stevo
Full Member
Posts: 750
|
Post by stevo on Nov 8, 2023 11:31:48 GMT -6
So if the answer from the NCAA is No then the SBC is no? If the SBC is behind their plight then shouldn't it be yes no matter what? No... for a few reasons: 1) College Football Playoff: If an eligible JMU continued their unbeaten streak and won the CCG, they could be a lock for the CFP slot. (Major millions for the Belt.) If JMU is bowl ineligible, then they are CFP ineligible. This means the SBC would be much better off blocking an ineligible JMU from their CCG. Right now, Tulane and Liberty are in line ahead of the 2nd place Belt team. But if those two each take a loss between now and then, it could open the door for troy state to sneak into the CFP. But if the SBC allows an ineligible JMU to play in the CCG and they beat troy state, then all they would've managed to do is knock themselves out of CFP consideration. 2) Bowl Tie-ins: This boils down to the verbiage of individual contracts, so it's not automatic across the board, but it's definitely something to consider. The Belt wants its champion in the best bowl possible, and, short of a CFP bid, this means sending its champion to the best of the bowls with tie-ins to the conference. But if that champion is bowl-ineligible, the bowl committee may be contractually allowed to look to a different conference to fill its open slot. Bowls want prestige and fans. They don't (necessarily) want the unranked runner-up who lost to an ineligible champ. Often, the tie-in contract will reflect this, since it's in the bowl's best interest to sign the best team possible. Along those same lines, a higher-end bowl is not going to hold a vacancy open while bowls below them snag the better teams. Not when they have options. And JMU can't be invited until all 6-win teams have been signed ahead of them. 3) Rankings: If JMU does not play in the CCG, and troy state beats the East representative, then the Belt could wind up with a 12-0 JMU and 12-1 troy state heading into Bowl season. JMU's already ranked, and a 12-win troy state team could sneak into the rankings as well, giving the Belt TWO ranked teams. But if JMU plays in the CCG, they'll likely only end up with one. An 11-2 troy state team is not going to be ranked, and if the trojans win, it's doubtful two 12-1 teams would be ranked. Either JMU would fall out, replaced by the trojans, or JMU falls to No. 25 and troy state has to settle for "receiving votes". The Belt is still a G5 conference, after all, and like Rodney Dangerfield, doesn't get no respect. As for my rooting for the correspondence school comment... it's the principle of the thing. I hate the enemy empire and all they stand for, but JMU's antics have left a really bad taste in my mouth. If they're granted a waiver, I'd love nothing more than to see them embarrassed in the game they've fought so hard to get into. Ideally, both teams would lose... but since that's not really possible, in this single, isolated case, I'd rather see the correspondence school win than see JMU reap the rewards of their childish behavior. I'll bathe myself in bleach afterwards. I haven't followed the waiver thing very close. So how is it childish for an undefeated team to try to get a waiver?
|
|
|
Post by brother on Nov 8, 2023 11:40:01 GMT -6
So if the answer from the NCAA is No then the SBC is no? If the SBC is behind their plight then shouldn't it be yes no matter what? No... for a few reasons: 1) College Football Playoff: If an eligible JMU continued their unbeaten streak and won the CCG, they could be a lock for the CFP slot. (Major millions for the Belt.) If JMU is bowl ineligible, then they are CFP ineligible. This means the SBC would be much better off blocking an ineligible JMU from their CCG. Right now, Tulane and Liberty are in line ahead of the 2nd place Belt team. But if those two each take a loss between now and then, it could open the door for troy state to sneak into the CFP. But if the SBC allows an ineligible JMU to play in the CCG and they beat troy state, then all they would've managed to do is knock themselves out of CFP consideration. 2) Bowl Tie-ins: This boils down to the verbiage of individual contracts, so it's not automatic across the board, but it's definitely something to consider. The Belt wants its champion in the best bowl possible, and, short of a CFP bid, this means sending its champion to the best of the bowls with tie-ins to the conference. But if that champion is bowl-ineligible, the bowl committee may be contractually allowed to look to a different conference to fill its open slot. Bowls want prestige and fans. They don't (necessarily) want the unranked runner-up who lost to an ineligible champ. Often, the tie-in contract will reflect this, since it's in the bowl's best interest to sign the best team possible. Along those same lines, a higher-end bowl is not going to hold a vacancy open while bowls below them snag the better teams. Not when they have options. And JMU can't be invited until all 6-win teams have been signed ahead of them. 3) Rankings: If JMU does not play in the CCG, and troy state beats the East representative, then the Belt could wind up with a 12-0 JMU and 12-1 troy state heading into Bowl season. JMU's already ranked, and a 12-win troy state team could sneak into the rankings as well, giving the Belt TWO ranked teams. But if JMU plays in the CCG, they'll likely only end up with one. An 11-2 troy state team is not going to be ranked, and if the trojans win, it's doubtful two 12-1 teams would be ranked. Either JMU would fall out, replaced by the trojans, or JMU falls to No. 25 and troy state has to settle for "receiving votes". The Belt is still a G5 conference, after all, and like Rodney Dangerfield, doesn't get no respect. As for my rooting for the correspondence school comment... it's the principle of the thing. I hate the enemy empire and all they stand for, but JMU's antics have left a really bad taste in my mouth. If they're granted a waiver, I'd love nothing more than to see them embarrassed in the game they've fought so hard to get into. Ideally, both teams would lose... but since that's not really possible, in this single, isolated case, I'd rather see the correspondence school win than see JMU reap the rewards of their childish behavior. I'll bathe myself in bleach afterwards. Isn’t the CFP off the table for G5 schools this year? I thought it was next year that the CFP expands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2023 14:07:56 GMT -6
No G5 is getting in this year. They will have one guaranteed slot next year. #12, probably.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Nov 8, 2023 14:32:30 GMT -6
Doesn't troy state already have 2 losses? Gah. Yes, they do. I missed that Kansas State loss in week 2.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Nov 8, 2023 14:42:05 GMT -6
...in this single, isolated case, I'd rather see the correspondence school win than see JMU reap the rewards of their childish behavior. I'll bathe myself in bleach afterwards. I haven't followed the waiver thing very close. So how is it childish for an undefeated team to try to get a waiver? It's not childish to want to win a championship or even be allowed to compete. And if all they'd done is submit a waiver request, I wouldn't have an issue. But they have legislators threatening legal action if the NCAA complies with a contract JMU signed. Read that closely: If the NCAA *complies* with the contract as signed, JMU's supporters are threatening legal action. If that's not childish, I don't know what is. And if those legislators are acting on their own behalf and do not represent the university, all I have to say is, Mr. Madison -- can I call you Jimmy?? -- Jimmy, sir, control your damn children.
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Nov 8, 2023 16:53:07 GMT -6
So if the answer from the NCAA is No then the SBC is no? If the SBC is behind their plight then shouldn't it be yes no matter what? No... for a few reasons: 1) College Football Playoff: Umm. Nevermind. 2) Bowl Tie-ins: This boils down to the verbiage of individual contracts, so it's not automatic across the board, but it's definitely something to consider. The Belt wants its champion in the best bowl possible, and, short of a CFP bid, this means sending its champion to the best of the bowls with tie-ins to the conference. But if that champion is bowl-ineligible, the bowl committee may be contractually allowed to look to a different conference to fill its open slot. Bowls want prestige and fans. They don't (necessarily) want the unranked runner-up who lost to an ineligible champ. Often, the tie-in contract will reflect this, since it's in the bowl's best interest to sign the best team possible. Along those same lines, a higher-end bowl is not going to hold a vacancy open while bowls below them snag the better teams. Not when they have options. And JMU can't be invited until all 6-win teams have been signed ahead of them. 3) Rankings: Gah. Nevermind again. My whole point was based on a one-loss troy state, but they already have 2. Freakin' A. As for my rooting for the correspondence school comment... it's the principle of the thing. I hate the enemy empire and all they stand for, but JMU's antics have left a really bad taste in my mouth. If they're granted a waiver, I'd love nothing more than to see them embarrassed in the game they've fought so hard to get into. Ideally, both teams would lose... but since that's not really possible, in this single, isolated case, I'd rather see the correspondence school win than see JMU reap the rewards of their childish behavior. I'll bathe myself in bleach afterwards. Will bleach do it.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Nov 9, 2023 9:44:23 GMT -6
No... for a few reasons: 1) College Football Playoff: Umm. Nevermind. 2) Bowl Tie-ins: This boils down to the verbiage of individual contracts, so it's not automatic across the board, but it's definitely something to consider. The Belt wants its champion in the best bowl possible, and, short of a CFP bid, this means sending its champion to the best of the bowls with tie-ins to the conference. But if that champion is bowl-ineligible, the bowl committee may be contractually allowed to look to a different conference to fill its open slot. Bowls want prestige and fans. They don't (necessarily) want the unranked runner-up who lost to an ineligible champ. Often, the tie-in contract will reflect this, since it's in the bowl's best interest to sign the best team possible. Along those same lines, a higher-end bowl is not going to hold a vacancy open while bowls below them snag the better teams. Not when they have options. And JMU can't be invited until all 6-win teams have been signed ahead of them. 3) Rankings: Gah. Nevermind again. My whole point was based on a one-loss troy state, but they already have 2. Freakin' A. As for my rooting for the correspondence school comment... it's the principle of the thing. I hate the enemy empire and all they stand for, but JMU's antics have left a really bad taste in my mouth. If they're granted a waiver, I'd love nothing more than to see them embarrassed in the game they've fought so hard to get into. Ideally, both teams would lose... but since that's not really possible, in this single, isolated case, I'd rather see the correspondence school win than see JMU reap the rewards of their childish behavior. I'll bathe myself in bleach afterwards. Will bleach do it. Probably not, but I do have some steel wool I can use as a last resort.
|
|
|
Post by sprout203 on Nov 11, 2023 10:35:57 GMT -6
If the NCAA allows it now, it will change forever. You can't easily legally defend against it if you allow it. The NCAA doesn't like legal challenges in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by sprout203 on Nov 11, 2023 10:38:07 GMT -6
According to multiple reports online, the answer is yes. If JMU has (actual, not provisional) bowl eligibility, then the Belt would make them eligible for the CCG. They'd face troy state. And I hate to say it, but I'd be rooting HARD for the correspondence school in that one. So if the answer from the NCAA is No then the SBC is no? If the SBC is behind their plight then shouldn't it be yes no matter what? Great point. The SBC should go ahead and commit!
|
|
|
Post by leeroy on Nov 11, 2023 17:59:58 GMT -6
Well, there will for sure be no Jax State in the CUSA championship game this season. CUSA already saying NMSU clinched a spot.
Only one thing left to do. We got to lay whuppins on La Tech and NMSU so bad that it makes it clear who is the #2 team in the league this year.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Nov 13, 2023 9:29:09 GMT -6
The Jax State-NMSU game on Rivalry Weekend is now the Battle for the Asterisk.
If Jax State wins, NMSU still goes to the CUSA championship game, but has to carry along an asterisk stating that Jax State was the regular season 2nd place team, but was ineligible due to NCAA transition rules.
If NMSU wins, they get to burn that asterisk and disperse the ashes deep within the Chihuahuan Desert, never to be seen again.
|
|
|
Post by jsu02 on Nov 13, 2023 9:45:12 GMT -6
The Jax State-NMSU game on Rivalry Weekend is now the Battle for the Asterisk. If Jax State wins, NMSU still goes to the CUSA championship game, but has to carry along an asterisk stating that Jax State was the regular season 2nd place team, but was ineligible due to NCAA transition rules. If NMSU wins, they get to burn that asterisk and disperse the ashes deep within the Chihuahuan Desert, never to be seen again. This game will be much tougher than I imagined back in August. They play Auburn this weekend. I'll be pulling for them to win, but also for them to get really beaten up in the process.
|
|
ld
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by ld on Nov 13, 2023 10:38:08 GMT -6
Just tangentially related, but ESPN GameDay is going to James Madison for their game this Saturday, Nov 18 against App St. so I imagine these Div I transition rules will be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by troysux on Nov 13, 2023 13:51:32 GMT -6
Think Mississippi State gives RichRod a call?
|
|
|
Post by leeroy on Nov 13, 2023 14:17:08 GMT -6
Think Mississippi State gives RichRod a call? They should, but I doubt they would consider him just yet just because they have an inflated sense of self importance ("we can get someone better"). They'd need to see some more positive results to overcome booster hesitancy I'd think. There's a reason he's coaching here right now, and it has nothing to do with his coaching ability. Not saying that's fair or right. He will get his shot at a P5 job soon enough though. Winning makes it easier to tolerate baggage.
|
|