Former Michigan players having trouble clearing waivers?

The OSU quarterback is the perfect example of an unjustified waiver. 

You say the school supporting or fighting the waiver is the biggest factor in determining whether someone gets the waiver.  Do you have evidence Michigan is fighting those requested waivers?  I certainly would have expected to hear about it if they were, since these issues often play out via media pressure on institutions, and there has not been anything to suggest they are fighting the waivers.  I suspect your point about having an attorney who knows how to work the system may explain the outcomes.  

Do you have any supporting detail on any of your claims?  Do you know that M responded to the NCAA saying that they didn't support all 3 of their waivers?  How do you know?  The only public comment I've seen was with Harbaugh at media days vaguely referencing Hudson, but also stating he wants him to be eligible immediately.  

How do you know that the schoold fighting or supporting is the "single biggest determing factor on whether the player gets a waiver"?  What evidence do you have that lawyer is the 2nd factor?  This whole post just feels like empty nonsense.  

The reality is that most players don't get a waiver.  High profile cases have been getting waivers and that's what you see but the percentages are still low.  A few hundred kids transfer and only a handful get waivers.  I don't have exact numbers on this but there were over 300 names in the transfer portal earlier this year.  The 3 players from Michigan just didn't have valid reasons to transfer.  Hudson never mentioned his issues at M.  Why would that be a valid reason for a waiver.  Martin was just homesick (so I understand it) and I don't think he requested a waiver.  I haven't heard a reason why Soloman should be eligible but to my knowledge he just didn't like Michigan, ever.  

I don't know the full back story on Blue Smith (OSU LB) but articles i just read make it sound like he was talking with the OSU staff during his freshman year and it was a known problem.  I don't know why Cincy was deteremined to be better for his mental health than OSU (maybe because Fickell is at Cincy - that's certainly part of why OSU was supportive), but it sounds like he was actively trying to seek help.  Hudson was not.  Not sure if this is why his waiver was denied, but it makes the circumstances significantly different and difficult to compare apples to apples.  

Long story short, none of the 3 former M players had a compelling case to receive a waiver.  That's why they didn't get it.  Any more is a guess (unless someone has info I can't find online). 

What do you expect Michigan do to? Lie? How can Michigan assist Hudson's transfer to Cincinnati if he has no record or history of treatment for mental illness at Michigan? It's up to the compliance office at Michigan to provide the supporting evidence. Patterson had to fight for his waiver because Ole Miss would not admit to the NCAA violations in the waiver (i.e. lied) so it almost the opposite of Hudson's situation.

And there are big differences between the Hudson and Smith situations at Michigan and OSU respectively. Hudson had no documented diagnosis or treatment at Michigan; did Smith have that? Hudson was a player who was not released from scholarship, Michigan actively wanted to stay in school, and proceeded to quit the team and transfer in the middle of the season. I do not think Hudson did himself any favors with the coaching staff and administration with how he handled his departure. All evidence points to that not being the case for Smith at OSU as he was a player who had not cracked the depth chart, transferred during the offseason, and OSU would benefit by having him transfer. I have a feeling OSU would or could not have been as helpful if it were a player on the two-deep trying to transfer and quitting the team in the middle of the season. See Matthew Baldwin.

The biggest factor in receiving a waiver is actually having a documented reason for the waiver. There is no school "support" for the waiver. The school can only acknowledge the reason for the waiver and provide supporting evidence.

"The school the player is departing supporting or fighting the waiver is the single biggest determining factor on whether the player gets a waiver or has to sit a year."

This has never made any sense to me.  In particular with the Shae Patterson example.  Why in the world should the opinion of a school that was alleged to have lied up and down have any bearing on the NCAA's decision? 

The NCAA should rule on the merits of waiver request and not what the departed school wants.   

The Fickle transfer.

CMHCFB, given all the fact it seems Fickle has a new transfer recruitment strategy.  He tells players to claim “depression” even though there is no history of depression and that they can start right away with no one else on the depth chart.  Then he calls the former school to get them to “support” the claim. His friends at OSU “supported” it but Michigan correctly reported that no record of depression existed.  The NCAA in this case, with no prior record of the claim, has to deny the transfer otherwise every kid would try and pull a “Fickle” transfer. 

Hudson probably handle things wrong when first transferred. 

I'm not sure why you (we) think that, but it's hard for me not to agree. He, and his family, didn't come off as particularly savvy. 

Has there been a decision on Solomon's appeal yet? Last I could find was an 08/01 article saying he was still waiting to hear back. 

Solomon's reason for an appeal was not actually cold weather, was it?

If that's true then he had no case at all. 

Yes

and?   

Not necessarily NCAA doghouse, but Michigan has been stable and not had the incidents at OSU and Georgia. Urban Meyer got fired or resigned unexpectedly. Any athlete transferring from OSU would probably get a waiver from that. Fields had the racial epithet incident.

Hudson's claim is a complete fabrication? Are you sure?

So you are saying that the kids should be punished also along with the program? That's what waivers are for so an athlete isn't punished by having to give up a year of eligibility because of the mistakes that were made by the program he or she originally committed to. What waivers are not for is so programs can poach players and have them play immediately by throwing their previous team under the bus with false statements. That's why Michigan's compliance office disputed his claims, and why the NCAA agreed, because they were baseless.