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
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.
I would hope the NCAA makes their decision quickly. I can just see an extended drawn out affair where Groce or whoever will be scrambling to fill a spot.
That was the point I wanted to make, that they could at least try
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."
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.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.
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."
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."
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.
I'm sure a big part of the decision to play in the second half was Thorne's
Playing devil's advocate, are you sure? We still lost a fair amount of games with him including Chattanooga and North Florida.
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.
Can't remember when they make their rulings on these things -- late summer?
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.