J Crawford

[muskieman]

I don't know if anyone would be talking at this point, broad. Think of all the variables-

(1) What's Crawford's school of choice?
(2) Does that school have an available scholarship?
(3) If not, is a scholarship being freed up somehow?
(4) If so, whose scholarship?
(5) Is Crawford academically eligible?
(6) Will the NCAA allow any of these IU transfers to play this year?

There's probably other questions, but there's just so many "ifs" in this equation, I don't know who could really have much to say about it publicly.

The answer to (5) is almost certainly not yet. I have no idea how much catch up you can do in the summer. But a semesters worth of catch up is a heck of a lot.

#6 is basically a matter of PRECEDENT. I had a conversation with a "high-major" D1 coach about this issue recently. The NCAA decisions are almost always based on examining previous decisions. This is one of the reasons that kids are seemingly screwed over again and again by NCAA rulings. The NCAA seeks to protect the schools and itself by avoiding making decions that would precipitate lawsuits. Using precedent accomplishes both nicely but has the nasty side effect of completely shafting kids who have cases that should almost certainly be decided differently than previous rulings. Screwing the kid is the safe way to go.

Regarding Crawford. Bassett, Ellis etc. There is precedent for allowing kids who leave programs that are banned from post season play by the NCAA. The rule of thumb has been that you have a shot at being waived from having to sit out a year if the number of years of postseason ban equals or is greater to the players remaining number of eligibility years.

Here is an example: Lets say Indiana is banned from postseason play for two years.

Bassett (who will be a junior) has two years of eligibility remaining. He MIGHT be waived from having to sit out a year by the NCAA.

Crawford (who will be a Soph) has three years of eligibility remaining. He would not qualify for a waiver.

Bottom line---
If Indiana gets 2 years of less postseason ban, Crawford has NO SHOT at being waived to play next year.

If Indiana gets 3 years postseason ban (or more) he might be waived from having to sit out next year.

AND when is the NCAA going to give out its ruling on IU? They work at such a quick and expeditious pace.(drip, drip, drip)

[Eastside_J]

I don't know if anyone would be talking at this point, broad. Think of all the variables-

(1) What's Crawford's school of choice?
(2) Does that school have an available scholarship?
(3) If not, is a scholarship being freed up somehow?
(4) If so, whose scholarship?
(5) Is Crawford academically eligible?
(6) Will the NCAA allow any of these IU transfers to play this year?

There's probably other questions, but there's just so many "ifs" in this equation, I don't know who could really have much to say about it publicly.

The answer to (5) is almost certainly not yet. I have no idea how much catch up you can do in the summer. But a semesters worth of catch up is a heck of a lot.

#6 is basically a matter of PRECEDENT. I had a conversation with a "high-major" D1 coach about this issue recently. The NCAA decisions are almost always based on examining previous decisions. This is one of the reasons that kids are seemingly screwed over again and again by NCAA rulings. The NCAA seeks to protect the schools and itself by avoiding making decions that would precipitate lawsuits. Using precedent accomplishes both nicely but has the nasty side effect of completely shafting kids who have cases that should almost certainly be decided differently than previous rulings. Screwing the kid is the safe way to go.

Regarding Crawford. Bassett, Ellis etc. There is precedent for allowing kids who leave programs that are banned from post season play by the NCAA. The rule of thumb has been that you have a shot at being waived from having to sit out a year if the number of years of postseason ban equals or is greater to the players remaining number of eligibility years.

Here is an example: Lets say Indiana is banned from postseason play for two years.

Bassett (who will be a junior) has two years of eligibility remaining. He MIGHT be waived from having to sit out a year by the NCAA.

Crawford (who will be a Soph) has three years of eligibility remaining. He would not qualify for a waiver.

Bottom line---
If Indiana gets 2 years of less postseason ban, Crawford has NO SHOT at being waived to play next year.

If Indiana gets 3 years postseason ban (or more) he might be waived from having to sit out next year.

AND when is the NCAA going to give out its ruling on IU? They work as such a quick and expeditious pace.(drip, drip, drip)

Don't get me started. The NCAA stinks. If it doesn't make them money, it doesn't get their attention. They will get to it when they get to it and whether a kid has a legitimate claim for an exception to a rule is of little to no interest to the committee. They exist only to make money and protect the image of the NCAA and the colleges.

[muskieman]

and the colleges.

I agreed with you until you said that. Don't you mean certain colleges!

[Eastside_J]

and the colleges.

I agreed with you until you said that. Don't you mean certain colleges!

Yes, I agree, they do care more about certain colleges (extraordinary revenue producing) than others.

When it comes to talking about the reasons to dislike the NCAA, that is a completely different, yet just as hideous, discussion.

[olsingledigit]

According to the Indy media, because of the new charge leveled by the NCAA against Indiana (Lack of Monitoring) the decision on penalties probably won't come until spring of 2009 or later. They will have to have another hearing this fall because IU is challenging the new charge.

[_LH]

Looks like Eastside J was wrong again.

[wkrq59]

Eastside J, regarding your remark about the NCAA's swift and due diligent review and action that would benefit a student athlete instead of an organization concerned only with itself-preservation and almighty authority,
does the name MAUK ring a familiar bell? Will that kid ever get a straight answer from the NCAA? Now that's a real soap opera.