Changes Coming To SWAC Schedule


Status
Not open for further replies.
JayRob

JayRob

TigaPaw
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/SPORTS/70117045

The Southwestern Athletic Conference has decided to switch from the current nine-game league football schedule to its old seven-game format beginning in 2008.

SWAC commissioner Robert Vowels, along with the league?s presidents and chancellors, made the decision during recent meetings in Birmingham.

?It?s something that should be a positive for everyone in the league,? Vowels said.

?Hopefully, this will help scheduling concerns.?

Under the nine-game format used since 2005, SWAC schools played every other team in the conference which provided a balanced schedule. The downside was it left just two available non-conference dates in an 11-game season.

The SWAC will retain its same nine-game schedule for the 2007 season.
 
JayRob said:
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/SPORTS/70117045

The Southwestern Athletic Conference has decided to switch from the current nine-game league football schedule to its old seven-game format beginning in 2008.

SWAC commissioner Robert Vowels, along with the league?s presidents and chancellors, made the decision during recent meetings in Birmingham.

?It?s something that should be a positive for everyone in the league,? Vowels said.

?Hopefully, this will help scheduling concerns.?

Under the nine-game format used since 2005, SWAC schools played every other team in the conference which provided a balanced schedule. The downside was it left just two available non-conference dates in an 11-game season.

The SWAC will retain its same nine-game schedule for the 2007 season.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness. It is has been a long time coming.......New presidents at our schools must be helping change some minds or Vowels got some nutz and told them mofos what is needed and laid out the reasons why. Good deal
 



Vowells needs to come up with how we are going to determine which out of division team games will count NOW.... and also will the two teams rotate or are you on your own in choosing the teams. I honestly see more MESS coming out of this than the 9 game mandate.
 
DAHILL said:
Vowells needs to come up with how we are going to determine which out of division team games will count NOW.... and also will the two teams rotate or are you on your own in choosing the teams. I honestly see more MESS coming out of this than the 9 game mandate.
Click to expand...

I agree and he needs to put the scheduling restriction on as well. It's time for these AD's to start earning their paychecks by being creative and not just relying on other SWAC teams to make their money( my school included.)
 
DAHILL said:
Vowells needs to come up with how we are going to determine which out of division team games will count NOW.... and also will the two teams rotate or are you on your own in choosing the teams. I honestly see more MESS coming out of this than the 9 game mandate.
Click to expand...

That's the least of our problems. Now we'll be able to schedule tougher opponents and bring back some credibility to the SWAC.

I believe the SWAC Presidents saw the resurgence of JSU football, and they said the SWAC is now ready to compete outside the conference once again.
To JSU be the glory!:winkgrin: :emlaugh:
 
It's about time. The old plan originally created by Rudy in 1998 is back.

Now the first time we hear a fan complaining they don't know which games count, we need to :slap:
 
JayRob said:
That's the least of our problems. Now we'll be able to schedule tougher opponents and bring back some credibility to the SWAC.

I believe the SWAC Presidents saw the resurgence of JSU football, and they said the SWAC is now ready to compete outside the conference once again.
To JSU be the glory!:winkgrin: :emlaugh:
Click to expand...


Negga please, yo mofos are so full of yourself it's sickening. Not one SWAC school has produced outside of conference, not one!!!! You mofos included.
 
DAHILL said:
Vowells needs to come up with how we are going to determine which out of division team games will count NOW.... and also will the two teams rotate or are you on your own in choosing the teams. I honestly see more MESS coming out of this than the 9 game mandate.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We should have a 8 game mandate with one traditional rival. I can see some teams back dooring there way into the championship.
 
everything looks peaches and creme now... but just wait till AAMU gets PV and Texas SO as its too games that count.... and JSU gets Grambling and Southern.... People on here are going to raise hell.... the only way to make this fair is to make only the divisional games count... and you play teams from the other divsion if you choose to.
 
DAHILL said:
everything looks peaches and creme now... but just wait till AAMU gets PV and Texas SO as its too games that count.... and JSU gets Grambling and Southern.... People on here are going to raise hell.... the only way to make this fair is to make only the divisional games count... and you play teams from the other divsion if you choose to.
Click to expand...

Hey it works in the other conferences. So it will have to work in the SWAC. We can't be worried about who dodged who. The SEC don't worry about that nor does the Big 10 or Big 12. It is what it is.
 



2008 me too soon to get away from the 9 game mandate. Look at the records this past season of the SCG winners. All three schools had loosing seasons. The one want-to-be power (JSU) only had a 6-5 mark. A truely good team would have easily gone undefeated in conference play last year. If things don't get any better this could be very embarassing. The fact is nobody really had a good team last year. A&M and APB just managed to survive. Don't get me wrong I'm all for getting rid of the 9 game mandate because of the games it has cost Bama State but right now nobody in the conference is ready to step up to tougher competition.
 
enswaclopedia said:
2008 me too soon to get away from the 9 game mandate. Look at the records this past season of the SCG winners. All three schools had loosing seasons. The one want-to-be power (JSU) only had a 6-5 mark. A truely good team would have easily gone undefeated in conference play last year. If things don't get any better this could be very embarassing. The fact is nobody really had a good team last year. A&M and APB just managed to survive. Don't get me wrong I'm all for getting rid of the 9 game mandate because of the games it has cost Bama State but right now nobody in the conference is ready to step up to tougher competition.
Click to expand...



They have been and will always be in the top 3 powers lol. A History of winning has done that for them, not just one or two years. Sorry it is what it is. Now back to the topic. Like someone said earlier, now its time to see what these AD's are really about and really earn their paychecks.
 
Will each school have to play every team on their side of the conference plus 3 additional SWAC schools, or just any seven SWAC schools? I remember the SU/UAPB situation of a couple of years ago.
 
I think the new (old) 7-game rule will work, if we apply it this way:

Every team plays everyone in their Division and those games will count.
The two non-Division games will be determined every off-season by requiring the 3rd, 4th and 5th seeded team in either Division play all the schools in the other Division the next year). That way, schedules can be anticipated every spring, so it makes scheduling easier (most 1AA schools schedule year to year anyway).

A scenario:

2007 Season Standings Final (hypothetically)

SWAC East
1. MVSU
2. AAMU
3. Alcorn
4. JSU
5. Alabama St.

SWAC West
1. TxSU
2. UAPB
3. Grambling
4. PV
5. Southern

Under my scenario, in 2008, every SWAC East team would play the 3., 4. and 5. from the West (GSU, PV and SU). Every SWAC West team would play the 3., 4. and 5. from the East (Alcorn, JSU and Alabama St). And only these three games and the divisional games (4) would count.

This still leaves teams the choice to schedule whoever else they want to...
This would certainly be an incentive to be more competitive, in order to not be labeled as a 'doormat' in the conference.... You'd have new schedules every year, and would force the Classics to 'bid' on the matchup games they want, whether the games actually count or not...

This could work....

What chall think???

:dude:
 
blownup said:
Negga please, yo mofos are so full of yourself it's sickening. Not one SWAC school has produced outside of conference, not one!!!! You mofos included.
Click to expand...

Uh we may not have won all those playoff games we played in but we beat some PWC's in our time. Check the NCAA records since 78. Know your swac history youngon. Has Pinebluff ever beat any?
 
NastyD said:
They have been and will always be in the top 3 powers lol. A History of winning has done that for them, not just one or two years. Sorry it is what it is. Now back to the topic. Like someone said earlier, now its time to see what these AD's are really about and really earn their paychecks.
Click to expand...
"KNEGGRO PLEASE!!! Save that lame azz bullschat for the smack board. Now keep your azz out of here while grown folks talk business."
 
JR said:
Hey it works in the other conferences. So it will have to work in the SWAC. We can't be worried about who dodged who. The SEC don't worry about that nor does the Big 10 or Big 12. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

The posters (especially some of the JSU ones) worried and complained about the format the last time it was in effect. I remember complaints that AAMU backed into the SCG when our games against SU and Grambling did not count for us but those games counted for others. The nine-game format solved those cries.

We will continue to hear complaints when this format present new and unexpected problems, and it fails to be the panacea that a lot of people think it will be.

The SWAC office and the athletic department at each school should have spent this time brainstorming about ways to make the conference stronger with the present format. This present decision is a classic example of doing something just to do something, without any reasonable assurance that the new (old) format will materially benefit the conference or the schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top