I have HEARD that he did run track for HHS and was eligible per the KHSAA, but this would need to be confirmed by someone more attached to this situation.

 

Mitchell did not run track. He came to a few practices but when he eventually became eligible it was too late to be able to compete.

I respect both parties here. However, HHS chose voluntarily to become a member school of the KHSAA. When doing so, they agreed to abide by the rules that were put forth for all member institutions. Maybe they should leave the KHSAA. Who was the judge that issued this ruling, and where is his courtroom? Just curious.

 

And you chose to be a citizen of the United States, you voluntarily chose to live in this country, why don't you move to another country if you do not like the laws? Just curious

I am just curious as to why the judicial system would disregard and ignore the rules set forth by the KHSAA, aren't you? One question for you, Do you believe that there was a bona fide change of residence in this case? Yes or No. I keep bringing this up because no one wants to discuss it. It keeps getting ignored and the only response I get is that the KHSAA was over ruled by the judicial system, like nothing else matters, when it should.

 

Yes. and I have not ignored the post, I stated earlier my position on the bona fide address and it is congruent with what the court of law said.

Where do Mitchell's parents reside right now? Ft. Thomas or Florence?

 

If it is Florence, I think that is all you need to know.

They moved to get him into Highlands to play football and used their quasi-move to justify eligibility, while still owning their home in Florence, under the presumption that it was being sold to another person (oldest son, I believe).

Once the kid moved on to college they moved back into their old home and out of Ft. Thomas/Highland Heights home.

The act is done...use a temporary move to gain eligibility while holding onto original home with the idea of returning once the student had graduated from Highlands.

I think it becomes quite obvious that this is the case, if indeed the Mitchell's are back in the their original home in Florence.

 

Not meaning to disparage the kid or family, because any parent would want to do what's right for their child, and that includes extra-curriculars and what they may see as a benefit for their child. This case has been quite fascinating. It seems like the hatchet was buried but the handle was left sticking out.

Conspiracy theories abound, mine included.

 

With that being said, Mitchell has done well for himself and achieved heights that many didn't think that were attainable in being a high draft pick by the Raiders and he should be applauded for that.

Highlands keeps on winning and Mike Mitchell is making decent jack and the rest of us can just pick through this asteroid field.

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.

 

If I recall properly, I believe the Commission ruled Euton ineligible, the hearing officer recommended Euton be eligible and the Board ruled him eligible.

I am just curious as to why the judicial system would disregard and ignore the rules set forth by the KHSAA, aren't you? One question for you, Do you believe that there was a bona fide change of residence in this case? Yes or No. I keep bringing this up because no one wants to discuss it. It keeps getting ignored and the only response I get is that the KHSAA was over ruled by the judicial system, like nothing else matters, when it should.

 

I'll discuss the issue. Yes I believe there was a bona fide change of residence. I heard the Mitchells testify under oath that they had definitely move to Ft. Thomas. I heard them testify under oath that they had not gone back to their real estate they continued to own in Florence but once or twice since they moved to Ft. Thomas and that was only to pick up a thing or two; and that they had not spent one night in Florence since they moved to Ft. Thomas. I heard the Mitchells testify under oath that Mike had not gone back to the Florence real estate once since they'd moved to Ft. Thomas. I heard them testify under oath that they had registered to vote in Campbell County; that their drivers licenses had been changed. If that's not a bona fide change of residence, just what is in your mind? The KHSAA offered zero, repeat zero, evidence contradicting the testimony of the Mitchells. No investigative report showing the Mitchells' testimony to be false. No evidence was submitted by the KHSAA even suggesting athletic intent either in the judiciary or in their own administrative procedures.

 

Thus what the judiciary found when it conducted its review was zero evidence that the move wasn't bona fide; zero evidence that the move was motivated in whole or in part by athletics; and that the KHSAA had arbitrarily and capriciously determined that Mitchell was ineligible based on the mere fact that the Mitchells continued to own their former home in Florence. The judiciary found there were many valid reasons why one can decide to hold real estate, yet make a bona fide move to another residence. Frankly, I know lots of people that continue to keep their former home. Some because they want the investment; some because the market isn't the best; and yes some because they want to lease it to another family member (perhaps until the family member saves up enough money to make a down payment and buy it).

 

The KHSAA has to have evidence to support it's ruling under its own rules. There was none entered into the record to support its ruling. The judiciary did the right thing.

 

Please everyone note: the appeal has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the rule change under By Law 33. Highlands is claiming that the KHSAA did not follow its rules in effect at the time that sanctions were imposed. What is a very salient and important point not being addressed is the fact that, after the Court of Appeals had dismissed the KHSAA's final appeal, the President of the BOC still wanted to impose the further sanction of forcing the school to reimburse the KHSAA for its legal fees it has expended on the matter. The KHSAA's own attorney stated that since the KHSAA had not prevailed on the final ruling, it could not impose that sanction. Now here's the $64,000 question: if the KHSAA can't impose that sanction because it didn't finally prevail, how can the other sanctions previously imposed based on the exact same issue continue to stand? Either Highlands could be sanctioned or they couldn't be sanctioned. It's one or the other.

 

This has been a very emotional matter. Emotional for fans, players, coaches, the Mitchells, the school, and I want to make it very clear, emotional for the KHSAA. Those emotions unfortunately in my opinion blinded good judgment and common sense involving how this case was handled by the KHSAA. There are some people that simply do not like to have their judgment and their decisions questioned. They get upset and want vindication. They believe that their rulings are not subject to judicial review and when it happens, they get very, very upset.

 

This is a case that I am convinced would have been handled very, very differently under the current Commissioner, the current President of the BOC and under the current eligibility determination procedures (and by that I don't mean the change made to By Law 33). If the KHSAA suspected that athletic intent was behind the move, then there would have been an effort to determine if there was any evidence to support that suspicion and if so, it would have been part of the record. The problem with how the Mitchell case actually was handled was that some members of the BOC felt the move was for athletic reasons and that's why they really ruled him ineligible, but there is not one shred of evidence in the record indicating athletic intent. The KHSAA really didn't find him ineligible because the former home wasn't sold; heck since the Mitchell case the KHSAA has frequently allowed kids to be eligible when the former home wasn't sold. Doesn't that tell people something? When you think about it, if the fact that the former home wasn't sold really was justification for the KHSAA determination of ineligibility, why would the KHSAA in other cases allow eligibility when the former home also wasn't sold? Just think about that for a moment or two.

 

I could tie up Ru's server with a dissertation as to why the KHSAA messed up this case from the beginning of the investigation through its almost conclusion. I won't do that. With most of the BOC members gone that voted to impose the sanctions now at issue, particularly those that became so emotionally invested in their votes that it blinded their judgment, hopefully the current administration and BOC can look back and say the KHSAA made a mistake and have the guts and intestional fortitude to undo that mistake. Hopefully people can put their egos aside; put the "I'm the KHSAA and what I say goes regardless of whether it's right or wrong" mentality aside and frankly do the right thing. Which is to eliminate sanctions that were improperly imposed at the time they were imposed under the rules then in effect. No sanctions of any type should have been imposed until there was a final ruling by the judiciary. Had certain members of the BOC put their egos aside and put that "I'm the KHSAA" mentality aside, there would have been no rush to judgment and the sanctions in issue would never have been imposed to begin with, much like the legal expense reimbursement sanction was never imposed.

The only 'factual finding' of any consequence in this case is that the Kentucky judicial system ultimately ruled the kid eligible to play sports at Highlands for his senior year.[/QU OTE]

 

So, is it fair to say that you have a complete disregard for the KHSAA and it's rules? This is the body that governs athletics in KY. This body exists for a very important reason. We must have this body to insure and protect the integrity of athletics in our high schools. I am once again amazed how the HHS faithful has turned a blind eye to the governing body of athletics in the state. I am incredulous. The HHS faithful should have more respect for the KHSAA imho.

 

I have a lot of respect for the KHSAA. I believe that the KHSAA all in all does a great job administering high school athletics. None the less, that doesn't mean I or any fan or any school has to or should blindly follow every ruling and determination made by the KHSAA if the judiciary holds that a ruling or determination of the KHSAA was wrong. Don't forget it was the Mitchell family; not Highlands, that appealed to the judiciary. You'd have a stronger point if it was Highlands that made the decision to go to court. They did not and were not going to do so. Yet once Mitchell got the court order, the school did what every high school civics teacher teaches in class: you follow the rulings of the judiciary; not the administrative body. Kind of simple when you think about it and take emotions out of it.

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

 

Knowing Brigid, I do not believe she hated or hates Highlands. Hatred by Brigid was not the reason this case got so messed up by the KHSAA.

The KHSAA is really starting to get on my last nerve.

Where do Mitchell's parents reside right now? Ft. Thomas or Florence?

 

If it is Florence, I think that is all you need to know.

They moved to get him into Highlands to play football and used their quasi-move to justify eligibility, while still owning their home in Florence, under the presumption that it was being sold to another person (oldest son, I believe).

Once the kid moved on to college they moved back into their old home and out of Ft. Thomas/Highland Heights home.

The act is done...use a temporary move to gain eligibility while holding onto original home with the idea of returning once the student had graduated from Highlands.

I think it becomes quite obvious that this is the case, if indeed the Mitchell's are back in the their original home in Florence.

 

Not meaning to disparage the kid or family, because any parent would want to do what's right for their child, and that includes extra-curriculars and what they may see as a benefit for their child. This case has been quite fascinating. It seems like the hatchet was buried but the handle was left sticking out.

Conspiracy theories abound, mine included.

 

With that being said, Mitchell has done well for himself and achieved heights that many didn't think that were attainable in being a high draft pick by the Raiders and he should be applauded for that.

Highlands keeps on winning and Mike Mitchell is making decent jack and the rest of us can just pick through this asteroid field.

 

Thoughtful question but not one necessarily applicable to the legalities of this matter, which is what we are really dealing with, not whether you or I or any one else feels in their heart that the move was for athletic reasons. At the time the KHSAA handled the Mitchell case, By Law 6 (the transfer rule) was silent on whether the change in residence needed to be permanent. After the KHSAA decided the Mitchell matter and, in my opinion, in response to them knowing their case supposedly solely relying on the fact the former home hadn't been sold was very, very weak, the KHSAA amended the by law to insert the word "permanent" into the by law. The logic being that if the by law required that the change of residence be permanent, then the mere fact that the former home hadn't been sold could be evidence that the change of residence was not intended to be permanent. However, since the word "permanent" was not in the by law at the time, the fact that they hadn't sold their former home and one day might have returned there was irrelevant to whether there was a bona fide change of residence and the fact that the Mitchells may once again live in Florence (I have no clue if that is the case) is thus likewise irrelevant. Furthermore, there are many valid reasons why a family may choose to move into a community just for the period that their child attends high school in that community and when the kid graduates, the family moves out of that community. If I grown up and lived on my farm in Bracken County, I can say with high certainty that during my children's "school years", I'd have probably moved to another community for them to attend a better school district, but after they graduated, I'd have moved back to Bracken County. If I could afford to keep the farm and pay rent or own another home somewhere else, why would I want to sell my farm knowing that after my children graduated, I'd move back? I'd hate to think that my children would be athletically ineligible because I wanted to keep the family farm in my family and might move back there some day. Does that make sense?

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.

 

To the bolded a big LOL, what would have been right would for the HHS athletic department to say you are more than welcome to transfer from one blue ribbon school to another if you feel that it will improve your education, however since that makes zero sense and everyone even those defending it know that wasn't the issue should have not allowed him to play football. Which is all the KHSAA is and was trying to prevent. Now legally it appears that HHS/Mitchell's met the threshold of a bona fide change and ultimately probably should have their wins reinstated. Just please save everyone the what is right and the right thing to do arguement because it holds no water with anyone who isn't a HHS fan.

Thoughtful question but not one necessarily applicable to the legalities of this matter, which is what we are really dealing with, not whether you or I or any one else feels in their heart that the move was for athletic reasons. At the time the KHSAA handled the Mitchell case, By Law 6 (the transfer rule) was silent on whether the change in residence needed to be permanent. After the KHSAA decided the Mitchell matter and, in my opinion, in response to them knowing their case supposedly solely relying on the fact the former home hadn't been sold was very, very weak, the KHSAA amended the by law to insert the word "permanent" into the by law. The logic being that if the by law required that the change of residence be permanent, then the mere fact that the former home hadn't been sold could be evidence that the change of residence was not intended to be permanent. However, since the word "permanent" was not in the by law at the time, the fact that they hadn't sold their former home and one day might have returned there was irrelevant to whether there was a bona fide change of residence and the fact that the Mitchells may once again live in Florence (I have no clue if that is the case) is thus likewise irrelevant. Furthermore, there are many valid reasons why a family may choose to move into a community just for the period that their child attends high school in that community and when the kid graduates, the family moves out of that community. If I grown up and lived on my farm in Bracken County, I can say with high certainty that during my children's "school years", I'd have probably moved to another community for them to attend a better school district, but after they graduated, I'd have moved back to Bracken County. If I could afford to keep the farm and pay rent or own another home somewhere else, why would I want to sell my farm knowing that after my children graduated, I'd move back? I'd hate to think that my children would be athletically ineligible because I wanted to keep the family farm in my family and might move back there some day. Does that make sense?

 

If Bracken county was a blue ribbon certified school would you still feel the need to move? Because if so wouldn't that be for some athletic intent, which is what the rule is designed to prevent?

What makes it so wrong for a kid to come and want to play at a school that improves his chances at playing at the next level? You have to do whats best for you and this is what Michael Mitchell did. He followed the rules and moved so he could play football for Highlands. What is the big deal honestly? Say he stays at CovCath and they dont win a state championship so he doesn't go to Ohio or any D 1 School which follows to him not being drafted. To me it looks like the man made one hell of a decision.

If Bracken county was a blue ribbon certified school would you still feel the need to move? Because if so wouldn't that be for some athletic intent, which is what the rule is designed to prevent?

 

You wouldnt be saying this if he had gone to Campbell County. We dont make it a big deal when kids from Brossert go to Campbell County to play football do we?

What makes it so wrong for a kid to come and want to play at a school that improves his chances at playing at the next level? You have to do whats best for you and this is what Michael Mitchell did. He followed the rules and moved so he could play football for Highlands. What is the big deal honestly? Say he stays at CovCath and they dont win a state championship so he doesn't go to Ohio or any D 1 School which follows to him not being drafted. To me it looks like the man made one hell of a decision.

 

Umm, it's against the rules. I've said before you either allow one transfer or all transfers for any reason IMO. This system that the KHSAA has now only opens the door for this clock and dagger stuff. Everyone knows why Mitchell transfered but they have to make it look like it was for another reason because of the rules. The rules are and were the rules so why it wouldn't be a big deal in other states that allow football mercenaries in a sense it is against the rules in KY to transfer to a better football program solely for that reason.