(05-09-2023 10:42 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Don't the conference bowl ties-ins have a pecking order? So if the SBC had to supply teams for 5 bowls they go down the list picking and the last bowl at the bottom would not have an eligible bowl team to choose which opens the door for us. I'm certain if we get to a bowl through this backdoor method that we'll be getting a less than desirable bowl.

I'm thinking its possible a bowl outside the SBC tie-ins could select JMU if they have openings. It would be subject to their own criteria however.

(05-09-2023 10:31 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 10:04 AM)space orange Wrote:  

(05-08-2023 07:01 PM)jmu98 Wrote:  

(05-08-2023 02:12 PM)Dukester Wrote:  

(05-08-2023 01:16 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  I guess it's pretty cool. I'm not convinced a lot of places even know yet that we are not technically eligible for a bowl.
There's too much out of our control for me to get my hopes up yet. We could win 10 games and yet still get denied if there are enough 6-6 teams out there.
For our first bowl game, we could do a lot worse than playing Army, so I'd take that.

I'm a bit like you - way too many unknowns and out of controls. When/if it happens I'll likely be excited.

Last year after 5-0 I thought we had a shot at a NY game. Now I know that would not of happened even with a perfect season we won every game by 50.

Last year I thought this year we'd be given a waiver without question. We were kind of led to believe that. No way....

There's no way we get a shot at the SB championship game. Every other team would vote against it to help their chances.

If we do make it, do we just get the last of the leftover bowls?

Hopefully we win each week and we'll see at the end of the season if we have any bowl options.

I don’t think we are necessarily locked into one of worst bowls just because of our situation. It will be known prior to bowls picking teams whether we are in so I think we will be able to be picked by bowls that have ties.

The Twitter thread by the Athletic folks made it sound like this is the case. Otherwise there's no difference to being fully eligible. Last year the 2 teams with waivers got bowls against 6-6 teams, which I imagine were the last picks available.

This seems somewhat a bit of a gray area, as far as what is stated publicly.

There are at least two or three other differences, which were meaningful enough for JMU to pursue the waiver.
- CFP money (believe I saw around ~$2m) is not shared until fully eligible.
- presume this may also mean that CFP committee would not rank JMU at year end this season, thus may not be eligible for NY6 (not entirely clear to me)
- bowl bids are not automatic, it only remains a possibility if enough teams do not qualify.
- it is "likely" the SBC will not permit us to play in the SBC championship game, particularly if there is no NY6 eligibility.

All of these are disappointing, but doesn't necessarily mean we are "locked into" particular bowls if we find ourselves eligible at season end. My understanding is the bowls themselves determine who will participate, subject to their own rules and contracts. There were a couple nice ones with openings about two seasons ago that had to be filled with waivers/exemptions.

Right, each bowl and conference do their own thing. Some have a true pecking order while others just have a pool and try to create the best matchups and geography.

That being said, what the Athletic tweeted out implied that the bowls will first only fill slots (through their own methods) only using the teams that are eligible through the normal qualifications. Only once that's done can any FCS to FBS or 5 win teams be considered. So the SBC and their bowl partners will not consider JMU the first go around. Same goes for the other conferences. Then there could be a bowl that may be CUSA v MAC that doesn't have a CUSA team available.

Last year both NMSU and Rice got the expected low tier bowls. 2 years ago Rutgers got into the Gator Bowl, which is pretty solid. But it was only because of a last minute Texas A&M COVID breakout. If the 2021 bowl season was being planned from the start with 1 team short, everyone else would slide up and Rutgers would have gone to a lesser bowl.

(05-09-2023 10:42 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Don't the conference bowl ties-ins have a pecking order? So if the SBC had to supply teams for 5 bowls they go down the list picking and the last bowl at the bottom would not have an eligible bowl team to choose which opens the door for us. I'm certain if we get to a bowl through this backdoor method that we'll be getting a less than desirable bowl.

wikipedia Wrote:Records vs. selection order
The contracts specify that the respective bowl committees receive a certain choice of teams. The selection order lists shown below (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc.) indicate only the order in which the respective bowl committees make their selections. The choices are typically not predicated on end-of-season rankings or actually final regular season records/standings. For example, a bowl with the "# 3 pick" from a particular conference does not mean necessarily it has to select the "third place team" from that conference. When it becomes that committee's turn to pick, it may pick any of the remaining teams from that conference (with respect to the aforementioned eligibility rules detailed above).

A committee may select one team over another due to geographical proximity, travel ability for the fanbase, or other factors. Bowls may choose to "skip" teams in order to avoid regular season rematches, or perhaps bowl rematches from the previous season. In various cases, bowls have embraced a particular team(s) participating in same bowl in two consecutive seasons, but may shy away from inviting them for a third consecutive season. However, in most cases, the order loosely follows the general order of the regular season records/rankings.

Some conferences have special selection parameters written into their contracts with specific bowls—for example, the Citrus Bowl is contractually obligated to select the winningest Big Ten and SEC teams that do not make a CFP game (semifinal or New Year's Six Bowl), or a team within one win of the winningest in its conference. The MAC's bowl contracts require that both division champions, if eligible, receive bids to one of its five contracted bowls.

2022 Order of selection
Teams must be bowl-eligible to be selected for a bowl game. Should a conference not have enough eligible teams to meet their obligations, the bowls at the end of the selection process are free to choose a replacement team from among any remaining bowl-eligible teams that are not already committed to a bowl game. If a conference has multiple teams chosen for the CFP/New Year's Six games, the remaining bowls still select in the same order. For example, if two Pac-12 teams are in the CFP, the Alamo Bowl would then have the third (and not second) selection from the Pac-12, and all remaining bowls would also shift accordingly. This increases the likelihood that the conference will not be able to provide enough teams to meet its tie-in obligations.


Sun Belt Conference
2022

Guaranteed Bids:

The New Orleans Bowl versus Conference USA
The LendingTree Bowl versus MAC

3 Bids from the following:

The Boca Raton Bowl
The Camellia Bowl
The Cure Bowl
The Famous Idaho Potato Bowl
The First Responder Bowl
The Frisco Bowl
The Myrtle Beach Bowl
The New Mexico Bowl

SBC peacking order:

1. ESPN Bowl Pool*
2. New Orleans*
3. ESPN Bowl Pool
4. ESPN Bowl Pool
5. Mobile

*While the New Orleans bowl is the 2nd pick for the league officially, they were the first ever SBC tied bowl, and because of that they can contractually jump ESPN for the first pick twice in a 5 year period if they so choose. They did that in 2021 when the jumped ESPN to take a nationally ranked ULL. It is not required, but generally understood they will do this only for a Western Division school.

(05-09-2023 10:58 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 10:42 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Don't the conference bowl ties-ins have a pecking order? So if the SBC had to supply teams for 5 bowls they go down the list picking and the last bowl at the bottom would not have an eligible bowl team to choose which opens the door for us. I'm certain if we get to a bowl through this backdoor method that we'll be getting a less than desirable bowl.

I'm thinking its possible a bowl outside the SBC tie-ins could select JMU if they have openings. It would be subject to their own criteria however.

If a conference doesn't have enough to fill its own slots, the bowl game shorted, first must choose from any 6-6 Eligible FBS team in the country. If none are available, than they would pick JMU.

Usually the bowls that get shorted are the lowest rung games, but there's a benefit to not having enough bowl eligible teams nationally AND the SBC filling its 5 bowl slots. If say its the ACC that shorts its bowls, the bowls they are shorting are naturally going to be better than the bottom rung SBC bowls.

Where it gets tricky is if the Mountain West or MAC shorts their bowls. If so, they automatically short the Arizona Bowl, which is the only bowl that does not have a TV partner and instead only streams the game. No one wants that bowl.

(05-09-2023 12:54 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 10:58 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 10:42 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Don't the conference bowl ties-ins have a pecking order? So if the SBC had to supply teams for 5 bowls they go down the list picking and the last bowl at the bottom would not have an eligible bowl team to choose which opens the door for us. I'm certain if we get to a bowl through this backdoor method that we'll be getting a less than desirable bowl.

I'm thinking its possible a bowl outside the SBC tie-ins could select JMU if they have openings. It would be subject to their own criteria however.

If a conference doesn't have enough to fill its own slots, the bowl game shorted, first must choose from any 6-6 Eligible FBS team in the country. If none are available, than they would pick JMU.

Usually the bowls that get shorted are the lowest rung games, but there's a benefit to not having enough bowl eligible teams nationally AND the SBC filling its 5 bowl slots. If say its the ACC that shorts its bowls, the bowls they are shorting are naturally going to be better than the bottom rung SBC bowls.

Where it gets tricky is if the Mountain West or MAC shorts their bowls. If so, they automatically short the Arizona Bowl, which is the only bowl that does not have a TV partner and instead only streams the game. No one wants that bowl.

This is the scenario I was thinking of. Rooting against all ACC teams this year.

How sweet would it be to crush UVA, make them ineligible, *and* take their ACC bowl slot?

To clarify the SBC Championship Game issue: That's up to the conference AD's, who will likely vote on that at the Spring meetings, which usually take place during the baseball tournament. at the end of the month.

The SBC could certainly allow JMU to play in the SBC champinship should they qualify, but the problem is that if JMU was to win the title, they would be ineligible for gaining an NY6 bowl. The conference AD's have to be okay with risking giving up an access bowl spot and the millions of dollars it brings to allow JMU to win a title. There is precedent, we let Georgia Southern and App stay title eligible in 2014, but we also knew going in we had no chance of cracking the access bowl. With the AAC severely weakened, and the MWC in trouble, that's not a certainty this year.

(05-09-2023 01:34 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  To clarify the SBC Championship Game issue: That's up to the conference AD's, who will likely vote on that at the Spring meetings, which usually take place during the baseball tournament. at the end of the month.

The SBC could certainly allow JMU to play in the SBC champinship should they qualify, but the problem is that if JMU was to win the title, they would be ineligible for gaining an NY6 bowl. The conference AD's have to be okay with risking giving up an access bowl spot and the millions of dollars it brings to allow JMU to win a title. There is precedent, we let Georgia Southern and App stay title eligible in 2014, but we also knew going in we had no chance of cracking the access bowl. With the AAC severely weakened, and the MWC in trouble, that's not a certainty this year.

They didn't do it last year when we played a full FBS schedule. I don't see why they would do it this year.
And the answer is simple... money. If we were to win, there's a chance the champion wouldn't be in a bowl game and that's money lost for the conference. If we somehow were eligible to get in (far from a guarantee), then most likely have to settle for a lesser bowl which is also less money than the champion would get.
It would be a statement by the conference if they voted us in and Gill has said over and over again how prepared we are. Even with all the documentation from the Sun Belt and the support, I don't think they are going to vote to make us eligible. Hypocritical? Yes. But their reasoning will be money and the conference needs to continue to strengthen... something it could not do if we were to win and be denied a bowl.

So..the NCAA bylaws are:

Year 1: Nothing
Year 2: Bowl eligible, but no conference championship
Year 3: All options available

Doesn't this mean that THIS year we are bowl eligible and don't need to wait for last minute match-up with a 5-7 / 6-6 team?

(05-09-2023 03:46 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  So..the NCAA bylaws are:

Year 1: Nothing
Year 2: Bowl eligible, but no conference championship
Year 3: All options available

Doesn't this mean that THIS year we are bowl eligible and don't need to wait for last minute match-up with a 5-7 / 6-6 team?

This isn’t exactly true. The NCAA bylaws aren’t saying “no conference championship” in year 1 or 2, the conference is, and the “bowl eligible” in year 2 is with a huge asterisk.

Ohhh.. that's the asterisk

*In year 2 you can have the last bowl if you win 6 games

Year 2 you aren't fully bowl eligible, but can fill in if there don't end up being enough fully bowl eligible teams. So not enough 6-6 teams or better. The conference championship is purely up to the conference themselves. GS won the SBC Championship in their transition year, but that was when the SBC had no CCG. No conference is gonna let a team that isn't bowl eligible play their CCG.

(05-09-2023 05:11 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Ohhh.. that's the asterisk

*In year 2 you can have the last bowl if you win 6 games

Right. According to the Athletic's Chris Vanini, the order would be

1. Normally bowl eligible teams with 6+ wins
2. 2nd year FCS to FBS transition teams with 6+ wins
3. 5-7 teams based on team academic ranking

(05-09-2023 05:25 PM)space orange Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 05:11 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Ohhh.. that's the asterisk

*In year 2 you can have the last bowl if you win 6 games

Right. According to the Athletic's Chris Vanini, the order would be

1. Normally bowl eligible teams with 6+ wins
2. 2nd year FCS to FBS transition teams with 6+ wins
3. 5-7 teams based on team academic ranking

...as if they wouldn't find some new reason. "uh, the Dead Sea Scrolls have a clause mentioning that Liberty and the USAF academy should be in a bowl. So, you know, sorry guys. You knew the rules."