Illini to pursue medical hardship waiver for Mike Thorne

#26      
Well when I brought this up a month ago I was told, in a very confident manner, that this was not even a possibility and wouldn't happen. Not gonna name names or anything. Lol
 
#27      
Well when I brought this up a month ago I was told, in a very confident manner, that this was not even a possibility and wouldn't happen. Not gonna name names or anything. Lol

I doubt it will work, but it would be foolish not to try.
 
#31      

89illinigrad

Chicago
Maybe it isn't that cut and dried.

According to this website, it is actually the conference office that determines the medical hardship, but the school can appeal to the NCAA for a waiver of the medical hardship rule.

Per the website: "For those cases that do not meet the requirements of the medical hardship rule, such as a student-athlete that competed beyond 20% of the season only because of medical misdiagnosis, an institution always has the option of requesting that its conference apply to the Administrative Review Subcommittee of the NCAA for a waiver of the medical hardship rule. To be successful in such an application, the conference must show that granting the request is in the overall benefit of the student-athlete, is consistent with the intent of the medical hardship waiver and does not provide the institution with a competitive advantage."
 
#32      

CoalCity

St Paul, MN
Maybe it isn't that cut and dried.

According to this website, it is actually the conference office that determines the medical hardship, but the school can appeal to the NCAA for a waiver of the medical hardship rule.

Per the website: "For those cases that do not meet the requirements of the medical hardship rule, such as a student-athlete that competed beyond 20% of the season only because of medical misdiagnosis, an institution always has the option of requesting that its conference apply to the Administrative Review Subcommittee of the NCAA for a waiver of the medical hardship rule. To be successful in such an application, the conference must show that granting the request is in the overall benefit of the student-athlete, is consistent with the intent of the medical hardship waiver and does not provide the institution with a competitive advantage."

Interesting. The last part of the last sentence is what will blow the appeal out of the water. Illinois would clearly be a better team with Thorne than without him.

:chief:
 
#33      

89illinigrad

Chicago
Interesting. The last part of the last sentence is what will blow the appeal out of the water. Illinois would clearly be a better team with Thorne than without him.

:chief:
Guess it depends on how you define "competitive advantage". Yeah he would make the team better, but he is just a center like all the other centers in the league.

Now, if he was 27 years old and had the body of an NBA player, that to me would be a competitive advantage.
 
#34      
I'm No Lawyer

Early in the process I felt it was to Mike Thorne's advantage to leave and not request another year due to players only having so many servicable years.

I'm now of the opinion he should return because the player who showed up for 16 minutes vs. Indiana was not the same Mike Thorne prior to the injury. Thorne appears to need the structure and medical staff that UI can provide to make him healthy and improve his conditioning. Another year of academics is a obviously a plus.

Regarding the NCAA, I have found them to be inconsistent in many regards. It is plainly obvious to everyone Thorne and Groce made every intent to make this Thorne's final year and return him after the injury. No one should think that a 6th year Thorne will be any better than a healthy 5th year Thorne. By competitive advantage I believe the NCAA means that Illinois would attain a special benefit that other institutions would not receive in similiar circumstances. If this situation happened at Iowa, Duke, Kansas, Indiana, etc... I would think it would be very fair for the NCAA to grant the player another year.

On a side note, Illinois over the last 10 years has been a leader bb team graduation rates and all conference scholar athletes in the Big Ten. NCAA should look at this as a sign that we are not trying to game the system. Also it would appear the NCAA turned its back on an athlete injured and not given the oppurtunity to return to display his skills.

The Sam Bowie case is probably the closest example but their might be others.
 
Last edited:
#35      
As others have said regarding Thorne, it'd be foolish not to try. He's got some extenuating circumstances with the diabetes and what not combined with the fact that he only played 16 minutes in the second half. Who knows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#36      
Maybe it isn't that cut and dried.

According to this website, it is actually the conference office that determines the medical hardship, but the school can appeal to the NCAA for a waiver of the medical hardship rule.

Per the website: "For those cases that do not meet the requirements of the medical hardship rule, such as a student-athlete that competed beyond 20% of the season only because of medical misdiagnosis, an institution always has the option of requesting that its conference apply to the Administrative Review Subcommittee of the NCAA for a waiver of the medical hardship rule. To be successful in such an application, the conference must show that granting the request is in the overall benefit of the student-athlete, is consistent with the intent of the medical hardship waiver and does not provide the institution with a competitive advantage."

I'd be a little skeptical of that document, it looks outdated to me as it references a 20% threshold of games played, that was raised to 30% a while back.
 
#37      
To be successful in such an application, the conference must show that granting the request is in the overall benefit of the student-athlete, is consistent with the intent of the medical hardship waiver and does not provide the institution with a competitive advantage."

Remember when I said this was a rare clear NCAA rule? Oy vey.

:sick:
 
#38      
It'll be very interesting to see what happens with this. If he is denied, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a rule change down the road that would prevent players from being penalized for trying to see if their body is healthy enough to start playing again.
 
#39      
It'll be very interesting to see what happens with this. If he is denied, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a rule change down the road that would prevent players from being penalized for trying to see if their body is healthy enough to start playing again.

It would be interesting but it is still an assumption (not a fact) that Thorne would had been granted a 6th year had he not played against Indiana. Ryan Squire had said mentioned that Thorne was eligible to apply for a sixth year, which some had interpreted as he would have been granted a 6th year. In contrast, Ryan Squire called the 6th year case for Abrams a "slam dunk." He did not say that for Thorne, pretty big difference.

I still believe that the staff had doubts about the 6th year, thus tried to play Thorne with the hope that he would have responded better (injury wise) salvaging B1G season. It did not happen. If they felt really confident about the 6th year, it would have been just a dumb decision to risk (play) Thorne and potentially waste a whole year of eligibility.

I think the decision to play him one game speaks volumes. I think there were doubts to begin with, and obviously now, having played against Indiana, there are even worse chances. Personally, I am not optimistic about Thorne returning, but that is JMO.
 
#40      
It would be interesting but it is still an assumption (not a fact) that Thorne would had been granted a 6th year had he not played against Indiana. Ryan Squire had said mentioned that Thorne was eligible to apply for a sixth year, which some had interpreted as he would have been granted a 6th year. In contrast, Ryan Squire called the 6th year case for Abrams a "slam dunk." He did not say that for Thorne, pretty big difference.

I still believe that the staff had doubts about the 6th year, thus tried to play Thorne with the hope that he would have responded better (injury wise) salvaging B1G season. It did not happen. If they felt really confident about the 6th year, it would have been just a dumb decision to risk (play) Thorne and potentially waste a whole year of eligibility.

I think the decision to play him one game speaks volumes. I think there were doubts to begin with, and obviously now, having played against Indiana, there are even worse chances. Personally, I am not optimistic about Thorne returning, but that is JMO.

Those are some good points. I think changes to the rules are necessary just due to the uncertainty he had earlier about being granted a waiver. I don't know if it's with how the rules are written but it's crazy to me that players and teams can't tell what the decision the NCAA will make when applying for a waiver.

I'm not feeling confident about it approved either. No point in being optimistic with something like this.
 
#42      
I'm sure a big part of the decision to play in the second half was Thorne's

If you mean that Thorne wanted to play because he did not want to stay another year and wanted to turn pro (somewhere in this world), a suggestion that was offered by some on this board, then it makes you wonder what changed in the last month. He can still turn pro or play for the Illini (IF he get the extra year). Groce publicly announcing that Thorne will apply for a sixth, indicates that he prefers to stay another year in college.
 
#43      
Playing devil's advocate, are you sure? We still lost a fair amount of games with him including Chattanooga and North Florida.

If you watched this season you should know that's a terrible argument. Our team defense, although still flawed, is significantly better now compared to the putrid state it was in. JCL's contribution on both sides off the court finally emerged after a couple of months (took him significantly longer to grasp the defense but that was expected).
 
#44      
Interesting. The last part of the last sentence is what will blow the appeal out of the water. Illinois would clearly be a better team with Thorne than without him.

I do not think "competitive advantage" means "he is a good player" in this context versus granting a sixth year to someone who is a lesser player.
 
#45      
I wasn't aware that Nichols was going to appeal to play in the Fall. That would mean we have three appeals. TA's should be an easy approve. So maybe Thorne and Groce really want/hope to get another year, and they're just adding to the other two. Or, maybe Thorne's appeal is expected to get denied but intended to possibly guilt-trip the NCAA into giving us Nichols? They did hose us on Starks recently, so maybe the idea is to throw three at them in hopes of getting two, allowing the NCAA to "save face" with one deny. If so, I'd rather they grant Thorne's and deny Nichols', but the reverse would be OK and maybe "sacrificing" Thorne's appeal enhances Nichols'. What do I know.

Can't remember when they make their rulings on these things -- late summer?
 
#46      
Can't remember when they make their rulings on these things -- late summer?

You never know with the NCAA but in most cases on 6th year eligibility, decisions have been made much earlier (to allow athletes to plan for pro careers/agents). For example, Trevor Mbakwe was granted a sixth year in late March, and Evan Eschmeyer in early April.
 
#47      
While I'd have to say it's preferable to get a HS kid, IF Groce is back next year, hes gonna have to finish top half of the B1G and at least make a hard case for a sweet 16 team (given the talent, with or without Thorne/Black). That's why we need Thorne back, or maybe its better to say Groce needs Thorne back.

Developing a HS kid is the better option long term, but if Groce wants to stick, 2+ years down the road is his last thought right now.

Man proposes, God disposes. NCAA messes.

I understand the gaming of MT, but at best it is a very short term plan. I would think JW would prefer a long term solution, even if in the shorter term we are not as good.

I would prefer Groce to recruit one or two 4* players to fill the needs.

I am also losing faith in this 5th year route. Too many swing and misses.
 
#48      

IlliniDent

Chicago, IL
Man proposes, God disposes. NCAA messes.

I understand the gaming of MT, but at best it is a very short term plan. I would think JW would prefer a long term solution, even if in the shorter term we are not as good.

I would prefer Groce to recruit one or two 4* players to fill the needs.

I am also losing faith in this 5th year route. Too many swing and misses.

Sounds great but who would you pick to come join us next year that we realistically would get?
 
#49      
Groce also thought A. Starks would be eligible immediately. I agree you have to try, but I'm not holding my breath. Glad to see after 4 years our hopes still ride on one year stopgaps.
 
#50      

illini80

Forgottonia
Not real sure what to make of this. It thought Mike had made it clear that he was not interested in another year of college ball. The only way it make sense is if he expects to improve his chances of going pro. I don't think the NBA is in his future, so it would be giving up a year of a good paying overseas gig.