(12-02-2014 08:47 AM)Whitdragn Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 07:12 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  App and GSU announced in April of 2013 and were ineligible for the 2013 playoffs.

App and GSU started their transition immediately (announce 2013 to reclassify in 2013, transition stated 7/1/2013). ODU did not (announce 2012 to reclassify in 2013, transition started 7/1/2013).

They are on the exact same timeline to become FBS and bowl eligible; but ODU delayed a year from the announcement which is why ODU was playoff eligible in 2012.

I'm in the "let's cross that bridge when we get there" camp on that one. I'll have to consume a lot of purple drinks in celebration of an FBS move before lamenting losing a year or two of playoff eligibility

Read in the paper this morning that JJ Green from Georgia is looking to transfer. Apparently, was a RB as a freshman, got moved to defense and is now looking to transfer. Currently a sophomore. Didn't appear to redshirt, so has the potential to transfer to FBS and sit a year, but maybe he is looking to transfer to FCS and play immediately. Did OK as a freshman RB. I'd imagine he would be a good get for us if Withers or even Vad Lee has some connection to him. With an exciting offense again, I could see Madison being a good destination for quality RBs or WRs.

http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-foot...37735.html

Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

So, we may get the "bye" that Richmond got this year in Morgan St (theoretically making the playoffs again) and RU would go to Liberty assuming they would outbid RU's attractive high school stadium.

(12-03-2014 12:39 PM)Oldduke Wrote:  Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

So, we may get the "bye" that Richmond got this year in Morgan St (theoretically making the playoffs again) and RU would go to Liberty assuming they would outbid RU's attractive high school stadium.

That would be that way I would view it, but sometimes the committee makes the rules up as they go along. See "NASCAR".

(12-03-2014 08:47 AM)Boris Wrote:  Read in the paper this morning that JJ Green from Georgia is looking to transfer. Apparently, was a RB as a freshman, got moved to defense and is now looking to transfer. Currently a sophomore. Didn't appear to redshirt, so has the potential to transfer to FBS and sit a year, but maybe he is looking to transfer to FCS and play immediately. Did OK as a freshman RB. I'd imagine he would be a good get for us if Withers or even Vad Lee has some connection to him. With an exciting offense again, I could see Madison being a good destination for quality RBs or WRs.

http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-foot...37735.html

i wonder if our RB-by-committee situation would scare him away? some on this board have proposed that we do that due to a lack of faith in one particular RB. i disagree. i think we'll always rotate skill position guys a lot, as long as we're running this system. we're not the only up-tempo offense to do that. i know nothing about this kid, though, so maybe that wouldn't scare him away.

(12-03-2014 12:39 PM)Oldduke Wrote:  Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

i don't believe this is correct, although someone can correct me if i'm wrong.

i believe they don't want teams in the same conference to square off in Round 1 if they can avoid it (i'd imagine they always can). don't know that it says anything in the rules about repeat matchups out of conference. we played Liberty simply because we're closer than they are to Richmond. it was just a coincidence that those two teams played.

put simply: any year JMU and Liberty are in the playoffs and both are un-seeded, that's almost always going to be our matchup.

(12-03-2014 01:17 PM)Jay M. Youix Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:39 PM)Oldduke Wrote:  Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

i don't believe this is correct, although someone can correct me if i'm wrong.

i believe they don't want teams in the same conference to square off in Round 1 if they can avoid it (i'd imagine they always can). don't know that it says anything in the rules about repeat matchups out of conference. we played Liberty simply because we're closer than they are to Richmond. it was just a coincidence that those two teams played.

put simply: any year JMU and Liberty are in the playoffs and both are un-seeded, that's almost always going to be our matchup.

This is not according to the words spoken on selection Sunday. In addition, in the first round, they paired SHSU vs Southeastern LA who are in the same conference, but did not play each other during the season.

(12-03-2014 01:17 PM)Jay M. Youix Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:39 PM)Oldduke Wrote:  Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

i don't believe this is correct, although someone can correct me if i'm wrong.

i believe they don't want teams in the same conference to square off in Round 1 if they can avoid it (i'd imagine they always can). don't know that it says anything in the rules about repeat matchups out of conference. we played Liberty simply because we're closer than they are to Richmond. it was just a coincidence that those two teams played.

put simply: any year JMU and Liberty are in the playoffs and both are un-seeded, that's almost always going to be our matchup.

If you played in the regular season, they will do everything they can to avoid that matchup in the 1st rnd.

(12-03-2014 01:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:17 PM)Jay M. Youix Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:39 PM)Oldduke Wrote:  Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

i don't believe this is correct, although someone can correct me if i'm wrong.

i believe they don't want teams in the same conference to square off in Round 1 if they can avoid it (i'd imagine they always can). don't know that it says anything in the rules about repeat matchups out of conference. we played Liberty simply because we're closer than they are to Richmond. it was just a coincidence that those two teams played.

put simply: any year JMU and Liberty are in the playoffs and both are un-seeded, that's almost always going to be our matchup.

This is not according to the words spoken on selection Sunday. In addition, in the first round, they paired SHSU vs Southeastern LA who are in the same conference, but did not play each other during the season.

well that's great then, because i'd love a shot at a MEAC team for once. probably still won't happen. seems like we'll never end up with a cupcake in the first round. basically, we just need to work on being seeded 1-4, guaranteed bye and at least two home games. i know that's a tall order, but it sure would be nice. i'd imagine that the CAA champ will be seeded somewhere in the 1-4 range "most/many" years.

(12-03-2014 01:35 PM)Jay M. Youix Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:17 PM)Jay M. Youix Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:39 PM)Oldduke Wrote:  Let's say (just for discussion sake) that the same scenario plays out next year ... with JMU getting an at-large bid and Liberty also making the field of 24. If the committee honors the guideline to not pair teams that have already met, we will not be playing Liberty in the first round next year.

i don't believe this is correct, although someone can correct me if i'm wrong.

i believe they don't want teams in the same conference to square off in Round 1 if they can avoid it (i'd imagine they always can). don't know that it says anything in the rules about repeat matchups out of conference. we played Liberty simply because we're closer than they are to Richmond. it was just a coincidence that those two teams played.

put simply: any year JMU and Liberty are in the playoffs and both are un-seeded, that's almost always going to be our matchup.

This is not according to the words spoken on selection Sunday. In addition, in the first round, they paired SHSU vs Southeastern LA who are in the same conference, but did not play each other during the season.

well that's great then, because i'd love a shot at a MEAC team for once. probably still won't happen. seems like we'll never end up with a cupcake in the first round. basically, we just need to work on being seeded 1-4, guaranteed bye and at least two home games. i know that's a tall order, but it sure would be nice. i'd imagine that the CAA champ will be seeded somewhere in the 1-4 range "most/many" years.

I would think so as well. Even though the bottom is watered down. The top teams are still among the best in FCS.

(12-03-2014 01:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  This is not according to the words spoken on selection Sunday. In addition, in the first round, they paired SHSU vs Southeastern LA who are in the same conference, but did not play each other during the season.

I didn't hear the selection committee chair specifically say that they avoid rematches of OOC regular season games. Maybe they do in practice but I don't think it is part of their official criteria.

I heard him say that they will not stage a rematch between teams from the same conference if at all possible (as we all know), and that SHSU vs Southeastern LA was deemed to be OK since they didn't play each other. He did specifically say that if those two had played each other in the regular season they would not have been matched up.

I'd like to move Stallings into Harold's role and get Steele back to the middle with Hawkins. I think Stallings could thrive in that role. He's strong enough and athletic enough to do it. I think he'd be dangerous coming off the edge like Harold was.

(12-03-2014 02:18 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I'd like to move Stallings into Harold's role and get Steele back to the middle with Hawkins. I think Stallings could thrive in that role. He's strong enough and athletic enough to do it. I think he'd be dangerous coming off the edge like Harold was.

I could see that. I think he lined up at DE last season a little bit too. My ideal starting 11 for next season (way too early, but who cares?) would be:
CB: Moreland and Reynolds (Kwe'Shon rotating)
S: Peak and Johnson (Greene rotating)
OLB: Stallings and Hawkins (Hereford and Ezeagwu rotating maybe)
MLB: Steele (Brooks and Rhodes rotating, maybe Stallings sliding in periodically)
DE: Jacques and Ankrah (Urquhart and Osuji rotating)
DT: Mosley and Robinson (Gates, Ford, and Stinnie rotating)

Lots of youth and good combo of size and speed across defensive levels. Also, that's some decent depth across levels as well, especially if the young guys make big strides. This, of course, is predicated on a logical switch back to a 4-3 or 4-2-5.

I think if Tutt signs on signing day he's your rotating 3rd corner. He's college ready.

(12-03-2014 02:32 PM)Dukes86 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 02:18 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I'd like to move Stallings into Harold's role and get Steele back to the middle with Hawkins. I think Stallings could thrive in that role. He's strong enough and athletic enough to do it. I think he'd be dangerous coming off the edge like Harold was.

I could see that. I think he lined up at DE last season a little bit too. My ideal starting 11 for next season (way too early, but who cares?) would be:
CB: Moreland and Reynolds (Kwe'Shon rotating)
S: Peak and Johnson (Greene rotating)
OLB: Stallings and Hawkins (Hereford and Ezeagwu rotating maybe)
MLB: Steele (Brooks and Rhodes rotating, maybe Stallings sliding in periodically)
DE: Jacques and Ankrah (Urquhart and Osuji rotating)
DT: Mosley and Robinson (Gates, Ford, and Stinnie rotating)

Lots of youth and good combo of size and speed across defensive levels. Also, that's some decent depth across levels as well, especially if the young guys make big strides. This, of course, is predicated on a logical switch back to a 4-3 or 4-2-5.

Looks about right to me. Agreed if we are talking about a 4-3, then Jacques and Urquhart will be solid DEs. If we are talking about more of a 3-4, then I'd see guys like Ankrah or potentially Stallings developing into a speed rusher OLB like Harold. Hard to be as good as Harold next year, but still young. The inside line will be a strength regardless if 3-4 or 4-3.

(12-03-2014 01:54 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  This is not according to the words spoken on selection Sunday. In addition, in the first round, they paired SHSU vs Southeastern LA who are in the same conference, but did not play each other during the season.

I didn't hear the selection committee chair specifically say that they avoid rematches of OOC regular season games. Maybe they do in practice but I don't think it is part of their official criteria.

I heard him say that they will not stage a rematch between teams from the same conference if at all possible (as we all know), and that SHSU vs Southeastern LA was deemed to be OK since they didn't play each other. He did specifically say that if those two had played each other in the regular season they would not have been matched up.

What I "thought" was stated had nothing to do with OOC, but everything to do with a rematch of a regular season game. I have found a replay of the show, but when I click on it to play, it says to check back later. For those interested you can see a replay of the game here ESPN.

(12-02-2014 08:47 AM)Whitdragn Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 07:12 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  App and GSU announced in April of 2013 and were ineligible for the 2013 playoffs.

App and GSU started their transition immediately (announce 2013 to reclassify in 2013, transition stated 7/1/2013). ODU did not (announce 2012 to reclassify in 2013, transition started 7/1/2013).

They are on the exact same timeline to become FBS and bowl eligible; but ODU delayed a year from the announcement which is why ODU was playoff eligible in 2012.

I'm in agreement with what you're stating, have just stated it a little differently. ODU announced May 2012. According to a # of Oduh posters on here in 2012 and last year they simply delayed till June 1 2012 to sign the paperwork to make it official, allowing them to remain playoff eligible for one more season but delaying their transition by a year.

ODU was the exception rather than the norm. UMass, GST, App, and GSU all made late March-April announcements and were ineligible for the playoffs for the that upcoming season.

(12-03-2014 02:32 PM)Dukes86 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 02:18 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I'd like to move Stallings into Harold's role and get Steele back to the middle with Hawkins. I think Stallings could thrive in that role. He's strong enough and athletic enough to do it. I think he'd be dangerous coming off the edge like Harold was.

I could see that. I think he lined up at DE last season a little bit too. My ideal starting 11 for next season (way too early, but who cares?) would be:
CB: Moreland and Reynolds (Kwe'Shon rotating)
S: Peak and Johnson (Greene rotating)
OLB: Stallings and Hawkins (Hereford and Ezeagwu rotating maybe)
MLB: Steele (Brooks and Rhodes rotating, maybe Stallings sliding in periodically)
DE: Jacques and Ankrah (Urquhart and Osuji rotating)
DT: Mosley and Robinson (Gates, Ford, and Stinnie rotating)

Lots of youth and good combo of size and speed across defensive levels. Also, that's some decent depth across levels as well, especially if the young guys make big strides. This, of course, is predicated on a logical switch back to a 4-3 or 4-2-5.

According to participation stats he only played in one game vs Lehigh and wasn't on the game notes roster since W&M. Doesn't look to still be on team. We already talked about this in another thread.

(12-03-2014 09:32 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  According to participation stats he only played in one game vs Lehigh and wasn't on the game notes roster since W&M. Doesn't look to still be on team. We already talked about this in another thread.

Good to know. I thought someone said earlier that he was injured this season for the most part. Unfortunate if he isn't on the team anymore. He had a great freshman year.

(12-03-2014 09:42 PM)Dukes86 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:32 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  According to participation stats he only played in one game vs Lehigh and wasn't on the game notes roster since W&M. Doesn't look to still be on team. We already talked about this in another thread.

Good to know. I thought someone said earlier that he was injured this season for the most part. Unfortunate if he isn't on the team anymore. He had a great freshman year.

I thought I remember someone saying he was injured for the season as well. That would explain not being on the participation stats. Not sure about the WM game notes roster, but still on the jmu sports roster. Anyone have insight to William's situation?