NCAA Logic
There is little to suggest the NCAA has a clue regarding this whole 13th game issue. It chose yesterday to say the Hawaii game would be allowed even though the sanctions never mentioned the Hawaii game. USC could have dropped the Minnesota or Virginia game.
And what does yesterday's announcement really mean about transferring the 12-game limit to 2011 and 2012?
The Pac-10 could have a conference championship game. What happens if USC reaches it and is not serving a bowl ban? It is banned from the 13th game?
Doesn't the 12-game limit apply only to teams who aren't bowl eligible? (to stop teams from doing what Bama did in scheduling games at Hawaii in lieu of going to a bowl game)
Good point about a possible Conference Championship Game.
Can we just count the ucla game as a scrimmage? Playing the Trojan second string in practice is tougher than beating up on the bruins.
The rule prohibiting a 13th game also includes bowls. You can't have a 13th game ban while not having a bowl ban unless they add that a bowl game, as well as a spring game, would be allowed. Are they going to exclude the bowl ban from the ban against 13th games? Scott's right. They do not have a clue.
Two year bowl ban! Two year "13TH. EXEMPTION GAME" (Hawaii, Alaska, PR, et.al.) ban! No mention of Conference Championship Game, probably, because they didn't have one in the Pac-10. The report was written before they expanded to the 12-Pac. It doesn't seem like the NCAA would make a ruling on a hypothetical game.