As I interpret the NCAA bylaws, five MAC teams will be bowling this 2009-2010 football postseason.
NCAA Division I Bylaw 30.9.2.1 has several provisions that attempt to ensure that teams with seven wins will receive preference for bowl bids:
1) Bowl games that have a contract with a conference must select a team with at least seven wins, if one is available, before a 6-6 team can be selected from the contracted conference.
2) Any bowl berth that becomes available when a conference fails to meet its contracted tie-ins must first be filled by any eligible 7-win team before any remaining FBS 6–6 teams can be accommodated.
3) Conferences with 6-6 teams who sign contingency (backup) agreements with bowl games gain guaranteed access to the bowl if the following conditions are met: a) no team is available from the contracted conference; and b) no teams are available that have a winning record.
As of this week (Nov 30-Dec 4), there are three teams with winning records with no bowl. They are Middle Tennessee and two of the following three MAC teams (the third will have an auto bid): Bowling Green/Northern Illinois/Temple. Should Hawaii beat Wisconsin next Saturday, it will add a fourth team among Hawaii/Fresno State/Nevada.
It is guaranteed there are at least four bowl slots to be filled:
1) GMAC (vacated by ACC)
2) Humanitarian (vacated by MWC)
3) EagleBank (vacated by ACC)
4) Little Caesars (vacated by Big Ten) AND/OR Texas Bowl (vacated by Big XII) AND/OR Papa Johns (vacated by Big East)
With four slots, this means ALL teams with winning records this year WILL be bowling; including all five MAC squads.
A fifth open slot will be available in the likely event Army loses to Navy in two weeks. That means one more .500 team will go bowling. A loss by Army would bring up two interesting scenarios regarding the EagleBank bowl.
1) EagleBank first chooses to fill the open slot vacated by Army. By rule, this would have to be a winning team from either the MAC, Sun Belt or (if available) the WAC. Assuming the other bowls have made their choices from the remaining teams with winning records, EagleBank would then be free to select any of the following five teams with 6-6 records: Notre Dame, UCLA, Marshall, ULL, and ULM.
2) EagleBank first chooses to fill the open slot vacated by the ACC. By rule, this would have to be a winning team from either the MAC, Sun Belt or (if available) the WAC. Assuming the other bowls have made their choices from the remaining teams with winning records, EagleBank would then have to select Marshall.
Now if you were the EagleBank bowl, which scenario would you pick?
If Hawaii winds up losing to Wisconsin, a second .500 team from those listed above will also go bowling.
¿Comprende?
I think you're mostly correct except for the scenario 1 with Eagle Bank. CUSA has the spot potentially vacated by Army as a primary bowl affiliation, not a backup agreement. Therefore, Marshall will play as the CUSA representative in that bowl should Army lose to Navy.
I don't think there's any way Eagle Bank will wait for the Army/Navy game to be decided, and they don't need to. It will be a full week after all the other bowls make their selections. Eagle Bank will select their ACC replacement Sunday like all other bowls, and announce that the other spot will be filled by Marshall or Army, depending upon the result of Army/Navy.
C-USA's
web site states they have a
conditional agreement.
So what is the meaning of conditional?
Contingent or
primary?
(11-30-2009 09:00 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]C-USA's web site states they have a conditional agreement.
So what is the meaning of conditional? Contingent or primary?
Conditional only means certain conditions must be met. (ie- If army isn't bowl eligible, CUSA becomes a primary affiliate
There still is one more scenario out there that can keep us from all bowling.
1) Hawaii wins
and
2) The BCS does not select Boise and instead decides to take a PAC 10 school putting UCLA in a Pac 10 bowl and taking one of the open bowls for at large teams off the table....
Yest this is an unlikely scenario but given the BCS conferences unbrideled greed and their arogance of keeping the big money in their own confernces I would not be shocked (appalled, yes but shocked...no) if they start talking about USC (especially if they blow out arizona this weekend) and try an manufacture their rating to be high enough for a BCS bowl to consider.
Paranoid I am.....ill feel better if and when Wisconsin takes out Hawaii.
Thanks for the info, Okie......to this long-time MAC follower who remembers the pain of seeing many a year when a very deserving MAC team (some with only 1 or 2 losses) not gaining a bowl bid, it's amazing to see 4 or 5 MAC teams going bowling. Now, after the last couple of years of disappointing bowl game results, if the MAC is to re-gain some national respect, we need to start winning bowl games again. It doesn't appear that any of the MAC prospective bowl opponents will exactly be juggernauts, so let's hope we can win at least 3 outta 5 games this year!
Central Michigan to GMAC vs Louisiana Monroe (UCLA and Notre Dame say thanks but no thanks to this bowl and stay home)
Ohio to Pizza Pizza Bowl vs Middle Tennessee
Temple to International vs Rutgers
BGSU to Boise vs Idaho
Northern Illinois to Eagle vs Marshall/Army
MAC would have a good shot to win most of these bowls if we got these matchups.
It's VERY UNLIKELY for two PAC 10 teams to supplant the at-large candidates of Boise State and a at worst one-loss Cinci (TCU has virtually clinched).
7 Oregon - yet to play Oregon St; win they go to Rose Bowl; lose and no way do they get selected over an unbeaten Boise team)
16 Oregon State - win they go to Rose Bowl; lose and they don't make the Top 14, which is required to make a BCS bowl.
18 USC - if they beat Arizona, voters would have to bump them up several slots over teams whose regular seasons are complete;
19 California - reg season complete; won't be able to rise much
(11-30-2009 09:15 PM)mufanatehc Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2009 09:00 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]C-USA's web site states they have a conditional agreement.
So what is the meaning of conditional? Contingent or primary?
Conditional only means certain conditions must be met. (ie- If army isn't bowl eligible, CUSA becomes a primary affiliate
Can't do that.
A bowl is only allowed two primary agreements. It can be with a conference or a team. Eagle Bank's primary agreements were with the ACC and Army. C-USA was a back-up, call it conditional, that is what it is. No C-USA can be selected at 6-6 for Eagle Bank until ALL 7-5 schools are placed. Now the odds are very good that all 7-5 teams will be placed and then Eagle Bank is free to select a 6-6 CUSA but not until that point.
Anything in NCAA rules to prevent a bowl game having two teams from the same conference? Just curious....if a bowl has to choose 7-5 teams prior to any 6-6 teams and the only 7-5 teams remaining are Bowling Green and No. Illinois, is that the matchup?
Also, is there some timeframe regarding when the bowls must announce their picks? Let's say, the Eaglebank Bowl really wants Notre Dame (and Notre Dame is willing), but Eaglebank Committee can't select a 6-6 Notre Dame over 7-5 BGSU. Yet, the Humanitarian Bowl still needs a team too, and they are thinking the same thing, "we want Notre Dame, not BGSU". Essentially, both Bowl's are say "Hey let's wait out the other Bowl, once they take BGSU, then we can grab Notre Dame". Any rules regarding this?
It seems a logical thought process from a Bowl Committee that a 6-6 name like Notre Dame will outdraw on TV and attendance than a 7-5 MAC team every day of the year, so if I were a Bowl Committee member and it came down to 6-6 Notre Dame or a 7-5 MAC team, but I knew another bowl had the same choice, I'd try to wait the other bowl out.
Bobcat110:
Good questions. Based on the comments
in this article (linky), it appers there is no "rule" against rematches. The crux is this - the Humanitarian Bowl is looking at Idaho vs. either BG or NIU and says they'd
like to avoid a rematch.
Let's face it, though, the bowls are likely to work whatever deals they can to ensure the best matchups possible. If one bowl thinks it can "wait out" another bowl and get a better matchup, they will.
Bobcat is asking though, if there is anything preventing conference foes from matching up in a bowl. Like could BGSU and NIU somehow get stuck having to play each other?
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I will never count Hawaii out after their two shady wins over Northwestern and Michigan State when they needed both to get bowl eligible. Particularly the MSU game had some insane calls. In the end, it cost the Akron Zips their first bowl appearance.
Thanks, Arkstfan...that info on C-USA's back up role at the EagleBank is contrary to what their posters are saying over on the C-USA board.....they seem to think that C-USA already has a slot (replacing ACC) in that bowl with a 6-6 team...apparently not so according to your post.
(12-01-2009 11:06 AM)MacLord Wrote: [ -> ]Bobcat is asking though, if there is anything preventing conference foes from matching up in a bowl. Like could BGSU and NIU somehow get stuck having to play each other?
I could live w/ BG v Temple, certainly in the Eagle Bank Bowl. Most people don't know that they play in the same conference. I might even help drive the crowd.
BG v NIU would not capture much interest, especially in some place like Idaho.
I'll let other fans discuss NIU v Temple.
There is not anything preventing two schools from the same conference from playing in a bowl game. In fact, it almost happened last year with the MCB.
(12-01-2009 10:49 AM)rocketfootball Wrote: [ -> ]Don't know how credible this is, but it says that ND players voted no on a bowl game. If so, I believe that seals the deal on 5 MAC teams bowling.
http://www.sbnation.com/2009/11/30/11794...players-no
That was posted yesterday, but I too question the credibility because the blogger's resume is basically "fan of all Boston pro teams" and "surveyor of internets". Yet, other websites are picking up his blogging and using it as a source. I have not seen any other source other than that blog regarding the players decision. Finally, some other sources have said that the player vote would be "taken into consideration" by administration, but they still have final say.
(12-01-2009 11:53 AM)rocketfootball Wrote: [ -> ]There is not anything preventing two schools from the same conference from playing in a bowl game. In fact, it almost happened last year with the MCB.
Personally, I think that'd be wrong regardless of the conference. It would be particularly embarrassing for a "mid-major" conference because many "fans" think there are already too many bowls and would use it as fuel for their argument. The only reason I would see it OK for a Bowl to have two teams from the same conference would be for the national championship IF the two teams didn't play in regular season. For example, when OSU and Michigan were #1 & #2 in nation, then OSU beat Michigan, I wouldn't have wanted see a rematch for the championship. It would be extremely unlikely, but if the two teams from the same conference were #1 & #2 ranked, but didn't play each other in regular season, then it'd be fair to let them use the national championship to decide the title.
can we please win a bowl game this year.. maybe one or two at least??
Several years before the BCS, Oklahoma and Nebraska replayed one another in the Orange Bowl. I'm not sure the rematch created alot of enthusiasm amongst either fan base.
As for ND deciding whether they will accept a bowl bid, would they not have named an interim coach (as Marshall did) in the event they are invited to a potential bowl game? Does not naming an interim coach signal their intention to call it a season?