Poll: Should The SWAC Place Restrictions On Non-Conference Football Schedules?


Status
Not open for further replies.
I voted yes and will go further cause this has gotten way out of had. It has gotten out of hand not only by the number of sub-FCS teams being scheduled but the QUALITY of those teams are getting worse and worse by the year.

I say they should put a 4 year moratorium on SWAC teams scheduling any D2 or below teams just to wake up these lazy AD's in this conference. :tup:
 



mighty hornet said:
Yeah, I read it and again, what would be the reason the SWAC should place a restriction on scheduling?
Click to expand...

To "hopefully" improve the overall quality of play by playing a more competitive non-conference schedule. You can't convince me that - as time goes on - the teams of this conference begin to mirror the play of its opponents. When you play a non-conference schedule in which 50% of the teams play below the FCS level, you don't think that has an impact on the quality of play for our conference?
 
SAME OLD G said:
To "hopefully" improve the overall quality of play by playing a more competitive non-conference schedule.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't really buy that. But you did emphasize "hopefully" though.

The SWAC already "schedules" 9 of our games, now yall think they should say who can (or can't) be scheduled for the other 2.
 
mighty hornet said:
Sorry, but I don't really buy that. But you did emphasize "hopefully" though.

The SWAC already "schedules" 9 of our games, now yall think they should say who can (or can't) be scheduled for the other 2.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't read the post. Read the poll question. It was written with the understanding that you continue to have you game against Tuskegee.
 
mighty hornet said:
Sorry, but I don't really buy that. But you did emphasize "hopefully" though.

The SWAC already "schedules" 9 of our games, now yall think they should say who can (or can't) be scheduled for the other 2.
Click to expand...

The 9 game mandate is and always was stupid as heck also. :nod:
 
The question says no more than 1 sub-FCS opponent and I think that should be fine.

This allows A&M and ASU to play TU, Pine Bluff can play a SIAC school in ST Louis every now and then.

Plus it's just like FBS can only play on FCS school to count for it's bowl record and that seems reasonable.
 
Let's not forget we moved back to the 9 game mandate because certain schools seemed to not be able to fill their schedules during the 7 game format and i voted yes for the poll.
 



I say yes but only after the SWAC get their stuff together. Instead of hanging on to the Legacy Bowl the SWAC and the MEAC could have worked out a rotational setup that each school would get to play each other. Then allow the school to choose what other game they wanted as their OOC game.
 
SAME OLD G said:
To "hopefully" improve the overall quality of play by playing a more competitive non-conference schedule. You can't convince me that - as time goes on - the teams of this conference begin to mirror the play of its opponents. When you play a non-conference schedule in which 50% of the teams play below the FCS level, you don't think that has an impact on the quality of play for our conference?
Click to expand...

How does that improve the overall quality of play since each schools plays 9 conference games that are suppose to be of caliper playing?

You can't take 2 games and say that's the downfall of competitive paying.

Schools have to fill their schedule the way they see fit to make money for their dept.

mighty hornet said:
Yeah, I read it and again, what would be the reason the SWAC should place a restriction on scheduling?
Click to expand...

I'm on board with you on this........

It's not like you're trying to increase the conference's rating to compete in some kid of post season playoff.
 
I vote yes. SWAC fans deserve better and AD's are getting paid good money to do just that, schedule quality schools.
There should also be a moratorium on AD's (and the SWAC office) waiting until the last minute to schedule schools.

Schools like PV and Texas Southern should have no problems playing local FCS opponents due to the many schools in Texas and Louisiana they have to choose from. There's no excuse for them at all.

Valley scheduled South Carolina State last year and they're 12 hours away, so it's not asking too much if the other AD's could do something similar.

By the way, the NCAA has a limit on the number of FCS schools FBS schools can play if they want to remain in the running for the FBS title.
The SWAC could implement something similar if one wants to remain in the hunt for the SWAC title.
 
easy here,

I SAID NO.....IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER CUZ THE PLAY OF THE SWAC HAS GOTTEN SO BAD THAT A GOOD CIAA TEAM CAN RUN THE TABLES IN THE SWAC. SO SCHEDULING BIGGER OPPONENTS MEAN MORE LOSSES AND MORE INJURIES. SCHEDULING FOR MONEY EQUALS MORE LOSSES AND MORE INJURIES. ALSO, WITH BAD COACHING AND OFFICIATING, OUR KIDS WOULD GET KILLED BY A GOOD RICHMOND TEAM ANY DAY....IN CONCLUDING, SCHEDULING WEAKER OPPONENTS MIGHT GIVE TEAMS CONFIDENCE AND A WIN AT HOMECOMING. UNTIL WE HIRE BETTER COACHES AND AD'S , WE ARE STUCK WITH BAD BRAND OF FOOTBALL....
 
Honestly, I don't have any problem with us playing D2 schools. Some D2 schools are better than 1-AA schools. But Kenn, this topic is way too deep. The MEAC fines a school $25K for playing more than one 1-A school so this would have a precedent. I'm just totally against scheduling senseless opponents. I don't see anything wrong if Alcorn wanted to play Delta State and Fort Valley. If Alabama State wants to play Tuskegee and Albany State...fine, they them take the D2 azz whoopins! Those are quality D2 opponents. I have a problem with us playing NAIA schools and 1-A schools. We should only be allowed to play teams that would be a challenge to our student athletes: No gimme wins or gimme losses. We should stay in our lane and play 1-AA schools, GOOD D2 programs. As a matter of last resort, I think it is okay to play non-BCS 1-A programs.

...and of course, let's go to the 7 game format!
 
philharmonic said:
I can't undewrstand how a school can't fill out an 11 game schedule these days! there are too many schools to play!
Click to expand...

The reason they can't is because of 1-A vs 1-AA match-ups. You have 50-60 (if not more) 1-A teams trying to schedule easy wins vs 1-AA teams rather than playing each other. Well when they do that, that takes away potential 1-AA vs 1-AA matchups. Therefore the 1-AA teams have to look to D2's to fill their schedules. :smh: On top of that, you have 1-AA programs sitting around trying to catch 1-A bait and letting 1-AA matchups pass them by. If they banned 1-AA vs 1-A matchups, we would see fewer problems.
 
Fiyah said:
I'm on board with you on this........

It's not like you're trying to increase the conference's rating to compete in some kid of post season playoff.
Click to expand...

What does that matter? In 1999, we had two HBCU's in the top 10...TNState at #1 and Southern at #6. There are more things to fight for than a playoff seed. What if SU had played a schedule to get them in that #1 spot? We would STILL have articles floating around asking who was the real 1-AA champ in 1999. Though we are far removed from 1999, we do have goals to strive for. We control our own destiny and things would probably get better for us if we stop looking at things by way of a 1-AA playoff system. There are many ways to skin a cat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top