SWAC presidents on 7-game: Not so fast
- Thread starter SAME OLD G
- Start date
- Status
staggalee83
War & Thunder
AAMU Alum said:
Yep...........and as usual.................when you can't answer...............go back to the usual...............put-downs. :shame:
Maybe I should have said ...........ADULT'S ANSWER ONLY.:shame:
JR
Well-Known Member
AAMU Alum said:Where did I curse in that post? A put down...get real!! You and the "so called haves" are attemping a put-down of others in this entire thread. Can you say...HYPOCRISY? Why don' t you two high and noble priests try reading some of the other posts on this thread since you wish to call out folks for "cussin'"
If I really cared what either of you thought, your posts might mean something...but since I don't....you can chill with your sudden "moral" posturing on this forum. You "so called haves" really slay me!
Nope, I am not trying to some morality advocate on here. See you let TP get you hot and bothered about the have and have nots. The rest of us just commented on it. I agree with TP on the issue as I do with Cee Dog saying we are all broke as HBCUs are concerned. I also know that the 9 game mandate is not helpful to SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY whom I care the most about. Sounds like JSU and GSU folks feel the same way. So why is that a put down? I don't care if my President voted for it in the first place either. He was wrong for that in my opinion. But I don't like the older school leadership at our Universities anyway. But thats another story. The whole gist of the matter is that all the SWAC school presidents should want the 7 game mandate. It gives them more flexibilty to schedule money maker games. Even if that means going on the road to play a 1A school. At this point the SWAC and our presidents are heading down a path of destruction. We aint the SEC or the NFL were revenue sharing works. Unless everyone is close to pulling their own weight, it isn't fair to ones who are. We all have a buget deficit and I want my school to find a way to fix that by any means necessary as long as it is legal and ethical.
If that means one day leaving the SWAC, then so be it. I love nolstalgia and all. But like our AD told Shreveport.......this is business. Most of you on this board when it comes to SU, JSU or Gram....make it personal. Hell I have nothing against no school. I am just for mine getting theirs. Aint nothing wrong with that. So if a rule is hampering my school from being able to schedule more money making games then I am against it. That is just my opinion. I still envision a Super HBCU conference in 1AA. Obviously that means some of the current SWAC members may not be there. But that isn't to say AAMU wouldn't be one of the schools, or Bama State or Alcorn......... But like I said the SWAC days are numbered. Its only a matter of time before some forward thinking prez decides to break ranks and will have his or her ducks in a row when they do.:nod: :lecture:
staggalee83
War & Thunder
AAMU Alum said:
ALUM.............I got it............ASK the PRESIDENT.
I "Heard" you the first 3 time's you backed out of answering a simple question.
I have ALUMS answer ......................ANYBOY ELSE?
Please Everybody ..................Don't point out the BENIFIT's to JSU all at once.:look:
AAMU Alum
Active Member
JR said:
The point of this entire subject is that everyone has been told on the SWACpage time and again (everytime this subject comes up,) that YOUR RESPECTIVE PRESIDENTS voted in favor of the 9 game mandate! No one is arguing how the programs may or may not be affected by the vote. The fact remains, you keep coming to this forum and whining about it, rather than doing as Cee Dog said, and get active with your alumni associations, where your voice might actually be heard (and matter to someone,) rather than crying on folks shoulders here.
It's OK to discuss it, but you aren't going to affect any change by beating this horse to death...the same way the issue of the location of the SCG, SWAC B'ball tournament and SWAC Executive Offices' location is beaten to a pulp on this forum at least 10 times a year. And those issues, just like these center around MONEY...none of which this league has.
Bottom line....go and talk to someone who can answer your concerns about the mandate. To my knowledge, ain't nobody on this forum had a vote in the matter.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
You need to be careful when you start following other folks lead, especially someone of TP's ilk. :smh:jag4life said:
The game was in Detroit. TP said that JSU was a bigger draw in Detroit. Besides, there was a 33K diffference. Surely, yall aint suggesting that....:scared:
Is it so hard to admit the OBVIOUS truth on that matter (ASU/JSU in Detroit) that yall would rather try to hold up such OBVIOUS foolishness.
:lol:
sheesh!
Mr. Tiger
Mr. T
AAMU Alum said:
To be honest, most SWAC school presidents don't care about sports, including at JSU. So saying our president voted for the 9-game mandate doesn't mean anything.
The only reason Bell was fired, more was spent to bring in a quality coach, and there is talk of building JSU an on-campus stadium is because of the support of the alumni and strong fan base who organized a massive boycott to show their power.
Now, our president gets it because he was forced to get it.
Those who know and understand college athletics know that if we don't invest and seek big paydays there is no way to survive in Division I without falling behind. That's why the 9-game mandate should be abolished.
There is no way to uplift the HAVE-NOTS if the presidents are perfectly satisfied with status quo and let's face it some of these presidents are perfectly fine with status quo until the heat is turned up.
Jackson State had the money to pay what Comegy is making when they hired Bell, but the school choose not to.
Some schools have no choice and one extra money-making game created by the 9-game mandate won't change that so why hold the schools that can make more money and whose fans and alumni has shown massive support back from growing and reaching the next level.
Panther88
Banned
Taylor-Made'90 said:
Interesting TMade. Very interesting indeed.
I'm all for change because we now live in a society that's evolving and changing as we live. If one doesn't change w/ the times, one gets left behind. :| Just look @ the state of the SWAC now vs only 30 years ago. Totally dramatically changed.
AAMU Alum
Active Member
Mr. Tiger said:
How your president FEELS about sports means nothing. What does matter, is that it was HIS vote that was cast in favor of the mandate, just the same as the other presidents of the other member schools.
Why do some of you seem to be having such a hard time understanding that?
JR
Well-Known Member
AAMU Alum said:
I am very active in my Alumni Association. So are a few other Jags on this board. I also can talk to our Chancellor pretty much whenever. One thing about our Presidents/Chancellor they are going to vote to keep harmony for the most part. Alot of them are big time buddies. You'll be surprised. I will not go into how my Chancellor thinks on this board and I have had talks with him on various subjects. I think some of us better realize that some of our leaders are not very sports business savvy either. Or have no real interest in sports like many of us do on this board. I also know there are other pressing needs on our campuses that they have to worry about that in their minds are more important.
So just because they voted for the 9 game mandate doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Or that they all researched it to the upmost. So I aint whining. I am just stating the obvious. If we keep on this road the way the SWAC and our respective Presidents run things as a group........we are doomed. Bottom line. BTW, our Alums do raise hell. If you ever had the luxury of being at a SU National Alumni conference....you would know. But unlike the PWCs were some big money alums can cause the removal of a president.......we don't carry that kind of weight at none of our schools. Unless you pull a JSU and boycott some games and hurt the bottom line.......most of our leaders hear us talking but they aint listening.
The biggest problem with us is that our SWAC Commish has no power to run the conference. After what happened with Rudy, they never will give that kind of power back to one again. No school president should be weighing on the SWAC rules in my opinion. The commish, the ADs and coaches should be the only ones involved. The AD is paid to make sure his or her programs are competitive and profitable. Let them do their jobs. That is the bottom line. At the big schools the president only shows up when their is a scandal and some needs to be fired. In the SWAC our presidents want to rule everything and most are sports business DUMB. So talking to them sometimes is pointless.
Mr. Tiger
Mr. T
AAMU Alum said:How your president FEELS about sports means nothing. What does matter, is that it was HIS vote that was cast in favor of the mandate, just the same as the other presidents of the other member schools.
Why do some of you seem to be having such a hard time understanding that?
I am not blaming anyone, AAMU Alum, including Alabama A&M for the 9-game mandate. ALL of the presidents, including JSUs, are to blame. I am simply saying that now our president understands how important sports is to our alumni and fans because of the Bell situation and boycott. That boycott did more than get Bell fired, it showed the true power of JSU's fan base because it raised the salary of the coaches position and the level of commitment from the president now appears to be more in line with the alumni and fans. So I expect the next vote by the presidents to be different. I have not attack Alabama A&M in this thread. But I am attacking anyone who feel the programs that want to seek big pay day with Division I-A schools are entitled to UPLIFT the ones who can't or won't seek those pay days. This is about survival in Division I.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
maybe thats a topic for another thread, but is that where yall want to see SWAC football going-Mr. Tiger said:
being prostituted out to be fodder for "big pay days with Division 1-A schools"
staggalee83
War & Thunder
mighty hornet said:
Where is SWAC football headed now?
Were are we at ...........:look:
BTW: It's not just about scheduling 1-A's...................it's about being able to schedule MORE 1-AA HBCU's and PWC's..............OUT-OF-CONFERENCE.
Mr. Tiger
Mr. T
mighty hornet said:
It is not prostitution if you put the money and exposure to good use and slowly use it to build your program. Two Division I-A games for Grambling could net Gram $1.2 million and if you play a team in a different region of the country it could also help recruiting. Our schools could use that money to keep up with schools on our level. And you forget that some Division I-AA programs have done well against Division I schools. Maine beat Mississippi State two years ago. UC Davis beat Stanford last year. App State gave LSU a good game last season. Every year, a Division I-AA school gives a Division I school fits or beats them. Why be scared to play big schools? Or are you saying there is no way any SWAC school can compete with a Division I-A football team? We can't be like Division I-AAs UC Davis, Maine or App. State so we should remain in our mediocre Division I-AA league and crown our mediocre conference championship and then grin and brag about going 10-1 against schools that couldn't beat a good Division II team.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
good point, but you're close to double talking.
On one hand, you have us beating 1A teams, and a lil later, in the same hand, we "couldn't beat a good Division II team"
and those dollar figures you threw out ($1 million), are you so sure that the lower-level d1 teams (the ones who would get beaten by 1AA teams) are throwing around that much money?
On one hand, you have us beating 1A teams, and a lil later, in the same hand, we "couldn't beat a good Division II team"
and those dollar figures you threw out ($1 million), are you so sure that the lower-level d1 teams (the ones who would get beaten by 1AA teams) are throwing around that much money?
Mr. Tiger
Mr. T
mighty hornet said:
I didn't say we could beat I-A teams. I said Division I-AA schools have beaten Division I-A teams. Then, I asked, "Are you saying there is no way any SWAC school can compete with a Division I-A football team?" I will answer my own questions. No, our schools would have trouble beating any Division I-A school and that's because teams like UC Davis and App State and even Maine have more money to invest in their football programs. So we need to improve our programs by increasing our schedule strength, increasing our budgets by playing profitable games, and don't be afraid of taking a beating and collecting a fat paycheck because the money is certainly not going to come in through the business community and endowments because few of our schools even try to do that anyway. And we have to push for our school presidents to be fully committed to funding our sports. If we continue to say "status-quo is good enough." "what's wrong with the SWAC. My team is winning." Then we will continue to fall further behind and our champion will be the KING of MEDIOCRE.
And when I threw out the $1 million figure it was based on offers from schools in the Big 12, PAC10, SEC, and Big 10 have made to Division I-AA schools. $600,000 to $350,000 a game. So that's $1.2 million to $700,000 for two Division I-A games. That's better than two road SWAC games that could have been eliminated with the abolishment of the 9-game mandate.
Jafus (Thinker)
Well-Known Member
U football scheduling is a frustrating affair
http://www.startribune.com/512/story/259595.html
The NCAA added a 12th game so schools could earn more revenue. But filling the spot can be expensive and, at times, maddening.
Chip Scoggins, Star Tribune
U football scheduling is a frustrating affair
Two weeks ago, University of Minnesota officials issued a one-page release announcing future football nonconference schedules. It was the end result of a process that proved frustrating and maddening and provided yet another example of the arms race in college football.
Needing to fill three open dates on the 2006 schedule and numerous vacancies in future years, Gophers officials had discussions with nearly every Division I-A football school while operating under a rigid financial, philosophical and logistical model. It felt, at times, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Or, as associate athletic director Marc Ryan said, like a "free-for-all."
Theirs was not an isolated sense of frustration.
"I think scheduling is absolutely more challenging now," said Wisconsin associate athletic director John Chadima, who has done football scheduling for 16 years. "I don't think anyone would argue that."
The NCAA's approval of a permanent 12th game was designed to generate more revenue for schools, but it also created headaches for administrators in charge of scheduling.
Iowa raised the bar financially by agreeing to pay Montana $650,000 for a game next season, which Montana officials believe is a record payday for a Division I-AA school. That move highlights the competitive nature of scheduling and creates concern for Minnesota, which had a net revenue of only $600,000 for each of its home nonconference games last season.
"Everybody wants to play home games, but I also have limitations," athletic director Joel Maturi said. "I can't go backwards."
Minnesota is not the only school with sticker shock. Nor is money the only obstacle. Schools also must consider the state of the program, injury risks, fan interest, the potential effects of a loss, perception, etc.
"Scheduling is not an exact science," Chadima said.
The process becomes even more difficult if schools don't work well in advance, a situation that hindered the Gophers efforts. Already scheduled to play at California next season, they ultimately reached agreements to play at Kent State and at home against Temple. Minnesota still needs to fill one home date next season, but school officials remain hopeful that Division I-AA North Dakota State will accept their offer (about $300,000).
The Gophers also completed their 2007 and 2008 schedules and announced future home-and-home series with Colorado and Washington State. They also made substantive progress on a home-and-home series with another Pac-10 team in 2014 and 2015.
"You can't be scheduling year-to-year in this business," said Ryan, who oversees Gophers football scheduling. "There's a sense of desperation at that point."
Finding a fit
The Gophers have created a scheduling model that they intend to follow in future negotiations. They want their four nonconference games to consist of one opponent from a BCS conference, two from mid-major conferences and one regional Division I-AA school. Ideally, that would equate to seven home games and five on the road (including four home and road Big Ten games).
Circumstances, however, forced the school to schedule six home and six road games in 2006, which did not sit well with some inside the program.
The BCS opponent would be part of a home-and-home series. The two mid-majors would fall under "two-for-one" deals in which the Gophers would get two home games in exchange for one road game with each opponent, typically a Mid-American Conference team. The I-AA opponent would be a "buy-in" game, meaning the Gophers would pay for that game.
Their future schedules are an upgrade over previous years, but the makeup is probably still not sexy enough for some fans who, according to Ryan, "want you to play USC, Texas and Oklahoma every year."
That's not going to happen, of course. In an e-mail response, Gophers coach Glen Mason said he is not heavily involved in scheduling, but you can bet he gives his input on potential opponents. Last fall Mason gave a simple, direct response when asked why he wouldn't want to play a national power in the nonconference.
"Our league is tough enough," he said.
The Gophers have averaged 4 ? Big Ten losses per season since 2000 so they have a small margin for error in nonconference games to achieve a bowl-eligible record, expected to be 6-6 starting next season. Mason also argued that few schools schedule top BCS teams and noted that the Gophers' 2005 schedule already was considered among the 20 most difficult in the nation.
A common excuse by Gophers fans for sluggish attendance has been the team's weak nonconference schedule. That argument, however, rings hollow when you consider the Metrodome wasn't anywhere close to a sellout when Ohio State came to town last season, and the team had an average home Big Ten attendance of only 52,133 the past three seasons (which includes bipartisan crowds for Iowa and Wisconsin).
Financial burden
Attendance problems, in turn, have a financial effect when trying to attract nonconference opponents. Fewer fans mean fewer dollars to woo potential opponents. And with limited teams to choose from, scheduling often becomes a bidding war.
"The 12th game is appealing to the mid-major [schools]," Wisconsin's Chadima said. "They know the big boys need games, and they're licking their chops, so to speak."
Iowa's decision to pay Montana $650,000 certainly raised eyebrows. That's $200,000 more than Montana received to play at Oregon last season.
"It's just another example that college sports is definitely big business," Montana athletic director Jim O'Day said.
Chadima said Wisconsin paid Ball State $85,000 for a buy-in game in 1990. Some schools are reportedly paying more than $750,000 for a single nonconference game next year.
"I don't think we've seen a million dollar guarantee game," Ryan said, "but it's going to happen."
The reason is simple: Schools with big stadiums and broad fan bases rake in millions of dollars with one home game. Why do you think there was a push to add a 12th game? That extra home game is so lucrative that some schools are willing to pay off an opponent's financial penalty for backing out of an existing contract with another school. That, in turn, creates another set of problems.
The Big Ten helped ease the scheduling burden by forming a partnership with the MAC. The Gophers will open the 2007 and '08 season with back-to-back games against Mid-American Conference schools. Other Big Ten schools have adopted a similar philosophy.
"I feel good about our schedule," Maturi said. "I think we're going in the right direction."
http://www.startribune.com/512/story/259595.html
The NCAA added a 12th game so schools could earn more revenue. But filling the spot can be expensive and, at times, maddening.
Chip Scoggins, Star Tribune
U football scheduling is a frustrating affair
Two weeks ago, University of Minnesota officials issued a one-page release announcing future football nonconference schedules. It was the end result of a process that proved frustrating and maddening and provided yet another example of the arms race in college football.
Needing to fill three open dates on the 2006 schedule and numerous vacancies in future years, Gophers officials had discussions with nearly every Division I-A football school while operating under a rigid financial, philosophical and logistical model. It felt, at times, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Or, as associate athletic director Marc Ryan said, like a "free-for-all."
Theirs was not an isolated sense of frustration.
"I think scheduling is absolutely more challenging now," said Wisconsin associate athletic director John Chadima, who has done football scheduling for 16 years. "I don't think anyone would argue that."
The NCAA's approval of a permanent 12th game was designed to generate more revenue for schools, but it also created headaches for administrators in charge of scheduling.
Iowa raised the bar financially by agreeing to pay Montana $650,000 for a game next season, which Montana officials believe is a record payday for a Division I-AA school. That move highlights the competitive nature of scheduling and creates concern for Minnesota, which had a net revenue of only $600,000 for each of its home nonconference games last season.
"Everybody wants to play home games, but I also have limitations," athletic director Joel Maturi said. "I can't go backwards."
Minnesota is not the only school with sticker shock. Nor is money the only obstacle. Schools also must consider the state of the program, injury risks, fan interest, the potential effects of a loss, perception, etc.
"Scheduling is not an exact science," Chadima said.
The process becomes even more difficult if schools don't work well in advance, a situation that hindered the Gophers efforts. Already scheduled to play at California next season, they ultimately reached agreements to play at Kent State and at home against Temple. Minnesota still needs to fill one home date next season, but school officials remain hopeful that Division I-AA North Dakota State will accept their offer (about $300,000).
The Gophers also completed their 2007 and 2008 schedules and announced future home-and-home series with Colorado and Washington State. They also made substantive progress on a home-and-home series with another Pac-10 team in 2014 and 2015.
"You can't be scheduling year-to-year in this business," said Ryan, who oversees Gophers football scheduling. "There's a sense of desperation at that point."
Finding a fit
The Gophers have created a scheduling model that they intend to follow in future negotiations. They want their four nonconference games to consist of one opponent from a BCS conference, two from mid-major conferences and one regional Division I-AA school. Ideally, that would equate to seven home games and five on the road (including four home and road Big Ten games).
Circumstances, however, forced the school to schedule six home and six road games in 2006, which did not sit well with some inside the program.
The BCS opponent would be part of a home-and-home series. The two mid-majors would fall under "two-for-one" deals in which the Gophers would get two home games in exchange for one road game with each opponent, typically a Mid-American Conference team. The I-AA opponent would be a "buy-in" game, meaning the Gophers would pay for that game.
Their future schedules are an upgrade over previous years, but the makeup is probably still not sexy enough for some fans who, according to Ryan, "want you to play USC, Texas and Oklahoma every year."
That's not going to happen, of course. In an e-mail response, Gophers coach Glen Mason said he is not heavily involved in scheduling, but you can bet he gives his input on potential opponents. Last fall Mason gave a simple, direct response when asked why he wouldn't want to play a national power in the nonconference.
"Our league is tough enough," he said.
The Gophers have averaged 4 ? Big Ten losses per season since 2000 so they have a small margin for error in nonconference games to achieve a bowl-eligible record, expected to be 6-6 starting next season. Mason also argued that few schools schedule top BCS teams and noted that the Gophers' 2005 schedule already was considered among the 20 most difficult in the nation.
A common excuse by Gophers fans for sluggish attendance has been the team's weak nonconference schedule. That argument, however, rings hollow when you consider the Metrodome wasn't anywhere close to a sellout when Ohio State came to town last season, and the team had an average home Big Ten attendance of only 52,133 the past three seasons (which includes bipartisan crowds for Iowa and Wisconsin).
Financial burden
Attendance problems, in turn, have a financial effect when trying to attract nonconference opponents. Fewer fans mean fewer dollars to woo potential opponents. And with limited teams to choose from, scheduling often becomes a bidding war.
"The 12th game is appealing to the mid-major [schools]," Wisconsin's Chadima said. "They know the big boys need games, and they're licking their chops, so to speak."
Iowa's decision to pay Montana $650,000 certainly raised eyebrows. That's $200,000 more than Montana received to play at Oregon last season.
"It's just another example that college sports is definitely big business," Montana athletic director Jim O'Day said.
Chadima said Wisconsin paid Ball State $85,000 for a buy-in game in 1990. Some schools are reportedly paying more than $750,000 for a single nonconference game next year.
"I don't think we've seen a million dollar guarantee game," Ryan said, "but it's going to happen."
The reason is simple: Schools with big stadiums and broad fan bases rake in millions of dollars with one home game. Why do you think there was a push to add a 12th game? That extra home game is so lucrative that some schools are willing to pay off an opponent's financial penalty for backing out of an existing contract with another school. That, in turn, creates another set of problems.
The Big Ten helped ease the scheduling burden by forming a partnership with the MAC. The Gophers will open the 2007 and '08 season with back-to-back games against Mid-American Conference schools. Other Big Ten schools have adopted a similar philosophy.
"I feel good about our schedule," Maturi said. "I think we're going in the right direction."
MikeBigg
Well-Known Member
JR said:
Bottomline...that's what its all about. The best thing for each of us is to maximize our season ticket sales. I think all of us would draw better in some instances for home and home against either in state or regional neighboring opponents. That's not putting down any SWAC school, but it's just stating what I feel to be a valid opinion.
In some cases, it won't necessarily be a state school or regional opponent that would generate an attendance buzz. Regardless of whether they are SWAC or not, we (Grambling) needs opponents that our fans will be excited to see...home attendance is our lone Achilles heel.
pbla
Focus
FYI--Everybody on here has good points.No one should be ridiculed just because their opinion is different.
But here is a question, what if the SWAC move to a 7 game mandate, and most of the schools in the SWAC had their first 4 games with guaruanteed contracts over $600,000 dollars each with some schools from the major conference,should the classics(with the exception of the BC)still be played that are promoted by promoters?
For instance what if JSU get offered a guaruantee of let's say $1,000,000 to play the University of Michigan but the game would conflict with SHC in Memphis,which game should JSU choose?
But here is a question, what if the SWAC move to a 7 game mandate, and most of the schools in the SWAC had their first 4 games with guaruanteed contracts over $600,000 dollars each with some schools from the major conference,should the classics(with the exception of the BC)still be played that are promoted by promoters?
For instance what if JSU get offered a guaruantee of let's say $1,000,000 to play the University of Michigan but the game would conflict with SHC in Memphis,which game should JSU choose?
- Status