SWAC presidents on 7-game: Not so fast
- Thread starter SAME OLD G
- Start date
- Status
staggalee83
War & Thunder
This conference will never move ahead.
Sorry..................but tired of being held back.:smh:
Oh well ................:look:
Sorry..................but tired of being held back.:smh:
Oh well ................:look:
staggalee83
War & Thunder
Like I said..................HELD BACK. :look:
MightyDog
Well-Known Member
staggalee83 said:
Please explain how you are being held back. The SWAC is doing better than at any time in its history. Just because the former big three dominated the SWAC can be misleading, because only one of the three had to beat the other two to win a championship. That is SWAC history. As you are aware the schools who could afford to pay the most based on student population had the most controlling interest. But now that the other 7 college Presidents are showing more interest we are going to operate as a conference. We haven't been in the SWAC that long but it was not difficult to figure out who did what and why. As long as you all have been in the SWAC you should know better than us that the SWAC is much better today than when Dr. Franks was the commissioner. He was successful at doing what he did, but we are much better than the old days.
staggalee83
War & Thunder
MightyDog said:
Last paragraph of the story....................dragging teams along like an anchor.:nod:
I sure there is less bickering as long as other's are depending on OTHERS to fill their stadiums instead of working their own product.
For JSU..............It's the scheduling dumps since this started.
G.Southern..........nothing..........our DATE did not match theirs.
FAMU...........don't even know their colors it's been so long since we played them.
Hampton............gone.
NC A&T............gone.
B-CC............out of the question.
Northeastern....................dropped
Nicholls....................never got out the box
a 1-A...............Fat chance our date will match theirs.
He!!, anyone except Tennesse St.................their locked in...........Thank the lord.
Anyyone else getting on JSU's schedule with this 9 game drag a school along mess is a crap shoot with us having only 1 single date to use.
Paul Quinn jumped through the roof for that date................whooptie do.
Harsh but true.:smh:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
MightyDog said:
Mighty Dog, most of us still have not seen the finances of the old versus the new SWAC and from what I can tell, the MEAC is doing just as well and they are not a football conference. The things that hurt the SWAC are holding back our flagship universities. Also, the mandate has not stopped the Big three from dominating the SWAC. Maybe AAMU will stop bickering if you all pay a MEAC school to play you. Nothing is stopping you from moving foward but you. But to hold back the Big Three so that you can gain is simply not right.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
MightyDog said:
MD, a lot of people don't see this. The Presidents are probably taking some time to evaluate why we had a 9 game mandate in the first place and when they realize that aside from Hughes' gripe, it was mainly because schools still wanted to play each other and some schools were included while others were left out, they will either stick with the mandate or go with a 7 game format in which only the 7 assigned games can be played. We have to realize that we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we want the 7 game format, we need accept playing only those teams that are assigned. The problem in a 7 game format is that JSU, SU and Gram are going to get first pick at all of the Classics and top drawing opponents and leave the scraps for everyone else. THAT is what you all don't like. However, the 9 game mandate is robbing BCF fans of what they want....the Big 3 against the big boys of the MEAC, etc...
MikeBigg
Well-Known Member
I agree that we have to look at what is economically better for the SWAC...but let's not just look short term. I feel that the 9 game mandate has an immediate economic impact for all teams, but in the long term it might cause our product to diminish in quality. The lack of flexibility in our schedules reduces our chances to get exposure in other markets for both the individual schools and the conference. Some might think that only Grambling benefits from the Classic appearances (we do seem to participate in more of them than others) but this gives other teams opportunities to play in neutral site games against other HBCU's.
We think in terms of promoters for these classics, but I would like to see our National Alumni getting involved in one of these Classics as a major revenue generator. What if the Grambling Alumni came together and sponsored a game in Shreveport each year to open the season? Imagine the draw if that opponent is BCC, FAMU, TnState, etc. Why couldn't the JSU Alumni open their season with a game in Chicago kicking off with some of the same teams mentioned in the previous sentence? AAMU's Alumni could sponsor something in the ATL against another OOC HBCU that could go over well.
Not only would the flexibility help us get potential payday games against D1's (something that Grambling definitely wants and should be allowed to pursue) but also games against regional D1AA's that could develop into increased season ticket sales. Grambling could sell it's season ticket package much better if the package included the Alumni Game and a yearly home and home with McNeese/Southeastern for two years then Northwestern/Nichols two years.
Anyway...here's a suggested permanent East/West pairings. The one or another of the other two teams would be on the schedule on an odd year/even year basis.
Grambling: Bama , Alcorn, AAMU
Pine Bluff: Bama, Jackson, Valley
Southern: Alcorn, Valley, Jackson
TSU: Jackson, AAMU, Valley
PVU: Alcorn, AAMU, Bama
Alcorn: Grambling, PVU, Southern
Bama: Pine Bluff, Grambling, PVU
AAMU:Grambling, TSU, PVU
JSU:TSU, Pine Bluff, Southern
Valley
ine Bluff, TSU, Southern
We think in terms of promoters for these classics, but I would like to see our National Alumni getting involved in one of these Classics as a major revenue generator. What if the Grambling Alumni came together and sponsored a game in Shreveport each year to open the season? Imagine the draw if that opponent is BCC, FAMU, TnState, etc. Why couldn't the JSU Alumni open their season with a game in Chicago kicking off with some of the same teams mentioned in the previous sentence? AAMU's Alumni could sponsor something in the ATL against another OOC HBCU that could go over well.
Not only would the flexibility help us get potential payday games against D1's (something that Grambling definitely wants and should be allowed to pursue) but also games against regional D1AA's that could develop into increased season ticket sales. Grambling could sell it's season ticket package much better if the package included the Alumni Game and a yearly home and home with McNeese/Southeastern for two years then Northwestern/Nichols two years.
Anyway...here's a suggested permanent East/West pairings. The one or another of the other two teams would be on the schedule on an odd year/even year basis.
Grambling: Bama , Alcorn, AAMU
Pine Bluff: Bama, Jackson, Valley
Southern: Alcorn, Valley, Jackson
TSU: Jackson, AAMU, Valley
PVU: Alcorn, AAMU, Bama
Alcorn: Grambling, PVU, Southern
Bama: Pine Bluff, Grambling, PVU
AAMU:Grambling, TSU, PVU
JSU:TSU, Pine Bluff, Southern
Valley
ine Bluff, TSU, Southernstaggalee83 said:
http://www.onnidan.com/05-06/news/may/ncatfb0518.htm
NC A&T adds LA-Lafayette to football schedule
May 18, 2006
GREENSBORO, N.C., -- North Carolina A&T Athletics Director Dee Todd has announced the completion of the Aggies? 2006 football schedule with the addition of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette to the schedule. The two teams meet each other on the gridiron for the first time on Sept. 23 at Cajun Field. The game is scheduled to start 5 p.m., eastern and 4 p.m., central time.
After never playing a Division I-A opponent before 2004, N.C. A&T will play its second Division I-A opponent in three years. Louisiana Lafayette is a Division I-A school out of the Sun Belt Conference. The Ragin? Cajuns finished 6-5 overall and finished tied for first in the Sun Belt with a 5-2 mark. They return 15 starters from the 2005 squad.
Mr. Tiger
Mr. T
staggalee83 said:
I completely agree. There would be no bickering between the schools that are able to draw decent crowds because they would seek and play Division I-A and major Division I-AA non-conference schools.
The 9-game mandate makes it very difficult for Grambling to schedule Division I-A teams that want to play Grambling because of the school's history and following and for schools like Jackson State and Southern who have large fan bases and can attract great non-conference matchups, including Division I-A teams.
Outside of those schools, Texas Southern has played Division I-A schools before and those are good paydays and Alcorn plays Louisiana-Monroe and Alabama State plays Troy State this year.
A 7-game mandate would give all of these schools more room to schedule great and money-making matchups. So why hold these schools, who are seeking Division I-A paydays and exposure to different markets, back for the sake of what at the most would be the loss of ONE money-making conference game for each school in a two-year period?
And if your school NEEDS that one money-making game badly, then your school really needs to evaluate why is it operating in Division I football.
Well if thats the case, why are the coaches and ADs against the mandate?MightyDog said:
JR
Well-Known Member
SAME OLD G said:
Co-Sign. I think this whole 9 game situation sucks. We are stuck in the past because all these damn old arse administrators have no vision. It is time to move on. I am sorry some of the schools can't manage to get along without the so called Big 3. I mean who fault is that? Those same past and present administrators. I also think some of our SWAC schools sell themselves short. If they try hard enough they could schedule 4 remaining games if we had only 7 that counted. I miss the days of being able to play other 1-AA programs besides just the SWAC schools. I actually would like to see the 7 game mandate and with the stipulation that you can only schedule 1 SWAC opponent as a non conference game. And if folks start bickering then do not allow it at all. That way say if SU goes the SCG and say JSU comes from the East but they had not played this this year lends some excitement to the SCG. Also like some others have stated the 7 games allows our schools to try to secure a payday from a 1A program as well as schedule some nice 1AA programs. I think if we continue to get competitive we can schedule one of those 1AA powers that be in a home and home. If you put a good product on the field why wouldn't your fans want to see a GSU play Furman or SU play an Appalachian State etc. I am off my soapbox.:lecture:
MightyDog
Well-Known Member
TP, one reason most people cannot see the accomplishments of the SWAC is that as you say the SWAC has always been JSU, XSU and SU and noone is saying that these schools have not earned that respect. Now if you keep thinking like JSU, XSU and SU can play four majors a year, you are living in a dream world. You don't have the cooperation within the SWAC that will allow you to develop the type of schedule you all are dreaming about. Small time Division 1 Schools who are making less money than SWAC schools will always be happy to play a SWAC School.
SOG, most coaches and ADs believe with a 7 game schedule it is much easier to make it to the SCG. But the Presidents want to keep the money games on the schedule within the SWAC. Do you think XSU and SU would move the BC to accomodate a game with a D1 PWC? I don't think so because playing these schools are not as important as what we are doing. No matter who SWAC Schools play only a certain number of fans are going to attend certain games. The Majority of our fans do not have the resources or time to follow teams during a full season.
SOG, most coaches and ADs believe with a 7 game schedule it is much easier to make it to the SCG. But the Presidents want to keep the money games on the schedule within the SWAC. Do you think XSU and SU would move the BC to accomodate a game with a D1 PWC? I don't think so because playing these schools are not as important as what we are doing. No matter who SWAC Schools play only a certain number of fans are going to attend certain games. The Majority of our fans do not have the resources or time to follow teams during a full season.
J C
Well-Known Member
Tigerpride said:
I don't buy this assumption that the so-called big three would get first pick for classics. I know for a fact that the promoters in Detroit want Bama State annually for that classic. Not Jackson State, Hampton, Howard or FAMU.
Bama State nor A&M would have a problem scheduling opponents with the 7 game mandate. In the state of Alabama, Troy, Jacksonville State, Samford, UAB, Stillman, Miles, and Tuskegee would jump at the chance to play either of the two SWAC members. Bama State and FAMU would be the perfect annual matchup in Mobile for the GCC. Attendance would actually increase for the two Alabama members but other SWAC schools would suffer (TXSO, PV, Valley, PB). I think that's what MD is trying to get a cross.
staggalee83 said:
Remember the Southwest Conference? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Baylor didn't want to play TCU, SMU, Houston and Rice year after year because they didn't have the fan support they had. The larger schools left the conference and the Southwest Conference is history, I hope the SWAC doesn't end like the Southwest Conference.
MikeBigg
Well-Known Member
But it's not like all teams wouldn't play each other...we just wouldn't play certain teams in certain years. In those years, we negotiate games to play that will generate some revenue. In some scenarios it could be a benefit...a team may rotate off a game that would have been a travel game. Instead they might be able to attract a profitable home game.
Panther88
Banned
JSU said:
Interesting point JSU. Actually, I think of this often and of course, the original charters of the SWAC were, to some degree or another, following a type precedent set by the now defunct SWC.
What you stated is true 101%. Based on what I currently see, there are indeed some programs that are much stronger (financially, support wise, fan base, facilities, etc) than others. W/ that type commitment by those particular schools, what sense would it make for the "lowers" to hold those guys back?
TCU, SMU, UofH, and Rice were left in the dust by the other guys due to their non-commitment and what they DID NOT bring to the table financially, fan wise, maybe even facility wise, history, tradition, etc.
Maybe the SWAC has ran it's course and change is paramount. The "top" heavy SWAC members have every right to grow as allowed. What right do the "lowers" have to hold them back?
Break the SWAC up, if required. :|
Paul Dolemite Taylor
Well-Known Member
JUST PLAIN STUPID!!!!
:uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi:
FOLKS WONDER WHY ......
9 GAME MANDATE = STINKS!!!!
HOW DA HELL CAN YOU GET BETTER PALYING DA SAME DAYUM PEOPLE ??
STEP OUT AND PLAY SOME REAL COMPETITION !!!!!!!!!
MY BAD THIS DUMBAZZ MANDATE HAS SCHOOLS HANDCUFFED !!!!!!!!:uzi: :uzi: :uzi:
:uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi: :uzi:
FOLKS WONDER WHY ......
9 GAME MANDATE = STINKS!!!!
HOW DA HELL CAN YOU GET BETTER PALYING DA SAME DAYUM PEOPLE ??
STEP OUT AND PLAY SOME REAL COMPETITION !!!!!!!!!
MY BAD THIS DUMBAZZ MANDATE HAS SCHOOLS HANDCUFFED !!!!!!!!:uzi: :uzi: :uzi:
Robber
Consigliere
Mighty Dog,
Just because we are "doing better", doesn't mean we can't do better. This mandate is not a matter of the "Former Big 3" used to dominate this or that. This is a matter of economics. The people crying for the mandate years ago didn't consider the adverse economic impact on schools.
Just because we are "doing better", doesn't mean we can't do better. This mandate is not a matter of the "Former Big 3" used to dominate this or that. This is a matter of economics. The people crying for the mandate years ago didn't consider the adverse economic impact on schools.
bluedog
"Leader of Kings"
Bruh don't any of you lose any sleeep over this crap because all that's going on now is that our Presidents are being typical ole school negroes and playing the political ego game.
It doesn't matter what the effect is for their dumb @ss action they just want to show they are in control regardless of the fact that they are all clueless about athletics.
In the mean time same all this bit@ching for writing them and cc your board/alums and let them know just how much of a bunch of coons you think they really are and that it's time for them to join the 21st century.
Again direct your energy/anger towards them not this damn board, but I wouldn't be surprise if the 7 game mandate is inplemented within the next month via phone just so these fools can have the satisfaction of keeping people guessing.
It doesn't matter what the effect is for their dumb @ss action they just want to show they are in control regardless of the fact that they are all clueless about athletics.
In the mean time same all this bit@ching for writing them and cc your board/alums and let them know just how much of a bunch of coons you think they really are and that it's time for them to join the 21st century.
Again direct your energy/anger towards them not this damn board, but I wouldn't be surprise if the 7 game mandate is inplemented within the next month via phone just so these fools can have the satisfaction of keeping people guessing.
MightyDog
Well-Known Member
Robber said:
Robber we can't do better until we know what is it we are after. All I am saying, as I have said before, we can do better if we work together as schools within the conference. However, since we all are competeing for the same thing maybe we can encourage those who have the power we can move toward making our conference better.
Over 100 D1 programs operate at a defict and football takes up most of the athletic resources. Therefore, the answer is not economics, because if we were operating on the principle of economics we would cancel football. Do you actually believe that we can move into D1A Football under the present structure facing the obstacles that many of us don't understand? I don't know why people believe SWAC Schools can generate the revenue that will make us self substaining. In moving forward we must develop a long range plan rather than changing because every move is challenged without justification.
Have you forgotten what happened in your State when the SWAC Schools were out recruiting Ole Miss and Mississippi State?
Anytime the big system is threaten there are reprecussions. I don't know why people will not deal with the real issues and work to improve what we have developed with the SWAC under adversed conditions.
- Status