ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
It's great that our coaching staff would be supportive in that way, but that shouldn't matter.
Mark Smith cleared to play for Missouri this season
- Status
It's great that our coaching staff would be supportive in that way, but that shouldn't matter.
sbillini
- st petersburg, fl
Has this type of situation happened before? I'm guessing it isn't the first time a player claimed mistreatment to get a waiver and got it. Is the NCAA not obligated to investigate and verify (I know, I'm probably giving them too much credit)? If this was true (and I'm sure it isn't), then isn't the NCAA willfully putting other players at risk of abusive coaches by not formally investigating? seems like there should be more to this story.
Bet you can't link anything Martin has supposedly said about Illinois in a bad way. If you don't like Missouri basketball or even Martin that's fine, but no need to make things up about him. He is actually one of the good guys in college basketball.
I'm thrilled about this. They'll spend extra time on film and in practice on how to exploit MS's defense. I also see BU pulling Trent, DMW, Ayo, and Feliz aside and saying something like "You need to put everything you have in the game if you're on Smith."
Dan
Admin
#Mizzou AD Jim Sterk says on @550KTRS football pregame show that Mark Smith’s waiver was supported by Illinois, and specifically mentioned #Illini AD Josh Whitman as being helpful in the process.
https://twitter.com/Ben_Fred/
https://twitter.com/Ben_Fred/
The treadmill is abuse per se, no other proof needed, lol.
I was actually thinking that the waiver based upon the non-objection of the prior team is probably a needed positive development in college BB as the players who don't work out for whatever reason should not be forced to sit for a year to transfer. Since a player is not as attractive to other teams because they have to burn a scholarship year to take a transfer, this penalizes only the player for a mutually bad decision between the player and the coach in recruiting him. Not really fair and should be avoided if possible.
It actually makes BU look good if he OK'd the waiver, as that makes it look like less of a risk to a player's career to choose the Illini. If it does not work out, the player can expect to be allowed to transfer without penalty.
I was actually thinking that the waiver based upon the non-objection of the prior team is probably a needed positive development in college BB as the players who don't work out for whatever reason should not be forced to sit for a year to transfer. Since a player is not as attractive to other teams because they have to burn a scholarship year to take a transfer, this penalizes only the player for a mutually bad decision between the player and the coach in recruiting him. Not really fair and should be avoided if possible.
It actually makes BU look good if he OK'd the waiver, as that makes it look like less of a risk to a player's career to choose the Illini. If it does not work out, the player can expect to be allowed to transfer without penalty.
And remember, Illinois didn't put any restrictions on where Mark could transfer last year either.
This whole thing is weird as hell.
SampsonRelpenk
- Edwardsville, IL
I've never, ever heard of the departed school having anything whatsoever to do with a transfer sitting out a year or not. I don't understand.
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
Bad fit. Poor coaching. Health issues. I can accept all of that without additional evidence.
But if people are going to throw around the word "abuse," then they better have a solid basis for that allegation. You don't ruin people's lives and careers and set horrible future precedent for the sake of a waiver. That's short-sighted and irresponsible.
But if people are going to throw around the word "abuse," then they better have a solid basis for that allegation. You don't ruin people's lives and careers and set horrible future precedent for the sake of a waiver. That's short-sighted and irresponsible.
If Smith is cleared to play, so be it. My problem with the whole situation is that it was mismanaged from the get go. I know Smith was not a good fit for BU's system and further compounded a bad fit by looking really lost. My point is, when a Mr. Basketball from Illinois commits to the Illini, he's an Illini for better or worse. Find a role for the guy, make him happy. If it becomes a drag on the program, he's a heck of a baseball player, introduce him to the Illini Baseball coach. Just keep him here for the optics of it. By all accounts he was a good character kid who wouldn't have problems with academics, and could become a locker room leader. Now his father is running around mad mouthing the Illini. Nothing good came from this for the Illini.
ChazzReinhold
Mom! The Meatloaf!
I find this post to be completely wrong.
I didn't think much of it at the time, but my nephew went to the school where Mark Smith's father is the basketball coach or at least was two years back. At the time Mark Smith was considering which school to go to I asked my nephew what his father was like and he told me "he is kind of a hot head". Talk about calling the kettle black about Underwood if this is true.
First of all, there is no rule that says that an NCAA waiver could be granted just 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.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no way that any AD, or any University will admit to a coach "abusing" s student-athlete without taking action against the coach. That would amount to self-admission of guilt and a cover-up, in exchange for supporting a recruit's petition for another school. The legal and financial exposure of such action would be huge, really devastating. Not only would the coach be destroyed, but the AD as well, and the University could face huge negative PR, legal, and financial exposure.
A departing school can help a transfer's petition of a waiver if that waiver is based on medical/psychological evidence by further providing evidence in support of the player's petition. That could obviously happen if the waiver is based on medical/psychological reasons. But a University would never concur to self-incriminating abuse allegations.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no way that any AD, or any University will admit to a coach "abusing" s student-athlete without taking action against the coach. That would amount to self-admission of guilt and a cover-up, in exchange for supporting a recruit's petition for another school. The legal and financial exposure of such action would be huge, really devastating. Not only would the coach be destroyed, but the AD as well, and the University could face huge negative PR, legal, and financial exposure.
A departing school can help a transfer's petition of a waiver if that waiver is based on medical/psychological evidence by further providing evidence in support of the player's petition. That could obviously happen if the waiver is based on medical/psychological reasons. But a University would never concur to self-incriminating abuse allegations.
Last edited:
Are we crazy here? That would be self-admitting guilt on an official NCAA petition for abuse without taking any action on the coach and cutting a deal with Martin/Smith not to pursue the issue further in the press, a true cover up operation with huge legal and criminal ramifications.
There is a absolutely no-way any University and AD would try to ever do that under current social/legal environment. Not only would the career of the coach be in total jeopardy of sudden death, but the AD would certainly risk his own career and both him and the University could face serious legal and criminal charges for "abuse" and follow-up cover up by cutting a secret deal with a player/coach (Smith/Martin). Absolutely no way.
Not only could such story be easily exposed (as there would be an official waiver on the basis of "abuse" in the NCAA) and subsequent cover-up, but if the coach (any coach) ever faced "abuse" allegations in the future, that NCAA petition and cover up by the AD and the University would certainly resurface with serious legal and criminal charges.
I can't believe that there are 4 pages to this thread
There is absolutely no way right now that any University, its President, Provost, AD, or any University administrator would receive even minor allegations of abuse or inappropriate contact (let alone an official NCAA waiver/petition alleging abuse/inappropriate action) and would not conduct a formal investigation. That would be the the stupidest decision a University administration could ever make, let alone try a cover-up. The legal, criminal, and financial ramifications are insurmountable.
They would not only conduct a formal investigation, but would either challenge/deny allegations (if found not true) or take appropriate actions against the accused (if found them valid).
JJB
- Chicago, IL
Exactly. Let's also remember that we have the ghost of Simon Cvijanovic hanging out there, so the administration isn't going to mess around with something like that.
Just because we can't know a range of possible scenarios, especially those related to medical issues, this does not mean that certain things, like the scenario you presented (i.e.,, abuse/inappropriate conduct, follow-up cover up with no denial of such conduct) cannot be eliminated for the reasons explained. Unfortunately, this scenario and innuendos (e.g., abuse/cover-up) has been presented by others as well (on this and other message boards).
Obviously, as I said, medical/psychological issues are protected by privacy laws so I do not believe we will find out the exact petition, unless the athlete himself releases that information publicly on his own.
But to answer your question, there is a whole range of medical/psychological problems that could apply to the waiver requirements, especially with respect to diagnosis and worsening conditions. One example (and again, there is NO evidence that this may be the reason with Mark Smith) could be psychological medical conditions like depression. If a player claims that a specific academic/physical environment caused him to develop depression (or other psychological medical condition), which was getting worse, then that could be a basis for requesting a waiver (under current NCAA rules and laws). The symptoms (or even possible diagnosis) could even be corroborated by the departing school. Many of these medical/psychological conditions are unfortunately very prevalent with increased documented negative incidents at many Universities independent of athletics.
kcib8130
- Parts Unknown
Is Te'Jon Lucas playing for UW-Milwaukee this season?
- Status