I suspect that this is only if the player honors his part and continues to participate.
Mark Smith cleared to play for Missouri this season
- Status
I suspect that this is only if the player honors his part and continues to participate.
So, what is the difference between these two cases? We know that Josh did not oppose the waiver for Mark Smith. Could it be that Evansville did oppose a waiver for Dru Smith? Is that, all by itself, enough to make a difference?
It would be nice to have some actual facts to work with here.
Deleted member 186590
D
Guest
Trying to make sense of any NCAA decision is a fools errand. Yes, this waiver is very odd. Chalk it up to he was able to spin a good story and the NCAA bought it - that is really what it comes down to. Who cares how legit it was, he wasn't very good here and he's playing somewhere else now.
That is what the rumor is. At the time Evansville was mad when Dru reported he was transferring. Their 2 best players transferred but Ryan Taylor (who Illinois was interested in but chose Northwestern) is a grad transfer.
Again, there is no rule that says that an NCAA waiver could be granted based on the departing school (Illinois in this case) not objecting to a transfer playing immediately. The one year sit-out transfer rule has nothing to do with the departing school objecting or not objecting to waiving such year. The departing school has no jurisdiction deciding on whether the transfer can play immediately.
Posters keep on mentioning "not objecting" as a criterion. It is not. Hardship cases are reviewed on the merit of the actual hardship, in this case one was approved, the other was not. A lot of these cases involve medical reasons, which are protected by privacy laws, so unless the players themselves make that information public, we will never know the details.
Last edited:
Have you seen anywhere that this is a hardship waiver? And by Hardship are you saying Family hardship?
I doubt he got a family hardship over Columbia Missouri being 22 miles closer.
Deleted member 746094
D
Guest
The point is that it was granted. For what reason, we may never know. The NCAA found M Smith’s reasoning and Gonzo’s pitch for whatever the reason was for him transferring from IL to MO compelling enough make him eligible right away.
Mark Smith cleared to fall asleep on defense and give up easy backdoor cuts for Missouri this year
The NCAA has a tendency to put itself into situations that result in that quite frequently.
My problem is the complete lack of facts in all of this. One of the very few things we think we know is that Josh did not object and Evansville did object. I asked if that could make the difference. I don't know if it could. It seems unlikely unless there are a lot more pieces to this puzzle we don't know about.
Medical reasons? Mark Smith had a medical condition which kept him from playing D-1 ball in Illinois that won't stop him from playing for Mizzou? I don't understand how that would work.
My feeling, unsupported by any actual knowledge, is that if a waiver was granted because of a hardship created by BU, then something is very wrong. Can a coach cause a medical condition?
We are not likely to ever really know what happened here. I enjoy putting puzzles together, but these pieces just don't fit.
Evansville should reconsider its petty stance, do the right thing on Mizzou transfer Dru Smith
The NCAA denied Mizzou’s initial attempt to secure a waiver for Dru Smith. A source close to the player confirmed Monday that Evansville did not cooperate with the waiver request. An Evansville spokesman declined to comment on the program’s stance. It was unclear Monday if Mizzou can challenge the NCCA ruling.
...
Let’s start with Mark Smith. The former Mr. Basketball from Edwardsville clashed with Illini coach Brad Underwood’s system last year. He flashed early, then floundered — in part because he was sick for parts of the season. For reasons known only to Illinois, Smith and Mizzou, all parties agreed it was best for Smith to move on without the punishment of a sit-out season. Mizzou athletics director Jim Sterk has publicly praised the Illinois athletics department, specifically AD Josh Whitman, for working with Mizzou during Mark Smith’s waiver process
For the full article, https://www.stltoday.com/sports/col...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Jumpin' ship after year one or just bein' snarky?
Peoria Illini
- Peoria, IL
Maybe the lights in the SFC caused Mark's legs to become glued to the floor on defense. They probably have better lighting for him at Mizzou. Or maybe it was the orange seats?
This article makes me feel a lot better. A number of players got waivers that let them avoid a sit-out season and it doesn't sound as if any of them had any particular hardship. They wanted to move on, and their former school did not stand in their way.
illini80
- Forgottonia
Perhaps not, but the report of the waiver being granted due to a "hostile environment" came from somewhere.
He did check the box for "hostile environment". When you are told it is best to leave the team, that would be a bit of a "hostile of an environment". Again, both sides agreed he should transfer and "hostile environment" fit the NCAA definition that would allow him to play this year. Time to move on.
I still believe people are misinterpreting the decisions. The article, and NCAA rules, do not state that the departing school has any jurisdiction on deciding whether the player sits out a year or not, neither it is a criterion. A transfer can ask for a waiver based on extenuating circumstances, largely classified as "hardship." The departing school can cooperate and corroborate the evidence presented as the basis for the waiver (which is what Whitman seemed he did according to the article) or really not cooperate (which the article seems to imply for Evansville). As mentioned in earlier post, these reasons can span many medical/psychological domains (e.g., depression, emotional distress, etc. at the preceding school) which can be easily corroborated if the departing school wants to help.
But as discussed earlier, it is highly unlikely that the University will corroborate evidence pertaining to mistreatment of the student-athlete by current coach, as that would be incriminating to the school with serious legal exposure. There is zero evidence that the basis for petition for Mark Smith has been mistreatment by Underwood and that Whitman helped validate that accusation in order to help the athlete.
Really? I had no idea that there is a point in the process where the former coach is asked his opinion and that it is a significant (or the only?) factor in whether the student athlete can avoid the sit-out year. I guess I had never noticed players transferring and playing immediately at their new school (outside of the graduate-school and hardship-waiver scenarios).
Deleted member 336259
D
Guest
Doesn't matter, MS will get owned by this back court a year earlier than he would have and gives him one year less to improve against it.
- Status