How much does it cost to draft a letter? 42 cents now for a stamp?

 

Nice try! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I love the offseason.

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:

 

My opinion on the spirit of Mitchell's transfer is irrelevant for two reasons. First, I am not privy to a great many of the facts of the event. Secondly, and most importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the KHSAA has the authority to punish a school for following a court order.

 

The problem with this issue is that too many DO let their opinions on one issue affect the other in this case.

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

 

Are you saying that KHSAA should be more powerful than our judiciary system? If so, are there other ruling bodies in the state that hold equal 'right' in your opinion?

Nice try! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

What other costs do you think are involved?

 

Oh....wait! I forgot paper and printer ink! I agree that printer ink is WAY too expensive!

Does anyone know that Mike Mitchell was finally determined eligible last year????? The ruling on him being ineligible was overturned, so in the judicial systems opinion he was legally allowed to play in every game. That is why the letter was written.

 

The KHSAA spent a large sum of money fighting this. The question people should be asking is how much did the KHSAA spend fighting a losing battle? It’s rumored to be over $10,000. The reason Highlands wrote this letter is because the KHSAA was wrong. The KHSAA bylaw (Section 3.I) permits a party to appeal the KHSAA's position to the judicial system. (per Socrates in an earlier post) Which makes sense because the KHSAA could become completely corrupt if they didn't have anyone to keep them in check. Which is the reason that the KHSAA has the option of appeal in their own bylaws!

 

This should be a no brainer.

 

1) The court ruled in favor of Mike

 

2) The KHSAA bylaw permits a party to appeal the KHSAA's position to the judicial system

 

The Mitchell’s appealed the case and won and in the bylaws he was eligible the whole time. You can change the argument all you want but according the judicial system Mike was eligible to play in every game.

 

I agree with true blue and gold that you can't let your opinion get in the way, the same was as if you were called in for jury duty

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.

 

Not addressing Mitchell's case, but generally when a family offers evidence of a plausible reason for a change in residence, the KHSAA cannot simply ignore it. If it establishes in the record some evidence that rebuts the evidence submitted by the family, it can fairly choose to believe the rebuttal evidence. The KHSAA isn't some country club ran by the schools willy nilly and however the majority of the schools want it to be ran. It is an agency of the State of Kentucky, controlled by the State Board of Education and governed by the General Assembly through the General Assembly's right to approve the KHSAA's rules and regulations. Even if 100% of the schools voted to have a no exception rule that said transfers had to sit out one year and no exceptions were permitted, that rule would not become effective unless the State Board and the General Assembly agreed with it. The State Board and ultimately the General Assembly govern and "own" the KHSAA; not the schools, a point that is often lost on school officials. The KHSAA has to comply with the Ky Constitution, State statutes and its own procedures and laws. It cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Which means it has to make its decisions based on the facts and evidence in the record. If there is no e mail disclosing athletic intent; if there is no letter establishing athletic intent; if there is no affidavit or testimony establishing athletic intent; if there is nothing in the record at all supporting the contention that the move was made for athletic reasons, but there is evidence giving a plausible reason for the change of residence and evidence that there was an actual change of residence, then the KHSAA cannot simply disregard such evidence based on the feelings of the KHSAA.

Edited February 11, 201016 yr by leatherneck

I have never understood why HHS fans get so defensive about this issue and argue about it to the bitter end.

 

 

Could it be because the school/team were stuck in a no win situation?

 

The school/team followed the ruling's as they came out. KHSAA said no play, he didn't play. Court said he could play, he played.

 

I think the HHS fans were/are defending the school because they had no say in the matter other than to play or not play Mike.

Not addressing Mitchell's case, but generally when a family offers evidence of a plausible reason for a change in residence, the KHSAA cannot simply ignore it. If it establishes in the record some evidence that rebuts the evidence submitted by the family, it can fairly choose to believe the rebuttal evidence. The KHSAA isn't some country club ran by the schools willy nilly and however the majority of the schools want it to be ran. It is an agency of the State of Kentucky, controlled by the State Board of Education and governed by the General Assembly through the General Assembly's right to approve the KHSAA's rules and regulations. Even if 100% of the schools voted to have a no exception rule that said transfers had to sit out one year and no exceptions were permitted, that rule would not become effective unless the State Board and the General Assembly agreed with it. The State Board and ultimately the General Assembly govern and "own" the KHSAA; not the schools, a point that is often lost on school officials. The KHSAA has to comply with the Ky Constitution, State statutes and its own procedures and laws. It cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Which means it has to make its decisions based on the facts and evidence in the record. If there is no e mail disclosing athletic intent; if there is no letter establishing athletic intent; if there is no affidavit or testimony establishing athletic intent; if there is nothing in the record at all supporting the contention that the move was made for athletic reasons, but there is evidence giving a plausible reason for the change of residence and evidence that there was an actual change of residence, then the KHSAA cannot simply disregard such evidence based on the feelings of the KHSAA.

 

Not addressing the Mitchell case either, but is circumstantial evidence permitted to be considered in determining the validity of the move?

Not addressing the Mitchell case either, but is circumstantial evidence permitted to be considered in determining the validity of the move?

 

 

I'd think so. As long as it was part of the record and was actually considered.

I can not believe that this topic has come back again. :confused::confused::confused:

Reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live sketch. The Thing that Wouldn't Leave.

Here is a link to a story on this in today's Enquirer:

 

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20100210/SPT0302/302090044/Highlands+wants+sanctions+reversed

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.

 

Whitley Co. faced almost an identical situation a couple of years ago. A kid transferred from another local school and the KHSAA would not rule him eligible. The father gets a court order, but Whitley Co. still would not allow him to play. The AD tells the father that they agreed to abide by the KHSAA rules and that if they allowed him to play would face sanctions from the KHSAA. The player had to sit out his junior year but did play for Whitley Co. his senior season.

 

I'm sure this scenario has played out this same way many times before, so why should Highlands expect to be treated any differently than any other school?

Whitley Co. faced almost an identical situation a couple of years ago. A kid transferred from another local school and the KHSAA would not rule him eligible. The father gets a court order, but Whitley Co. still would not allow him to play. The AD tells the father that they agreed to abide by the KHSAA rules and that if they allowed him to play would face sanctions from the KHSAA. The player had to sit out his junior year but did play for Whitley Co. his senior season.

 

I'm sure this scenario has played out this same way many times before, so why should Highlands expect to be treated any differently than any other school?

 

 

Because Mitchell was granted a temporary injuntion to play at the time by the courts, and it turns out that Mitchell was allowed to play for the whole season because he won the court case not too long ago. The judicial systems rule is higher than the KHSAA's rule. The Whitley County person could have challenged it in court but didn't and that is completly their fault. Every case is unique and different.