(12-03-2022 11:32 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 09:03 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 06:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 03:38 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  You are assuming that their request for a waiver was made after they scheduled Valparaiso. Valpo had to get a waiver to play a 12th game. NMSU likely didn't seek their waiver until they unexpectedly beat Liberty. They were something like 25 point underdogs in that game.

FWIW, I am not assuming anything about the timing of when NMST and/or Valpo applied for the 12th game and bowl eligibility waivers.

I am making an assumption about the timing of when the respective waivers were granted. I am assuming that the waiver for the 12th game was granted before the bowl eligibility waiver was granted, because obviously, if the bowl eligibility waiver was granted first, then the committee making that bowl eligibility decision could not have made it contingent on winning a game with Valpo that did not officially exist at the time they granted that waiver.

But IIRC, that wasn't the case - I believe from media reports the 12th game waiver was granted and the Valpo game announced on Tuesday, whereas the bowl eligibility waiver was granted Thursday, implying that the bowl eligibility waiver decision was made with the knowledge that NMST was now playing a 12th game, vs an FCS team, Valpo. That's what I believe happened based on media reports.

And if so, then IMO it made no sense for them to approve that waiver without making it contingent on NMST beating Valpo. That's still a nice break over having to beat a fifth or sixth FBS team to get to six wins, like most other schools had to do, e.g. Buffalo yesterday. Allowing a team to be bowl eligible, ahead of the line of 5-7 APR teams, if they themselves finish 5-7, with only 4 FBS wins and 1 FCS win, IMO would be wrong, and also unfair to those 5-7 APR teams.

But if I am wrong about that, if the bowl waiver committee somehow made its decision before the 12th game vs Valpo was approved and scheduled, then of course my objection is off-base, null and void, mistaken, etc. and I would apologize to the bowl waiver committee.

But I do not believe that was the case.

Division I Football Oversight Committee

Bowl waivers is a small part of their ambit. They have not posted any December reports yet.

The MAC ordered the Akron-Buffalo game to be played, and they didn't do so until after Buffalo was eliminated from contention for the MAC CCG. If Buffalo were in the MAC CCG, the Akron-Buffalo game would not have been played. Of course if Buffalo were in the CCG it would have meant that they had beaten Kent State and had six wins.

Nobody had the power to force SJ State to play NMSU.

It is quite possible that both waiver applications were pending. Valpo was apparently scheduled due to the odd circumstance that a graduate assistant at NMSU had played at Valpo (he was the captain, graduating in 2019) and his mom is an assistant AD and sports administrator for football at Valpo. It is not ordinary for someone to call his mother, and say, "hey Mom we need another game can we play your team?"

This article says that NMSU was not certain if the waiver would be granted before Saturday (December 3).

New Mexico State asks for NCAA waiver to be considered for bowl despite 5-6 record

What you are suggesting is that if NMSU did not play Valparaiso they should/would get the waiver.

Thanks for the info about the committee.

About the bolded, "yes". IIRC, if NM State had been successful in its bid to find an FBS school to play this weekend, then presumably it would have had to win that game to be bowl eligible.

Beating an FCS team is a sweeter deal, I think.

Or, they could have just not scheduled anyone, including Valpo, and made their appeal on that basis of being 5-6 and having a game canceled through no fault of their own.

NM State wanted that 12th game vs Valpo for its own reasons - honor its seniors, give its fans one last home game to attend. Fair enough, but if you do that, then IMO that opens the door for that game to be included in deliberations about the bowl waiver, and IMO it should have been - unless of course the bowl waiver was decided before the game was scheduled.

That tradeoff - playing the FCS team for the benefits, but then having to have it factored in to the bowl waiver - is IMO a fair tradeoff under the circumstances. Allowing NM State to have the benefits of the 12th game, but bear no risks with the bowl elgibility issue, was IMO unfair to the 5-7 APR teams.

I have a tremendously difficult time caring about what's most fair for 5-7 APR teams. The NM State waiver is not some huge precedent setting thing.

Hopefully the NM State situation never happens again.

(12-03-2022 11:32 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I have a tremendously difficult time caring about what's most fair for 5-7 APR teams. The NM State waiver is not some huge precedent setting thing.

Quite. Two FCS wins being counted if there aren't enough bowl eligible schools used to be on the list, and the rule was amended to remove it, so I expect that the oversight committee would be reluctant to put it back in "for special circumstances".

Also, even if the nuance is distinct, doing it that way opens the door to Marshall, App State & Army whining about having THEIR two-FCS win waiver requests turned down, unlike making the decision directly on the actual "unusual circumstance" situation.

(12-03-2022 02:07 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:32 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I have a tremendously difficult time caring about what's most fair for 5-7 APR teams. The NM State waiver is not some huge precedent setting thing.

Quite. Two FCS wins being counted if there aren't enough bowl eligible schools used to be on the list, and the rule was amended to remove it, so I expect that the oversight committee would be reluctant to put it back in "for special circumstances".

Also, even if the nuance is distinct, doing it that way opens the door to Marshall, App State & Army whining about having THEIR two-FCS win waiver requests turned down, unlike making the decision directly on the actual "unusual circumstance" situation.

In my opinion it would be very easy for the waiver committee to use language that makes it clear that the New Mexico State situation is exceptional and thereby does not open the door for Army or anyone else with two FCS wins.

(12-02-2022 11:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Army is 5-6, and if they win? They will be 6-6. So, they will be more desirable for the Military bowl or another bowl than New Mexico State. So Army needs to win, and New Mexico State is not in. If Buffalo goes 6-6? One of the 6-6 teams will stay home. It could be one of the MAC teams.

The MAC has more than enough bowl berths to go around for all of its its bowl eligible teams. The only reason a 6-6 MAC school would be staying home this season is by choice.

NMST routs Valpo today, finishes 6-6.

Well done, State.

NMSU has worked hard for a bowl game this year. Can’t say the same for Colorado, Colorado St, New Mexico.

(12-03-2022 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 08:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 10:52 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Valpo is non scholarship so they don't meet the definition of FCS eligible anyways.

But ..... my understanding is that this is a waiver committee meaning they are empowered to waive the rules that normally keep teams from being eligible, like they did for New Mexico state with only four FBS wins.

To me it stands to reason that if they can waive that rule then they can waive rules related to which FCS teams qualify to help you get eligible Etc.

The rules already say that if there aren't enough bowl eligible schools, the first thing they do is lift the 90% requirement for the FCS exception.
______________

(12-03-2022 12:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 12:19 AM)Todor Wrote:  There seems to be a lot of confusion about the Valpo game. I don’t believe it has anything to with the waiver whatsoever. We tried to reschedule with San Jose State and they won’t come play. We contacted every single FBS team that was not scheduled that day and were declined by all of them. We applied for a waiver based on having a game cancelled by our opponent, our efforts to find an additional FBS opponent, and not finding a willing opponent.

Valpo is merely a home game added to make up for a lost home game. Nothing more.

Is it officially an exhibition game? if not in my opinion it should count like every other game- if you lose it that's a loss that can keep you out of the bowls, imo.

That may be your opinion, but in the rules, it doesn't count toward bowl eligibility either way.

FWIW, my point is that since the bowl waiver committee seems to be empowered to waive the rules, it should have said that in this special circumstance where NMST was unable to play an FBS game through no fault of its own, that to be bowl eligible ahead of the 5-7 APR schools it should have to win its remaining FCS game.

The rule is now 80% (new this year). It may be because some schools were slipping out of compliance either because of COVID or the transfer portal.

The 80% is measured from the number of players on (partial) scholarship. FCS football uses scholarship equivalents so there can be 85 players (same as FBS) but they have to share up to 63 full scholarships.

Some FCS conferences (e.g. NEC and Patriot) have lower limits. So while it might be senior starters at NDSU get a full ride, and backups get half or less, at NEC schools nobody gets a full ride (though the universities will likely piece together other financial aid).

An FBS school will avoid scheduling an FCS school that does not qualify under the 80% rule because it won't count for bowl eligibility. Thus Merrimack, Stonehill, St. Thomas, Lindenwood don't play FBS schools because they are technically considered DII (or DIII) schools.

North Alabama completed its transition to DI this July and played a game at Memphis.

(12-03-2022 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, "yes". IIRC, if NM State had been successful in its bid to find an FBS school to play this weekend, then presumably it would have had to win that game to be bowl eligible.

Beating an FCS team is a sweeter deal, I think.

Or, they could have just not scheduled anyone, including Valpo, and made their appeal on that basis of being 5-6 and having a game canceled through no fault of their own.

NM State wanted that 12th game vs Valpo for its own reasons - honor its seniors, give its fans one last home game to attend. Fair enough, but if you do that, then IMO that opens the door for that game to be included in deliberations about the bowl waiver, and IMO it should have been - unless of course the bowl waiver was decided before the game was scheduled.

That tradeoff - playing the FCS team for the benefits, but then having to have it factored in to the bowl waiver - is IMO a fair tradeoff under the circumstances. Allowing NM State to have the benefits of the 12th game, but bear no risks with the bowl elgibility issue, was IMO unfair to the 5-7 APR teams.

The Valpo game was contingent on Valpo getting a waiver to play a 12th game. That waiver was granted on Tuesday. I don't know when they applied. Probably during Thanksgiving Week. They would have had to arrange transportation and lodging (probably not overly complex since O'Hare to El Paso is not that hard), and NMSU likely has experience getting hotels for visiting teams in either Las Cruces or El Paso as well as ground transportation. Valpo brought their entire roster - some who were on their first road trip game. In a sense, every player at Valparaiso is a walk on, though they must have some recruiting (a private school is likely to recruit every student).

I doubt NMSU applied for a bowl waiver until after they beat Liberty. They were 25 point underdogs. So they would not know whether or not they would play Valpo. The committee could have asked them to submit a new waiver request, or added a contingency. But it would be better to keep it simple.

Incidentally, I looked through the past few months or reports from the Football Oversight Committee. Much of it seemed to reviewing progress of the Transformation Committee and updating the recruiting calendar to account for changes due to the transfer portal. They are also involved in playing rules (the Football Rules Committee is multi-divisional, though loaded with DI representatives).

They are in favor of returning the scholarship limits for FCS teams playing FBS teams to 90%. They said they want schools to be committed to fully funding sports. They also noted that this would align with the CFP. The CFP granted just short of $3 million in the aggregate to FCS conferences.

In early October they refused to change the rule for "two schools" to count two FCS wins. They said that the cause was the two schools and the conference, so it must be the Sun Belt, Marshall, and App State - so effectively any waiver for the two schools was denied two months ago.

They are in favor of a waiver to the first contest rule due to scheduling problems with realignment. They said one conference, so perhaps CUSA, AAC, or Big XII. I would kind of guess CUSA because of the odd number of teams, and perhaps that they have less control of their schedule.