[LWC]

Is this the same guy who told you that Rockcastle was the only team to ever shut out Bell at Log Mountain? hh:

I think Rocket1 and Tony Saylor were referring to shutting them out during that playoffs at home.

Either way, what some players and fans don't realize is that Coaches may stretch the true to motivate a team or to boost their confidence.

I am pretty sure that Bell has been shut out at home before, but I think Rock may be the only team to shut them out at home IN THE PLAYOFFS

[Amped 88]

I think Rocket1 and Tony Saylor were referring to shutting them out during that playoffs at home.

Either way, what some players and fans don't realize is that Coaches may stretch the true to motivate a team or to boost their confidence.

I am pretty sure that Bell has been shut out at home before, but I think Rock may be the only team to shut them out at home IN THE PLAYOFFS

Belfry did it 1995 in the playoffs 7-0.

[Hatz]

1983 6-5
1984 10-1
1985 9-3
1986 9-3
1987 10-3
1988 9-3
1989 11-1
1990 13-1
1991 10-5 (14-1) 4 forfeits
1992 13-1
1993 13-1
1994 11-2
1995 10-2
1996 12-2
1997 9-5
1998 10-2
1999 9-3
2000 6-5
2001 9-4
2002 9-4
2003 8-2
2004 12-2
2005 10-3
2006 9-3
2007 12-1
2008 15-0

I know that those are correct may be 85 and 86 could be wrong on the losses if they are I will correct them when I get to where I can find out for sure. There hasn't been a losing season since 1982 when they went 0-11. In 1984 was the first year of consolidating the schools.

That's good work and research. :Thumbs:

[EKUAlum05]

Teams who meet the criteria:
Beechwood
Bell County
Danville* (Currently 3-6)
Highlands ** (Technically went 2-13 one year due to forfeit)
Male
Mayfield
Rockcastle Co
St. X

Bowling Green and Belfry each only had one losing season

[Amped 88]

That's good work and research. :Thumbs:

Thanks::Thumbs:I may have to check on a few but I think that is correct. It has been a long time since 1985 and 86.

[logmountainboy64]

i think someone should start a thread of the coaches who have had the most winningst seasons in a rw

[Hatz]

Thanks::Thumbs:I may have to check on a few but I think that is correct. It has been a long time since 1985 and 86.

Don't say that! Seems like yesterday to me. :biggrin:

[EKUAlum05]

I think Rocket1 and Tony Saylor were referring to shutting them out during that playoffs at home.

Either way, what some players and fans don't realize is that Coaches may stretch the true to motivate a team or to boost their confidence.

I am pretty sure that Bell has been shut out at home before, but I think Rock may be the only team to shut them out at home IN THE PLAYOFFS

Belfry did it in 1995..7-0 in the 2nd Round

[Hatz]

i think someone should start a thread of the coaches who have had the most winningst seasons in a rw

Or the coaches that won State Titles.

Or the ones that have . . .

These threads get a little self-serving after a while.

[rocket01]

For correction speaking, I don't remember stating that Rockcastle was the only team to shutout Bell County at Log Mountain, I miscorrectionally said that they where the first team in a long while to shutout Bell County on Log Mountain, I believe that Belfry shut them out back in 1995......which I saw in a earlier post, but the first time in school history we earned the regional title by shutting out an opponent overall.

[EKUAlum05]

Teams who meet the criteria:
Beechwood
Bell County
Danville* (Currently 3-6)
Highlands ** (Technically went 2-13 one year due to forfeit)
Male
Mayfield
Rockcastle Co
St. X

Bowling Green and Belfry each only had one losing season

That's pretty solid company to be in right there!

If Danville loses to Frankfort Friday it would require them wiing the State Championship to keep the streak alive. If they win Friday, they simply have to reach the State Semi's to extend their streak.

[rocket01]

i think someone should start a thread of the coaches who have had the most winningst seasons in a rw

Here is Coach Larkey from 1986 to 2009

1986= 6-4 Rockcastle
1987= 9-2 Rockcastle
1988= 8-3 Rockcastle
1989= 7-4 Rockcastle
1990= 9-2 Rockcastle
1991= 11-2 Rockcastle
1992= 11-2 Rockcastle
1993= 10-2 Rockcastle
1994= 8-4 Rockcastle
1995= 10-2 Rockcastle
1996= 9-2 Rockcastle
1997= 9-2 Rockcastle
1998= 6-5 Rockcastle
1999= 10-3 Rockcastle
2000= 13-1 Rockcastle
2001= 14-1 Rockcastle
2002= 13-2 Rockcastle
2003= 9-3 Rockcastle
2004= 8-4 Rockcastle
2005= 11-3 Rockcastle
2006= 11-2 Rockcastle
2007= 6-6 Rockcastle
2008= 8-4 Harlan Co.
2009= 7-2 Harlan Co.

Coach Larkey has went 24 straight years with two schools without a losing record but 21 straight winning seasons with Rockcastle

[easyM]

That's pretty solid company to be in right there!

If Danville loses to Frankfort Friday it would require them wiing the State Championship to keep the streak alive. If they win Friday, they simply have to reach the State Semi's to extend their streak.

Has all but one in this group won a state title?

[EKUAlum05]

Has all but one in this group won a state title?

Yes.. you are correct.

[Hatz]

Has all but one in this group won a state title?

I would feel safe in saying Yes to that statement. (Even though I'm not EKUAlum05)

[charlie22]

Maybe the thread should be for consecutive non - losing seasons while playing within the rules.

Actually they did play within the rules: Ky's Constitutional rules, which the KHSAA seemingly doesn't think applies to the KHSAA. Don't be totally surprised if every team that was required to forfeit a game due to the KHSAA thinking its rules were somehow superior to the Ky Constitution, gets those wins restored in the not too distant future.

Not wanting to re-rash the Mitchell case all over again, but since I don't think this site was around in 2004 when the Mitchell case transpired and thus there may be some posters not aware of the actual facts involved, I'll give a summary.

Mitchell transferred from CovCath to Highlands for his senior year. His family moved to Ft. Thomas but kept didn't sell their home in Florence; rather they leased it with an option to purchase to an older son and a non-relative. There is testimony under oath from the Mitchells that they did not return to their Florence home once they moved to Ft. Thomas. There is no contradicting evidence. None. Zilch. Nada. No testimony from a private investigator hired by the KHSAA stating that the Mitchell's continue to live in Florence and that the apartment in Ft. Thomas rented by the Mitchells was a sham to try and get around the rules.

Nonetheless, the KHSAA said it was not a bona fide change of residence and based it's decision of the sole fact that the Mitchells had not sold their former home. There was nothing in the by laws or case interpretations that stated that one had to sell the former home in order of it to be a bona fide change of residence. The KHSAA refused to consider the possibility that the Mitchells may have wanted to keep the Florence home for investment purposes or for many other legitimate reasons. (It's interesting and telling to note that after the Mitchell decision, the KHSAA added the word "permanent" to the bona fide change of residence rule to strengthen its position that the former home had to be sold. It's kind of telling to me that they felt the original rule did not support their position. It's also important to note, that in some cases since Mitchell, the KHSAA has held that the former home does NOT need to be sold. Which should bring to mind for any rational person or for any judge the question: if not selling the former home was the sole basis for ruling Mitchell ineligible, why can some kids be eligible when the parents haven't sold their former home and other kids be ineligible? They've been very inconsistent on this issue, which makes it very, very difficult for a parent to know what they have to do to make their child eligible at the new school.)

The Mitchells appealed the initial KHSAA determination to the KHSAA's hearing officer ( a lawyer and former circuit court judge from Louisville trained to gather facts and apply the law). The hearing officer recommended that Mitchell be eligible and the initial determination of the KHSAA be over turned.

The KHSAA board of control unanimously voted to not follow the Hearing officer's recommendation (quite surprisingly and quite rare, not one board member agreed with their own hearing's officers logic and recommendation).

In accordance with and as permitted by the KHSAA's own due process procedures, the Mitchells filed suit in court. Again, the KHSAA's procedures authorized the Mitchells to file suit. Highlands did not file the suit. Actually, they were named with the KHSAA as a defendant. The Mitchells requested and obtained a temporary injunction from the Campbell County Circuit Court stating he was temporarily eligible to play pending a final decision on the merits of the case. When that happened, the KHSAA sent Highlands a letter stating that regardless of the temporary injunction, if Highlands played Mitchell and Mitchell was ultimately determined to be ineligible, then Highlands would forfeit every game that Mitchell played in. Highlands explained to the KHSAA that they had no choice but to play Mitchell if the court said he was eligible, for to do otherwise would be to ignore the intent of the court order, cause Highlands to possibly be in contempt of court, and be unfair to Mitchell if Highlands sat him out and he ultimately was determined to be eligible by the courts. The KHSAA said tough luck and re-threatened the sanctions. Highlands did what it thought was the right thing under the law and played him.

The KHSAA appealed to the Court of Appeals requesting an emergency hearing. The Court of Appeals denied such request. The KHSAA then asked the Ky Supreme Court for an emergency appeal. Ultimately, the KY Supreme Court denied this request, and then the KHSAA then went back to the Court of Appeals to request a regular hearing date. The hearing was held months after the initial temporary injunction was issued. On the eve of the State game, the Court of Appeals overturned the temporary injunction, hence making Mitchell ineligible for the state game. Highlands did not contest or appeal this action by the Court of Appeals, but rather complied with it and did not play Mitchell in the state game.


All of the above action dealt with the temporary court injunction, not the actual merits of the case which was still moving its way through the court system. However, before there was a final decision by the courts on Mitchell's eligibility, the KHSAA sanctioned Highlands and required them to forfeit the games Mitchell played in. Again this was before there was a final decision on the merits of the case.

After the sanctions were imposed, the Campbell County Circuit court issued a permanent injunction holding that Mitchell was in fact eligible. The KHSAA appealed this permanent injunction to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the KHSAA's appeal. Thus the final action by the court system was that Mitchell was and had been eligible.

Frankly, the KHSAA screwed up and never should have imposed the sanctions until the court system made its final decision. If they had waited, they couldn't have imposed the sanctions because the final action was that Mitchell was eligible. Such has been carefully explained to the KHSAA but they refuse to rescind the sanctions probably because they don't want to deal with the negative publicity of admitting they were wrong in how they handled the case. Plus, there are some folks at the KHSAA that believe they are above the court system. They think that they, more than anyone else, knows what is best for Ky high school athletics. And heck, they may be right. But even if they are right, no administrative agency of the state has the right to ignore the rulings of the judicial system or has the right to try and bully a school into ignoring a ruling of the judicial system. That's not the way America works. Recently, a subcommittee of members of the General Assembly, after being alerted to these types of sanctions being issued by the KHSAA, in no uncertain terms took away the KHSAA's ability to issue these sanctions.

And those, ladies and gentlemen, are the facts of the Mitchell case. Don't ask me to disclose how I know those to be the facts because I cannot. But they are the facts.

I know the Bell County fans were and are probably still upset that they didn't get to play in the state game (Mitchell played against Bell in the semi finals and scored the winning touchdown). Honestly, I don't blame them for being upset. But they should not be upset with Highlands; not at all. Highlands complied with the rules at all times. The KHSAA felt that it's rule was superior to a court order. They were wrong. Court orders trump the rules of any state administrative agency, which every state agency other than the KHSAA accepts. Highlands played Mitchell when he was ordered by the court to be eligible and didn't play him when he was ruled ineligible. Bell Co. should steer their anger towards the KHSAA, who in my opinion messed this case from the get go. They erroneously ruled Mitchell ineligible when there was not one scintilla of evidence produced by the KHSAA to support that there was not a bona fide change of evidence. If they had followed the recommendation of their own hired, trained and qualified hearing officer, this case would have been over before the season began. But the KHSAA ignored its own rules because the mentality of the KHSAA Board at the time was that there were too many transfers going on and they wanted to stop them. Unfortunately, the KHSAA picked a very, very poor case to try to send a message and created so much mayhem that eventually the General Assembly was forced to get involved.

[BluegrassBuckeye]

Actually they did play within the rules: Ky's Constitutional rules, which the KHSAA seemingly doesn't think applies to the KHSAA. Don't be totally surprised if every team that was required to forfeit a game due to the KHSAA thinking its rules were somehow superior to the Ky Constitution, gets those wins restored in the not too distant future.

Not wanting to re-rash the Mitchell case all over again, but since I don't think this site was around in 2004 when the Mitchell case transpired and thus there may be some posters not aware of the actual facts involved, I'll give a summary.

Mitchell transferred from CovCath to Highlands for his senior year. His family moved to Ft. Thomas but kept didn't sell their home in Florence; rather they leased it with an option to purchase to an older son and a non-relative. There is testimony under oath from the Mitchells that they did not return to their Florence home once they moved to Ft. Thomas. There is no contradicting evidence. None. Zilch. Nada. No testimony from a private investigator hired by the KHSAA stating that the Mitchell's continue to live in Florence and that the apartment in Ft. Thomas rented by the Mitchells was a sham to try and get around the rules.

Nonetheless, the KHSAA said it was not a bona fide change of residence and based it's decision of the sole fact that the Mitchells had not sold their former home. There was nothing in the by laws or case interpretations that stated that one had to sell the former home in order of it to be a bona fide change of residence. The KHSAA refused to consider the possibility that the Mitchells may have wanted to keep the Florence home for investment purposes or for many other legitimate reasons. (It's interesting and telling to note that after the Mitchell decision, the KHSAA added the word "permanent" to the bona fide change of residence rule to strengthen its position that the former home had to be sold. It's kind of telling to me that they felt the original rule did not support their position. It's also important to note, that in some cases since Mitchell, the KHSAA has held that the former home does NOT need to be sold. Which should bring to mind for any rational person or for any judge the question: if not selling the former home was the sole basis for ruling Mitchell ineligible, why can some kids be eligible when the parents haven't sold their former home and other kids be ineligible? They've been very inconsistent on this issue, which makes it very, very difficult for a parent to know what they have to do to make their child eligible at the new school.)

The Mitchells appealed the initial KHSAA determination to the KHSAA's hearing officer ( a lawyer and former circuit court judge from Louisville trained to gather facts and apply the law). The hearing officer recommended that Mitchell be eligible and the initial determination of the KHSAA be over turned.

The KHSAA board of control unanimously voted to not follow the Hearing officer's recommendation (quite surprisingly and quite rare, not one board member agreed with their own hearing's officers logic and recommendation).

In accordance with and as permitted by the KHSAA's own due process procedures, the Mitchells filed suit in court. Again, the KHSAA's procedures authorized the Mitchells to file suit. Highlands did not file the suit. Actually, they were named with the KHSAA as a defendant. The Mitchells requested and obtained a temporary injunction from the Campbell County Circuit Court stating he was temporarily eligible to play pending a final decision on the merits of the case. When that happened, the KHSAA sent Highlands a letter stating that regardless of the temporary injunction, if Highlands played Mitchell and Mitchell was ultimately determined to be ineligible, then Highlands would forfeit every game that Mitchell played in. Highlands explained to the KHSAA that they had no choice but to play Mitchell if the court said he was eligible, for to do otherwise would be to ignore the intent of the court order, cause Highlands to possibly be in contempt of court, and be unfair to Mitchell if Highlands sat him out and he ultimately was determined to be eligible by the courts. The KHSAA said tough luck and re-threatened the sanctions. Highlands did what it thought was the right thing under the law and played him.

The KHSAA appealed to the Court of Appeals requesting an emergency hearing. The Court of Appeals denied such request. The KHSAA then asked the Ky Supreme Court for an emergency appeal. Ultimately, the KY Supreme Court denied this request, and then the KHSAA then went back to the Court of Appeals to request a regular hearing date. The hearing was held months after the initial temporary injunction was issued. On the eve of the State game, the Court of Appeals overturned the temporary injunction, hence making Mitchell ineligible for the state game. Highlands did not contest or appeal this action by the Court of Appeals, but rather complied with it and did not play Mitchell in the state game.


All of the above action dealt with the temporary court injunction, not the actual merits of the case which was still moving its way through the court system. However, before there was a final decision by the courts on Mitchell's eligibility, the KHSAA sanctioned Highlands and required them to forfeit the games Mitchell played in. Again this was before there was a final decision on the merits of the case.

After the sanctions were imposed, the Campbell County Circuit court issued a permanent injunction holding that Mitchell was in fact eligible. The KHSAA appealed this permanent injunction to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the KHSAA's appeal. Thus the final action by the court system was that Mitchell was and had been eligible.

Frankly, the KHSAA screwed up and never should have imposed the sanctions until the court system made its final decision. If they had waited, they couldn't have imposed the sanctions because the final action was that Mitchell was eligible. Such has been carefully explained to the KHSAA but they refuse to rescind the sanctions probably because they don't want to deal with the negative publicity of admitting they were wrong in how they handled the case. Plus, there are some folks at the KHSAA that believe they are above the court system. They think that they, more than anyone else, knows what is best for Ky high school athletics. And heck, they may be right. But even if they are right, no administrative agency of the state has the right to ignore the rulings of the judicial system or has the right to try and bully a school into ignoring a ruling of the judicial system. That's not the way America works. Recently, a subcommittee of members of the General Assembly, after being alerted to these types of sanctions being issued by the KHSAA, in no uncertain terms took away the KHSAA's ability to issue these sanctions.

And those, ladies and gentlemen, are the facts of the Mitchell case. Don't ask me to disclose how I know those to be the facts because I cannot. But they are the facts.

I know the Bell County fans were and are probably still upset that they didn't get to play in the state game (Mitchell played against Bell in the semi finals and scored the winning touchdown). Honestly, I don't blame them for being upset. But they should not be upset with Highlands; not at all. Highlands complied with the rules at all times. The KHSAA felt that it's rule was superior to a court order. They were wrong. Court orders trump the rules of any state administrative agency, which every state agency other than the KHSAA accepts. Highlands played Mitchell when he was ordered by the court to be eligible and didn't play him when he was ruled ineligible. Bell Co. should steer their anger towards the KHSAA, who in my opinion messed this case from the get go. They erroneously ruled Mitchell ineligible when there was not one scintilla of evidence produced by the KHSAA to support that there was not a bona fide change of evidence. If they had followed the recommendation of their own hired, trained and qualified hearing officer, this case would have been over before the season began. But the KHSAA ignored its own rules because the mentality of the KHSAA Board at the time was that there were too many transfers going on and they wanted to stop them. Unfortunately, the KHSAA picked a very, very poor case to try to send a message and created so much mayhem that eventually the General Assembly was forced to get involved.

So, the wins were re-instated?

[easyM]

Yes.. you are correct.

I thought so. Thanks.

[easyM]

Actually they did play within the rules: Ky's Constitutional rules, which the KHSAA seemingly doesn't think applies to the KHSAA. Don't be totally surprised if every team that was required to forfeit a game due to the KHSAA thinking its rules were somehow superior to the Ky Constitution, gets those wins restored in the not too distant future.

Not wanting to re-rash the Mitchell case all over again, but since I don't think this site was around in 2004 when the Mitchell case transpired and thus there may be some posters not aware of the actual facts involved, I'll give a summary.

Mitchell transferred from CovCath to Highlands for his senior year. His family moved to Ft. Thomas but kept didn't sell their home in Florence; rather they leased it with an option to purchase to an older son and a non-relative. There is testimony under oath from the Mitchells that they did not return to their Florence home once they moved to Ft. Thomas. There is no contradicting evidence. None. Zilch. Nada. No testimony from a private investigator hired by the KHSAA stating that the Mitchell's continue to live in Florence and that the apartment in Ft. Thomas rented by the Mitchells was a sham to try and get around the rules.

Nonetheless, the KHSAA said it was not a bona fide change of residence and based it's decision of the sole fact that the Mitchells had not sold their former home. There was nothing in the by laws or case interpretations that stated that one had to sell the former home in order of it to be a bona fide change of residence. The KHSAA refused to consider the possibility that the Mitchells may have wanted to keep the Florence home for investment purposes or for many other legitimate reasons. (It's interesting and telling to note that after the Mitchell decision, the KHSAA added the word "permanent" to the bona fide change of residence rule to strengthen its position that the former home had to be sold. It's kind of telling to me that they felt the original rule did not support their position. It's also important to note, that in some cases since Mitchell, the KHSAA has held that the former home does NOT need to be sold. Which should bring to mind for any rational person or for any judge the question: if not selling the former home was the sole basis for ruling Mitchell ineligible, why can some kids be eligible when the parents haven't sold their former home and other kids be ineligible? They've been very inconsistent on this issue, which makes it very, very difficult for a parent to know what they have to do to make their child eligible at the new school.)

The Mitchells appealed the initial KHSAA determination to the KHSAA's hearing officer ( a lawyer and former circuit court judge from Louisville trained to gather facts and apply the law). The hearing officer recommended that Mitchell be eligible and the initial determination of the KHSAA be over turned.

The KHSAA board of control unanimously voted to not follow the Hearing officer's recommendation (quite surprisingly and quite rare, not one board member agreed with their own hearing's officers logic and recommendation).

In accordance with and as permitted by the KHSAA's own due process procedures, the Mitchells filed suit in court. Again, the KHSAA's procedures authorized the Mitchells to file suit. Highlands did not file the suit. Actually, they were named with the KHSAA as a defendant. The Mitchells requested and obtained a temporary injunction from the Campbell County Circuit Court stating he was temporarily eligible to play pending a final decision on the merits of the case. When that happened, the KHSAA sent Highlands a letter stating that regardless of the temporary injunction, if Highlands played Mitchell and Mitchell was ultimately determined to be ineligible, then Highlands would forfeit every game that Mitchell played in. Highlands explained to the KHSAA that they had no choice but to play Mitchell if the court said he was eligible, for to do otherwise would be to ignore the intent of the court order, cause Highlands to possibly be in contempt of court, and be unfair to Mitchell if Highlands sat him out and he ultimately was determined to be eligible by the courts. The KHSAA said tough luck and re-threatened the sanctions. Highlands did what it thought was the right thing under the law and played him.

The KHSAA appealed to the Court of Appeals requesting an emergency hearing. The Court of Appeals denied such request. The KHSAA then asked the Ky Supreme Court for an emergency appeal. Ultimately, the KY Supreme Court denied this request, and then the KHSAA then went back to the Court of Appeals to request a regular hearing date. The hearing was held months after the initial temporary injunction was issued. On the eve of the State game, the Court of Appeals overturned the temporary injunction, hence making Mitchell ineligible for the state game. Highlands did not contest or appeal this action by the Court of Appeals, but rather complied with it and did not play Mitchell in the state game.


All of the above action dealt with the temporary court injunction, not the actual merits of the case which was still moving its way through the court system. However, before there was a final decision by the courts on Mitchell's eligibility, the KHSAA sanctioned Highlands and required them to forfeit the games Mitchell played in. Again this was before there was a final decision on the merits of the case.

After the sanctions were imposed, the Campbell County Circuit court issued a permanent injunction holding that Mitchell was in fact eligible. The KHSAA appealed this permanent injunction to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the KHSAA's appeal. Thus the final action by the court system was that Mitchell was and had been eligible.

Frankly, the KHSAA screwed up and never should have imposed the sanctions until the court system made its final decision. If they had waited, they couldn't have imposed the sanctions because the final action was that Mitchell was eligible. Such has been carefully explained to the KHSAA but they refuse to rescind the sanctions probably because they don't want to deal with the negative publicity of admitting they were wrong in how they handled the case. Plus, there are some folks at the KHSAA that believe they are above the court system. They think that they, more than anyone else, knows what is best for Ky high school athletics. And heck, they may be right. But even if they are right, no administrative agency of the state has the right to ignore the rulings of the judicial system or has the right to try and bully a school into ignoring a ruling of the judicial system. That's not the way America works. Recently, a subcommittee of members of the General Assembly, after being alerted to these types of sanctions being issued by the KHSAA, in no uncertain terms took away the KHSAA's ability to issue these sanctions.

And those, ladies and gentlemen, are the facts of the Mitchell case. Don't ask me to disclose how I know those to be the facts because I cannot. But they are the facts.

I know the Bell County fans were and are probably still upset that they didn't get to play in the state game (Mitchell played against Bell in the semi finals and scored the winning touchdown). Honestly, I don't blame them for being upset. But they should not be upset with Highlands; not at all. Highlands complied with the rules at all times. The KHSAA felt that it's rule was superior to a court order. They were wrong. Court orders trump the rules of any state administrative agency, which every state agency other than the KHSAA accepts. Highlands played Mitchell when he was ordered by the court to be eligible and didn't play him when he was ruled ineligible. Bell Co. should steer their anger towards the KHSAA, who in my opinion messed this case from the get go. They erroneously ruled Mitchell ineligible when there was not one scintilla of evidence produced by the KHSAA to support that there was not a bona fide change of evidence. If they had followed the recommendation of their own hired, trained and qualified hearing officer, this case would have been over before the season began. But the KHSAA ignored its own rules because the mentality of the KHSAA Board at the time was that there were too many transfers going on and they wanted to stop them. Unfortunately, the KHSAA picked a very, very poor case to try to send a message and created so much mayhem that eventually the General Assembly was forced to get involved.

Two things, he was ineligible. But, with or without him we didn't win the game. That's what mattered. We had our chance but the turnovers beat us.

[Hatz]

So, the wins were re-instated?

My understanding is that the wins weren't reinstated but the court of law ruled in Highlands favor. My understanding is that either Highlands has not asked for them to be re-instated or the KHSAA has chosen not to.

[Hatz]

Two things, he was ineligible. But, with or without him we didn't win the game. That's what mattered. We had our chance but the turnovers beat us.

I think the above shows that at the moment of that playoff game he was neither. Maybe I'm missing something here. (Always possible with me.)

[charlie22]

My understanding is that the wins weren't reinstated but the court of law ruled in Highlands favor. My understanding is that either Highlands has not asked for them to be re-instated or the KHSAA has chosen not to.

To the best of my knowledge, the school has not officially requested that the wins be reinstated and the other sanctions be rescinded. I know a board of control member unofficially asked if the KHSAA would be willing to restore the wins and rescind the other sanctions, but was told that Highlands had 30 days to appeal the sanctions and did not due so, thus those wins would not be restored. Of course, the final decision on Mitchell's eligibility had not been issued by the time the 30 day window had closed so it would have been a futile effort by the school any way.

Frankly, I think the school has moved on. They've been a long standing member of the KHSAA with almost zero incidents other than the Mitchell case and just want to put this into the past. There are some supporters of Highlands football that don't feel the same way and are trying to get the KHSAA to change their mind. As of now, the KHSAA has not changed its mind and has not restored the wins.

[Bobcat_Dad]

1983 6-5
1984 10-1
1985 9-3
1986 9-3
1987 10-3
1988 9-3
1989 11-1
1990 13-1
1991 10-5 (14-1) 4 forfeits
1992 13-1
1993 13-1
1994 11-2
1995 10-2
1996 12-2
1997 9-5
1998 10-2
1999 9-3
2000 6-5
2001 9-4
2002 9-4
2003 8-2
2004 12-2
2005 10-3
2006 9-3
2007 12-1
2008 15-0

I know that those are correct may be 85 and 86 could be wrong on the losses if they are I will correct them when I get to where I can find out for sure. There hasn't been a losing season since 1982 when they went 0-11. In 1984 was the first year of consolidating the schools.

:Clap:

[Can you dig it?]

1983 6-5
1984 10-1
1985 9-3
1986 9-3
1987 10-3
1988 9-3
1989 11-1
1990 13-1
1991 10-5 (14-1) 4 forfeits
1992 13-1
1993 13-1
1994 11-2
1995 10-2
1996 12-2
1997 9-5
1998 10-2
1999 9-3
2000 6-5
2001 9-4
2002 9-4
2003 8-2
2004 12-2
2005 10-3
2006 9-3
2007 12-1
2008 15-0

I know that those are correct may be 85 and 86 could be wrong on the losses if they are I will correct them when I get to where I can find out for sure. There hasn't been a losing season since 1982 when they went 0-11. In 1984 was the first year of consolidating the schools.

I'm sure I've heard it before, and don't mean to be dredging up bad memories, but what were the circumstances surrounding the 1991 forfeits? Fifteen games played generally means a state finals team, so they must have been a pretty good team.

[Can you dig it?]

Actually they did play within the rules: Ky's Constitutional rules, which the KHSAA seemingly doesn't think applies to the KHSAA. Don't be totally surprised if every team that was required to forfeit a game due to the KHSAA thinking its rules were somehow superior to the Ky Constitution, gets those wins restored in the not too distant future.

Not wanting to re-rash the Mitchell case all over again, but since I don't think this site was around in 2004 when the Mitchell case transpired and thus there may be some posters not aware of the actual facts involved, I'll give a summary.

Mitchell transferred from CovCath to Highlands for his senior year. His family moved to Ft. Thomas but kept didn't sell their home in Florence; rather they leased it with an option to purchase to an older son and a non-relative. There is testimony under oath from the Mitchells that they did not return to their Florence home once they moved to Ft. Thomas. There is no contradicting evidence. None. Zilch. Nada. No testimony from a private investigator hired by the KHSAA stating that the Mitchell's continue to live in Florence and that the apartment in Ft. Thomas rented by the Mitchells was a sham to try and get around the rules.

Nonetheless, the KHSAA said it was not a bona fide change of residence and based it's decision of the sole fact that the Mitchells had not sold their former home. There was nothing in the by laws or case interpretations that stated that one had to sell the former home in order of it to be a bona fide change of residence. The KHSAA refused to consider the possibility that the Mitchells may have wanted to keep the Florence home for investment purposes or for many other legitimate reasons. (It's interesting and telling to note that after the Mitchell decision, the KHSAA added the word "permanent" to the bona fide change of residence rule to strengthen its position that the former home had to be sold. It's kind of telling to me that they felt the original rule did not support their position. It's also important to note, that in some cases since Mitchell, the KHSAA has held that the former home does NOT need to be sold. Which should bring to mind for any rational person or for any judge the question: if not selling the former home was the sole basis for ruling Mitchell ineligible, why can some kids be eligible when the parents haven't sold their former home and other kids be ineligible? They've been very inconsistent on this issue, which makes it very, very difficult for a parent to know what they have to do to make their child eligible at the new school.)

The Mitchells appealed the initial KHSAA determination to the KHSAA's hearing officer ( a lawyer and former circuit court judge from Louisville trained to gather facts and apply the law). The hearing officer recommended that Mitchell be eligible and the initial determination of the KHSAA be over turned.

The KHSAA board of control unanimously voted to not follow the Hearing officer's recommendation (quite surprisingly and quite rare, not one board member agreed with their own hearing's officers logic and recommendation).

In accordance with and as permitted by the KHSAA's own due process procedures, the Mitchells filed suit in court. Again, the KHSAA's procedures authorized the Mitchells to file suit. Highlands did not file the suit. Actually, they were named with the KHSAA as a defendant. The Mitchells requested and obtained a temporary injunction from the Campbell County Circuit Court stating he was temporarily eligible to play pending a final decision on the merits of the case. When that happened, the KHSAA sent Highlands a letter stating that regardless of the temporary injunction, if Highlands played Mitchell and Mitchell was ultimately determined to be ineligible, then Highlands would forfeit every game that Mitchell played in. Highlands explained to the KHSAA that they had no choice but to play Mitchell if the court said he was eligible, for to do otherwise would be to ignore the intent of the court order, cause Highlands to possibly be in contempt of court, and be unfair to Mitchell if Highlands sat him out and he ultimately was determined to be eligible by the courts. The KHSAA said tough luck and re-threatened the sanctions. Highlands did what it thought was the right thing under the law and played him.

The KHSAA appealed to the Court of Appeals requesting an emergency hearing. The Court of Appeals denied such request. The KHSAA then asked the Ky Supreme Court for an emergency appeal. Ultimately, the KY Supreme Court denied this request, and then the KHSAA then went back to the Court of Appeals to request a regular hearing date. The hearing was held months after the initial temporary injunction was issued. On the eve of the State game, the Court of Appeals overturned the temporary injunction, hence making Mitchell ineligible for the state game. Highlands did not contest or appeal this action by the Court of Appeals, but rather complied with it and did not play Mitchell in the state game.


All of the above action dealt with the temporary court injunction, not the actual merits of the case which was still moving its way through the court system. However, before there was a final decision by the courts on Mitchell's eligibility, the KHSAA sanctioned Highlands and required them to forfeit the games Mitchell played in. Again this was before there was a final decision on the merits of the case.

After the sanctions were imposed, the Campbell County Circuit court issued a permanent injunction holding that Mitchell was in fact eligible. The KHSAA appealed this permanent injunction to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the KHSAA's appeal. Thus the final action by the court system was that Mitchell was and had been eligible.

Frankly, the KHSAA screwed up and never should have imposed the sanctions until the court system made its final decision. If they had waited, they couldn't have imposed the sanctions because the final action was that Mitchell was eligible. Such has been carefully explained to the KHSAA but they refuse to rescind the sanctions probably because they don't want to deal with the negative publicity of admitting they were wrong in how they handled the case. Plus, there are some folks at the KHSAA that believe they are above the court system. They think that they, more than anyone else, knows what is best for Ky high school athletics. And heck, they may be right. But even if they are right, no administrative agency of the state has the right to ignore the rulings of the judicial system or has the right to try and bully a school into ignoring a ruling of the judicial system. That's not the way America works. Recently, a subcommittee of members of the General Assembly, after being alerted to these types of sanctions being issued by the KHSAA, in no uncertain terms took away the KHSAA's ability to issue these sanctions.

And those, ladies and gentlemen, are the facts of the Mitchell case. Don't ask me to disclose how I know those to be the facts because I cannot. But they are the facts.

I know the Bell County fans were and are probably still upset that they didn't get to play in the state game (Mitchell played against Bell in the semi finals and scored the winning touchdown). Honestly, I don't blame them for being upset. But they should not be upset with Highlands; not at all. Highlands complied with the rules at all times. The KHSAA felt that it's rule was superior to a court order. They were wrong. Court orders trump the rules of any state administrative agency, which every state agency other than the KHSAA accepts. Highlands played Mitchell when he was ordered by the court to be eligible and didn't play him when he was ruled ineligible. Bell Co. should steer their anger towards the KHSAA, who in my opinion messed this case from the get go. They erroneously ruled Mitchell ineligible when there was not one scintilla of evidence produced by the KHSAA to support that there was not a bona fide change of evidence. If they had followed the recommendation of their own hired, trained and qualified hearing officer, this case would have been over before the season began. But the KHSAA ignored its own rules because the mentality of the KHSAA Board at the time was that there were too many transfers going on and they wanted to stop them. Unfortunately, the KHSAA picked a very, very poor case to try to send a message and created so much mayhem that eventually the General Assembly was forced to get involved.

Excellent summary. :notworthy:worthy::rockon:
Know anything about playing offensive line?:biggrin:

[ROCKSOLID69]

If Rockcastle dont pull Off a few Upsets this could be there First losing season in a while.

[charlie22]

Excellent summary. :notworthy:worthy::rockon:
Know anything about playing offensive line?:biggrin:

A little bit that I learned from watching the girls inter-mural flag football teams play in college. :biggrin:

[MayfieldCardinal]

1955 Highlands Season: 4-5-1
HHS 6 Dayton 12 L
HHS 45 Erlanger Lloyd Memorial 6 W
HHS 12 Boone County 6 W
HHS 14 Bellevue 27 L
HHS 0 Newport 21 L
HHS 33 Ludlow 6 W
HHS 20 Ashland 20 T
HHS 6 Covington Holmes 27 L
HHS 25 Campbell County 0 W
HHS 7 Dixie Heights 24 L

I do not know if this is right but it looks like Highlands streak may have ran from 1955 until 2004.

[rednblack]

I am almost certain Highlands had a losing record about 5 years ago, Mayfield's last unsuccessful season was 73 when they were only 500.

Thats 36 winning seasons in a row. If .500 seasons dont count as a losing season, then how long has it been since Mayfield actually had a losing season I wonder?

[Amped 88]

I'm sure I've heard it before, and don't mean to be dredging up bad memories, but what were the circumstances surrounding the 1991 forfeits? Fifteen games played generally means a state finals team, so they must have been a pretty good team.

In 1991 Bell County won the state title they found out that they had a player who was ineligible and they just turned themselves in and took the forfiets in the first four games because Corbin beat them.

In 1986 Bell Co's record was 7-3 instead of 9-3 sorry everything else is correct.