(11-01-2023 02:22 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:23 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  The only difference I see is that you had two FBS years while our 1st transition year was still in FCS.

Pretty big difference . . .

not in the context of the current discussion which is:

JMU - We are special, we want a waiver.
NCAA - No you can't have one.
JMU -

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:10 PM)GS99-00 Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 01:24 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:23 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  They had the same waivers in place when GS and Appy moved up. They also denied our waivers. So my point still stands. If I remember correctly, we also had less than the required number of bowl eligible teams and both of our waivers for that were denied too. The only difference I see is that you had two FBS years while our 1st transition year was still in FCS.

As I said, we are getting into the weeds and the specifics matter, especially that point you bring up regarding 2 FBS years.

The GS waiver was submitted after the year 2 regular season to become fully bowl eligible during the second year of transition by becoming a "deserving team" definition. That waiver was denied.

JMU did not submit a waiver specific to bowl eligibility but to count JMU as a full, non-transitional team, FBS team starting 7/1/23. It basically said, hey we have done everything needed to be FBS, why make us wait another year? Lets just call 2022 our second year since we met everything that needs to be accomplished by year 2 so that 2023 can became year 3.

Yes, our waiver would have accomplished what GS and App St attempted to do in that we would be immediately considered a "deserving team" this year, but there would have been additional changes too. Jalen Greene would be rightfully recognized on NCAA.com as leading the nation in sacks. It would made JMU eligible for ~$2M related to CFP distributions via SBC participation and the SBC's media contract. Additionally, the SBC now has rules that weren't in place at the time of the GS waiver. GS got to play in title game, JMU cannot. Not arguing the rule change as it was in place when we joined SBC, but JMU could be playing in the game this year had our waiver been successful.

Our waiver was more comprehensive and thus more similar to Liberty (requirements on conference should be ignored when joining FBS) and St. Thomas (minimum year requirements for transition should be ignored) than those of GS and App St (transition teams should be considered 'deserving teams' for bowl games).

In 2014, there wasn't a SBCCG to be played in; there weren't any divisions at the time and that was under a former Commissioner's watch. The current members and Keith Gill, didn't wanna put the SBC at a disadvantage if JMU had a magical season that would basically lock the SBC outta the NY6 $$$

We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

Since that isn't possible, the conference should vote for JMU to be eligible. A Troy / JMU rematch is the best game we can have and JUM deserves it. The other teams in the East can beat them on the field if they want a shot.

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:10 PM)GS99-00 Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 01:24 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:23 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:12 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  I think most share the same "Rules are silly, need to be change" thought, but that isn't the only part that some people are whining about.

The rules allow for waivers and exceptions, which was also known by all parties when JMU applied. JMU incurred time and costs going through that process, with guidance from the NCAA; however, the NCAA under new leadership since JMU signed the dotted line, denied the waiver and effectively said "exceptions are silly, they need to go." That doesn't align with the NCAA's decision when Liberty joined FBS via exemptions nor when St. Thomas joined D1 via exemptions.

But that discuss requires getting into the weeds and most people out there (on both sides of the position) can't make it past the headlines.

They had the same waivers in place when GS and Appy moved up. They also denied our waivers. So my point still stands. If I remember correctly, we also had less than the required number of bowl eligible teams and both of our waivers for that were denied too. The only difference I see is that you had two FBS years while our 1st transition year was still in FCS.

As I said, we are getting into the weeds and the specifics matter, especially that point you bring up regarding 2 FBS years.

The GS waiver was submitted after the year 2 regular season to become fully bowl eligible during the second year of transition by becoming a "deserving team" definition. That waiver was denied.

JMU did not submit a waiver specific to bowl eligibility but to count JMU as a full, non-transitional team, FBS team starting 7/1/23. It basically said, hey we have done everything needed to be FBS, why make us wait another year? Lets just call 2022 our second year since we met everything that needs to be accomplished by year 2 so that 2023 can became year 3.

Yes, our waiver would have accomplished what GS and App St attempted to do in that we would be immediately considered a "deserving team" this year, but there would have been additional changes too. Jalen Greene would be rightfully recognized on NCAA.com as leading the nation in sacks. It would made JMU eligible for ~$2M related to CFP distributions via SBC participation and the SBC's media contract. Additionally, the SBC now has rules that weren't in place at the time of the GS waiver. GS got to play in title game, JMU cannot. Not arguing the rule change as it was in place when we joined SBC, but JMU could be playing in the game this year had our waiver been successful.

Our waiver was more comprehensive and thus more similar to Liberty (requirements on conference should be ignored when joining FBS) and St. Thomas (minimum year requirements for transition should be ignored) than those of GS and App St (transition teams should be considered 'deserving teams' for bowl games).

In 2014, there wasn't a SBCCG to be played in; there weren't any divisions at the time and that was under a former Commissioner's watch. The current members and Keith Gill, didn't wanna put the SBC at a disadvantage if JMU had a magical season that would basically lock the SBC outta the NY6 $$$

We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

It's a shame, our losses are to CFP #23 Kansas State and AP #23 JMU. Our other two losses since Jon Sumrall took over are to #20 Ole Miss and App State on a hail mary.

Also, we don't play a style of football that gives us offensive style points that looks good on CFP resumes, we play ball control and suffocating defense. We're not going to run enough plays to run up the score. We are 3rd in the SBC in yards per play though, and we do move the ball pretty well.

(11-01-2023 02:39 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:10 PM)GS99-00 Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 01:24 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  As I said, we are getting into the weeds and the specifics matter, especially that point you bring up regarding 2 FBS years.

The GS waiver was submitted after the year 2 regular season to become fully bowl eligible during the second year of transition by becoming a "deserving team" definition. That waiver was denied.

JMU did not submit a waiver specific to bowl eligibility but to count JMU as a full, non-transitional team, FBS team starting 7/1/23. It basically said, hey we have done everything needed to be FBS, why make us wait another year? Lets just call 2022 our second year since we met everything that needs to be accomplished by year 2 so that 2023 can became year 3.

Yes, our waiver would have accomplished what GS and App St attempted to do in that we would be immediately considered a "deserving team" this year, but there would have been additional changes too. Jalen Greene would be rightfully recognized on NCAA.com as leading the nation in sacks. It would made JMU eligible for ~$2M related to CFP distributions via SBC participation and the SBC's media contract. Additionally, the SBC now has rules that weren't in place at the time of the GS waiver. GS got to play in title game, JMU cannot. Not arguing the rule change as it was in place when we joined SBC, but JMU could be playing in the game this year had our waiver been successful.

Our waiver was more comprehensive and thus more similar to Liberty (requirements on conference should be ignored when joining FBS) and St. Thomas (minimum year requirements for transition should be ignored) than those of GS and App St (transition teams should be considered 'deserving teams' for bowl games).

In 2014, there wasn't a SBCCG to be played in; there weren't any divisions at the time and that was under a former Commissioner's watch. The current members and Keith Gill, didn't wanna put the SBC at a disadvantage if JMU had a magical season that would basically lock the SBC outta the NY6 $$$

We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

Since that isn't possible, the conference should vote for JMU to be eligible. A Troy / JMU rematch is the best game we can have and JUM deserves it. The other teams in the East can beat them on the field if they want a shot.

No they shouldn't and no they don't

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:10 PM)GS99-00 Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 01:24 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:23 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  They had the same waivers in place when GS and Appy moved up. They also denied our waivers. So my point still stands. If I remember correctly, we also had less than the required number of bowl eligible teams and both of our waivers for that were denied too. The only difference I see is that you had two FBS years while our 1st transition year was still in FCS.

As I said, we are getting into the weeds and the specifics matter, especially that point you bring up regarding 2 FBS years.

The GS waiver was submitted after the year 2 regular season to become fully bowl eligible during the second year of transition by becoming a "deserving team" definition. That waiver was denied.

JMU did not submit a waiver specific to bowl eligibility but to count JMU as a full, non-transitional team, FBS team starting 7/1/23. It basically said, hey we have done everything needed to be FBS, why make us wait another year? Lets just call 2022 our second year since we met everything that needs to be accomplished by year 2 so that 2023 can became year 3.

Yes, our waiver would have accomplished what GS and App St attempted to do in that we would be immediately considered a "deserving team" this year, but there would have been additional changes too. Jalen Greene would be rightfully recognized on NCAA.com as leading the nation in sacks. It would made JMU eligible for ~$2M related to CFP distributions via SBC participation and the SBC's media contract. Additionally, the SBC now has rules that weren't in place at the time of the GS waiver. GS got to play in title game, JMU cannot. Not arguing the rule change as it was in place when we joined SBC, but JMU could be playing in the game this year had our waiver been successful.

Our waiver was more comprehensive and thus more similar to Liberty (requirements on conference should be ignored when joining FBS) and St. Thomas (minimum year requirements for transition should be ignored) than those of GS and App St (transition teams should be considered 'deserving teams' for bowl games).

In 2014, there wasn't a SBCCG to be played in; there weren't any divisions at the time and that was under a former Commissioner's watch. The current members and Keith Gill, didn't wanna put the SBC at a disadvantage if JMU had a magical season that would basically lock the SBC outta the NY6 $$$

We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

IF we were *not* the only team still alive at this point for NY6 - and moreso if we had NO chance....believe me, JMU fans would 1000% back the SBC rep

(11-01-2023 02:38 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:22 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:23 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  The only difference I see is that you had two FBS years while our 1st transition year was still in FCS.

Pretty big difference . . .

not in the context of the current discussion which is:

JMU - We are special, we want a waiver.
NCAA - No you can't have one.
JMU -

Or the GA Southern opinion of: we are second best in the division and still want to pretend we are best. Their request is the most legit one ever submitted and there shouldn't be a waiver option if they aren't eligible.

(11-01-2023 02:41 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:10 PM)GS99-00 Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 01:24 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  As I said, we are getting into the weeds and the specifics matter, especially that point you bring up regarding 2 FBS years.

The GS waiver was submitted after the year 2 regular season to become fully bowl eligible during the second year of transition by becoming a "deserving team" definition. That waiver was denied.

JMU did not submit a waiver specific to bowl eligibility but to count JMU as a full, non-transitional team, FBS team starting 7/1/23. It basically said, hey we have done everything needed to be FBS, why make us wait another year? Lets just call 2022 our second year since we met everything that needs to be accomplished by year 2 so that 2023 can became year 3.

Yes, our waiver would have accomplished what GS and App St attempted to do in that we would be immediately considered a "deserving team" this year, but there would have been additional changes too. Jalen Greene would be rightfully recognized on NCAA.com as leading the nation in sacks. It would made JMU eligible for ~$2M related to CFP distributions via SBC participation and the SBC's media contract. Additionally, the SBC now has rules that weren't in place at the time of the GS waiver. GS got to play in title game, JMU cannot. Not arguing the rule change as it was in place when we joined SBC, but JMU could be playing in the game this year had our waiver been successful.

Our waiver was more comprehensive and thus more similar to Liberty (requirements on conference should be ignored when joining FBS) and St. Thomas (minimum year requirements for transition should be ignored) than those of GS and App St (transition teams should be considered 'deserving teams' for bowl games).

In 2014, there wasn't a SBCCG to be played in; there weren't any divisions at the time and that was under a former Commissioner's watch. The current members and Keith Gill, didn't wanna put the SBC at a disadvantage if JMU had a magical season that would basically lock the SBC outta the NY6 $$$

We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

IF we were *not* the only team still alive at this point for NY6 - and moreso if we had NO chance....believe me, JMU fans would 1000% back the SBC rep

that's just it.....you have no chance! You are ineligible.

(11-01-2023 02:40 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:39 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:10 PM)GS99-00 Wrote:  In 2014, there wasn't a SBCCG to be played in; there weren't any divisions at the time and that was under a former Commissioner's watch. The current members and Keith Gill, didn't wanna put the SBC at a disadvantage if JMU had a magical season that would basically lock the SBC outta the NY6 $$$

We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

Since that isn't possible, the conference should vote for JMU to be eligible. A Troy / JMU rematch is the best game we can have and JUM deserves it. The other teams in the East can beat them on the field if they want a shot.

No they shouldn't and no they don't

As the fan of a team whose season is over for all but contractual obligations, GS fans saying JMU shouldn't get tp play in the Champ Game sounds WAY whinier and self-important than JMU fans. Win it on the field or not at all. You should be embarrassed to vote against a team that beat you on the field. Looking up the score, they slaughtered you. I'd get cheering on teams they are playing against, but not wanting them to be eligible even if they won out? Despicable.

(11-01-2023 02:43 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:38 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:22 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:23 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  The only difference I see is that you had two FBS years while our 1st transition year was still in FCS.

Pretty big difference . . .

not in the context of the current discussion which is:

JMU - We are special, we want a waiver.
NCAA - No you can't have one.
JMU -

Or the GA Southern opinion of: we are second best in the division and still want to pretend we are best. Their request is the most legit one ever submitted and there shouldn't be a waiver option if they aren't eligible.

I haven't pretended to be anything. Rules are rules and you don't just change them willy nilly at a whim because you don't like them. I said the same thing when our waiver was denied. It sucked, but it was what it was. More whining wasn't going to change it.

(11-01-2023 02:49 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:40 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:39 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

Since that isn't possible, the conference should vote for JMU to be eligible. A Troy / JMU rematch is the best game we can have and JUM deserves it. The other teams in the East can beat them on the field if they want a shot.

No they shouldn't and no they don't

As the fan of a team whose season is over for all but contractual obligations, GS fans saying JMU shouldn't get tp play in the Champ Game sounds WAY whinier and self-important than JUM fans. Win it on the field or not at all. You should be embarrassed to vote against a team that beat you on the field. Looking up the score, they slaughtered you. I'd get cheering on teams they are playing against, but not wanting them to be eligible even if they won out? Despicable.

GS has done nothing to make them ineligible. They are by their own actions and own contractual agreement to join the FBS and SBC ineligible. There isn't a vote. There isn't a minimum amount of wins that changes their ineligibility. There isn't an "aww shucks guys, they beat us so we should say the rules don't apply to them". It doesn't matter whether we "want' them to be ineligible or not. They simply just are ineligible. Life's a *****. Somethings aren't fair. Get over it and move on.

Starting to think GS and ODU are more upset by this topic than JMU fans based on these boards this week.

(11-01-2023 12:48 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:45 PM)12thmonarch Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:40 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:28 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:24 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  This thread has become darn funny.

If JMU finishes the season with the best record in the East we all know who the real East champ is, just like last year.

Every other team in the East is playing for second place.

*

Not the burn you think it is, you do realize that * goes on the 2nd place team in the east getting to play in the CC, not on JMU.

Of all the teams in the conference its funny that this is happening to JMPoo because 1. You voted to uphold the rules that prevented ODU from claiming the championship due to transition back in the CAA days
2. That old Puke Scumbag Kirk cox made sure your BB facility is grand fathered in before he introduced a bogus house bill to hamper our FB stadium funding.

If everyone is following the rules, so should you and i am sure you will be so stop this sympathy parade, which it is no matter how you word it. BTW everybody on this board from recently transitioned teams know the dang rules so you guys can cool the second place team is playing in the championship. It doesn't matter what place they are as long as they are in it while you get to watch it. Pretty sweet actually.

Pretty sure five years from now the only ones that will remember that JMU had a better record than the east participant will be JMU fans.

Absolutely and they'll be crying about it for eternity.

(11-01-2023 02:49 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:40 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:39 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:36 PM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 02:30 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  We're locked out BECAUSE JMU isn't eligible. Troy and GS have too many losses.

semantics - JMU is ineligible AND no team is ranked high enough to beat out the other higher ranked conference champions for the NY6 bowl..

If for example Troy or GS were also undefeated and ranked, yet lost to an ineligible JMU in the CCG. JMU being in the CCG would have ultimately cost the SBC the chance at the NY6 because they are ineligible and knocked Troy or GS out.

Since that isn't possible, the conference should vote for JMU to be eligible. A Troy / JMU rematch is the best game we can have and JUM deserves it. The other teams in the East can beat them on the field if they want a shot.

No they shouldn't and no they don't

As the fan of a team whose season is over for all but contractual obligations, GS fans saying JMU shouldn't get tp play in the Champ Game sounds WAY whinier and self-important than JUM fans. Win it on the field or not at all. You should be embarrassed to vote against a team that beat you on the field. Looking up the score, they slaughtered you. I'd get cheering on teams they are playing against, but not wanting them to be eligible even if they won out? Despicable.

As a fan of a team who earned a football trophy that’s sitting in JMU’s case I have zero qualms.

If they’d won their waiver it’d be a different story but they didn’t. If JMU finishes the season strong then I personally will give them their due but see no reason to let them play for a championship. And also I’d love to have their SB East title on our ledger for poetic reasons.

Go Monarchs!

(11-01-2023 01:43 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:45 PM)12thmonarch Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:40 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:28 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:24 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  This thread has become darn funny.

If JMU finishes the season with the best record in the East we all know who the real East champ is, just like last year.

Every other team in the East is playing for second place.

*

Not the burn you think it is, you do realize that * goes on the 2nd place team in the east getting to play in the CC, not on JMU.

Of all the teams in the conference its funny that this is happening to JMPoo because 1. You voted to uphold the rules that prevented ODU from claiming the championship due to transition back in the CAA days
2. That old Puke Scumbag Kirk cox made sure your BB facility is grand fathered in before he introduced a bogus house bill to hamper our FB stadium funding.

If everyone is following the rules, so should you and i am sure you will be so stop this sympathy parade, which it is no matter how you word it. BTW everybody on this board from recently transitioned teams know the dang rules so you guys can cool the second place team is playing in the championship. It doesn't matter what place they are as long as they are in it while you get to watch it. Pretty sweet actually.

Hopefully you change your password as it seems your account was hacked by an 8 year-old, and an 8 year-old that isn't staying on topic of the asterisk.

Look at the thread title so take that * and shove it where ever you can because that isn't the topic either.

(11-01-2023 03:06 PM)jmu007 Wrote:  Starting to think GS and ODU are more upset by this topic than JMU fans based on these boards this week.

not upset by anything at all. Just answering and responding to comments that are directed toward me. It's a slow afternoon so I have time to respond. Nothing more nothing less.

3G - God's Gift to G5

I get why fans wouldn't want JMU to get what they earned with a CCG spot and instead are relying on arguments like "we had to do it so you have to as well", but administrators, and especially Gill, may think differently. JMU could very well have been rated as the top G5 if JMU was allowed to be bowl eligible and thus in the CFP rankings. ESPN put it well in an article last night.

Quote:But while they are not allowed to compete in the postseason quite yet, the Dukes' on-field performance would suggest otherwise. Indeed, JMU has a good case as the best team from the so-called Group of 5 and, therefore, would otherwise be in position for a New Year's Six Bowl -- a bid that would net about $4 million for the Sun Belt, by the way.

Indeed, there are only three Group of 5 teams that currently own multiple victories over FPI top-60 opponents: Tulane, Wyoming and JMU. Only one of those teams is undefeated.

JMU also owns a road win over a Power 5 opponent (Virginia), has the No. 10 strength of record in the country (ahead of Oregon, Penn State or Notre Dame) and has won 11 straight games dating to last year.

(11-01-2023 03:17 PM)12thmonarch Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 01:43 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:45 PM)12thmonarch Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:40 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 11:28 AM)ODUODUODU Wrote:  *

Not the burn you think it is, you do realize that * goes on the 2nd place team in the east getting to play in the CC, not on JMU.

Of all the teams in the conference its funny that this is happening to JMPoo because 1. You voted to uphold the rules that prevented ODU from claiming the championship due to transition back in the CAA days
2. That old Puke Scumbag Kirk cox made sure your BB facility is grand fathered in before he introduced a bogus house bill to hamper our FB stadium funding.

If everyone is following the rules, so should you and i am sure you will be so stop this sympathy parade, which it is no matter how you word it. BTW everybody on this board from recently transitioned teams know the dang rules so you guys can cool the second place team is playing in the championship. It doesn't matter what place they are as long as they are in it while you get to watch it. Pretty sweet actually.

Hopefully you change your password as it seems your account was hacked by an 8 year-old, and an 8 year-old that isn't staying on topic of the asterisk.

Look at the thread title so take that * and shove it where ever you can because that isn't the topic either.

Sure thing, but before you make your next pooh pooh joke I suggest you look up above and see you quoted a response about the *.

(11-01-2023 02:49 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  As the fan of a team whose season is over for all but contractual obligations, GS fans saying JMU shouldn't get tp play in the Champ Game sounds WAY whinier and self-important than JMU fans. Win it on the field or not at all. You should be embarrassed to vote against a team that beat you on the field. Looking up the score, they slaughtered you. I'd get cheering on teams they are playing against, but not wanting them to be eligible even if they won out? Despicable.

We wouldn't have anything to be embarrassed about voting against changing the rules in November. Any school in our position would do it. Now any schools that opposed eligibility in the off-season but then supported it after it became apparent they weren't going to win the division, now that would be a bad look.

And this idea playing an FCS schedule in the first season being the "pansy route" is really strange. Georgia Southern and App were eligible for both the playoffs and the SoCon title in 2013 and both gladly would've played a Sun Belt schedule that season if it were an option.

(11-01-2023 03:33 PM)bridgeforthduke Wrote:  I get why fans wouldn't want JMU to get what they earned with a CCG spot and instead are relying on arguments like "we had to do it so you have to as well", but administrators, and especially Gill, may think differently. JMU could very well have been rated as the top G5 if JMU was allowed to be bowl eligible and thus in the CFP rankings. ESPN put it well in an article last night.

Quote:But while they are not allowed to compete in the postseason quite yet, the Dukes' on-field performance would suggest otherwise. Indeed, JMU has a good case as the best team from the so-called Group of 5 and, therefore, would otherwise be in position for a New Year's Six Bowl -- a bid that would net about $4 million for the Sun Belt, by the way.

Indeed, there are only three Group of 5 teams that currently own multiple victories over FPI top-60 opponents: Tulane, Wyoming and JMU. Only one of those teams is undefeated.

JMU also owns a road win over a Power 5 opponent (Virginia), has the No. 10 strength of record in the country (ahead of Oregon, Penn State or Notre Dame) and has won 11 straight games dating to last year.

It's not the SBC that is saying they are not eligible for the post season, it is the NCAA. What Gill wants is irrelevant. If they had won their waiver request, the SBC/Gill would have most likely removed their ineligibility from the CCG.