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?

 

Sure I would and when can you name me one student that's ever transfered to CCHS from Brossart to play football. They go to a small school on a hill in Newport.

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.

 

If you can find in the KHSAA rule book where it discusses players transferring. More specifically acceptable reasons for transferring then alright. But if he doesnt break any rules then they should get their wins back.

Sure I would and when can you name me one student that's ever transfered to CCHS from Brossart to play football. They go to a small school on a hill in Newport.

 

I think more specifically for your school kids choose to go to CCH instead of Brossert but no one is banging on NCC's door when kids transfer there.

If you can find in the KHSAA rule book where it discusses players transferring. More specifically acceptable reasons for transferring then alright. But if he doesnt break any rules then they should get their wins back.

 

The rule book states you are ineligable, but you may be granted an exemption if you meet certain criteria (someone listed it earlier in the thread). The KHSAA didn't think Mitchell meet the criteria but a higher judicial authority did so by that I'd agree HHS should get their wins back. However because no one presented evidence to the KHSAA that the move was athletically motiviated doesn't mean that wasn't the case. Therefore the rule is garbage because now everyone just gets a temporary injunction and its all a mute point. The rule needs to be changed because HHS, Cov Cath, Beechwood, NCC, T, X , Lex Cath, etc are never going to stop taking tansfers for athletic reasons.

The rule book states you are ineligable, but you may be granted an exemption if you meet certain criteria (someone listed it earlier in the thread). The KHSAA didn't think Mitchell meet the criteria but a higher judicial authority did so by that I'd agree HHS should get their wins back. However because no one presented evidence to the KHSAA that the move was athletically motiviated doesn't mean that wasn't the case. Therefore the rule is garbage because now everyone just gets a temporary injunction and its all a mute point. The rule needs to be changed because HHS, Cov Cath, Beechwood, NCC, T, X , Lex Cath, etc are never going to stop taking tansfers for athletic reasons.

 

And really what is so wrong with someone transfering for athletic reasons if the parents feel it is best for their child? If there is a rule change , it should be changed so parents can send their child to the school of their choice for whatever reason.

[/b]

 

And really what is so wrong with someone transfering for athletic reasons if the parents feel it is best for their child? If there is a rule change , it should be changed so parents can send their child to the school of their choice for whatever reason.

 

EXACTLY MY POINT! :thumb:

I agree with so many points from both sides on this argument. One-I will defend Ryan Ernst for reporting this, because HIGHLANDS people are constantly calling him to correct what they feel is a wrong, and get those wins back. Second-as I have said before and LN will jump on me, but the KHSAA is largely to blame here as they want to have their cake eat it too. How can Highlands be champion of that year, and yet have the previous regular season wins negated? Do it one way or the other. Plus the fact that Mitchell played, and was the key player in the Bluebirds win over Bell County in the semifinals. Without him they don't win that game.

 

Furthermore, I don't think it is the sole blemish on Highlands reputation as some have stated. Derek Smith lived in Silver Grove, Jared Lorenzen in Edgewood, etc....I don't care how much teams like Highlands, Trinity, Beechwood, etc win, but the truth is that their winning gets good players to look at going to school there. Everybody loves a winner.

 

I don't agree with 2 Humped Casmel much on the political boards, but he is spot on this thread. As I have said in other posts, the KHSAA has no real power, as a good attorney can get their authority overruled or revoked easily. Commissioner DeVries wasn't aginst Highlands, although as I said before, the situation was poorly handled. I believe everybody should play and go to school wherever they want as this would eliminate the problem altogether. Then the crying could stop. You could go and try to win state crowns, or try to paly for an underdog. I know some will say kids go to certain schools for academics, and that is what should happen, but it is naive to think that supposed high profile athletes and their families think that way.

[/b]

 

And really what is so wrong with someone transfering for athletic reasons if the parents feel it is best for their child? If there is a rule change , it should be changed so parents can send their child to the school of their choice for whatever reason.

 

I agree. Do people say anything when a family moves in to a school district that is known for their prestigious science program? music program? or any other program that they offer that may not be available at other schools? No.

 

So if a family decides to move in to a school district that is a prestigious school, while also having outstanding athletics, why should they be looked down upon? It is to better the child's future so who are we to question the decision made by the Mitchell family? A lot of people involved with this case have let their emotions get the best of them, rather than realizing the most important factor of this decision was to better a CHILD'S future.

[/b]

 

And really what is so wrong with someone transfering for athletic reasons if the parents feel it is best for their child? If there is a rule change , it should be changed so parents can send their child to the school of their choice for whatever reason.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with it IMO. That's what happened here and I have no problem with it even though it affected the Colonels. Its so nebulous and vague that it seems like it wouldn't stand up in court.

EXACTLY MY POINT! :thumb:

 

The problem is that your point (ie you should be able to transfer for athletic reasons) is 100% against what the KHSAA has in its rules. Therefore, your scenario would be a violation. As long as the other requirements are met , "intent" shouldn't be a factor.

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

 

Isn't this the algebraic equation that ends with N=STATE CHAMPIONSHIP (with thanks to Don Dobson!) :laugh:

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?

 

Perhaps but not necessarily so. If the blue ribbon school was all male but I no longer thought an all male school was best for my son, I may still feel the need for the move. If the blue ribbon school was excellent in many fields but lacking in science, math, the arts (you pick the field), I may still feel the need for the move. If my son wasn't doing well socially at the blue ribbon school, I may still feel the need for the move. If I could no longer afford the private school tuition at one blue ribbon school and could transfer him to a blue ribbon public school at which I would not have to pay tuition, I may still feel the need for the move. Have I given enough reasons for why I may still feel the need for the move even though the sending school was a blue ribbon school or have you caught my drift?

 

Mitchell may or may not have transferred for athletic intent reasons. We are all free to surmise, speculate and guess. And your guess may be as good as mine. Who knows. Frankly had the KHSAA determined that Mitchell was ineligible due to athletic intent reasons, I'd have a much, much less problem with their determination. But they did not make the determination of ineligibilty on athletic intent. It was based solely on the supposed lack of bona fide change of residence. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you. But as an attorney, administrative agencies of the State are required to follow rules and regulations. I don't care whether the KHSAA is a "voluntary" association or not. That's irrelevant. It arbitrariy determined that there was no bona fide change of residence and used that reason, solely that reason, to rule him ineligible. The court saw that and ruled him eligible. How can some sanctions be imposed for using an ineligible player and another sanction not be imposed because the court ruled him eligible? You explain that inconsistency and I'll get off my soap box.

Perhaps but not necessarily so. If the blue ribbon school was all male but I no longer thought an all male school was best for my son, I may still feel the need for the move. If the blue ribbon school was excellent in many fields but lacking in science, math, the arts (you pick the field), I may still feel the need for the move. If my son wasn't doing well socially at the blue ribbon school, I may still feel the need for the move. If I could no longer afford the private school tuition at one blue ribbon school and could transfer him to a blue ribbon public school at which I would not have to pay tuition, I may still feel the need for the move. Have I given enough reasons for why I may still feel the need for the move even though the sending school was a blue ribbon school or have you caught my drift?

 

Mitchell may or may not have transferred for athletic intent reasons. We are all free to surmise, speculate and guess. And your guess may be as good as mine. Who knows. Frankly had the KHSAA determined that Mitchell was ineligible due to athletic intent reasons, I'd have a much, much less problem with their determination. But they did not make the determination of ineligibilty on athletic intent. It was based solely on the supposed lack of bona fide change of residence. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you. But as an attorney, administrative agencies of the State are required to follow rules and regulations. I don't care whether the KHSAA is a "voluntary" association or not. That's irrelevant. It arbitrariy determined that there was no bona fide change of residence and used that reason, solely that reason, to rule him ineligible. The court saw that and ruled him eligible. How can some sanctions be imposed for using an ineligible player and another sanction not be imposed because the court ruled him eligible? You explain that inconsistency and I'll get off my soap box.

 

I've said that under the scenario the wins should be reinstated, but I also think the rule should be the rule free from the exceptions(punishes everyone equally) or to allow one transfer or unlimited transfers for whatever reason. As it stands now it only creates these dog and pony shows with investigations that only serve to muddy the water when everyone knows why a kid is transfering. In the end the Mitchell's established with the courts enough to prove bona fide change, the KHSAA I suspect didn't agree because of the Mitchell's maintaining their permanant residence and ruled the way they did. From a legal point of view I see where your coming from in that if the change is bona fide, it's bona fide reguardless of the other residence.

Leatherneck-can you explain the KHSAA inconsistencey with taking away Highlands wins with Mitchell playing-including the playoff semifinal win vs. Bell County and allowing them to be the state champions? If they had to forfeit the games that he played in, wouldn't that necessitate them (Highlands) being ineligible to play in the state championship game, much less win it? Yes, I am well aware he didn't play in the title tilt.

Leatherneck-can you explain the KHSAA inconsistencey with taking away Highlands wins with Mitchell playing-including the playoff semifinal win vs. Bell County and allowing them to be the state champions? If they had to forfeit the games that he played in, wouldn't that necessitate them (Highlands) being ineligible to play in the state championship game, much less win it? Yes, I am well aware he didn't play in the title tilt.

 

Yeah I don't understand that either. It's as if the KHSAA knew that they may have known what they did was wrong.