CSNbbs

Petition to help Southern get a Bowl game.

We know it is a long shot, but the rule makes no sense.

Hoping for enough signatures and Face Book shares to turn some Media heads onto it.

Over 3,500 signatures now.

Thank you to those willing to help.

(11-03-2014 01:34 PM)The4thOption Wrote: [ -> ]Petition to help Southern get a Bowl game.

We know it is a long shot, but the rule makes no sense.

Hoping for enough signatures and Face Book shares to turn some Media heads onto it.

Over 3,500 signatures now.

Thank you to those willing to help.

You don't need a petition. If there is a bowl slot available for a transition team, you will get it.

(11-03-2014 01:35 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 01:34 PM)The4thOption Wrote: [ -> ]Petition to help Southern get a Bowl game.

We know it is a long shot, but the rule makes no sense.

Hoping for enough signatures and Face Book shares to turn some Media heads onto it.

Over 3,500 signatures now.

Thank you to those willing to help.

You don't need a petition. If there is a bowl slot available for a transition team, you will get it.

We want them to change the rule. If they can change a bowl ban mid season for Penn state..... - they can do this! Or at least have the media put some heat on them to think about it.

It cant hurt.. just asking for as many signatures and shares as we can get.

I'll gladly sign a petition to do away with all transition rules next year and treat any transition team as full FBS in year one going forward. Totally for it.

But not for changing rules in the middle of the season because a team did better than expected in it.

It would be no different than revoking Georgia Southern's right to win the conference because it looks like they may win it now.

(11-03-2014 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]It would be no different than revoking Georgia Southern's right to win the conference because it looks like they may win it now.

That would be petty and vindictive. In this case we want to get around an illogical and pointless rule.

(11-03-2014 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]I'll gladly sign a petition to do away with all transition rules next year and treat any transition team as full FBS in year one going forward. Totally for it.

But not for changing rules in the middle of the season because a team did better than expected in it.

It would be no different than revoking Georgia Southern's right to win the conference because it looks like they may win it now.

Well, they changed the ban on Penn State mid season - Why should they get say a last slot if it comes down to that one over a Belt team?

Also - This rule is completely without merit or good purpose. Not changing it just because we did better than expected. But because it is simply wrong. It remains on the books because it is nearly never challenged, and if they don't do it this year - when will it be an issue again? The next time we bring a team into the Belt? As it seems the Belt is the most likely candidate to bring in new members from the FCS, the rule almost exclusively penalizes new Belt members. Even if they wait to change the rule, it will only be done so by attention being brought to it NOW!

A signature now moves us in the right direction, even if they do nothing this year. The issue is bigger than Georgia Southern, it is the right thing to do.

(11-03-2014 01:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]It would be no different than revoking Georgia Southern's right to win the conference because it looks like they may win it now.

That would be petty and vindictive. In this case we want to get around an illogical and pointless rule.

No, you just want to go to a bowl game.

This was not a big issue when you accepted the invite or during pre-season or with UTSA last year. Georgia Southern knew of the rule, and accepted it.

You should feel lucky you were given a shot at the championship by your Sun Belt brethren...unlike UCA and the Southland for example.

I railed about the wrongness of the Penn State decision. So that argument gets no traction with me. One wrong does not justify another.

I agree that the transition rules suck. But they are the rules for this season. Everyone started the season knowing the rules.

Theoretically a rule change now favoring Georgia Southern could push someone else out of a bowl who obeyed that rule previously. For instance USA or UTSA or TXST.

(11-03-2014 02:05 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 01:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]It would be no different than revoking Georgia Southern's right to win the conference because it looks like they may win it now.

That would be petty and vindictive. In this case we want to get around an illogical and pointless rule.

No, you just want to go to a bowl game.

This was not a big issue when you accepted the invite or during pre-season or with UTSA last year. Georgia Southern knew of the rule, and accepted it.

You should feel lucky you were given a shot at the championship by your Sun Belt brethren...unlike UCA and the Southland for example.

To be fair: Had we started the petition as soon as we got the invite, would you not have thought that the most arrogant petition you had ever seen?

YES - We want to go to a bowl. Have we earned the right on the field to be considered?

Does the rule make any sense?

Had UTSA started a petition, I'd have signed it if I knew about it. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. Continuing to do the wrong thing just because it has been done that way for so long is still wrong.

Then consider that Southern MIGHT go 10-2 or like UTSA 7-5. It doesn't mean we will be selected, we just want to be on the available list and a shot to earn perhaps an invite if we can take this thing to 10-2.

Again, I thank those who will sign in advance for your support.

Everyone slams the NCAA for being arbitrary and inconsistent.

Until they need the NCAA to be arbitrary and inconsistent.

You willingly signed up to be a transitional FBS under a set of rules. Play by them.

(11-03-2014 02:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]I railed about the wrongness of the Penn State decision. So that argument gets no traction with me. One wrong does not justify another.

I agree that the transition rules suck. But they are the rules for this season. Everyone started the season knowing the rules.

Theoretically a rule change now favoring Georgia Southern could push someone else out of a bowl who obeyed that rule previously. For instance USA or UTSA or TXST.

I'd say if we go 10-2, we would deserve that slot over either one of those three this year.

Last year's wrong doesn't equal a right this year. They had a chance to have better records this year or still do.
UTSA is 2-6 and likely wont be eligible anyway.
The other two are Conference games.
USA lost head to head to us.
And it is yet to be determined as far as TX State is concerned.
But us going 10-2 would require a head to head win over them to.
If we win the conference (again requiring a win over TX State) - Then we imop have earned the right to a bowl.

We can just agree to disagree. I obviously can't change your mind, though I wish I could. Some will sign, some will not.

(11-03-2014 02:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 02:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]I railed about the wrongness of the Penn State decision. So that argument gets no traction with me. One wrong does not justify another.

I agree that the transition rules suck. But they are the rules for this season. Everyone started the season knowing the rules.

Theoretically a rule change now favoring Georgia Southern could push someone else out of a bowl who obeyed that rule previously. For instance USA or UTSA or TXST.

I'd say if we go 10-2, we would deserve that slot over either one of those three this year.

Last year's wrong doesn't equal a right this year. They had a chance to have better records this year or still do.
UTSA is 2-6 and likely wont be eligible anyway.
The other two are Conference games.
USA lost head to head to us.
And it is yet to be determined as far as TX State is concerned.
But us going 10-2 would require a head to head win over them to.
If we win the conference (again requiring a win over TX State) - Then we imop have earned the right to a bowl.

We can just agree to disagree. I obviously can't change your mind, though I wish I could. Some will sign, some will not.

None of that matters. The rules are what they are. You should be happy you got one waiver that no one else got with regards to the SBC championship.

You earn the right to a bowl when you meet the criteria set out in the rules you agree to before play commences.

It does not matter how you did against USA. The fact is that they went through their transition period knowing they would only be bowl eligible in the narrowest circumstances and accepted it. You should too.

(11-03-2014 02:27 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 02:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 02:10 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]I railed about the wrongness of the Penn State decision. So that argument gets no traction with me. One wrong does not justify another.

I agree that the transition rules suck. But they are the rules for this season. Everyone started the season knowing the rules.

Theoretically a rule change now favoring Georgia Southern could push someone else out of a bowl who obeyed that rule previously. For instance USA or UTSA or TXST.

I'd say if we go 10-2, we would deserve that slot over either one of those three this year.

Last year's wrong doesn't equal a right this year. They had a chance to have better records this year or still do.
UTSA is 2-6 and likely wont be eligible anyway.
The other two are Conference games.
USA lost head to head to us.
And it is yet to be determined as far as TX State is concerned.
But us going 10-2 would require a head to head win over them to.
If we win the conference (again requiring a win over TX State) - Then we imop have earned the right to a bowl.

We can just agree to disagree. I obviously can't change your mind, though I wish I could. Some will sign, some will not.

None of that matters. The rules are what they are. You should be happy you got one waiver that no one else got with regards to the SBC championship.

App got the same waiver.
And that was probably part of the negotiations to get us to join.
Let's not forget that the Belt needed us almost as much as we needed it.

The NCAA needed to make no such negotiations.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't change the rules. We want to just "play".
But hey, I guess you think enough Belt teams are going to go bowling anyway. It would be terrible if another one got to go wouldn't it?
And lets all just imagine that the/a Belt Conference champion (not claiming it yet, just saying IF that happened - which is a prereq. for any of this mattering anyway-) didn't go to a Bowl game. What is better for the Belt?

You wouldn't be going to "another one", you'd be taking the spot of Sun Belt teams who did their time. If there is an open slot after all eligible teams have a bowl, you will go to it already

(11-03-2014 02:27 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]None of that matters. The rules are what they are. You should be happy you got one waiver that no one else got with regards to the SBC championship.

This world would be a very boring and terrible place if everyone just remained content with their circumstances. I'll be the first to admit I shook my head a little bit when I first saw the petition; however, it doesn't surprise me at all.

While I DO think our football program has historically been one to "break the mold" I doubt there is another team in this conference that wouldn't have a fan try something like this in the same circumstances. If we succeed great, if not it was worth a try. Don't really see the problem here. If you're whining about it because a transitional team would take your bowl spot, then your team should have beaten us. End of story.

Either way, we still have three very difficult games left on our schedule and 10-2 speaks much louder than 7-5 which is still a possibility.

(11-03-2014 02:34 PM)TrueBlueAlum Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 02:27 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]None of that matters. The rules are what they are. You should be happy you got one waiver that no one else got with regards to the SBC championship.

This world would be a very boring and terrible place if everyone just remained content with their circumstances. I'll be the first to admit I shook my head a little bit when I first saw the petition; however, it doesn't surprise me at all.

While I DO think our football program has historically been one to "break the mold" I doubt there is another team in this conference that wouldn't have a fan try something like this in the same circumstances.

Maybe, but asking other fans of schools who you would be screwing is asinine and trite.

(11-03-2014 02:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]You earn the right to a bowl when you meet the criteria set out in the rules you agree to before play commences.

It does not matter how you did against USA. The fact is that they went through their transition period knowing they would only be bowl eligible in the narrowest circumstances and accepted it. You should too.

I wont accept it lying down. Also earning it and allowing us to get it are different things. We earned it when we reached 6 wins.
The unjust rule just prevents us from being considered.

You know the rule is wrong and have said you would vote against it.

The question is, Why wait until it is too late to help a Belt team to do so? Because we knew it was written? Doesn't mean we ever thought it was right.

The rule is either RIGHT or it is WRONG. There is no reason to wait for justice.

The rule is what it is. You agreed to it. What do you think the purpose of the rule is?

It loses it's meaning if we just cry for waivers whenever someone actually meets criteria

"Oops, we're actually better than we thought we'd be before coming FBS, can we get a waiver? As matter a fact, can you schools who we would probably be taking a spot from help us get it?"

(11-03-2014 02:05 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 01:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-03-2014 01:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]It would be no different than revoking Georgia Southern's right to win the conference because it looks like they may win it now.

That would be petty and vindictive. In this case we want to get around an illogical and pointless rule.

No, you just want to go to a bowl game.

This was not a big issue when you accepted the invite or during pre-season or with UTSA last year. Georgia Southern knew of the rule, and accepted it.

You should feel lucky you were given a shot at the championship by your Sun Belt brethren...unlike UCA and the Southland for example.

Actually, I would get some satisfaction from the NCAA changing the rule after this year knowing we were the catalyst for it. At the bare minimum it's worth making some noise to get the rule changed after the fact.

The transition rule (as I understand it) is based on the myths that we are going to bust (if not shatter) this year.