young man when the court injunction was in place and DID NOT play him when it wasn't.

 

Sure I read it, I simply asked you a question. Because to me if the answer to the question is yes then the rest of the argument is simply schematics and not in the spirit of the transfer rule. To me, IMO, the rule is designed to prevent this from happening. So if schools need multiple courts in order to execute a loophole or waiver that doesn't make it right. Now should Dale have played him, I guess so. I agree the court system superseeds the KHSAA board of control. I still can't figure out why you accept this transfer and go through all of this for 1 year of service from a kid when you are a state powerhouse like HHS. Who as it's been pointed out already had very capable players already on the roster.:idunno:

Don't like to play by the rules, let a judge who supports your community rule on it. Then try to strong arm the KHSAA, even though he was ineligable by the rules put forth by our athletic governing body. Many students have been ineligable under the same guidelines, their communities just don't have the same political power backing. This is a simple example of Highlands wanting to let the KHSAA know that it would be unwise to not comply with their wishes in the future, since they have entirely too much state political power. WHAT A JOKE.

 

Agree 100% If KHSAA folds on this they need to just quit and let the state judical system run the HS athletics. :ohbrother:

Not addressing the Mitchell case in particular but transfers in general: It's not a matter of what any one, including the BOC, "feels" is the reason a player transferred. It's a matter of what the facts are concerning the transfer. If there were facts in the KHSAA record establishing that a player transferred in whole or in part for athletic reasons and the KHSAA thus, based on those facts, concluded and ruled the transfer was for athletic reasons, then it doesn't matter if there was a bona fide change of residence.

 

If however there are no facts in the record establishing athletic intent, then the BOC cannot, and should not, let their feelings, their hunches, their gut be the basis of their decision. The rule of law and fairness in this country requires courts and administrative agencies to base their decisions on the facts; not their personal feelings. Woe be all of society if courts, juries and administrative agencies can make decisions based on feelings and not facts.

 

 

So despite the fact that everyone knew why he was transfering, because there wasn't an email trail, a letter or such it isn't considered fact. Clearer than ever about my arguement with it's schematics. Look, I guess if you are HHS and the court says play him you play him but they knew the possible consequences when they chose to allow him to play football to begin with.

Agree 100% If KHSAA folds on this they need to just quit and let the state judical system run the HS athletics. :ohbrother:

 

They either need to not grant waivers and just say you transfer you sit no matter what and punish the kid who's parent gets transferred from say Lousiville to Covington for work just like the kid trying to skirt the rules and transfer to the school 5 miles away because they have a better program, or open it up and not have transfer rules.