Man, all this talk makes me nervous. I mean, the guy ain't chopped liver and with another year under his belt... plus, he'll be fired up too no doubt.
Mark Smith cleared to play for Missouri this season
- Status
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
IDKWMSI will have to have MAJOR improvement in the areas of defense , offense , shooting and BB IQ before I get nervous about his ability to have any influence in a college BB game, especially against a backcourt as elite as the Illini have..
His play on the defensive end last showed lack of speed and mental adjustment to the increased speed of the college game...his hip and foot movement showed a major deficiency that allowed him to be abused constantly and that led to bench time as he wasn't good enough to adapt to the increased ability of the college players compared to the slower and shorter high school players ..his BB IQ was horrible as time and time again he was 1-2 steps behind average players on defense and his constant stance was putting his hands in the air like a concession of surrender...
The only hostile environment he experienced at UI was that he had to earn playing time and he showed he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to buck up and
improve or want to improve and listen to the coaches for guidance....\
Factor in his parents and their actions and words and viola here comes clownzo and his promises of a rose garden and we are where we are now...I expect plenty of backdoor baskets by the Illini against marky Mark with his jock down around his ankles all nite long..
The last paragraph of the article certainly conflicts with what Obelix was saying. It doesn’t make sense but it’s a good look for the NCAA. I wonder what the language is for this process though. It seems like every appeal will have a chance if they are truly setting that sort of precedent. At the very least it seems like a very odd interpretation of hostile environment. They should keep it simple, if both parties agree, then it should be allowed.
I think the articles and interpretation are misleading IMO. The fact that some schools have corroborated the evidence of the transfer student that have been submitted as the basis for obtaining the waiver has been happening for years. Some schools do and some schools don't, holding grudges against the departing athlete by not supporting the basis for the athlete's waiver. The NCAA may have become more lenient in their ruling (which indeed may be true) but I do not believe that it is true that the basis of approving the waiver is just the approval of the departing schools. If that is the case, then the NCAA would have issued revised guidelines and would have streamlined the process by the athlete just obtaining a "statement of no-objection" similar to what exists with a recruit obtaining a "release from signed LOI." That provision is nowhere in the NCAA guidelines right now.
In my opinion, the most likely reasoning is that Mark Smith said that he didn't fit in with the team, or was depressed, or however you want to phrase it. The NCAA likely then asked Whitman/BU/Illinois whether there were any signs that this was true. The NCAA isn't likely to take a player's word for it solely because otherwise the sit out rule would be pointless. Illinois likely agreed with whatever Mark Smith said because it was either true, they didn't really care, or they wanted to avoid any negative press or more hard feelings with the Smith family. Likely it was a combination of the three.
That is exactly my guess too.
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
I'm so happy that after we helped Mark transfer out and get his waiver, they've returned the favor by bad-mouthing our program to our recruits and their families.
I think Mark Smith and family badmouthing Illinois to recruits is hearsay at the best.
Mizzou AD actually praised Illinois for working with Mizzou and the Smith family.
Not being from Illinois, I've never been wrapped up in the relationships many of the posters have who watch these boys grow into young men. I love the O&B, and those that play for us. If a player chooses not to come to Illinois, or leaves the O&B, they are dead to me. I don't wish them ill (unless of course they are playing the beloved), but they cease to exist in my Illini universe.
I felt compelled to respond after reading the speculation for reasons given for Mark Smith waiver request. It could be a case of making a gnat an elephant. I think there is better than strong probability there was no reason given at all. There was just a request for immediate eligibility in the climate of them being granted and Illinois was willing not to object. The basis of my thinking is what appeared in post article with Carlos Johnson Washington’s transfer to Grand Canyon. It’s very similar to Mark Smiths. I haven't seen anyone bring this up. Here’s what was says:
Washington transfer Carlos Johnson will play immediately at Grand Canyon. He went to Washington to play for former UW coach Lorenzo Romar but did not leave for Grand Canyon until his playing time decreased under new UW coach Mike Hopkins. Grand Canyon coach Dan Majerle sounded legitimately surprised Johnson’s waiver request was granted. “No idea,” Majerle told The Arizona Republic when asked what reasons were given. “We just filed.”
Another key for me was the Mizzou athletic director praising Josh Whitman for “working with them through the process”. Not just approving the waiver. Remember schools sometimes do place restrictions on schools they will not approve a player transferring to. So in this case the process could start between the two schools before the formal request to the NCAA. “Hey Josh we are considering requesting a waiver for Mark to be immediately eligible. Do you have any objections" Illinois being in the mindset of some fans “what do we care”. He's no longer here, didn't fit in anyway and not seeing any downside says “yeah sure and we'll help in any way you need us too”. So the waiver is filed for and no reason is even needed.
On the other hand in the case of Evansville where Dru Smith would seem to have a sound reason for a waiver, the athlete director voiced his displeasure about the transfer from the very beginning . So when approached about a waiver definitely wouldn't approve. So Mizzou goes through the formal process. He rejects it, Mizzou files an appeal, which at this point is when reasons for the waiver request and denial would come into play but not before this.
All so called so called reasons for a waiver request or allegations are purely speculations. Neither Mizzou, Illinois nor Smith has divulged any. In fact Illinois may not even know since it never came to that.
In the case of Evansville it's a matter of them strictly showing their discontent for losing their top two players to transfer. One of them as a graduate, which they can do nothing about, and Dru Smith a junior who they have the power to impede. In the end they are exercising the right to potentially block the one they can.
Washington transfer Carlos Johnson will play immediately at Grand Canyon. He went to Washington to play for former UW coach Lorenzo Romar but did not leave for Grand Canyon until his playing time decreased under new UW coach Mike Hopkins. Grand Canyon coach Dan Majerle sounded legitimately surprised Johnson’s waiver request was granted. “No idea,” Majerle told The Arizona Republic when asked what reasons were given. “We just filed.”
Another key for me was the Mizzou athletic director praising Josh Whitman for “working with them through the process”. Not just approving the waiver. Remember schools sometimes do place restrictions on schools they will not approve a player transferring to. So in this case the process could start between the two schools before the formal request to the NCAA. “Hey Josh we are considering requesting a waiver for Mark to be immediately eligible. Do you have any objections" Illinois being in the mindset of some fans “what do we care”. He's no longer here, didn't fit in anyway and not seeing any downside says “yeah sure and we'll help in any way you need us too”. So the waiver is filed for and no reason is even needed.
On the other hand in the case of Evansville where Dru Smith would seem to have a sound reason for a waiver, the athlete director voiced his displeasure about the transfer from the very beginning . So when approached about a waiver definitely wouldn't approve. So Mizzou goes through the formal process. He rejects it, Mizzou files an appeal, which at this point is when reasons for the waiver request and denial would come into play but not before this.
All so called so called reasons for a waiver request or allegations are purely speculations. Neither Mizzou, Illinois nor Smith has divulged any. In fact Illinois may not even know since it never came to that.
In the case of Evansville it's a matter of them strictly showing their discontent for losing their top two players to transfer. One of them as a graduate, which they can do nothing about, and Dru Smith a junior who they have the power to impede. In the end they are exercising the right to potentially block the one they can.
I can't find anything in the NCA guidelines that would allow for MS to transfer with immediate eligibility. Where is the hardship language in the bylaws. There may be standards, but I could not find them.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Always a welcome reminder that Mizzou is Mizzou.
Then he (Jim Sterk), went out for drinks with Cheato Martin and probably had a good laugh. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care where Smith landed, it's his life and he needs to do what is best for him. However, I still contend he should still be on the Illini in spite of not being a good fit for BU's program. I think there was a lot of upside if he committed to the system and it all would of worked out. In my opinion, you don't let a Mr. Basketball walk from your program, it sends the wrong message.
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
I am more worried about Mr Basketball going to Ohio State, then trying to figure out a way to put a square peg in a round hole just because he is mr basketball. Get players that fit and win. Mark didnt fit award or not.
Point well taken. I just don't like him walking after 1 season.
Deleted member 746094
D
Guest
I am confused why him being Mr. Basketball makes keeping him a bigger priority when the kid obviously wasn’t performing nor was he happy.
In football it is a little harder for one unhappy teammate to ruin the chemistry of a team, but in basketball it really only takes one guy to cause problems in a locker room.
This has been discussed in previous threads, but the alliegence to staying and playing for your in state program just doesn’t matter to the current generation of players.
Mr. Basketball is great and I get landing Smith was a big deal. However, he didn’t look like he wanted to be here, he was given more than enough opportunities to improve and at the end of the day he and BU agreed it wasn’t a mutual fit. If we talk him out of transferring(which I think he checked out midseason) and he comes back next year and it is more of the same then we have potentially kept someone that is a disruption. I think he will be better at Mizzou than he was here for multiple reasons. I don’t worry one second about him being “the one that got away” when thinking about our program getting back on track.
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
I get that. I don't think anyone likes to see guys leave. But I look at it all from this perspective, and I played ball in school granted it was D3, but I had a couple friends transfer that I played with. It is a really a hard decision to decide to transfer. You make really good friends, and have a lot invested even if its just a year. And on the other side, the coaches and staff all have a ton invested and want everyone to succeed and do well. So for both Mark and the staff to come to the agreement that he might be better elsewhere says a lot.
Yes, keeping a highly a highly rated prospect and him not developing over 4 years is a great look for the coaching staff.
Don't get me wrong, If I had 1 scholarship left and had to choose between Mr. Basketball (Mark Smith) or a reincarnation of Nick Anderson, you know my choice. Also, I fully realize the question of loyalty and players staying in their home state has changed. However, after years of losing home grown players I did appreciate the loyalty of Smith choosing the Illini. Anyway, the whole thing is a done deal now and only time will tell how the whole thing pans out.
illini80
- Forgottonia
So here's the quote that people don't want to believe.
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/...lini-defense-makes-progress-hard-achieve.html
"Meanwhile, we are left to wonder how sophomore Mark Smith was able to gain immediate eligibility at Missouri, two sources telling me that the waiver was granted on the basis of what Smith described as a “hostile environment” at Illinois."
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/...lini-defense-makes-progress-hard-achieve.html
"Meanwhile, we are left to wonder how sophomore Mark Smith was able to gain immediate eligibility at Missouri, two sources telling me that the waiver was granted on the basis of what Smith described as a “hostile environment” at Illinois."
The bolded part being the most important. They aren't gonna say it was all rainbows and lollipops at Illinois while trying to get a waiver. Plus, from what I hear, he would have found anything less than rainbows and lollipops to be hostile to him.
Nice post, dude. Come back around in the future.
The "hostile environment" he was describing was B1G defenses.
Exhibit 1 could be the critique of his performances in the post game threads on this board after each game, lol. Maybe he just couldn't handle the pressure being put on him by UI's enthusiastic fans. Maybe he couldn't emotionally handle competing for playing time. Maybe Trent talked trash about him not being able to stay in front of him at practice. Cannot believe that JW is going to go along with any allegation that coaching staff was creating a hostile environment. So whatever it was, if it justifies a waiver, then just about everyone should get one.
- Status