collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

Recruiting as of 7/15/25 by Zog from Margo
[July 11, 2025, 04:17:40 PM]


Nash Walker commits to MU by Captain Quette
[July 11, 2025, 02:40:11 PM]


Marquette freshmen at Goolsby's 7/12 by majorgoolsbys
[July 11, 2025, 02:08:45 PM]


Congrats to Royce by tower912
[July 10, 2025, 09:00:17 PM]


Kam update by seakm4
[July 10, 2025, 07:40:03 PM]


More conference realignment talk by WhiteTrash
[July 10, 2025, 12:16:36 PM]


2025-26 Schedule by Shaka Shart
[July 10, 2025, 01:36:32 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

tower912

Fair enough.   What is the rule?
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

The Equalizer

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 12:38:58 PM
Completely different from Otule. Far different rules, process, etc.

Not really that different. Both situaltions involved injured players and eligiblity, both required that MU request (and the NCAA grant) a waiver.  There were administrative processes defined in the NCAA handbook to handle both situations. The difference is that in one case a player is known to be temporarly incapacitated, the other believed to be permanently so.

If you get into the semantics, then yes there's technially different rules for each case--but the two were close enough in my mind to be called similar, and I never said they were exactly the same.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 12:38:58 PM
I don't think McMorrow wouldn't have needed a change in medical circumstances to play again. He'd need a change in circumstances for him to (1) play athletics at Marquette and (2) for Marquette to have his past year(s) as a medical non-counter not be reversed (potentially putting them over the limit for scholarship players).

If he wanted to play and Tennessee Tech had no problems with it, so be it. Their call.

So it could have been:
MU and LM agree he shouldn't play due to health issues.
Later, LM sees more docs or simply decides he wants to play. MU says they don't think it's a good idea.
LM decides to look elsewhere to play. He finds another school and plays.

That's fine. Doesn't mean there were any games being played or misrepresentations being made. Just some tough decisions and unfortunate health circumstances.


I think you're confusing the technicalities of the NCAA rules with issues of morals and ethics and risk.

Here's my issue:  Brad Autry and the MU staff helped Liam get this transfer,:
http://www.ttusports.com/sports/mbkb/2010-11/releases/7_18_McMorrow_transfers_In  

That means that our coaching staff believed that it was safe for Liam to play basketball again.  Which meant one of the following is true:

1.  Our medical DID clear him.  If so, no probelm with the coaching staff helping him (but then let's stop saying that he couldn't play for MU due to medical issues).

2.  Our medical staff DID NOT clear him and the coaching staff simply ignored their advice.  Or worse, they didn't seek out the advice at all.  This I have a problem with, becuase it meant our coaching staff violated the morals and ethics of their profession--enabling a player to get back in action without regard for their health.  At a minimum, even if Liam himself found his own doctors, I'd expect that the MU coaching staff to back the medical team--even if that makes them unpopular with the player.

Jay Bee

Quote from: tower912 on August 13, 2013, 07:18:08 PM
Fair enough.   What is the rule?

See my earlier post in this thread "The D-I bylaws actually have a section dedicated to "Change in Circumstances"... what the rules seem to be most concerned with is a school who might try to convert a player into a non-counter, then later say he's eligible (i.e., potentially as a scholarship management technique).

If McMorrow would have played for MU after he was a non-counter, MU would have had to shown there had been a change in circumstances and that when they previously asked that he be a medical non-counter, there was no reasonable expectation that he'd ever play college sports again (otherwise he'd be a retroactive counter for years in which he was a non-counter)."

I think it's under.. 15.5.1.3 or thereabouts.
The portal is NOT closed.

The Equalizer

Quote from: tower912 on August 13, 2013, 07:01:22 PM
IIRC, Liam found out about his health condition in the spring, stayed on campus for another year, found a doctor who was willing to sign off on him playing, but by then he couldn't play for MU because once any team's MD says they cannot play for that team, they can NEVER play for that team.   A year after he was shut down, a year he spent at MU, he went to Tenn Tech.      I think. 

Not quite.  MU could have requested a wavier:

15.5.1.3.2 Change in Circumstances. If circumstances change and the student-athlete subsequently practices or competes at the institution at which the incapacitating injury or illness occurred, the student- athlete again shall become a counter, and the institution shall be required to count that financial aid under the limitations of this bylaw in the sport in question during each academic year in which the financial aid was received. (Revised: 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01)
15.5.1.3.3 Waiver. The Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief may waive the require- ments of Bylaw 15.5.1.3.2 upon determination that sufficient documentation is available from competent medical authorities to indicate that the original injury or illness clearly appeared to be incapacitating and that there was no reasonable expectation that the student-athlete ever again would be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics. (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)

Jay Bee

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 13, 2013, 08:27:01 PM
Not really that different. Both situaltions involved injured players and eligiblity, both required that MU request (and the NCAA grant) a waiver.  There were administrative processes defined in the NCAA handbook to handle both situations. The difference is that in one case a player is known to be temporarly incapacitated, the other believed to be permanently so.

If you get into the semantics, then yes there's technially different rules for each case--but the two were close enough in my mind to be called similar, and I never said they were exactly the same.

I think you're confusing the technicalities of the NCAA rules with issues of morals and ethics and risk.

No - you're confused and wrong. Both did NOT require that MU request (and the NCAA grant) a waiver. You are absolutely incorrect. Not playing with semantics - you're simply way off base.

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 13, 2013, 08:27:01 PMHere's my issue:  Brad Autry and the MU staff helped Liam get this transfer,:
http://www.ttusports.com/sports/mbkb/2010-11/releases/7_18_McMorrow_transfers_In  

That means that our coaching staff believed that it was safe for Liam to play basketball again.  Which meant one of the following is true:

1.  Our medical DID clear him.  If so, no probelm with the coaching staff helping him (but then let's stop saying that he couldn't play for MU due to medical issues).

2.  Our medical staff DID NOT clear him and the coaching staff simply ignored their advice.  Or worse, they didn't seek out the advice at all.  This I have a problem with, becuase it meant our coaching staff violated the morals and ethics of their profession--enabling a player to get back in action without regard for their health.  At a minimum, even if Liam himself found his own doctors, I'd expect that the MU coaching staff to back the medical team--even if that makes them unpopular with the player.

No - you're creating some conspiracy that doesn't exist. Your 1. and 2. do not reflect the possibilities.

You're being completely ridiculous on this (plus, the ignorance is obvious).
The portal is NOT closed.

The Equalizer

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 08:36:24 PM
No - you're confused and wrong. Both did NOT require that MU request (and the NCAA grant) a waiver. You are absolutely incorrect. Not playing with semantics - you're simply way off base.

Sorry, but you're the one who's wrong and confused.  I thought you were playing semantics, but obviously you didn't read the NCAA handbook you cited.

If you read section 15.5.1.3,  McMorrow most certainly could have continued playing for Marquette if MU had requested (and the NCAA granted) a waiver, specifically under section 15.5.1.3.3.

15.5.1.3.3 Waiver. The Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief may waive the requirements of Bylaw 15.5.1.3.2 upon determination that sufficient documentation is available from competent medical authorities to indicate that the original injury or illness clearly appeared to be incapacitating and that there was no reasonable expectation that the student-athlete ever again would be able to participate in intercollegiate athletics. (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)

MU would have needed that waiver because under 15.5.1.3.2 Change of Condition  MU  would have had to retroactively assign a counter for Liam for 2009-10. But MU used all its 2009-10 counters.  Hence, the waiver request as described under 15.5.1.3.3 would have been required.  If approved, it would have permitted McMorrow to resume his career at Marquettte.

And as I've said before, the similarity to Outle is that both Liam's condition and Otule's were medically related, both were covered under NCAA rules that restricted future eligibility, and both players could have continued playing for Marquette if MU had requested (and received) a waiver.   

You're free to have a different opinion after reading the rules, and If you think I'm wrong, try expaining where you disagree for a change instead of resorting to namecalling.  Sorry, but the depth of your argument accusing me of being "confused and wrong" is non-existent. 

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 08:36:24 PM

No - you're creating some conspiracy that doesn't exist. Your 1. and 2. do not reflect the possibilities.


The two options I gave:
--MU's doctors cleared Liam to play.
--MU's doctors didn't clear Liam to play.

You claim that these "do not reflect the possiblities."

Please enlighten me what other possiblities exist, because in most normal worlds, these two options are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Exactly one of them (and only one) must apply to Liam's situation.  This is not only Logic 101, its the first day of Logic 101.   

But give me one plausible example where neither of these applies, and I'll concede the point. 

Jay Bee

Equalizer - you're so wrong it's not even worth walking you through the Bylaws anymore. The two situations are nothing alike. You're talking about the Five-Year Rule and medical non-counters. Completely unrelated - AND a waiver is not required for player previously given 'non-counter status' to later play again. A waiver IS required to get past the five-year rule (which can be granted for a variety of reasons, just one of which are medical).

As for your dumb claim that MU did something awful.. here's one of many possibilities:

- MU, with input from medical folks, concludes that McMorrow shouldn't be playing college athletics because of his health condition(s).

- Time passes and more tests and medical work is done. McMorrow talks to other medical folks (with no MU relationship) who tell him he'd be OK to play.

- McMorrow talks to MU and says some doctors have given him the all clear and he'd like to take a look around for schools that he could transfer to and play for.

- MU says, "well Liam, we certainly want you to put your health first.. but if the docs are telling you that you're OK to play and you feel good about it and want to transfer elsewhere, we'll certainly let schools that you're interested in talk to you and won't stand in your way. Best of luck, stay health and kick butt!"

The portal is NOT closed.

The Equalizer

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:25:14 PM
Equalizer - you're so wrong it's not even worth walking you through the Bylaws anymore. The two situations are nothing alike. You're talking about the Five-Year Rule and medical non-counters. Completely unrelated - AND a waiver is not required for player previously given 'non-counter status' to later play again. A waiver IS required to get past the five-year rule (which can be granted for a variety of reasons, just one of which are medical).

Sorry, you're wrong on both counts.  

First, the situations are alike for the reasons I gave. Cite all the diffrences you want--it still doesn't erase the similarities. You seem confused over the difference between similar and identical. I'm not saying the two cases were identical--I'm saying there similarites.

Second, you're wrong on no need for a wavier for a player previously given "non-counter status".  A waiver is not required ONLY if a school can retroactively apply a counter for the period of time he was not playing.  If the school cannot apply a counter retroactively--which would have applied to MU for Liam for the 2009-10 season--then the school would need to obtain a waiver.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:25:14 PM
As for your dumb claim that MU did something awful.. here's one of many possibilities:
- MU, with input from medical folks, concludes that McMorrow shouldn't be playing college athletics because of his health condition(s).
- Time passes and more tests and medical work is done. McMorrow talks to other medical folks (with no MU relationship) who tell him he'd be OK to play.
- McMorrow talks to MU and says some doctors have given him the all clear and he'd like to take a look around for schools that he could transfer to and play for.

So let's pause here--in your version of events, MU's doctors did not clear Liam--in your view, they weren't even consulted! You claim that "other medical folks (with no MU relationship)" said it was fine for Liam to play.  So I'm really curious as to why you think that MU's coaching staff should ignore their own docs when this new opinion came to light.  

As you defined the situation, two different medical teams offered two different opinions on whether it is safe for Liam to play again. And my point in this scenario is that our coaching staff should take the side of MU's medical team over some outsider with no MU affiliation.
 
Quote from: Jay Bee on August 13, 2013, 11:25:14 PM
- MU says, "well Liam, we certainly want you to put your health first.. but if the docs are telling you that you're OK to play and you feel good about it and want to transfer elsewhere, we'll certainly let schools that you're interested in talk to you and won't stand in your way. Bestof luck, stay health and kick butt!"

Except its not "the docs are telling you that you're OK".  Its some docs (not affiliated with MU) that say that. Other docs (MU's own) didn't say that.

NOW do you understand the problem with your story?  

The alternative--and I believe the only moral and ethical approach for the MU coaching staff to have taken--would be to say this:

"You know, our docs were pretty adamant that it wasn't safe for you to ever play again. I know you found another opinion, but I'm not a doctor. I do know and trust our own Team Physician. Let's do this--I'll have our team re-evaluate you in light of this second opinion. If our doc agrees with this other diagnosis and clears you, I'll do what I can to help. But if he still says its still not safe, I have to go with his opinion."

real chili 83


4everwarriors

"Give 'Em Hell, Al"

madtownwarrior

I believe the Shakespeare play sums this argument up: "Much ado about nothing"

Jay Bee

Equalizer = non-MU or liberal arts degree.
The portal is NOT closed.

Previous topic - Next topic