2003 All SWAC Football Team


FYI...those last 2 momof2ym posts were really from ZN.

Now a couple of words from momof2...

SWACPRMan, thanks so much for coming to the rescue to explain the process.

It is a shame that everybody didn't vote but I guess that could happen simply because you thought your guy was the best and couldn't vote for your own guy. We'll never know how the voting went, but wouldn't it be something if folks voted for Carrie to not vote for Bruce or Quincy in hopes that this would put their guy over (since they couldn't vote for their own guy)? Not voting or voting like this could have also give Carrie enough votes to get 2nd team.

We have all critized the SWAC process. Does anybody know what the other conferences do? I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar to what we do. The SWAC is not as bad as we think.
 
I've taken a look at all the other All-conference teams that have been released thus far (I-AA and I-A). I haven't noticed any omissions as glaring as Eugene.

As usual, I will speak about the kickers and punters though...lol

The vast majority of the time, the guys voted all-conference were the ones with the most field goals (with little regard for percentage) and the highest punting average.

What makes no sense to me on the SWAC team is that Morgan and Johnson made the same amount of field goals, but Morgan missed 7 more than Johnson....still smh at that one.....

Another note.....the highest average doesn't always mean the best punter.
 



Umm PNeck....you can toot that kickers horn all day long and I don't think you are going to get much support of concern with that issue. But keep your fight alive....
 
Originally posted by momof2ym
You can publish everything. You think Bell would be intimated by publishing his vote.
Click to expand...

No one said publish the vote but rather publish what administators or negligent in casting their vote until the SWAC office mandates it.

It would say much about the competency level of these administrators as well as embarassing them and putting them in a position to explain their incompetency. Don't dismiss the impact that this could have. I am quite sure some institutional prexy's would be interested in this data as well as someone down the road looking for well rounded athletic administrators.
 
Originally posted by JROCK
No one said publish the vote but rather publish what administators or negligent in casting their vote until the SWAC office mandates it.

It would say much about the competency level of these administrators as well as embarassing them and putting them in a position to explain their incompetency. Don't dismiss the impact that this could have. I am quite sure some institutional prexy's would be interested in this data as well as someone down the road looking for well rounded athletic administrators.
Click to expand...

Same thing could happen. They could say if you going to make me do something I don't want to do, I'll vote for someone you wouldn't want me to logically vote for. So, I'm still saying attempting to bring embarrassment has more of a chance to work against doing the right thing. It is like voting for politicians. The best time to get good and right things accomplished is at election or appointment time. ONce they are in, it is hard to impact them without bring further harm to what you are attempting to stand up for. The SWAC doesn't appear to have a lot of administrators, ADs and coaches that necessarily care about the SWAC. Some care about their school, but a lot of them really only care about themselves. Thus, things like this are not a surprise. Thus, less kids are being drafted from our football programs.

Peace!!!
 
#8 FOR GRAMBLING JERSEY SHOULD SMELL LIKE IT'S BEEN IN A HOUSE FIRE

HOW COULD THE VOTERS SIT AND VOTE OCTAVIOUS BOND (#8 FOR GRAMBLING) ONTO THE ALL SWAC TEAM AND OMIT "PASSO"(BRUCE EUGENE). WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO INSULT? DID THEY SEE BOND GET SCORCHED ABOUT 3 TIMES IN THE CLASSIC FOR TD'S:kaioken:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top