James Madison announced it is going to again off the threat of taking legal action towards the NCAA in regards to its eligibility for the college football postseason. The NCAA denied JMU’s pursuit of a bowl eligibility waiver ultimate week because the Dukes stood at 10-0 and No. 18 in the AP Top 25 ballot getting into a house showdown with Appalachian State.
Following the denial, Virginia lawyer normal Jason Miyares prompt in a letter received by means of ESPN that James Madison was once ready to document a lawsuit claiming the bowl ban is in violation of antitrust of regulations. Ultimately, JMU’s heartbreaking 26-23 loss to Appalachian State reduced its probabilities of qualifying for a New Year’s Six recreation, and this system’s announcement cited the end result in its rationale for status down.Â
“Based on consultation with and advice of our outside counsel, the loss to Appalachian State University on Saturday changed the landscape in terms of the nature and timing of our legal options, including the diminished viability of a lawsuit against the NCAA,” the commentary stated.
James Madison is in Year 2 of of the NCAA-mandated FCS-to-FBS transition, which involves two years of postseason ineligibility. The Dukes are off to a powerful get started with an 18-4 mark (12-3 Sun Belt) over their first two seasons. They may nonetheless play in a bowl recreation, too, if there don’t seem to be sufficient sufficient 6-6 groups to refill the bowl spots.
However, creating a New Year’s Six recreation would have required JMU to be amongst groups indexed in the College Football Playoff Rankings. As a transitioning program, the Dukes are ineligible for that standing. Ultimately, the loss to Appalachian State most probably made that factor a moot level.
“The University’s focus now is on getting the football team into a bowl game, and it appears that such a result is still a strong possibility,” JMU’s commentary stated. “We could still file an action against the NCAA later if needed to receive a bowl invitation, but for the time being, there was a strong consensus that proceeding with legal action did not make sense. This sentiment was shared by both the University and the Department of Athletics.”