(11-26-2014 09:54 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:45 AM)AppMtneer08 Wrote:  If anything, App and GS requesting these waivers should let the NCAA see how dumb the rule is in the first place. I understand the FCS post-season ban because the teams have more scholarships, but if you get bowl eligible in your first year of FBS, you should be able to go to a bowl if selected

Why should a senior class of players be punished for having a winning record, but not being able to go to a bowl game?

We joined FBS and the SB with the full understanding those were the conditions for being admitted to the club. It has been that way for years and we accepted it with a smile on our face. Now that our teams have been successful we think the rule shouldn't apply to us? Nice.

If it gets the rule changed so that any future FBS transitionals can benefit from it, yes.

It's all Marshall's fault!!

Before this year, only 4 of the 24 transitional teams had even hit the 6 win mark. This year, both GS and App have already hit it and ODU has a good shot.

Since Marshall messed it up for everybody, the only time this rule has even come into effect was 2001 South Florida (8-3, with 3 FCS wins) and 2013 UTSA (7-5). It's a rule that is rarely enforced (and therefore rarely challenged), and exists in 2014 purely as a punitive measure to keep FCS teams from getting uppity and trying to join FBS.

Just because we agreed to a dumb rule in advance doesn't mean we shouldn't fight a dumb rule.

EDIT: The NCAA isn't going to grant us anything, but as a PR move, this one is pretty damn solid.

(11-26-2014 10:30 AM)Klak Wrote:  Just because we agreed to a dumb rule in advance doesn't mean we shouldn't fight a dumb rule.

No, it doesn't mean you shouldn't fight a dumb rule. But wasn't this a dumb rule last year at this time? Or the year before?

Yet you were silent.

(11-25-2014 09:54 PM)slycat Wrote:  I'd be pretty pissed if we missed a bowl cause y'all got a waiver. I could maybe understand GS getting one since they get share of the title but even then the schools agreed to the rules. Can't change them now just because they don't work in your favor.

If the MW gets the Access Bowl and we fill the backup to the Cactus bowl (due to the Big 12 not being able to fill it), we will have a bowl tie not fullfilled. I could see the New Mexico bowl be given to Texas St vs a CUSA team if that occurred.

I don't care about a SB team not getting in if this were allowed. I'm selfish, and I want to see GS in a bowl. And I'm not sorry for feeling that way at all. lol

(11-26-2014 10:49 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 10:30 AM)Klak Wrote:  Just because we agreed to a dumb rule in advance doesn't mean we shouldn't fight a dumb rule.

No, it doesn't mean you shouldn't fight a dumb rule. But wasn't this a dumb rule last year at this time? Or the year before?

Yet you were silent.

We would have looked incredibly stupid if we had asked for a waiver or signed a petition before we even played our first game. Just because we didn't ask for an exemption doesn't mean we didn't like it or weren't vocal about it. We've been complaining about the rule since we started debating the merits of moving up. I highly doubt we will get an exemption this year but it is an outdated rule that makes no sense in today's game. It needs I change. There is no reason a team that meets minimum scholarship requirements, meets all Title IX requirements, meets attendance requirements and meets the six-win threshold shouldn't be bowl eligible other than the petty "paying their dues" argument.

(11-26-2014 10:56 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  I don't care about a SB team not getting in if this were allowed. I'm selfish, and I want to see GS in a bowl. And I'm not sorry for feeling that way at all. lol

*internet high five*

(11-26-2014 10:56 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  I don't care about a SB team not getting in if this were allowed. I'm selfish, and I want to see GS in a bowl. And I'm not sorry for feeling that way at all. lol

That's pretty much the way the country is right now, so you should feel comfortable in the "me, me, me" majority.

(11-26-2014 11:10 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 10:56 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  I don't care about a SB team not getting in if this were allowed. I'm selfish, and I want to see GS in a bowl. And I'm not sorry for feeling that way at all. lol

That's pretty much the way the country is right now, so you should feel comfortable in the "me, me, me" majority.

right. because any team in a similar situation would sit back and think "aww. I feel bad for South Alabama. We got their bowl spot" Why would anyone not want to see their school be awarded a bowl?

Will it happen? More than likely no. But I'm not going to sit back and act like I wouldn't love to see it happen.

(11-26-2014 09:16 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:59 AM)GST-bone09 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:28 PM)Scrotumus Wrote:  Now, now, now... don't you know you have to pay your dues? That Benson won't help you? That you knew the game before you signed up? In other words, all the BS thrown at GS over the petition....

Its not about dues, but if you guys are declared eligible, someone else isn't going to a bowl. Can you imagine being a fan of that team who had their bowl invite taken away because the NCAA waived a rule that has been in effect every single year?

If you are replacing Western Kentucky, great. If you are replacing a Sun Belt School, I cant support it.

Last I checked, bowl invites have not been distributed. The way I see it is very black and white. Do we deserve to go to a bowl? If your answer is yes then we should be allowed to be put in the same pot as every other deserving team. I don't have a problem with taking the "spot of a Sun Belt team" as we are also a Sun Belt team. I can understand why a team like Texas State wouldn't like that but if we are deserving then we deserve to be treated as such.

Because if it's black and white then you don't go. You team knew and agreed to the rules. A waiver or anything more is anything but black and white. It's ike when Ohio St went undefeated and missed a national championship because they were on a bowl ban. The NCAA didn't give them a waiver just because they ended up having a good season.

Penn St is a little different because the NCAA decided the punishment they handed down was incorrect due to the media pushing them to make an example of them.

Here is where your logic is screwed up imop. In the first paragraph: Ohio State was serving out a punishment for doing wrong. We have done nothing wrong to be punished for.. SOooooo not the same thing.

In the second: Here is a decision by the NCAA to change - mid-season- because their decision was "incorrect". Well.. imop again, that can be seen as "precedent" as this bowl rule today has lived beyond its useful life span.

(11-26-2014 11:14 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:16 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:59 AM)GST-bone09 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:28 PM)Scrotumus Wrote:  Now, now, now... don't you know you have to pay your dues? That Benson won't help you? That you knew the game before you signed up? In other words, all the BS thrown at GS over the petition....

Its not about dues, but if you guys are declared eligible, someone else isn't going to a bowl. Can you imagine being a fan of that team who had their bowl invite taken away because the NCAA waived a rule that has been in effect every single year?

If you are replacing Western Kentucky, great. If you are replacing a Sun Belt School, I cant support it.

Last I checked, bowl invites have not been distributed. The way I see it is very black and white. Do we deserve to go to a bowl? If your answer is yes then we should be allowed to be put in the same pot as every other deserving team. I don't have a problem with taking the "spot of a Sun Belt team" as we are also a Sun Belt team. I can understand why a team like Texas State wouldn't like that but if we are deserving then we deserve to be treated as such.

Because if it's black and white then you don't go. You team knew and agreed to the rules. A waiver or anything more is anything but black and white. It's ike when Ohio St went undefeated and missed a national championship because they were on a bowl ban. The NCAA didn't give them a waiver just because they ended up having a good season.

Penn St is a little different because the NCAA decided the punishment they handed down was incorrect due to the media pushing them to make an example of them.

Here is where your logic is screwed up imop. In the first paragraph: Ohio State was serving out a punishment for doing wrong. We have done nothing wrong to be punished for.. SOooooo not the same thing.

In the second: Here is a decision by the NCAA to change - mid-season- because their decision was "incorrect". Well.. imop again, that can be seen as "precedent" as this bowl rule today has lived beyond its useful life span.

If Penn State sets a precedent, then its gotta be the right thing to do.

(11-26-2014 11:13 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:10 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 10:56 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  I don't care about a SB team not getting in if this were allowed. I'm selfish, and I want to see GS in a bowl. And I'm not sorry for feeling that way at all. lol

That's pretty much the way the country is right now, so you should feel comfortable in the "me, me, me" majority.

right. because any team in a similar situation would sit back and think "aww. I feel bad for South Alabama. We got their bowl spot" Why would anyone not want to see their school be awarded a bowl?

Will it happen? More than likely no. But I'm not going to sit back and act like I wouldn't love to see it happen.

I completely agree and thanks for saying that.

I'm glad App and GS are in a position to apply for the waiver. I never knew why that rule was in place until I read Tommy Bowman's article

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/foo...2521d.html

Quote:There isn’t a precedent of a new FBS member being released from the rule — which in part is in place to lessen the possible temptation of an FCS team loading up on immediately-eligible transfers for competitive advantage as it moves to the FBS — because it’s a new issue since the end of a four-year moratorium preventing FCS teams from moving up.

Is that the Marshall rule? I never paid attention to Marshall after they decided to move up, but I knew they achieved success immediately after they did.

But the NCAA should recognize the fact that App and GS did not do that and instead used maybe a few JUCO's and mostly freshman and under classmen to get to where they are. I do know GS had a load of experienced upper classmen, at least more so than App.

Either way, I agree the waiver is a means of showing the players and the coaches that the admin is appreciative and proud of the accomplishment of the team. I hope we get the waiver and get selected over non SBC 6-6 teams. I won't hold my breath though.

Knowing they most likely aint going to let us go bowling, I'll say this.

If they did, I'd rather take a bowl spot from a 6-6 team from any other conference.

I'd rather as many Belt teams go bowling as possible and give us great chances for OOC wins and get the conference some exposure and maybe make some money.

But..... Would I cry about a 6-6 Belt team that we beat losing a bowl to us if that were to be the spot we got? He double hockey sticks no!
Why should I? If we beat your team head to head, won our conference and displayed enough fan travel base to justify it.. Why shouldn't we be happy about it. As far as I'm concerned, Southern has "paid its dues". Weather you sit in an FBS conference and build your program or and FCS conference and build it... makes no difference - We've built what this program is over YEARS of wins and losses. Years of thrills and heart breaking losses. We aren't the "Johnney come lately" that some of the eligible Belt teams are.

We have earned a bowl. THAT is a fact. Weather they lift the dumb rule that restricts us from being rewarded for that is another thing.
But IF they do, and your team sits home and the Eagles go to the bowl you wanted to go to? Well, in that case - you had your chance to control it on the field and you should have won more games and you should have beaten us.

I'd only feel bad if we took a bowl from Navy because they earned it over us on the field over us.

(11-26-2014 11:23 AM)appfan89 Wrote:  I'm glad App and GS are in a position to apply for the waiver. I never knew why that rule was in place until I read Tommy Bowman's article

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/foo...2521d.html

Quote:There isn’t a precedent of a new FBS member being released from the rule — which in part is in place to lessen the possible temptation of an FCS team loading up on immediately-eligible transfers for competitive advantage as it moves to the FBS — because it’s a new issue since the end of a four-year moratorium preventing FCS teams from moving up.

Is that the Marshall rule? I never paid attention to Marshall after they decided to move up, but I knew they achieved success immediately after they did.

But the NCAA should recognize the fact that App and GS did not do that and instead used maybe a few JUCO's and mostly freshman and under classmen to get to where they are. I do know GS had a load of experienced upper classmen, at least more so than App.

Either way, I agree the waiver is a means of showing the players and the coaches that the admin is appreciative and proud of the accomplishment of the team. I hope we get the waiver and get selected over non SBC 6-6 teams. I won't hold my breath though.

That is indeed the "Marshall Rule."

(11-26-2014 11:20 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:14 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:16 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:59 AM)GST-bone09 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Its not about dues, but if you guys are declared eligible, someone else isn't going to a bowl. Can you imagine being a fan of that team who had their bowl invite taken away because the NCAA waived a rule that has been in effect every single year?

If you are replacing Western Kentucky, great. If you are replacing a Sun Belt School, I cant support it.

Last I checked, bowl invites have not been distributed. The way I see it is very black and white. Do we deserve to go to a bowl? If your answer is yes then we should be allowed to be put in the same pot as every other deserving team. I don't have a problem with taking the "spot of a Sun Belt team" as we are also a Sun Belt team. I can understand why a team like Texas State wouldn't like that but if we are deserving then we deserve to be treated as such.

Because if it's black and white then you don't go. You team knew and agreed to the rules. A waiver or anything more is anything but black and white. It's ike when Ohio St went undefeated and missed a national championship because they were on a bowl ban. The NCAA didn't give them a waiver just because they ended up having a good season.

Penn St is a little different because the NCAA decided the punishment they handed down was incorrect due to the media pushing them to make an example of them.

Here is where your logic is screwed up imop. In the first paragraph: Ohio State was serving out a punishment for doing wrong. We have done nothing wrong to be punished for.. SOooooo not the same thing.

In the second: Here is a decision by the NCAA to change - mid-season- because their decision was "incorrect". Well.. imop again, that can be seen as "precedent" as this bowl rule today has lived beyond its useful life span.

If Penn State sets a precedent, then its gotta be the right thing to do.

The NCAA set the precedent, not penn state.

(11-26-2014 11:28 AM)Scrotumus Wrote:  That is indeed the "Marshall Rule."

It is an example of "Hard cases make bad law". Rather than fix the issue that Marshall exploited they just haphazardly slapped a bowl ban on transitional teams because it was easier.

The transitional rules should be addressed legislatively for future seasons. But changing the rule at the end of a season would merely allow the NCAA to substitute one injustice for another.

(11-26-2014 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:28 AM)Scrotumus Wrote:  That is indeed the "Marshall Rule."

It is an example of "Hard cases make bad law". Rather than fix the issue that Marshall exploited they just haphazardly slapped a bowl ban on transitional teams because it was easier.

The transitional rules should be addressed legislatively for future seasons. But changing the rule at the end of a season would merely allow the NCAA to substitute one injustice for another.

There are already so many other rules in place now that make what Marshall did impossible. This rule needs to be thrown out.

(11-26-2014 11:29 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:20 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:14 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:16 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:59 AM)GST-bone09 Wrote:  Last I checked, bowl invites have not been distributed. The way I see it is very black and white. Do we deserve to go to a bowl? If your answer is yes then we should be allowed to be put in the same pot as every other deserving team. I don't have a problem with taking the "spot of a Sun Belt team" as we are also a Sun Belt team. I can understand why a team like Texas State wouldn't like that but if we are deserving then we deserve to be treated as such.

Because if it's black and white then you don't go. You team knew and agreed to the rules. A waiver or anything more is anything but black and white. It's ike when Ohio St went undefeated and missed a national championship because they were on a bowl ban. The NCAA didn't give them a waiver just because they ended up having a good season.

Penn St is a little different because the NCAA decided the punishment they handed down was incorrect due to the media pushing them to make an example of them.

Here is where your logic is screwed up imop. In the first paragraph: Ohio State was serving out a punishment for doing wrong. We have done nothing wrong to be punished for.. SOooooo not the same thing.

In the second: Here is a decision by the NCAA to change - mid-season- because their decision was "incorrect". Well.. imop again, that can be seen as "precedent" as this bowl rule today has lived beyond its useful life span.

If Penn State sets a precedent, then its gotta be the right thing to do.

The NCAA set the precedent, not penn state.

The precedent was set because the Big 10 was struggling and it was thought to be a potential impact on dollars and playoff spots within the P5.

That is a thin, and rotten reed, for anyone to be clinging to.

(11-26-2014 11:39 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  There are already so many other rules in place now that make what Marshall did impossible. This rule needs to be thrown out.

Transitioning is tough enough without having a bowl ban thrown on top of it. Despite GS and App State making transition "look" easy...it is not.

Not many people disagree that the rule needs to be eliminated. Which is different than just choosing to ignore it after a season is over.