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. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 9:42 AM #

    TOB said in his post-game show that the Pack would practice Wednesday – Friday.

  2. Noah 12/01/2008 at 10:24 AM #

    Back in the 80s, the NCAA tried to intervene in a television contract between somebody and the SEC. They got sued and lost. As a result, they have limited authority on things outside of compliance with eligibility, recruiting rules, and stuff like that.

    Hell, for most of its existence, the NCAA hasn’t even recognized a champion in football. If you go to the Case Center and look out 74 and 83 trophies, they say, “National Collegiate Athletic Association Champion.” If you go look at what Florida and LSU and schools like that have won…they say, “Sears National Champions.”

    The bowls are basically a made-for-TV exhibition game. It’s nice to go. It’s fun to watch. They make money for most of the people involved (sometimes tangentially, but they usually do their job).

    I just don’t think there’s a way, shy of blowing everything up and starting over from scratch, to turn D1 football into the NFL (which is what playoff advocates really want). There are too many vested interests that are deeply entrenched and are never going to let anyone willingly blow the whole thing up.

  3. JimValvano 12/01/2008 at 10:26 AM #

    Off topic, but Clemson has removed the “Interim” from Dabo Swinney’s title as “Interim Coach”. Just thought you might be interested.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3735939

  4. Girlfriend in a Coma 12/01/2008 at 10:56 AM #

    There is no way we won’t end up in a bowl, most likely the DC one. Two main reasons: 1) As others have pointed out, the NCAA’s jurisdiction here is dubious at best (I actually think it is non-existent), and per ACC rules we can go anywhere. 2) Money is what will count. We represent more money to the DC bowl than Wake. There is NO WAY that the ACC (per ACC rules we can go anywhere remember) tells the DC bowl they have to take Wake over us.

    What TOB and staff have done with this team is totally astounding. Injuries, brutal schedule, walk-ons starting, etc . . . and we are still playing the best ball in the ACC right now.

  5. VaWolf82 12/01/2008 at 10:57 AM #

    There are too many vested interests that are deeply entrenched and are never going to let anyone willingly blow the whole thing up.

    This is true, but the schools are the ones in charge…and specifically the BCS schools. If you really want to change the college FB postseason, then you need to start with a proposal that increases the money paid out to the BCS schools. Until you do that, there is simply no one in a position to care that is listening.

  6. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 11:00 AM #

    Off topic, but Clemson has removed the “Interim” from Dabo Swinney’s title as “Interim Coach”. Just thought you might be interested.

    We approve.

    Signed,
    Carl Torbush and Mike O’Cain

  7. Girlfriend in a Coma 12/01/2008 at 11:07 AM #

    More factors (continuing from my 2 reasons above) pointing to the DC bid are:

    3) Wake already played Navy (Navy is already locked in) this year (and got drilled IIRC), so that matchup would not be attractive and would limit the Wake traveling crowd even more.

    4) Maryland has already said they can’t do the DC bowl due to exams.

    5) With Maryland and Wake effectively out of the picture for DC, it almost has to be us.

  8. gcpack 12/01/2008 at 11:08 AM #

    It looks like it may be at least 7 days ( maybe 10) before State finds out anything. Problem with that is the DC bowl is on the 20th of Dec. I would normally consider going to that bowl with enough time to plan but I think it will be a problem to announce a bowl date that is less than 2 weeks for fans to respond.

  9. Girlfriend in a Coma 12/01/2008 at 11:20 AM #

    ^ Given my 1-5 reasons outlined above, it almost has to be us going to DC. The ACC should do that thing where the bowls ahead of the DC bowl “release” us so they can announce it this week and start selling tickets. I would bet that we hear something about us to DC before the weekend.

  10. RickJ 12/01/2008 at 11:34 AM #

    This bowl issue reminds me of an earlier discussion we had on this site regarding the scheduling of two IAA teams in one season. It looks like we are going to be doing this in 2009.

    In the previous discussion it seemed pretty unanimous that scheduling two IAA teams was a bad idea and could potentially hurt a team’s bowl chances in that they would have to have 7 wins to qualify for a bowl. While this is true, this NCAA rule about teams with a winning record going over 6 – 6 teams changes the equation somewhat. It looks like Clemson may have gained an advantage over us by playing two IAA teams this year. It doesn’t appear to have hurt Georgia Tech or Texas Tech either. I have not noticed any asterisks by Georgia Tech at 9 – 3 and Texas Tech at 11 – 1 and they both played two IAA teams this year. Is there a 6 – 6 team out there that is not bowl eligible because of playing two IAA teams?

  11. cowdog 12/01/2008 at 12:18 PM #

    Guys,
    I just want to apologize for feeding you wrong info yesterday.
    God I was obstinant, believing that the conference bowl rules applied. Thanks for getting my mind right with the Giglio article.

    The 2 FCS game is quite the conundrum. This may be why I was continually pig headed over Clemson’s record yesterday. Perhaps D1 would be better served if # of wins was the mark instead of win%, keeping the 2 FCS game rule in place.

  12. SuperStuff 12/01/2008 at 12:36 PM #

    I’m not getting excited until I hear something official, but it’s crazy we are even discussing this right now.

  13. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 12:51 PM #

    cowdog – no one is always right, so no worries. Bonus points too for manning up and posting a mea culpa.

    BTW, on that subject it is amusing how many Tar Heel fans are crawling back out of their holes after beating Duke. They sure were quiet last week.

  14. Daily Update 12/01/2008 at 12:57 PM #

    Rickj: I was the one who wrote that piece and you are right that Clemson seems to have gained an edge by playing two div-1 AA teams.

    Clemson played Alabama, USC, and two I-AA teams.

    We played USC, USF, ECU and a I-AA team.

    Next year we play USC, Pitt and two I-AA teams.

    The point is that another I-AA team this year would have likely replaced ECU on this year’s schedule which is a game we won. So we would still be 6-6. Next year the 2nd I-AA team replaces a scheduled game against ECU.

    Besides, I wasn’t suggesting adding a good division 1 team. I was in fact suggesting adding a the worst program willing to play us and to play the game on the road if that is what it takes. However, the 4 game winning streak has changed our outlook entirely. At the time, I was assuming another win or two(maybe 4-8 at best) and that next year was going to almost be a make or break year for the program.

    Things look a lot differently now though IMO it would have been foolish for our AD to be planning next year’s schedule based on this year’s team finishing 6-6 and making a bowl game.

  15. wufpaxno1 12/01/2008 at 1:16 PM #

    GF, Navy Beat Wake early in the season, a rematch in the DC bowl might serve as motivation for Wake and their traveling fan base, all five of them.

    The Pack will go bowling one way or another, we are just too attractive of a draw. We travel well, we are hot right now, without question the hottest team in the ACC, and we are the best story in ACC football over the second half of the season.

    Even if there are not enough ACC bowl tie ins to accommodate us, there are a number of bowls with ties to conferences without enough teams qualified, some of these are more attractive then the lower tier bowls with ACC tie ins.

    On the subject of BCS conferences, the ACC may not have a BCS Championship contender, but is by far the most balanced conference in College football for 2008. The ACC has a winning or even record against all of the other BCS save the Big 10 and, If I am not mistaken, the best over-all record against BCS opponents of any conference.

    4-0 vs Big XII, 0-1 vs Big 10 (Thanks Duke), 1-1 vs Pac 10, 2-2 vs Big East, 6-3 vs SEC, and 2-0 vs Notre Dame. Combined Record* 15-7 vs BCS conferences/teams. The ACC has played every major BCS conference team and ND. So shut up SEC and Big 12, you may have the most national title contenders but you have been bitch slapped by the ACC this year.

    Historically, and don’t you just love the last one, the
    ACC record was 115-95 before this season.
    Team played most BCS teams :Florida State record 16-10.
    Team played least BCS teams: NC State record 7-4.
    Amount of teams with winning records: 10.
    Teams with losing records: 2 (Duke 2-15) (N.Carolina 5-14)

    As far as which division of the ACC is better. NC State finished 4-4 in conference, 1-4 against the Atlantic, and 3-0 versus the Coastal, which does not leave much room for argument. Shouldn’t we be placed ahead of most of the teams from the Coastal, especially the two bowl eligible teams that we beat, UNC and Miami?

  16. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 1:26 PM #

    I like the headline over at fark.com: ‘ACC goes 3-1 against God’s conference’

  17. skywalkerdt 12/01/2008 at 1:30 PM #

    the article at the following link sheds some light about both the rules and what the ACC offices are trying to work out. It may be that if the ACC can secure a 10th bowl that you now have 10 bowls for 10 teams and due to the lack of separation in the standings bowls MAY then be able to pick whichever school they want. http://northcarolinastate.scout.com/2/817049.html

  18. Sam92 12/01/2008 at 1:47 PM #

    what i’m loving is that we’re actually in a position to have this discussion. what an amazing turnaround from 2-6!

  19. Noah 12/01/2008 at 2:22 PM #

    This is true, but the schools are the ones in charge…and specifically the BCS schools. If you really want to change the college FB postseason, then you need to start with a proposal that increases the money paid out to the BCS schools. Until you do that, there is simply no one in a position to care that is listening.

    And the schools have no interest in it, really. Big 10 and Pac 10 schools have already said they had no interest. I know full-well that none of the schools that have conference title games are going to want to go.

    And, remember…go to an eight-team playoff and all you’ve done is changed the argument to being about Texas and Oklahoma to being about why Utah or Boise State got left out. This. Never. Ends.

    I work with a guy who thinks it’s just criminal that there’s not a playoff. But he still watches all the games. He still has season-tickets to his alma mater. He still watches all the bowls. And he still spends time at the end of each day chatting about football.

    So…as far as the vested interests go, he’s a totally happy camper. He’s still contributing to good ratings and plenty of chatter.

  20. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 2:29 PM #

    ^ Noah hits the nail on the head: money keeps the old bowl system in place and until it starts costing colleges where it counts, you’ll never see any playoff system.

  21. CaptainCraptacular 12/01/2008 at 2:31 PM #

    Wufpaxno1, to pick a nit, I believe the ACC is 6-4 vs SEC this year, not 6-3. Bama beat Clemson, USC beat us, and UF beat Miami and FSU.

  22. Alpha Wolf 12/01/2008 at 2:47 PM #

    Folks,

    If you want your own avatar, go to http://en.gravatar.com and sign up using the same email address you used to register for the site.

  23. wufpaxno1 12/01/2008 at 3:02 PM #

    Cap’n, You are correct, …been try’n to forget that USC game. So I guess the ACC didn’t Slap the SEC quite as hard as the Big 12, but still bested them, and SEC fans are almost as bad as UNC fans when it comes to feeling that they have a God given place at the top.

  24. BJD95 12/01/2008 at 4:53 PM #

    No playoff system makes any sense unless it’s a 16-team format. The power conferences (especially the SEC and Big 12) would end up with the vast majority of slots and hosting rights for first 2 rounds, especially the high revenue later round games.

    I bitch about the bowl system, but I don’t watch all of the games. They get the same amount of interest from me as a regular season basketball game (except the title game and a handful of matchups I find interesting). To me, it’s insane to have a post-season that’s less interesting than the regular season.

  25. Daily Update 12/01/2008 at 5:23 PM #

    I think a 16 playoff is way, way too many teams. There aren’t 16 teams worthy of winning the title after the regular season. Every now and then a “plus one” scenario would help the BCS, but in general it has worked fine except for this year and when undefeated Auburn was left out of the title game. I could see tweaking to add a “plus one” but with but with conditions that the top four teams have to be within a certain range in the BCS standings.

1 2 3

Leave a Reply