Wake and Maryland aren’t options for Congressional Bowl?(updated 3:34 pm)

General55

Afternoon update:
At this point, I am not sure that this information is accurate. However, this appears to be great news though I disagree with Heather’s conclusions. As we have mentioned, Maryland is not an option for the Congressional Bowl because they have exams on the same date as the game. Apparently Navy’s agreement with the Congressional Bowl eliminates Wake Forest as well since the two teams met in the regular season. If necessary, then I imagine Navy could waive this part of their agreement. Assuming neither Wake or Maryland are options for the Congressional Bowl, then this seems to increase NC State’s chances of landing this particular bowl bid.

First, my bad for sending Wake Forest to the Eagle Bank Bowl in my earlier predictions. I didn’t know there was a clause in that contract that prevents Navy from playing any rematches. So that eliminates Wake Forest.

Consider Miami and NC State the top choices for the Eagle Bank Bowl. Before we figure out where NC State will wind up, though, the NCAA has to figure out how it views Clemson.

Here was the entry from earlier today:

As we attempted to explain earlier in the day, our bowl situation is a lot more complicated than some people have been led to believe.

The Wolfpack finished the regular season 6-6 overall, the minimum number of wins for bowl eligibility, but it is 4-4 in the ACC, which is either tied with or within one game of the nine other ACC bowl-eligible teams, which technically opens the door from Atlanta (Chik-fil-A Bowl) to Washington (EagleBank Bowl) for the Wolfpack.

But, and here comes the confusing and potentially disappointing part for the Wolfpack:

The ACC has 10 bowl-eligible teams and nine conference tie-ins. According to the NCAA Postseason Football Handbook, the ACC is required to fill its bowl slots with 7-win teams before 6-win teams.

N.C. State is the only bowl-eligible team with six wins, which under NCAA rule, leaves the Wolfpack on the outside looking in.

The NCAA doesn’t legislate the bowls, though. The bowls are contracted by the conferences and the two sides — not the NCAA — determine which teams plays where.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” said ACC associate commissioner Michael Kelly who coordinates the conference’s bowl contracts. “We have to get to the bottom of [the NCAA] rule and work with our bowl partners and the NCAA. It might be another seven days before we have an answer.”

Will Webb, the executive director of the Meineke Car Care Bowl in Charlotte, said he believes the NCAA rule is open to interpretation.

“It’s really a matter of everyone working together,” Webb said. “As long as the [ACC] can find a home for all of its 7-5 teams, [the ACC bowl partners] can take a 6-6 team.” …

….At best, N.C. State’s looking at four open at-large spots. At worst, there could be two spots for four 6-6 BCS teams. There will be five 6-6 teams from outside the BCS conferences by the end of the week.

Here is the rule from the NCAA addressing this issue:

30.9.2.1 Exception — 12 Game Season. FBS

An institution with a record of six wins and six losses may be selected for participation in a bowl game under the following circumstances: (Adopted: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)

(a) The institution or its conference has a primary contractual affiliation, which existed prior to the first contest of the applicable season, with the sponsoring bowl organization. In the case of a conference contractual affiliation, all conference teams with winning records must be placed in one of the contracted bowl games before any institution with a record of six wins and six losses may be placed in a contracted bowl game. There shall be no contingency agreements with other sponsoring bowl organizations intended to enable an institution with a record of six wins and six losses to become eligible for those contests; or

(b) All contractual affiliations per Bylaw 30.9.2.1-(a) have been fulfilled and all institutions with winning records have received bowl invitations (either through a contractual affiliation or as an at-large selection).

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

General

55 Responses to Wake and Maryland aren’t options for Congressional Bowl?(updated 3:34 pm)

  1. SEAT.5.F.2 11/30/2008 at 7:29 PM #

    It sounds reassuring that Fridge commented on how there are potentially ways to Bowl this season w/o enough tie-in’s. Gut feeling (not as good as Ralph’s) is that we play in D.C.

    I know some are cynical about 6-6 teams and their “reward” for just being avg, but though it’s is a stretch comparison, look at the NCAA mens basketball tourney; IMO the selection process is worth comparing.

    Bubble teams come down to these “at-large numbers” and automatic conference championship bids, different from the football tie-in’s but roll with me. In basketball take the 6-8 complete laughable cup cake games all the BCS conference bubble teams have and they are all essentially 13-12 type teams with .500 conference records. Tell me how much different is that than our 6-6 record with one cup cake W and a .500 conference record in football?

  2. RabidWolf 11/30/2008 at 7:31 PM #

    This makes things a bit more interesting. Also makes me almost certain that the ‘Pack will end up in DC.

    BE THERE!

  3. PacknSack 11/30/2008 at 7:45 PM #

    Exams? Fascinating how coaches are concerned about academics as an excuse to not do things. They don’t want to play in an early bowl; they don’t want to play in one where they won’t have to travel.

    This would be a dream bowl for them because of a) very low overhead and b) a very partisan crowd. If you want to go bowling, you take the bid you’re offered.

  4. RBCRowdy 11/30/2008 at 8:08 PM #

    Did Maryland just do us a huge favor while improving their own bowl bid based on what the DC bowl rep said?

    This is all way confusing to me, I have a feeling there will be law textbooks written on this situation…

  5. cowdog 11/30/2008 at 8:56 PM #

    Gosh guys, why do we still fret?

    THE NCAA DOES NOT REGULATE CONFERENCE CONTRACTS.
    State is open to any bid from any ACC bowl sans Orange.
    Clemson has 6 recognized wins, not 7.

    If BC does not win the championship that spells trouble for them.
    They will go bowling, but State is as likely to wind up in a comparable game as they are because of the reputation that goes along with BC and support.

    We are bowling peeps, rest assured. Just don’t know where yet.

  6. Daily Update 11/30/2008 at 9:05 PM #

    BC cannot fall past Nashville actually as the loser of the championship game. Giglio had the same opinion as you did earlier in the day. Once he got all of the relevant information and spoke with the bowl people, Fowler and folks from the ACC, he realized it was a lot more complicated.

    I think we end up in DC, but it isn’t as clear cut as you are making it out to be.

  7. Mike 11/30/2008 at 9:14 PM #

    So help me here – the NCAA rules say one thing. I dont believe the bowls are regualted by the NCAA – hence the BCS. If they were NCAA regulated, a playoff would be easy. The BCS is the reason we cannot have a playoff. Which rules?

  8. Daily Update 11/30/2008 at 9:15 PM #

    There are probably people better than me at predicting bowl bids. However, if we are going to make it to DC, then it probably looks something like this:

    BCS – VT
    Peach – FSU
    Gator – GT
    Champs Sports – UNC or Miami
    Nashville – BC (loser of title game can’t fall past Nashville)
    Meineke – UNC or Clemson
    San Fran – Clemson or Wake or Miami or Maryland
    Boise – Clemson or Wake or Miami or Maryland
    DC – NC State or Wake
    At large – Maryland or Wake

    or:

    BCS – BC
    Peach – VT(they have to take the conference game loser every few years, so they would take the Hokies this year)
    Gator – FSU
    Champ Sports – UNC or Miami
    Nashville – GT
    Meineke – UNC or Clemson
    San Fran – Wake or Miami or Clemson or Maryland
    Boise – Wake or Miami or Clemson or Maryland
    DC – NC State or Wake
    At large – Maryland or Wake

  9. wolfonthehill 11/30/2008 at 9:34 PM #

    Seems that nothing’s ever easy for us… no surprises here.

    That being said, one or more bowls will want us badly enough that they’ll find a way to make this work out. Bowls aren’t big fans of being told they HAVE to take team X… or CAN’T take team Y. Not when they’re footing the bill.

  10. cowdog 11/30/2008 at 9:37 PM #

    Ok, just read Giglio.

    Call me hard headed, but I don’t understand why we are refered to as the only 6 win team in the ACC. I have seen nothing related to win% and like a dead horse we all know that Clemson by virtue of 2 FCS wins is a 6 win team.

    I promise sit this mess out and later enjoy our trip to wherever.

  11. choppack1 11/30/2008 at 9:48 PM #

    Maybe it’s this simple – we’re the only 6 loss team eligible in the ACC. We’re the only bowl eligible team that doesn’t have a losing record.

    Daily Update – how are we going to get out an ACC bid? My impression is that unless there’s a back-room deal that sends one of the other eligible teams elsewhere, we have to go at large.

  12. VaWolf82 11/30/2008 at 9:54 PM #

    Clemson has 6 recognized wins, not 7.

    So what? The clause being discussed begins:

    An institution with a record of six wins and six losses…

    This rule doesn’t apply to Clemson…they don’t have six losses.

  13. Daily Update 11/30/2008 at 9:56 PM #

    Choppack: That is my impression as well. The at-large situation is complicated, but Giglio does a good job explaining it in the link.

    As far as Clemson, they are 7-5(the key being only 5 losses). They have a winning record and therefore are not in the same predicament as NC State.

  14. tvp1 11/30/2008 at 10:09 PM #

    Feeling a little better about our shot at DC after reading that.

    The NCAA’s rule on conference affiliations taking 7-5 teams over 6-6 teams is clearly designed to prevent 7-5 teams from minor conferences from getting screwed. Example: Say there were three WAC/MAC 7-5 teams and 3 open at-large spots, and the ACC pulled a deal to get us into DC and 7-5 Maryland into one of the at larges. That would essentially substitute a 6-6 team for a 7-5 team in an at large.

    But that’s NOT what will happen here regardless – every 7-5 team will be taken care of. It’s just a question of which 6-6 teams get into those final slots – us, or some crap team from the Sun Belt? In that case, we would not break the spirit of the rule by going to DC while Maryland/Wake gets an at large.

    Maryland/Wake are the two likely options for DC, and neither is good. Maryland flat out won’t go. Wake doesn’t want to play Navy again. Makes so much sense for us to go there and get a deal done.

  15. LRM 11/30/2008 at 10:23 PM #

    At least we’re in a position to even be discussing this predicament. Not many of us thought this would be the case after the Maryland loss.

    What will really drive you crazy is thinking about what could have been had we taken care of business against either BC, FSU, or Maryland, which would realistically put the Peach Bowl in the mix.

    The one thing you can always count on in college football is that money makes the decisions, so we’ll be ok.

  16. LRM 11/30/2008 at 10:28 PM #

    Does anyone not think that Maryland’s “conflict” with the D.C. bowl isn’t some good ol’ fashioned scheming by the ACC to ensure all 10 teams go bowling?

    Seriously. Swofford might have ended the ACC as we knew it with expansion, but he’s not anti-State and it directly behooves him as the commissioner of the ACC to promote all ACC teams, if for no other reason than the ACC splits its revenues evenly among its members. Expansion has to pay for itself, after all.

  17. Greywolf 11/30/2008 at 10:41 PM #

    NCAA throws monkey wrench in Pack bowl plans and Pack throws monkey wrench in UNChoke 😉 bowl plans. If you see a blue on white “UNChoke” bumper-sticker, honk. Could be Greywolf.

  18. choppack1 11/30/2008 at 10:59 PM #

    I don’t know what UMd is thinking. Their collapse really gives them no leverage – it’s not like they finished 6-2, in a tie for first or even in second, they finished in a tie for 3rd w/ 4 other teams and they’re only 7-5. So I’m guessing they are sincere about this.

    I do know this, if I’m DC, I’d like a little more than 2 weeks to sell tickets to my event.

  19. b 12/01/2008 at 12:04 AM #

    LRM, if we had beaten only BC and FSU, we would be in Tampa.

  20. McLovin 12/01/2008 at 12:37 AM #

    b, if we had beaten any 2 of the 4 ACC teams we lost to, we would be in Tampa.

    My impression is that the ACC and the people in charge of the bowls are determined to send us somewhere, which is just fine by me

  21. packgrad2000 12/01/2008 at 2:11 AM #

    So I assume while this is all being figured out, we’re still practicing as if we’re going to a bowl? Which is half the reason we want to go to a bowl anyway, right? So at worst, even if we somehow got left out after this weekend (as unlikely as that is), at least we got another week of practice in!

  22. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 8:23 AM #

    At least we’re not going to Boise.

  23. SEAT.5.F.2 12/01/2008 at 8:28 AM #

    “We want the best situation we can find,” Fowler said.

    This is probably the auto reply this week while our AD takes some much deserved R & R.

  24. Wulfpack 12/01/2008 at 8:36 AM #

    Good summary of the situation in today’s paper:

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/story/386778.html

  25. NCSU88 12/01/2008 at 9:30 AM #

    Is the team allowed to practice this week? Certainly we would make the most of the indecision and get some more reps in.

1 2 3

Leave a Reply