Abuse is a word not a phrase. There are a lot of types of abuse but it does have a meaning, it does not mean nothing as you claim. I would not use the word "abuse" lightly.
Mark Smith cleared to play for Missouri this season
- Status
Abuse is a word not a phrase. There are a lot of types of abuse but it does have a meaning, it does not mean nothing as you claim. I would not use the word "abuse" lightly.
Next year (2019-2020), this year will be his transfer residency year (2018-19).
kcib8130
- Parts Unknown
So if we wanted him back, he has to sit a year for a school that has no bearing on our season at all.
But since we gave a special blessing to MS, we can allow him to play this year, for a team that we are a direct rival of?
I just can't quite fathom that as being real.
You are the one (and others) using "abuse" and "abusive behavior" as a basis of a scenario for a petition and cover-up that you supported in the case of Mark Smith getting a waiver. If it means "nothing" or had no meaning, then a) it would not be a basis for applying for a waiver, and b) it certainly would not require a "cover-up."
Not sure what you mean that you lost what I quoted from you. I quoted the statement that said that "This could be some sort of agreement. Martin/Smith say they're going to go public with "abuse" if U of I fights the claim. NCAA comes calling, U of I says they won't contest it to keep everything quiet and avoid bad press. "
What kind of agreement do you mean? With who? You then went on to say that "people settle so they don't have to admit anything." Settle with who? You made both statement with respect to Mark Smith and Martin/Smith. You clearly imply that we made an agreement with somebody and settled so we don't have to admit anything. With who?
The NCAA already decided against us IF anyone believes the "abuse" story. If Smith did accuse of "abusive" behavior (which is what people explicitly said) that is already a filed and decided case. The NCAA has already decided on the case against us.
Last edited:
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
If Mark's reasons for transferring out are completely ordinary, why would he qualify for a waiver? Something doesn't add up for me here.
He would not. They obviously ruled on an exception based on hardship.
Deleted member 643761
D
Guest
Well, you don't actually know that, as is often the case with NCAA decisions. Like the Thorne decision, we just scratch our heads and wonder what their logic is.
The NCAA doesn't have to give a reason. And they often don't because they like to operate in the dark as much as possible.
And I didn't mean to imply anything because I really don't know what was going on. I was merely trying to suppose how things might have gone if there was an allegation of "abuse" by Smith that got us to this point, which is him getting a waiver with the apparent help of U of I.
Yes, I used the word "settle" which in this context I meant to be stand down. Don't admit to wrong doing, but also dont' stand in the way or object to the waiver.
"We've investigated this on our own. Our investigations tells us that no one in our program did anything inappropriate. The Smith's believe different. If the NCAA wants to grant this waiver, we won't object."
Smith and Martin have nothing to lose. We have more to lose. It's certainly in our interest to allow this to pass without a public airing of Smith's complaints.
Btw, don't we have "agreements" all the time when guys leave programs early? Do you really believe the coachspeak and playerspeak that occurs when guys leave? While this is a bigger deal, it's of the same nature.
I often wonder about this. The lack of transparency at the NCAA just makes me think it's even more corrupt than it appears, and believe me when I say I already find myself looking askance at the lengths they go to out of greed. They're of course saying it's privacy, but that's just a convenient excuse IMHO.
I once read a L'ville booster email to another poster that they had a 'contact' at the NCAA and expected a certain incoming player to be eligible. The context was not that they had inside information, but they actually had influence over the outcome and the situation, and this was under control. When you think about how much money is spent on basketball rosters (thank you FBI investigation), it makes perfect sense that certain programs also have ways of getting to NCAA decisions. Just because I personally find it likely, doesn't mean it happens, but I certainly don't like the black box that is the NCAA...especially when the outcomes make so little sense.
To further my reasoning here, Martin has a ton of connections in recruiting, and knows how to "take care" of people to get things done. So it wouldn't surprise me if he's also made further connections that affect roster eligibility. Most of the cheating only comes out years later, so even if they are violating rules, it's just sour grapes to complain.
In any case, if other programs are cheating or abusing the rules (and let's face it they are), we don't control that. Gotta man up and figure out a way to compete. Nothing to see here with Smith. Looking forward to Trent/Ayo giving him fits.
You are calling a hunch a trend after 1 season? Come on.
Participation Trophy event here.....can't hack it, can't figure it out, doesn't want to work harder to get better....go somewhere else and let them do your bidding on this so you get to play right away. That said, if a coach can abruptly leave for a better contract, then why can't a player leave without sitting out a year? Anyway, we are ILLINI, he is no longer that, looking forward to seeing out guards in hyper mode for us!
Tough for me to understand but would make sense to me to grant exceptions when players are Creened. MS was not going to be successful in BU's system so let him go with our blessing. We need athletes and shooters (MS was neither). I caught flak last year when I pointed out that his 3 pt avg in HS was the same as TJL freshman year pct. He has size and strength and will be able to play somewhere and we shouldn't have sour grapes about it. Would have felt much worse about TJL going to Mizzu because he can play defense.
Deleted member 746094
D
Guest
Great point. For a player that MOST were happy to see leave the program because of not being able to live up to expectations, we sure have given him a lot of our attention. If he made alllegations of “abuse” or “inappropriate treatment of players”, however you want to phrase it, BU would have been investigated and we may or may not know about it. Either way, let’s stop worrying about a guy that isn’t part of our program anymore and speculating why he is eligible immediately as it is probably a win-win for us in the next three years.
do we have the details of the waiver request to know that there isn't a solid basis? IE i'm guesing the request didn't just say "mark was abused"......but likely had supporting detail?
Not saying I believe he was abused or anything, but we are so quick to say its BS but we don't even know what the meat of the allegation was, right?
My apologies if this info was available and i missed it.
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
The NCAA is remaining silent and the schools involved are not saying much either. No problem with any of that. The problem arises, in that information vacuum, when media outlets start reporting that the waiver was based upon allegations of abuse. Where is that information coming from? If it's just speculation, then that's irresponsible journalism. And if it's based even partially in truth, then our program has a serious problem.
It seems to me that I have read somewhere that a player may be able to transfer and get immediate eligibility if his scholarship is pulled. However, can't recall the exact language. If this is the case, then JW could be of assistance by pulling Smith's scholarship - probably a breach of the scholarship agreement but Smith not going to sue.
I agree with Obel;ix that UI is not going to admit to or consent to a finding of abuse. Perhaps as Obelix suggested there was a claim of depression/psychological issues, but it would seem to me that this would have to have been severe to justify immediate eligibility. But I am not sure how JW could be very helpful in that manner.
I agree with Obel;ix that UI is not going to admit to or consent to a finding of abuse. Perhaps as Obelix suggested there was a claim of depression/psychological issues, but it would seem to me that this would have to have been severe to justify immediate eligibility. But I am not sure how JW could be very helpful in that manner.
Deleted member 8213
D
Guest
More revisionist history. Almost no-one was happy to see Smith leave the program.
illini80
- Forgottonia
Agree. Maybe not surprised, but most thought he would eventually be a good player.
Missouri also applied for a waiver for Dru Smith who would actually help them out a lot more this year than Mark Smith who many thought could use the year off to work on his game. That waiver was declined and Dru's coach was fired so the thought was that he had a better chance of being granted eligibility than Mark.
I thought that scholarships HAD to be honored for four years now.
Deleted member 643761
D
Guest
He could just play matador and let tilmon get the fouls
- Status