(11-26-2014 11:43 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(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.

I don't think we would have been all about it if we were looking to get win number 6 this weekend and become bowl eligible. I think our administration just did it more so based off of us winning the conference and hitting 6 wins half way through the season.

But as said on here before, I think a lot of this is more of a PR move anyway.

App still needs to win another game to get bowl-eligible. The game against non-counter Campbell doesn't count towards bowl eligiblity

It's not a formality, Idaho has been competitive in most of their games.

Just back from my lunch her in downtown town Indy. Went over to the NCAA offices about a qtr mile away. I distracted President Mark Emmerts secratary with a box of Krispy Kremes then snuck past her as he walked out of his office, kicked him right in the nads stepped on his neck and took his license and told him I now know where he lives. He then agreed that GS and App being in a bowl was a done deal.

(11-25-2014 10:47 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  There isn't one program worth its salt that wouldn't fight for their student athletes conference be damned.

While I don't think App should get a spot over non transitional SBC programs I'd be upset if we didn't file for the waiver to show those players we support them first.

I'll take it a step further. This is a no lose situation for us. If we don't get the waiver nothing is changed. If we do get it and a bowl decides to invite us over another school, I'm not going to cry tears for that other school at all. if a bowl decides that we are more attractive than another school, that's not our problem.

All we have done is ask a question. Whatever else comes of this is not ours to control.

(11-26-2014 02:04 PM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 10:47 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  There isn't one program worth its salt that wouldn't fight for their student athletes conference be damned.

While I don't think App should get a spot over non transitional SBC programs I'd be upset if we didn't file for the waiver to show those players we support them first.

I'll take it a step further. This is a no lose situation for us. If we don't get the waiver nothing is changed. If we do get it and a bowl decides to invite us over another school, I'm not going to cry tears for that other school at all. if a bowl decides that we are more attractive than another school, that's not our problem.

All we have done is ask a question. Whatever else comes of this is not ours to control.

Cop out and situational ethics.

No different than ULL going to the conference office and asking that the waiver to allow Georgia Southern to win the championship be rescinded after the fact...and them doing it just because the New Orleans Bowl would be more attractive if it had the conference champion in it.

(11-26-2014 10:57 AM)GST-bone09 Wrote:  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.

Translation: I only care about this rule because it affects me.

And that's fine. But don't pretend (and I'm not accusing you specifically on this) to be championing the greater good. Own that you are doing it because it has an impact on you.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to how this is a selfish or bad decision on either of our parts. Of course we're not gonna try to get a waiver before the season or before we were FBS, that's ridiculous. And yeah, we're gonna try to reward our seniors and players after having a great season. If bowl games decided we were more attractive, take it up with them.

It doesn't matter though, we won't get the waiver or get a bowl even if we did.

(11-26-2014 02:38 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to how this is a selfish or bad decision on either of our parts. Of course we're not gonna try to get a waiver before the season or before we were FBS, that's ridiculous. And yeah, we're gonna try to reward our seniors and players after having a great season. If bowl games decided we were more attractive, take it up with them.

It doesn't matter though, we won't get the waiver or get a bowl even if we did.

Why is it ridiculous to try to change a bad rule?

Or, why is it any less ridiculous to change a bad rule only when t applies to you?

(11-26-2014 02:38 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to how this is a selfish or bad decision on either of our parts.

(11-26-2014 02:38 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to how this is a selfish or bad decision on either of our parts. Of course we're not gonna try to get a waiver before the season or before we were FBS, that's ridiculous. And yeah, we're gonna try to reward our seniors and players after having a great season. If bowl games decided we were more attractive, take it up with them.

It doesn't matter though, we won't get the waiver or get a bowl even if we did.

It's the school playing to the fans. That's what schools do. The cost of paper, envelope and postage.

Why change something that doesn't affect us? We probably didn't expect to have enough wins this year to be hypothetically eligible.
Plus, we're not necessarily trying to change the rule, just get an exemption. I just don't see the issue here, there is literally no reason not to at least try.

(11-26-2014 02:50 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  Why change something that doesn't affect us? We probably didn't expect to have enough wins this year to be hypothetically eligible.
Plus, we're not necessarily trying to change the rule, just get an exemption. I just don't see the issue here, there is literally no reason not to at least try.

because if it work it would hurt the feelings of a team that might not get to play

(11-26-2014 02:40 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 02:38 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to how this is a selfish or bad decision on either of our parts.

Yes?

I don't believe there is any team or fan base that wouldn't try for this waiver if they were in the exact same situation. So everyone crying about us "trying to change the rules" only because it affects us, or that we knew the rules coming into the season can shut their mouth. If roles were reversed you would be doing the same thing.

(11-26-2014 03:30 PM)Venaros Wrote:  I don't believe there is any team or fan base that wouldn't try for this waiver if they were in the exact same situation. So everyone crying about us "trying to change the rules" only because it affects us, or that we knew the rules coming into the season can shut their mouth. If roles were reversed you would be doing the same thing.

That's called situational ethics, the depratvity of others under pressure is not a moral compass.

(11-26-2014 02:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 02:38 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to how this is a selfish or bad decision on either of our parts. Of course we're not gonna try to get a waiver before the season or before we were FBS, that's ridiculous. And yeah, we're gonna try to reward our seniors and players after having a great season. If bowl games decided we were more attractive, take it up with them.

It doesn't matter though, we won't get the waiver or get a bowl even if we did.

It's the school playing to the fans. That's what schools do. The cost of paper, envelope and postage.

I agree with this. Don't blame the school for trying, but I think it's more about keeping fans interested than anything else. Interested fans means (hopefully) $$ involvement. That's what's at the core. They've got to find a way to get more $$, so use every opportunity to market the program.

I'd be just as happy, maybe happier, if we were gearing up for a first-round playoff game this weekend. Ah well. GATA that Bowl waiver thingy.

(11-26-2014 03:40 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I agree with this. Don't blame the school for trying, but I think it's more about keeping fans interested than anything else. Interested fans means (hopefully) $$ involvement. That's what's at the core. They've got to find a way to get more $$, so use every opportunity to market the program.

I'd be just as happy, maybe happier, if we were gearing up for a first-round playoff game this weekend. Ah well. GATA that Bowl waiver thingy.

I think we'd all be happier gearing up for a playoff run.

The only thing I miss about FCS.

(11-26-2014 02:51 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 02:50 PM)BurlingtonApp Wrote:  Why change something that doesn't affect us? We probably didn't expect to have enough wins this year to be hypothetically eligible.
Plus, we're not necessarily trying to change the rule, just get an exemption. I just don't see the issue here, there is literally no reason not to at least try.

because if it work it would hurt the feelings of a team that might not get to play

If they didn't want their feeling hurt then they should have tried a bit harder to stop up from running Cox right down their throats. They do that and this is a non issue.

(11-26-2014 02:36 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 10:57 AM)GST-bone09 Wrote:  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.

Translation: I only care about this rule because it affects me.

And that's fine. But don't pretend (and I'm not accusing you specifically on this) to be championing the greater good. Own that you are doing it because it has an impact on you.

Of course I only care about this because my team is being affected by this. I never said that wasn't the case. I'm selfish and I want my Eagles to go to a bowl and I don't care who would get left out because of it. That doesn't mean that what I want can't have a greater good impact. We're not just asking for a one time waiver but a change to a stupid rule. Even if it doesn't help us this year, the rule needs to change. Even if they were to get rid of the rule and we were the team left out of a bowl I would still agree that the rule needed to change.