So What Happens If/When The SCG Ends?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Like the defunct Southwest Conference did, the SWAC should disband, because the conference is like stagnant water, going no where and holding back those schools that really should move up to another division.
 



Everyone keeps talking about how much revenue the SCG generates yet that revenue has never been published and it is split 10 ways. If we make $600,000 and divide it 10 ways you are talking about $60,000 for each school which equals one money basketball game. And if our ADs and presidents are so concerned about generating revenue in all of their decisions then please explain how going back to the 9-game mandate will generate more money for the SWAC. :noidea: Jackson State will add no more money to the budget by playing UAPB or Prairie View every year. Southern won't make any money traveling to Valley every other year. Alabama State will not profit from a mandated road game against Prairie View. If someone can show me the money then I will change my stance.
 
Mr. Tiger said:
Everyone keeps talking about how much revenue the SCG generates yet that revenue has never been published and it is split 10 ways. If we make $600,000 and divide it 10 ways you are talking about $60,000 for each school which equals one money basketball game. And if our ADs and presidents are so concerned about generating revenue in all of their decisions then please explain how going back to the 9-game mandate will generate more money for the SWAC. :noidea: Jackson State will add no more money to the budget by playing UAPB or Prairie View every year. Southern won't make any money traveling to Valley every other year. Alabama State will not profit from a mandated road game against Prairie View. If someone can show me the money then I will change my stance.
Click to expand...

I would rather play a Valley/AAMU than Fort Valley St or Central State. Money talks. Compare the attendence numbers during the 9 game mandate and the numbers during the 7 game slate.
 
TexasTerror said:
All schools have issues, problems, whatever you want to call them...

If any of you on this board can raise your hand to say they do not, you are absolutely fooling yourself. The problem becomes when individuals can not see the positives and only harp on the negatives, hence why I have pulled off of that board.

Throw in the personal attacks by an individual like '86 and there's no reason to stoop to the level of that "bumpkin" (as some of them call each other)...
Click to expand...

Dude, you've been coming to this board spewing nothing but criticism about SWAC sports, while (as your fellow alumnus has so eloquently stated) your OWN school is headed backwards, and you're one of the reasons why. LOL!!

No wonder you spend a lot of your time over here. Hahahahahaha!! That poster hit the nail right on the head. LOL!!
 
Mr. Tiger said:
Everyone keeps talking about how much revenue the SCG generates yet that revenue has never been published and it is split 10 ways. If we make $600,000 and divide it 10 ways you are talking about $60,000 for each school which equals one money basketball game. And if our ADs and presidents are so concerned about generating revenue in all of their decisions then please explain how going back to the 9-game mandate will generate more money for the SWAC. :noidea: Jackson State will add no more money to the budget by playing UAPB or Prairie View every year. Southern won't make any money traveling to Valley every other year. Alabama State will not profit from a mandated road game against Prairie View. If someone can show me the money then I will change my stance.
Click to expand...

Now this is where things get a little dicey, the lead three schools, carrying the others. This is why I don't like the mandate, but I don't mind the SCG.

Look at what the NCAA did to South Carolina State last year. They didn't lose a MEAC game, and played pretty well in OOC games, yet they were sent to one of the toughest places to play at #2 ranked Appalachian State, when they should've been playing a much lower seeded team, maybe at home.
A lackluster Texas State 8-4 team had the luxury of playing a #4 seed team.

The NCAA system is rigged against the SWAC and MEAC and will continue to be that way regardless if we win games or not. We'll still be sent 500 miles away or either to a #1 or two seeded team. This is why I say....to hell with the playoffs and to hell with losing money while being pimped by the NCAA.
 
JayRob said:
Look at what the NCAA did to South Carolina State last year. They didn't lose a MEAC game, and played pretty well in OOC games, yet they were sent to one of the toughest places to play at #2 ranked Appalachian State, when they should've been playing a much lower seeded team, maybe at home.
A lackluster Texas State 8-4 team had the luxury of playing a #4 seed team.

The NCAA system is rigged against the SWAC and MEAC and will continue to be that way regardless if we win games or not. We'll still be sent 500 miles away or either to a #1 or two seeded team. This is why I say....to hell with the playoffs and to hell with losing money while being pimped by the NCAA.
Click to expand...

It's called regionalization. They do not seed #1-16 nor do they give home games outside of the top four seeds based on anything more than how much money the bids are compared to the teams they are slotted against.

They attempt to avoid as many flights as possible. The SLC team is always sent to Montana (or another Big Sky team) unless the SLC team is deserving of a home game (or if paired with a team they can outbid). There's not many FCS leagues west of the Mississippi, so we do not expect much different...

SCST was in a tough position based on the amount of CAA teams that made it, the amount of teams that could bid some good money and the fact they were near Appalachian State in terms of proximity.
 
usm said:
Like the defunct Southwest Conference did, the SWAC should disband, because the conference is like stagnant water, going no where and holding back those schools that really should move up to another division.
Click to expand...

I see you don't know the reason why the SWC disbanded and it damn sure wasn't because it was stagnant!

Each school was so damn dirty (boosters, phony classes for athletes, etc...) that they started snitching on each other. "Dammit, our booster gave that kid a new Camaro and he goes up to Waco and signs with them!!!!".

SMU was still recovering from the death penalty so they brought nothing to the table while OU was courting them.

Former Texas governor Ann Richards made sure her alma mater got into the new conference and Texas Tech was the only other logical choice of the even twelve to balance the divisions.
 
Last edited:
SUjagTILLiDIE said:
I would rather play a Valley/AAMU than Fort Valley St or Central State. Money talks. Compare the attendence numbers during the 9 game mandate and the numbers during the 7 game slate.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying play Fort Valley State (even though Southern would make more money playing Fort Valley State at home than Mississippi Valley on the road) But Louisiana is packed with FCS programs. SE Louisiana, Northwestern State, McNeese State, Nichols State, etc. Not to mention the lower FBS schools. But my point is our ADs are saying on some the proposed FBS deals that our schools would not clear but $125,000 to $200,000. Isn't that more than a road game in the 9-game mandate? And if you are stuck with two road games that's two non-revenue games. And attendance figures were about the same during the 7-game slate. Matter of fact, attendance was better before the SCG and the 9-game mandate began. Of course, our coaching and players were also better. :lol:

:topic: Regionalization did send South Carolina State to Appalachian State. They try to cut down on travel cost. The problem with the playoffs isn't seeding, it is profit. There is none. I like the playoff system but the NCAA should pump more money into the system.
 
TexasTerror said:
It's called regionalization. They do not seed #1-16 nor do they give home games outside of the top four seeds based on anything more than how much money the bids are compared to the teams they are slotted against.

They attempt to avoid as many flights as possible. The SLC team is always sent to Montana (or another Big Sky team) unless the SLC team is deserving of a home game (or if paired with a team they can outbid). There's not many FCS leagues west of the Mississippi, so we do not expect much different...

SCST was in a tough position based on the amount of CAA teams that made it, the amount of teams that could bid some good money and the fact they were near Appalachian State in terms of proximity.
Click to expand...

Dude, you just said a few posts ago that's it shouldn't always be about money. It's quite obvious the NCAA disagrees with your warped theory.

Regardless of what you say, the seedings weren't fair with South Carolina State. If the system was fair and not predicated on money, it shouldn't matter that South Carolina State was closest to Appalachian State. They had no business playing a school ranked that high....period, while Texas State played a #4 seed.

Fact of the matter is that South Carolina State shouldn't have played that team in the first round. This proves that on the FCS level, the NCAA cares more about making and/or saving money, than appropriately seeding the schools.
 
JayRob said:
Regardless of what you say, the seedings weren't fair with South Carolina State. If the system was fair and not predicated on money, it shouldn't matter that South Carolina State was closest to Appalachian State. They had no business playing a school ranked that high....period, while Texas State played a #4 seed.

Fact of the matter is that South Carolina State shouldn't have played that team in the first round. This proves that on the FCS level, the NCAA cares more about making and/or saving money, than appropriately seeding the schools.
Click to expand...

Even Mr. Tiger said it was because of regionalization.

Appropriately seeding the teams would never happen due to how many teams that the SoCon and CAA combine to get. You would not be able to avoid those matchups in the first round.

And if you paid much attention to postseason play at all as of late - the NCAA does this in every sport.

Ask #1 Ole Miss how they felt in tennis when they were shipped to LSU (a team that they beat) so that the Rebels and two other schools could drive instead of a school being forced to fly.

Ask Southern why they went to Baton Rouge, La. this year in baseball.

Ask the Southland schools why their soccer teams always end up in Austin or College Station, Texas. Same goes for softball AND volleyball - though Baylor is typically involved there. It gets old, but these are bus trips.

Next year, follow the postseason in sports outside of the SCG and the "bogus" bowls, you may see something new...
 
majiksity said:
Suppose - just suppose the last SCG is at the end of this season. And suppose - just suppose the MEAC agrees to deal presented by a certain tv entity to bring back the Heritage Bowl - and that agreement by the MEAC stipulates that their regular season champion has to forgo the playoffs and that automatic bid....and also the SWAC returns to the full 9 game mandate...

What if all of that "supposing" wasn't just for "play-play" - but it might turn to reality in a matter of months....how would you feel about that?
Click to expand...



People will find something else to complain about!
 
TexasTerror said:
Even Mr. Tiger said it was because of regionalization.

Appropriately seeding the teams would never happen due to how many teams that the SoCon and CAA combine to get. You would not be able to avoid those matchups in the first round.

And if you paid much attention to postseason play at all as of late - the NCAA does this in every sport.

Ask #1 Ole Miss how they felt in tennis when they were shipped to LSU (a team that they beat) so that the Rebels and two other schools could drive instead of a school being forced to fly.

Ask Southern why they went to Baton Rouge, La. this year in baseball.

Ask the Southland schools why their soccer teams always end up in Austin or College Station, Texas. Same goes for softball AND volleyball - though Baylor is typically involved there. It gets old, but these are bus trips.

Next year, follow the postseason in sports outside of the SCG and the "bogus" bowls, you may see something new...
Click to expand...

Acutally you do have a point. In all of the Division 1 sports the teams a usually paired geographically.
 
Mr. Tiger said:
I'm not saying play Fort Valley State (even though Southern would make more money playing Fort Valley State at home than Mississippi Valley on the road) But Louisiana is packed with FCS programs. SE Louisiana, Northwestern State, McNeese State, Nichols State, etc. Not to mention the lower FBS schools. But my point is our ADs are saying on some the proposed FBS deals that our schools would not clear but $125,000 to $200,000. Isn't that more than a road game in the 9-game mandate? And if you are stuck with two road games that's two non-revenue games. And attendance figures were about the same during the 7-game slate. Matter of fact, attendance was better before the SCG and the 9-game mandate began. Of course, our coaching and players were also better. :lol:

:topic: Regionalization did send South Carolina State to Appalachian State. They try to cut down on travel cost. The problem with the playoffs isn't seeding, it is profit. There is none. I like the playoff system but the NCAA should pump more money into the system.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At least when we are playing Fort Valley and Central State, we are making some money off of the game. When we travel to AAMU and Valley, we will get $0. It is true, there are a few schools that are dead weight when it comes to football attendance.Why bring 10 thousand or more fans to sell-out their stadium and make a ton of money for them, when they are only going to bring 20 fans to yours?

Yes, coaching was definitely better back then.
 



TexasTerror said:
Even Mr. Tiger said it was because of regionalization.

Appropriately seeding the teams would never happen due to how many teams that the SoCon and CAA combine to get. You would not be able to avoid those matchups in the first round.

And if you paid much attention to postseason play at all as of late - the NCAA does this in every sport.

Ask #1 Ole Miss how they felt in tennis when they were shipped to LSU (a team that they beat) so that the Rebels and two other schools could drive instead of a school being forced to fly.

Ask Southern why they went to Baton Rouge, La. this year in baseball.

Ask the Southland schools why their soccer teams always end up in Austin or College Station, Texas. Same goes for softball AND volleyball - though Baylor is typically involved there. It gets old, but these are bus trips.

Next year, follow the postseason in sports outside of the SCG and the "bogus" bowls, you may see something new...
Click to expand...

Regionalization wasn't the point. The point is that the NCAA is selling playoff teams short due to finances, which isn't fair.
It wasn't regionalization when they sent the SWAC champion to Montana and Eastern Illinois when we were in the playoffs. Why regionalization now? Finances, that's why. Why the SCG? Finances, that's why.

You said earlier that money shouldn't be the problem. Evidently the NCAA disagrees with you. If money is a problem for the NCAA and you're siding with them, why is it a problem when the SWAC cites finances as a problem when it makes a decision to support the SCG? Not that it matters much, but this shows once again your biased attitude against the SWAC as usual.

You are supportive of the NCAA and make excuses for them due to regionalization, yet you can't seem to come to grips with the SWAC for doing the SAME thing with the SCG. In other words, be consistent. LOL!!
 
Folka said:
I agree, until I see some hard money figures for the SCG, I say forget the SCG.
Click to expand...

Why demand this from the SWAC when we don't demand it from the NCAA? They take more than 60 percent of the revenue of the games from each school during the playoffs. Why not question them about where their money goes?

Both teams playing in the SCG don't have to fork over a dime, neither do the bands, and the SWAC is paid by ESPN to televise the game. If the teams made the playoffs, our band wouldn't be able to go and the teams would have to bid on the games to even begin to be able to host one. It costs thousands to host games as well.

Again I ask, even though I already know,.....whose being pimped, playoff bound teams or SCG teams?
 
Last edited:
JayRob said:
Why demand this from the SWAC when we don't demand it from the NCAA? They take more than 60 percent of the revenue of the games from each school during the playoffs. Why not question them about where their money goes?

Both teams playing in the SCG don't have to fork over a dime, neither do the bands, and the SWAC is paid by ESPN to televise the game. If the teams made the playoffs, our band wouldn't be able to go and the teams would have to bid on the games to even begin to be able to host one. It costs thousands to host games as well.

Again I ask, even though I already know,.....whose being pimped, playoff bound teams or SCG teams?
Click to expand...


If you keep making statements like these you will be able to drop your Tigerpride image. I don't care what that fellow say about you from SU, you are beginning to make sense.
 
CEE DOG said:
The bottom line is you folks need to give money to your school. If every one of you and your family gives your school $1000 our problems would be solved. We could end the SCG and move foward. If you haven't given money to your school please shut up and get a life!!!!!!
Click to expand...

:read:
 
Folka said:
Cause we already know what the NCAA demand, you just told me. You still didn't give me any hard figures on the SCG.
Click to expand...

I gave you one large sum for the SCG. It costs both schools nothing...zero...zilch, to play in the game....not one dime. I can't get much clearer than that. The NCAA on the other hand.....LOL!!
 
To me, it does not matter what the SCG makes as long I know that the playoffs is a losing venture financially. Why play in something that someone else owns and makes all the rules for when you can control your own event? For the Presidents to keep having the SCG tells me that it makes at least SOME money. Otherwise, it would be scrapped. Not including sponsorships, the SCG should have made over $600K off tickets last year and over $800K the year before. I know that we rent Legion Field for $1 and at one point, we were not paying for security or anything either. That is why we play in Bham. We do need to figure out a way to improve the event but for not, i'm for keeping it.
 
Tigerpride said:
To me, it does not matter what the SCG makes as long I know that the playoffs is a losing venture financially. Why play in something that someone else owns and makes all the rules for when you can control your own event? For the Presidents to keep having the SCG tells me that it makes at least SOME money. Otherwise, it would be scrapped. Not including sponsorships, the SCG should have made over $600K off tickets last year and over $800K the year before. I know that we rent Legion Field for $1 and at one point, we were not paying for security or anything either. That is why we play in Bham. We do need to figure out a way to improve the event but for not, i'm for keeping it.
Click to expand...

If you all had not lucked up and won a couple of East Championships, you would still be against the SCG. I see your attitude has changed. But you have a right to be positive, because you all tricked SU to move a home game to Jackson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top