J Crawford

[Lead Guitar]

When I was told that it looked like Crawford would be a Muskie, I asked the usual questions about eligibility and the number of incoming guards and lack of scholarships. What I was told was there will be an appeal to the NCAA to make all of the Indiana transfers eligible this year; Crawford may not even play the point, but at times could even play the 3--is he 6'3" or 6'4"; one of the existing players would pay their own way for this year; and they are not counting on Derrick Brown to stay for his 4th year.

[Eastside_J]

I don't know where you heard that from regarding Crawford playing next year, but it is supremely bad info.

Crawford doesn't have a shot at an NCAA appeal unless Indiana is given a ban of 3 or more years on postseason play.

At the moment he wouldn't be academically eligible to play next year (or at least until second semester) anyway. The guy tanked all his classes in the latter half of the year.

[_LH]

Lead,

Your source is no doubt more reliable than EJ's. He has no idea what kind of academic standing Crawford may be in and certainly is far less aware of what the NCAA may or may not do regarding the transfers from IU.

[Eastside_J]

Lead,

Your source is no doubt more reliable than EJ's. He has no idea what kind of academic standing Crawford may be in and certainly is far less aware of what the NCAA may or may not do regarding the transfers from IU.

Always a twisted pleasure LH.

From what I heard Bassett Ellis and Crawford failed a grand total of 19 classes last semester. A couple even managed to pull off zero point GPA's that would make Blutarsky of Delta House proud.

[Mr. Neutral]

I have no idea who's right and who's wrong about this situation, but there's certainly more unconfirmed speculation about it than any recent topic I can recall.

[_LH]

One thing is for sure Gary and that is EJ does not know what he is talking about and his "sources" are not to be valued on this board.

[broadripple]

I'd like to see at least a blog hit on this topic from D. Dow. I'd figure with some of the rumors going he would have at least tried to get a comment from Crawford or his mom.

[Mr. Neutral]

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.

[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.

[Mr. Neutral]

Your points are valid-theoretically-J, but we're all coming to conclusions without really knowing anything definitive about Crawford's intentions or academic status, or the NCAA's rulings.

So, let the speculation continue, but that's all it is until we start seeing something/anything confirmed.