>Hold The Phone -Arrington Pleas For Fifth Year

>Once again, the Sun-Times leads the way with Northwestern coverage on the Malcolm Arrington medical hardship appeal. For me, Jim O’Donnell’s piece that goes in depth to the NCAA criteria relative to determining whether or not Malcolm would be granted a fifth year, is enlightening. I simply never knew the criteria. For those of you too lazy to click here to see the article in full, here are the criteria and the “defense” as told to the Sun-Times by Malcolm’s dad, Fred.

Criteria #1 – Was the injury season-ending?
Arrington “Team” Defense: Yes.

Criteria #2 – Did the injury occur in the first half of the season?
Arrington “Team” Defense: Technically, yes. NU will be going to a bowl game and hence play in 13 games. The play occurred on the second play of the 1st quarter of the 7th game. If you include the 13th game, halftime of this game would technically be the line of demarcation.

Criteria #3 – The third criteria is whether Malcolm had already played in more than 30 percent of his team’s schedule [NCAA guidelines say 20 percent].

Arrington “Team” Defense: He has played in 30 percent (and more than 20 percent) so he does not meet this criteria. However, Malcolm represents the model student-athlete. He has great grades, is a leader and everything you’d want in a man who represents the university.

Having dealt with the NCAA, LTP believes the filing is smart, but beyond a long shot. I’d love to think the NCAA would be swayed by character, but they tend to be a literal by the book kind of group. Cats fans will be keeping a close eye on this case as a fifth year for Arrington would have a major impact on making a solid defense potentially a great defense in 2009.

LTP’s two cents? Get Evan Eschmeyer on the phone and leverage his six degrees and his unprecedented 14 years of eligibility. Come to think of it, isn’t he still eligible?

  • villox

    >All of their arguments seem a stretch to me. It really sucks for the poor guy, but as someone on rivals pointed out, allowing someone to claim they only played in half the season because you went to a bowl means only good teams get to ask for medical waivers after the 6th game.

    Furthermore, the “model student-athlete” also seems bogus. Wouldn’t it be more important for him to GRADUATE than to stay in school a year longer, to demonstrate what a model student-athlete would do?

  • Jabawacefti

    >Well villox…all of their arguments are not a stretch. Season ending injury, check. More than half a season, that’s a 50/50 issue. The 30% thing is clearly a losing issue, but on balance, it seems like a 50/50 call. What they’re really going to want to know is if he got a season’s worth of play in. Since we’re half way there, I’d say…yes and no.

    So, what would put him over the edge? I’d make the same argument about the model student athlete. The issue isn’t “graduation,” although for most big ten schools that might actually be a concern, but whether the school and the athlete are in the position of promoting academics in addition to football.

    In the end, though, it could go either way.

  • villox

    >The only way it could go either way is if they were willing to BREAK (not bend) the rules. It sets poor precedent, and I bet they don’t go for it.