CSNbbs

Per Brent McMurphy USA's bowl waiver has been approved. Great news for the SBC, just need them to win one of last two now and we'll have five teams bowling.

This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

Hmmm the NCAA finally did something right.

(11-20-2016 12:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

We got a waiver, yes, but the way I understand it we only get to use it after all other 6+ win teams are accommodated. USA fans have to hope only 79 (or fewer) other teams become bowl eligible. I'm not sure if that caveat lends itself for bowls to be able to negotiate based on geographic preference. If we go bowling it's likely the bowl choosing last: the Cure Bowl. Unless of course we manage to win our last two games making the waiver a non-issue.

(11-20-2016 01:36 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 12:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

We got a waiver, yes, but the way I understand it we only get to use it after all other 6+ win teams are accommodated. USA fans have to hope only 79 (or fewer) other teams become bowl eligible. I'm not sure if that caveat lends itself for bowls to be able to negotiate based on geographic preference. If we go bowling it's likely the bowl choosing last: the Cure Bowl. Unless of course we manage to win our last two games making the waiver a non-issue.

I doubt it. Georgia Tech got a waiver in 2012 because they had a losing record, but only because they got bumped into the AJC championship game and lost to Florida State. I thought it was kinda bull **** that they got spot in a bowl game when some true eligible SBC teams didn't, but there you go.

(11-21-2016 01:54 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 01:36 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 12:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

We got a waiver, yes, but the way I understand it we only get to use it after all other 6+ win teams are accommodated. USA fans have to hope only 79 (or fewer) other teams become bowl eligible. I'm not sure if that caveat lends itself for bowls to be able to negotiate based on geographic preference. If we go bowling it's likely the bowl choosing last: the Cure Bowl. Unless of course we manage to win our last two games making the waiver a non-issue.

I doubt it. Georgia Tech got a waiver in 2012 because they had a losing record, but only because they got bumped into the AJC championship game and lost to Florida State. I thought it was kinda bull **** that they got spot in a bowl game when some true eligible SBC teams didn't, but there you go.

I don't doubt it. From usajaguars.com:

"The NCAA's ruling declares that with six victories including two over FCS opponents that the Jaguars will be designated as a deserving team per the application of postseason eligibility legislation, but that South cannot be selected until all other eligible teams are placed for bowl participation. Should less than 80 schools be eligible to participate in a postseason bowl, USA will be placed in a game before any teams with 5-7 records are selected."

(11-21-2016 11:03 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2016 01:54 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 01:36 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 12:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

We got a waiver, yes, but the way I understand it we only get to use it after all other 6+ win teams are accommodated. USA fans have to hope only 79 (or fewer) other teams become bowl eligible. I'm not sure if that caveat lends itself for bowls to be able to negotiate based on geographic preference. If we go bowling it's likely the bowl choosing last: the Cure Bowl. Unless of course we manage to win our last two games making the waiver a non-issue.

I doubt it. Georgia Tech got a waiver in 2012 because they had a losing record, but only because they got bumped into the AJC championship game and lost to Florida State. I thought it was kinda bull **** that they got spot in a bowl game when some true eligible SBC teams didn't, but there you go.

I don't doubt it. From usajaguars.com:

"The NCAA's ruling declares that with six victories including two over FCS opponents that the Jaguars will be designated as a deserving team per the application of postseason eligibility legislation, but that South cannot be selected until all other eligible teams are placed for bowl participation. Should less than 80 schools be eligible to participate in a postseason bowl, USA will be placed in a game before any teams with 5-7 records are selected."

Oh yes I'm sorry I forgot there are a different set of rules for G5 teams than P5 teams

(11-21-2016 11:08 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2016 11:03 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2016 01:54 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 01:36 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 12:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

We got a waiver, yes, but the way I understand it we only get to use it after all other 6+ win teams are accommodated. USA fans have to hope only 79 (or fewer) other teams become bowl eligible. I'm not sure if that caveat lends itself for bowls to be able to negotiate based on geographic preference. If we go bowling it's likely the bowl choosing last: the Cure Bowl. Unless of course we manage to win our last two games making the waiver a non-issue.

I doubt it. Georgia Tech got a waiver in 2012 because they had a losing record, but only because they got bumped into the AJC championship game and lost to Florida State. I thought it was kinda bull **** that they got spot in a bowl game when some true eligible SBC teams didn't, but there you go.

I don't doubt it. From usajaguars.com:

"The NCAA's ruling declares that with six victories including two over FCS opponents that the Jaguars will be designated as a deserving team per the application of postseason eligibility legislation, but that South cannot be selected until all other eligible teams are placed for bowl participation. Should less than 80 schools be eligible to participate in a postseason bowl, USA will be placed in a game before any teams with 5-7 records are selected."

Oh yes I'm sorry I forgot there are a different set of rules for G5 teams than P5 teams

Exactly!

(11-21-2016 11:08 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2016 11:03 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2016 01:54 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 01:36 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2016 12:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]This will have an impact on the bowl picture. Originally, had South not been able to count the Presbyterian win, they would have still qualified for a bowl at 6-6, but could not fill a bowl over a currently bowl eligible team out of the Sun Belt

Now, they could in theory bump App State in Montgomery and send the Mountaineers to Orlando. Which I'm not sure App fans would complain terribly about given the location and opponent.

We got a waiver, yes, but the way I understand it we only get to use it after all other 6+ win teams are accommodated. USA fans have to hope only 79 (or fewer) other teams become bowl eligible. I'm not sure if that caveat lends itself for bowls to be able to negotiate based on geographic preference. If we go bowling it's likely the bowl choosing last: the Cure Bowl. Unless of course we manage to win our last two games making the waiver a non-issue.

I doubt it. Georgia Tech got a waiver in 2012 because they had a losing record, but only because they got bumped into the AJC championship game and lost to Florida State. I thought it was kinda bull **** that they got spot in a bowl game when some true eligible SBC teams didn't, but there you go.

I don't doubt it. From usajaguars.com:

"The NCAA's ruling declares that with six victories including two over FCS opponents that the Jaguars will be designated as a deserving team per the application of postseason eligibility legislation, but that South cannot be selected until all other eligible teams are placed for bowl participation. Should less than 80 schools be eligible to participate in a postseason bowl, USA will be placed in a game before any teams with 5-7 records are selected."

Oh yes I'm sorry I forgot there are a different set of rules for G5 teams than P5 teams

Well everyone that has ever been 6-6 going into a CCG and then lost, has still been able to play in a bowl. I remember it happened to UCLA once and that was because USC would have played in the CCG, but wasn't eligible because of sanctions. UCLA was 2nd place. I'm sure the same would happen if that ever occurred in the Sun Belt.

If it is conditioned on having less than 80 eligible teams it's not a waiver. Rules already provide that if the bowls are short that a team with two FCS wins can be selected before dipping into the 5-7 pool.

(11-21-2016 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]If it is conditioned on having less than 80 eligible teams it's not a waiver. Rules already provide that if the bowls are short that a team with two FCS wins can be selected before dipping into the 5-7 pool.

That's what I was thinking too... Unless the quote was out of context and referred to only our league schools, which I can't imagine to the the case. It's perplexing for sure.

(11-21-2016 05:38 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2016 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]If it is conditioned on having less than 80 eligible teams it's not a waiver. Rules already provide that if the bowls are short that a team with two FCS wins can be selected before dipping into the 5-7 pool.

That's what I was thinking too... Unless the quote was out of context and referred to only our league schools, which I can't imagine to the the case. It's perplexing for sure.

That was my first thought from the beginning - "Where's the waiver?". It'd only be a waiver if it was pertinent only to the SBC's 6-6 teams being considered for our own tie-ins first before South could and that the Jags would be considered equal to every other 6-6 team otherwise and able to accept any bowl invite they wished amongst the remaining 6-6 pool available. Unless I'm missing something here?

Atlanta Jag found the old and new rules and shared on the USA board. The new rule actually does help USA.

Old rule:


New rule:

Under the new rules, a six-win USA would have been treated as a 5-7 team without the waiver. Now it makes more sense why it was applied for and why it's granting was noteworthy.

(11-22-2016 07:40 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote: [ -> ]Under the new rules, a six-win USA would have been treated as a 5-7 team without the waiver. Now it makes more sense why it was applied for and why it's granting was noteworthy.

Yes...Good catch...I was operating off the NCAA Division 1 manual for 2015-6 because I couldn't find the new manual for free.

Had there been no waiver....probably no bowl for USA.

Don't we still need another win? Idaho is going to be tough, I don't think we can score enough. New Mexico State will be a toss up. We just need a game against a top25 and our guys will be focused. :)

(11-22-2016 02:01 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote: [ -> ]Don't we still need another win? Idaho is going to be tough, I don't think we can score enough. New Mexico State will be a toss up. We just need a game against a top25 and our guys will be focused. :)

Yes. The waiver only comes into play if USA wins six games. Win only five and they're not going bowling. Win seven and the waiver isn't necessary.

(11-22-2016 07:40 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote: [ -> ]Under the new rules, a six-win USA would have been treated as a 5-7 team without the waiver. Now it makes more sense why it was applied for and why it's granting was noteworthy.

Awesome! Thanks to both yourself and Skully for the explanation.

Also, it looks like Army will have to beat Navy to bowl. Unless they get a waiver.

Our best writer is saying one bowl director that a 6-6 USA team would not be picked before App. For App fans wanted to go to Orlando you better hope USA wins the next two.