(06-13-2017 01:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  I believe the Australia games get a waiver from the NCAA. To qualify for the exemption, the game must be hosted by an NCAA institution in Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico.

I've wondered if the exemption would allow the University of Hawaii to *host* a game involving two other teams such that those two teams could take advantage of the 13th game and Week 0 exemptions.

So how are Stanford and Rice getting an exemption for the Sydney game this season? The game is scheduled for Week 0, but neither plays at Hawaii this year and I doubt the game is being "hosted" by Hawaii.

Or were your first two sentences not meant to be connected? Or does waiver mean Week 0, while exemption means 13 games?

The Australia game needs a waiver to play in Week 0 because it does not qualify for the Hawaii exemption. If no waiver was granted, it would be required to play during the normal regular season competition period.

OK, thanks. I think I get it now -- the game asked for and received a waiver to play on Week 0. Probably to offset the travel schedule that is reasonably required for both teams to acclimate to the time change, etc.

But neither team qualifies for the Hawaii exemption, meaning no 13 games and no ability to schedule any game on Week 0 (which is a moot point, obviously).


Still, to what I was saying earlier, and what YNot alluded to, I wonder about a PAC vs MWC team playing in Hawaii.

(06-13-2017 09:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  OK, thanks. I think I get it now -- the game asked for and received a waiver to play on Week 0. Probably to offset the travel schedule that is reasonably required for both teams to acclimate to the time change, etc.

But neither team qualifies for the Hawaii exemption, meaning no 13 games and no ability to schedule any game on Week 0 (which is a moot point, obviously).


Still, to what I was saying earlier, and what YNot alluded to, I wonder about a PAC vs MWC team playing in Hawaii.

Stanford was scheduled to play AT Rice until they convinced Rice to move it. I wish Rice would have kept it at home. I have a bit of a soft spot for Rice as I know they follow the rules and don't complain about the situation they've found themselves in post SWC. I'm in the minority but if the AAC ever lost Houston, I'd want Rice to take their spot.