^Couple of questions about your timeline. So are you saying that #4 may or may not have happened? Is it a rumor? Assuming #4 did not happen, then #5 could not have happened, right? The one very important issue I would like for you to address is the bona fide change of residence. I did not see that issue mentioned anywhere in your timeline, and I think it's at the root of this issue. Just a question for you. If the transfer rule states that a change of residence is required and the Mitchell's did not meet the criteria for this rule, then should this be overturned? If so, why?

#4 happened.

^Couple of questions about your timeline. So are you saying that #4 may or may not have happened? Is it a rumor? Assuming #4 did not happen, then #5 could not have happened, right? The one very important issue I would like for you to address is the bona fide change of residence. I did not see that issue mentioned anywhere in your timeline, and I think it's at the root of this issue. Just a question for you. If the transfer rule states that a change of residence is required and the Mitchell's did not meet the criteria for this rule, then should this be overturned? If so, why?

 

You dont get it... The third party investigating officer makes a reccomendation to the KHSAA Board Of Controls and the Commissioner (then Brigid Devries, now retired) make the final decision. So the KHSAA went against what the investigating officer's report said. The courts ruled that by the rules of the KHSAA that Mike was eligible the whole time. All of those happened. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 and we are currently at 19. If you want to prove my FACTS wrong then go ahead and do it. But my suggestion is don't waste your time because I am right. They are not assumptions like you have tried to portray. Try to say whatever you want about the bona fide address, but the court of law ruled that Mike had a bona fide address in Ft. Thomas. Refer to # 19 where the KHSAA has to abide by the state constitution.

^Couple of questions about your timeline. So are you saying that #4 may or may not have happened? Is it a rumor? Assuming #4 did not happen, then #5 could not have happened, right? The one very important issue I would like for you to address is the bona fide change of residence. I did not see that issue mentioned anywhere in your timeline, and I think it's at the root of this issue. Just a question for you. If the transfer rule states that a change of residence is required and the Mitchell's did not meet the criteria for this rule, then should this be overturned? If so, why?

 

#4 happened.

 

 

Exactly, #4 definately happened.

Here's a fun fact for everyone to consider...

 

In America the judicial branch of government has the ability to conduct judicial review. The courts possess the ability to review any rule, law or order coming from either the executive branch or the legislative branch of government. The only thing the courts do not have the ability to review and overturn is a Constitutional amendment.

 

Unless the Kentucky courts have another hearing/ruling on this case, as it stands right now the judicial system ruled Mitchell eligible to play sports at Highlands High School during the 2004-2005 academic year. Some people agreed with this decision and others did not, but the fact of the matter is that the court reviewed the situation and ruled him eligible. By allowing the sanctions against Highlands to remain in place, the KHSAA is, in effect, disregarding/ignoring the court's decision simply because it doesn't agree with it. Imagine if this sort of thing were done routinely (i.e., the courts ruling on matters and other branches of government choosing to ignore them on a whim)... so much for the notion of checks and balances within government.

 

Unless the KHSAA can get a higher court to overturn the current judicial decision, the only recourse I can see for the KHSAA is to attempt to have a Constitutional amendment passed ruling Mitchell ineligible. Or, they could abide by the court's decision and remove the sanctions which were improperly placed on Highlands.

 

I wonder if the court that ruled Mitchell eligible ever considered holding the KHSAA and/or the KHSAA Commissioner in contempt of court after they disregarded the court's decision?

 

One last thing... people can site all they want the notion that the KHSAA has the right to make up its own bylaws, but those bylaws and the decisions that stem from them are still subject to judicial review.

You don't get it... The third party investigating officer makes a recommendation to the KHSAA Board Of Controls and the Commissioner (then Brigid Devries, now retired) make the final decision. So the KHSAA went against what the investigating officer's report said.

 

It honestly doesn't matter to me if Highlands get the wins back or not, I have no ill will toward them. But, I remember when this case first happened, and all the stuff that followed.

 

Here is my question: How is what you described above different then other similar cases that have taken place? For instance, it's basketball instead of football, but Dakota Euton transfered to Scott County. He had a change of address - moved two hours away, not across town. The investigator recommended that he be ineligible. The Board of Control ruled him eligible. This has happened many times, the investigator recommends one thing and the BOC does something different.

Mitchell case... yikes :popcorn:

It honestly doesn't matter to me if Highlands get the wins back or not, I have no ill will toward them. But, I remember when this case first happened, and all the stuff that followed.

 

Here is my question: How is what you described above different then other similar cases that have taken place? For instance, it's basketball instead of football, but Dakota Euton transfered to Scott County. He had a change of address - moved two hours away, not across town. The investigator recommended that he be ineligible. The Board of Control ruled him eligible. This has happened many times, the investigator recommends one thing and the BOC does something different.

 

 

First of all I do not know about the Euton case, so I am interpreting this from what you just presented to me. In that case the KHSAA and Euton both agreed that he should be eligible. So this case is extremely different than the Mike Mitchell case.

 

This rule has not been tested like it has with the Mitchell case. That is why the rule has now changed because of this case. A player is now eligible under a temporary injunction by the court. The difference in this case is that Mitchell ended up winning when it went to court. Does that answer your question?

First of all I do not know about the Euton case, so I am interpreting this from what you just presented to me. In that case the KHSAA and Euton both agreed that he should be eligible. So this case is extremely different than the Mike Mitchell case.

 

This rule has not been tested like it has with the Mitchell case. That is why the rule has now changed because of this case. A player is now eligible under a temporary injunction by the court. The difference in this case is that Mitchell ended up winning when it went to court. Does that answer your question?

 

Yes, it answers my question, thanks. The only point I was making with the comparison of the two cases was that the investigator and the BOC don't always agree. It seemed that that may be what people were pointing to make the point that he should have been eligible.

 

But, your answer raised another question. If the student has already graduated and little to gain, if anything, and the rule has already been changed, what can come from the expense of fighting this? I know Highlands wants the win numbers and the consecutive winning season mark, but why fight this now?

It honestly doesn't matter to me if Highlands get the wins back or not, I have no ill will toward them. But, I remember when this case first happened, and all the stuff that followed.

 

Here is my question: How is what you described above different then other similar cases that have taken place? For instance, it's basketball instead of football, but Dakota Euton transfered to Scott County. He had a change of address - moved two hours away, not across town. The investigator recommended that he be ineligible. The Board of Control ruled him eligible. This has happened many times, the investigator recommends one thing and the BOC does something different.

 

One obvious difference between the two is that the Mitchells still owned their house in Florence while renting in Ft Thomas. I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that the Eutons sold their house in Ashland and bought a house in Gtown.

Highlands will get their wins back!!!! That's really all I have to say about this issue....

Yes, it answers my question, thanks. The only point I was making with the comparison of the two cases was that the investigator and the BOC don't always agree. It seemed that that may be what people were pointing to make the point that he should have been eligible.

 

But, your answer raised another question. If the student has already graduated and little to gain, if anything, and the rule has already been changed, what can come from the expense of fighting this? I know Highlands wants the win numbers and the consecutive winning season mark, but why fight this now?

 

 

That is interesting that they hire an investigating officer and go against their ruling in multiple cases.

 

The reason for fighting this is because it is what is right. I personally want the wins back and I was on the team that won 14 games but only 2 of them counted. You phrased your question like wins are not important. The wins are important and if the wins are still revoked it looks bad on Highlands even though Mike was eligible.

 

When you ask what can come from the expense of fighting this? I can't answer why the KHSAA spent so much money and time fighting this. They wanted to make a kid sit out a year even though he was eligible to play. A kid who ended up making it to the NFL and if he was not able to play, he likely would not have made it to the NFL costing him millions of dollars. If thats what they want then there are major problems with sports in Kentucky.

 

What would the KHSAA get out of it? I guess Brigid Devries would get what she wanted, which is getting back at her hatred toward Highlands. Highlands simply wrote a letter to the KHSAA asking for the wins back because the court case was already settled. Now that Brigid Devries is no longer the commissioner, Highlands should get their wins because they followed the rules.

What would the KHSAA get out of it? I guess Brigid Devries would get what she wanted, which is getting back at her hatred toward Highlands. .

 

Can you back that up or is it like UK fans when they say "Billy Packer hates UK?"

Don't really care either way, but yes I would be somewhat surprised if the decision is reversed. I am just simply looking at the facts in this case, and the KHSAA rules at the time of the violation. The outcome should be interesting. If it is reversed, I will be anxious to hear the reasoning behind the reversal.

 

For someone who "Don't really care either way" you sure do have an interest in this matter. 20n10+12!!!!

Hey Sweep, I like the new motto. 20n10+12