stever20
Legend
Posts: 46,411
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 740
I Root For: Sports
Location:
|
RE: McMurphy: New Mexico St going bowling, Army and Auburn are not
(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.
|
|