CSNbbs

(12-01-2014 03:18 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:16 PM)RedWolfington Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm guessing that Georgia Southern fans are going to lead the way next year on a rule change for first year transition teams? Since you feel the rule is unfair. I'll be in your court if that's the case. But you can't cry "injustice!" when suddenly the rule applies to you.

Someone can piggy back on our appeal and continue to push to have the rule removed. I don't think GS fans would continue to lead the charge after this year, but would support any team that wanted to change the rules.

even if it meant, late in the season... you lose a bowl invite because the goal posts were moved late in the year to accommodate someone else?

(12-01-2014 03:17 PM)eaglewraith Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:16 PM)RedWolfington Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm guessing that Georgia Southern fans are going to lead the way next year on a rule change for first year transition teams? Since you feel the rule is unfair. I'll be in your court if that's the case. But you can't cry "injustice!" when suddenly the rule applies to you.

I'd have no problem with amending the rule to allow a transitional team that wins their conference to be eligible for a bowl from this point forward.

I would go further and just remove the 2nd year transition period. As long as there is no loop-hole to allow transfers to play immediately I don't see why a team with 'FCS' talent and fewer scholarships has to be punished. If they win great if not tough. The bowls pick who they want anyway and record his little to do with who goes where. Idaho could go 8-0 in conference next year and win the title, but NO Bowl would still pick a 3-5 (6-6 overall) UL team.

(12-01-2014 03:22 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:18 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:16 PM)RedWolfington Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm guessing that Georgia Southern fans are going to lead the way next year on a rule change for first year transition teams? Since you feel the rule is unfair. I'll be in your court if that's the case. But you can't cry "injustice!" when suddenly the rule applies to you.

Someone can piggy back on our appeal and continue to push to have the rule removed. I don't think GS fans would continue to lead the charge after this year, but would support any team that wanted to change the rules.

even if it meant, late in the season... you lose a bowl invite because the goal posts were moved late in the year to accommodate someone else?

I wouldn't have any problem with it if we got left out of a bowl to a transitional conference championship, especially if we were only able to muster up a 6-6 record.

(12-01-2014 03:23 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:17 PM)eaglewraith Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:16 PM)RedWolfington Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm guessing that Georgia Southern fans are going to lead the way next year on a rule change for first year transition teams? Since you feel the rule is unfair. I'll be in your court if that's the case. But you can't cry "injustice!" when suddenly the rule applies to you.

I'd have no problem with amending the rule to allow a transitional team that wins their conference to be eligible for a bowl from this point forward.

I would go further and just remove the 2nd year transition period. As long as there is no loop-hole to allow transfers to play immediately I don't see why a team with 'FCS' talent and fewer scholarships has to be punished. If they win great if not tough. The bowls pick who they want anyway and record his little to do with who goes where. Idaho could go 8-0 in conference next year and win the title, but NO Bowl would still pick a 3-5 (6-6 overall) UL team.

Well you'd still have the thing about being ineligible for the playoffs in FCS. You can't have someone be bowl eligible for playing a Socon schedule and you can't allow someone in the playoffs if they increase their scholarships above 63 equivalents. Basically it'd be a one year ineligibility UNLESS you announce far enough ahead to get a full FBS schedule like ODU did in year 1 of their transition.

It would be a shame to have a team as good as Georgia Southern not go to a bowl. That being said, more than likely they won't get to go. Rules are rules. don't blame 'em one bit for trying though.

(12-01-2014 03:22 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:18 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:16 PM)RedWolfington Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm guessing that Georgia Southern fans are going to lead the way next year on a rule change for first year transition teams? Since you feel the rule is unfair. I'll be in your court if that's the case. But you can't cry "injustice!" when suddenly the rule applies to you.

Someone can piggy back on our appeal and continue to push to have the rule removed. I don't think GS fans would continue to lead the charge after this year, but would support any team that wanted to change the rules.

even if it meant, late in the season... you lose a bowl invite because the goal posts were moved late in the year to accommodate someone else?

I guess the bowl games are new to us and since we've never been we don't know what we are missing. GS fans still look at it from a playoff perspective and a team with a better record is the one that goes to the post season.

I do agree with you in that we knew the rules and would not want to take a spot from another SBC team. I don't want GS going to a bowl game for several reasons this year. One of them is that it would (and simply trying is) cause a lot of bad blood. We are happy with the conference title and the appeal is more symbolic.

This feels very much like the 3 times waiting to see if our coach left. We know how those waits turned out.

Yes, the rule is in place and we knew it was there going in, but they also have an appeals process for a reason. The rule is designed to ensure transitioning teams meet the minimum FBS standards, if a team can come in and prove that they can meet/exceed those standards on their way to otherwise becoming bowl eligible, I think they should get a waiver from this rule. We played 10 full FBS teams, 1 transitioning FBS team (Appy St) and an FCS team. The minimum is 60% FBS teams, iirc. Our average attendance this year is higher than 33 current FBS teams, including 13 bowl-eligible teams, and well above the 15,000 minimum. We also offer more scholarships than the minimum requirement. So we have proven we belong and can meet the NCAA's FBS standards. Had our circumstances been the same, with the exception of failing to meet some of those minimums, the rule should stand, but our circumstances are why the appeals process exists.

(12-01-2014 03:26 PM)eaglewraith Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:23 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:17 PM)eaglewraith Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:16 PM)RedWolfington Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm guessing that Georgia Southern fans are going to lead the way next year on a rule change for first year transition teams? Since you feel the rule is unfair. I'll be in your court if that's the case. But you can't cry "injustice!" when suddenly the rule applies to you.

I'd have no problem with amending the rule to allow a transitional team that wins their conference to be eligible for a bowl from this point forward.

I would go further and just remove the 2nd year transition period. As long as there is no loop-hole to allow transfers to play immediately I don't see why a team with 'FCS' talent and fewer scholarships has to be punished. If they win great if not tough. The bowls pick who they want anyway and record his little to do with who goes where. Idaho could go 8-0 in conference next year and win the title, but NO Bowl would still pick a 3-5 (6-6 overall) UL team.

Well you'd still have the thing about being ineligible for the playoffs in FCS. You can't have someone be bowl eligible for playing a Socon schedule and you can't allow someone in the playoffs if they increase their scholarships above 63 equivalents. Basically it'd be a one year ineligibility UNLESS you announce far enough ahead to get a full FBS schedule like ODU did in year 1 of their transition.

I said the 2nd year of transition. I understand the FCS playoff ban. We technically did have an advantage with additional scholarships. But in year 2 we have no advantage and are actually at a disadvantage to other FBS schools.

The NCAA committee meeting will go something like this: O.K. anyone opposed to denying Ga.Southern its appeal. No one speaks up. O.K. appeal denied. Meeting adjourned.

(12-01-2014 03:30 PM)GSUhooligan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the rule is in place and we knew it was there going in, but they also have an appeals process for a reason. The rule is designed to ensure transitioning teams meet the minimum FBS standards, if a team can come in and prove that they can meet/exceed those standards on their way to otherwise becoming bowl eligible, I think they should get a waiver from this rule. We played 10 full FBS teams, 1 transitioning FBS team (Appy St) and an FCS team. The minimum is 60% FBS teams, iirc. Our average attendance this year is higher than 33 current FBS teams, including 13 bowl-eligible teams, and well above the 15,000 minimum. We also offer more scholarships than the minimum requirement. So we have proven we belong and can meet the NCAA's FBS standards. Had our circumstances been the same, with the exception of failing to meet some of those minimums, the rule should stand, but our circumstances are why the appeals process exists.

Yes there is a reason why there is an appeals process.


It is because the NCAA guarantees that you have the right to appeal ANY decision they make. All of them. If you wrote to the NCAA asking permission to have an 86th football player on scholarship, you have the right to appeal when they say you cannot.

As for the second year transition rule, as I've mentioned before, it exists for a reason. The Big Sky, Southern, Southland, and OVC came to the NCAA and asked that it be made harder to move to FBS to discourage the departure of teams. The rule requiring a year wait was part of that package.

It's dumb but that's a bone thrown to FCS to keep harmony.

See that's my point. No waiver or any of that crap. You should want a thought out rule change or nothing. It's the appeals process and waivers that create this situation of bowl eligible teams having to wait to make plans for travel and accommodation, or to even know if they need to or not.

So for you saying you wouldn't mind if people piggy back off of your lead, that's what I have a problem with. If you think the rule is unfair, you should want if changed. Not for future teams to have to go through this process you're going through and potentially hold YOU up on a bowl invite. Or hell.. Maybe that's what you need. It seems so difficult for some of you to see why this is annoying.

For the record, I've already got a few GSU fans in mind on here that seem rational. I'm going to let some time pass before I become comfortable that the rationality isn't just a passing phase, or just an individual instance.

(12-01-2014 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2014 03:30 PM)GSUhooligan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the rule is in place and we knew it was there going in, but they also have an appeals process for a reason. The rule is designed to ensure transitioning teams meet the minimum FBS standards, if a team can come in and prove that they can meet/exceed those standards on their way to otherwise becoming bowl eligible, I think they should get a waiver from this rule. We played 10 full FBS teams, 1 transitioning FBS team (Appy St) and an FCS team. The minimum is 60% FBS teams, iirc. Our average attendance this year is higher than 33 current FBS teams, including 13 bowl-eligible teams, and well above the 15,000 minimum. We also offer more scholarships than the minimum requirement. So we have proven we belong and can meet the NCAA's FBS standards. Had our circumstances been the same, with the exception of failing to meet some of those minimums, the rule should stand, but our circumstances are why the appeals process exists.

Yes there is a reason why there is an appeals process.


It is because the NCAA guarantees that you have the right to appeal ANY decision they make. All of them. If you wrote to the NCAA asking permission to have an 86th football player on scholarship, you have the right to appeal when they say you cannot.

Precisely.

I actually don't understand why the NCAA hasn't already told Ga. Southern "no."

(12-01-2014 03:55 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: [ -> ]I actually don't understand why the NCAA hasn't already told Ga. Southern "no."

The NCAA did tell us no, I think we're waiting on an non-NCAA affiliated panel to tell us "no."

Vote is Tuesday night by 5 pm according to AStateNation twitter

Most of us are rational, but the squeaky wheel gets the most attention....or something like that.

Absolutely agonizing to wait another day to find out the bowl bids