thenamerobdigity

The main part about this is that Mitchell was ruled eligible and Highlands had wins stripped away from them for having an ineligible player, even though that player was eligible!

This is a very complicated thing but from my perspective that this is mostly correct, although the timeline is off. When Mitchell won his appeal I am pretty sure it was 2009. Section F - is incorrect. Mitchell was not ruled eligible for track at the time he was able to run. He missed out on the whole track season. But he ended up being eligible because the courts ruled in his favor about 4 years after he was out of high school. So he was eligible for track but not till, i believe 2009. Section G - is obviously not correct because you gave 2 scenarios. The second of the two sceanrios i believe is correct.

I do not have any link or anything on the final ruling of this case. I was told last night, after much discussion, that the KHSAA has spent (Now this is a rough estimate but it is a ball park answer) around $250,000 fighting a case that they lost. I have no information on the lawyers from the Mitchells or Highlands side of things. Bridgid DeVries (KHSAA Comissioner) is retiring on July 9 2010. Supposedly after she retires this issue should be cleared up real quick. I have heard from a reliable source that she is a MAJOR reason that this is being held up.

This is the false statement that Roman said before, "When you agree to become a member school (which is optional), you also agree to abide by their rulings and decisions (even when they do not go in your favor). That is an agreement that the KHSAA has with all of it's member schools." That is false because the person DOES NOT have to abide by the decision the KHSAA makes unless it is the same decsion made by the courts. There is no agreement with the KHSAA and their decisions are final. The people that make the final decisions are the courts and in this case, Mike Mitchell WON the court case.

That is a false statement ... Check out the bylaws before you say something that is not true

Yes

The reason Highlands people are mad is because Mike Mitchell won his court case and the KHSAA did not give the wins back that were won fair and square and by the rules

Thats all fine and dandy what they did, but if you keep the focus on the kid (In my opinion like it is supposed to be) he could have played that entire season if it were the same circumstances at Mike Mitchell. This stuff is ruled on a case by case basis and I do not know all the facts to be able to say anything about the Whitley Co. player's case. If the player used his legal right to take it to court and won then he would be able to play too. At the end of the day Mike and his family won the court case and the KHSAA lost because the Mitchell family had the right to do so because they are able to appeal their case to the judicial system according the KHSAA bylaws. Again he WON the court case.

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.

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

Mitchell was at my house when he heard the ruling after practice one day. That means it was during a weekday of the state championship game and post Bell County... Lets put that to rest

As a former Highlands player, I hated playing football on saturdays. If I were Cov Cath I would not get lights. Consider it more of a home field advantage to them. Playing on saturdays is out of the regular routine. I will purpose this: If they were to get lights, one option would be that they could keep the tradition by having one saturday game a year.

Trinity and St. X, as mentioned in an earlier post, have a huge advantage in enrollment. Let it be known that they are also private schools (fill-in the blanks of whatever your opinion is on that, but it is beside the point). However, I do believe that coachs matter. Teams do not win on talent alone. In my opinion, football is a game of X's and O's more than any other sport. My point is that these schools need great coaching to a certain extent. I believe if every high school team was on an even playing field in Kentucky (coaching wise), and over a long period of time Trinity and St. X would still be the odds on favorite to be the best teams because of the high enrollment and possibly the advantage of being a private school.

Hopefully NCC will actually be willing to play Highlands now

I always thought that intentional grounding was a loss of down penalty.