Changes Coming To SWAC Schedule

[mighty hornet]

Parity to me is when all the teams are really good.

I disagree with that. Parity to me is when there is not much diffference between the teams. (whether they are good or bad)

Do you actually think a WC Gordon lead JSU team with that same talent they had last year or even the Kent years would underachieve in the SWAC and blow the leads they had this year?

don't know, but it's kinda strange that you post that, but yet go on and hold up JSU's future as being so bright because of Comegy. (even though it was Comegy on the sideline last year blowing the leads that you post about)

 

[mighty hornet]

JR,
I re-read your post.

The one thing that was a given back in the day was coaches stayed and won. All those old coaches are now dead or gone... In our case Pete got lazy and did not keep up what he should have
Maybe that's were the parity is........we all have somewhat suspect coaches.

That goes perfectly with what I'm saying.

Like I said, things in the game done changed.

 

[JR]

I disagree with that. Parity to me is when there is not much diffference between the teams. (whether they are good or bad)



don't know, but it's kinda strange that you post that, but yet go on and hold up JSU's future as being so bright because of Comegy. (even though it was Comegy on the sideline last year blowing the leads that you post about)

Well in Comegy's case I do think he has some suspect playcalling last year. I am giving him a pass since it was his first year in the SWAC at JSU. Also he may have to learn that he may not have the right staff in place yet. However, I am impressed enough overall with his ability to change the attitude and improve the team dramatically after 3 years of Bell ball. Do I think he is a WC Gordon......hell no. So that is why I said that. I do think he is good enough to bring JSU back to winning the SWAC or at least being in the running for it year in and year out.

On the parity thing, I guess you are right about teams not being that good can be considered that way. But is that a good thing? I mean if you want parity in your conference you would hope the perennial losers got better and started beating good versions of the dominant programs. How good is it if Vanderbilt all of the sudden wins the SEC when Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ga, Tenn all start being sad teams. Not only losing to Vandy, but even losing outside of the conference. You know I have no issue in teams beating SU and feeling good about. Take for instance in 04 when your school won the SCG against us. You beat a decent SU team. Now you know both of those 04 teams would ran this 06 version of PBs off the field. When AAMU beat SU in 98. They beat a good SU team. Not one that everyone else is beating. Even D-2 schools. That's like us taking pride for beating PV in the 90s. That was not a big accomplishment since everybody else was too.

What I would like to see is all the conference teams upgrade their coaching, facilities and schedules. I want the competition. It makes the conference fun. I do not like to see us having bad parity. I want the good parity. Which means you may have one or 2 really bad teams in the SWAC in any given year. I know that's asking alot. But it would be nice.

 

[Da_Sperm]

"I'm for (the change) as long as we get to keep some of those big money games like Southern and Grambling," Comegy said. "That's a big deal for us. As long as we maintain those rivalries, I think it's good because it provides flexibility in the schedule."

Ah here we go with this mess. If this is the thinking, keep the 9 game format.

 

[CurtDog 1971]

I just hope they don't have it like before where some games counted some didn't. If you play a conference opponent, why in the world would that game not cound in the standings? No matter what divison the team is in.

 

[AAMU Alum]

LOL @ some folks thinking that this will be the best thing since orange juice in a carton.

When the teams who proclaim great feats for themselves every year STILL don't win enough games to get to B'ham, the shrill and irritating cries will continue, and yet more excuses will be made. :smh:

Mark my words!

 

[SAME OLD G]

LOL @ some folks thinking that this will be the best thing since orange juice in a carton.

When the teams who proclaim great feats for themselves every year STILL don't win enough games to get to B'ham, the shrill and irritating cries will continue, and yet more excuses will be made. :smh:

Mark my words!

Playing OOC game have no impact on the SCG. Believe me, that is the reason why the mandate was terminated. Your logic (as usual) makes no sense.

 

[Oracle]

I just hope they don't have it like before where some games counted some didn't. If you play a conference opponent, why in the world would that game not cound in the standings? No matter what divison the team is in.

The SWAC can not tell schools who not to schedule. As long as a school plays the games that count in the conference standings, the schools should be free to play other SWAC teams even if the games do not count in the standings. The nine-game format solved these problems.

Both the nine-game and seven-game presented some unfavorable conditions. I preferred to have the problems caused by the nine-game deal over those created by the other format.

 

[JR]

LOL @ some folks thinking that this will be the best thing since orange juice in a carton.

When the teams who proclaim great feats for themselves every year STILL don't win enough games to get to B'ham, the shrill and irritating cries will continue, and yet more excuses will be made. :smh:

Mark my words!

Alum, no system is perfect. Maybe 8 games is best option and only one team gets left off each year. I am not going to complain one bit. Because if the parity has set in like MH has said......it will not matter anyway. I think the big complaint will be who gets to keep playing each other regardless if it counts or not. Whoever makes it to the SCG makes it. You never know who is going to be good anyway in the SWAC anymore. So what may look like a friendly schedule one year may not be one.

 

[SAME OLD G]

The SWAC can not tell schools who not to schedule. As long as a school plays the games that count in the conference standings, the schools should be free to play other SWAC teams even if the games do not count in the standings. The nine-game format solved these problems.

Both the nine-game and seven-game presented some unfavorable conditions. I preferred to have the problems caused by the nine-game deal over those created by the other format.

Why am I not surprised?

And you best believe that the SWAC will certainly make it clear that teams are NOT to play each other if they are not schedule to play for conference reasons.

 

[AAMU Alum]

Playing OOC game have no impact on the SCG. Believe me, that is the reason why the mandate was terminated. Your logic (as usual) makes no sense.

I'm not talking about the OOC games, Einstein. :retard:

When "certain" teams lose their CONFERENCE games, some of their fans will whine and cry and make excuses. My logic makes all the sense in the world. There are others who have posted much the same thing, only using different terminology. If you don't believe it, just sit back and watch as the season plays out.

Hell, even with that mandate, if teams had simply JUST WON, there wouldn't have been any reason to burst our eardrums with siren-like wailing and moaning!

 

[mighty hornet]

And you best believe that the SWAC will certainly make it clear that teams are NOT to play each other if they are not schedule to play for conference reasons.

wasn't too long ago that the SWAC couldnt even make it clear that two teams in the same division have to play each other
:lol:

 

[SAME OLD G]

Hell, even with that mandate, if teams had simply JUST WON, there wouldn't have been any reason to burst our eardrums with siren-like wailing and moaning!

Name one team that has complained about not going to the SCG because of the mandate.

 

[AAMU Alum]

Alum, no system is perfect. Maybe 8 games is best option and only one team gets left off each year. I am not going to complain one bit. Because if the parity has set in like MH has said......it will not matter anyway. I think the big complaint will be who gets to keep playing each other regardless if it counts or not. Whoever makes it to the SCG makes it. You never know who is going to be good anyway in the SWAC anymore. So what may look like a friendly schedule one year may not be one.

Indeed JR!

But be realistic...you, I and others on here KNOW that when things don't play out the way "some" of the silly folks on here think they will (or should,) then the non-9 game mandate won't be enough to shut them up. YOU won't complain...BUT others will and we know it!!

 

[SAME OLD G]

wasn't too long ago that the SWAC couldnt even make it clear that two teams in the same division have to play each other
:lol:

:lol:

 

[AAMU Alum]

Name one team that has complained about not going to the SCG because of the mandate.

Tell tp to come in from the playground. Were you living in Madagascar or someplace over the past six years?

 

[Tigerpride]

LOL @ some folks thinking that this will be the best thing since orange juice in a carton.

When the teams who proclaim great feats for themselves every year STILL don't win enough games to get to B'ham, the shrill and irritating cries will continue, and yet more excuses will be made. :smh:

Mark my words!

Dude, the ONLY school with that problem before was JSU. Yes, we got shafted but that was because we did not have a good coach and Hughes could not recruit. I don't think Comegy is going to have a problem beating schools year in and year out. I can't see him losing 3-4 years straight to the SAME schools like Hughes did. The EAST willl run through Jackson.

 

[AAMU Alum]

Dude, the ONLY school with that problem before was JSU. Yes, we got shafted but that was because we did not have a good coach and Hughes could not recruit. I don't think Comegy is going to have a problem beating schools year in and year out. I can't see him losing 3-4 years straight to the SAME schools like Hughes did. The EAST willl run through Jackson.

There you are!! How was the new swingset and merry-go-round?

Sog,

Any more questions?

 

[Tigerpride]

The good thing is that now BCF has been saved. Now the Classic promoters can get the teams they REALLY want and non-conference foes in the MEAC can play the teams they REALLY want to play.

 

[SAME OLD G]

Tell tp to come in from the playground. Were you living in Madagascar or someplace over the past six years?

Huh??? Did he blame it on the SCG? Help me out...I am not following you.

TP, what is he talking about?

 

[mighty hornet]

Here you go SOGGY,
from page 2 of this thread

Also, someone said that JSU complained the last time we had the 7 game format. Yeah, we did. Hughes was fired because of the 7 -game format. However, he knew which games he had to win and he did not win them. If the 9-game mandate was always in place, this is how the SCG (EAST rep) would have looked.

1999 Jackson State
2000 Jackson State
2001 Alabama State
2002 Jackson State
2003 Alabama State
2004 Alabama State
2005 Alabama A&M
2006 Alabama A&M

Also, had Hughes gone to Bham in 3 of his 4 years, he may not have been fired and JSU may have never had 3 back to back losing seasons which could have meant that we could have gone back to Bham from 2003 to 2006 at some point.

po TP
:lol:

 

[jag4life]

Tell tp to come in from the playground. Were you living in Madagascar or someplace over the past six years?

When has he said the 9-game caused them to miss the SCG?

 

[mighty hornet]

When has he said the 9-game caused them to miss the SCG?

they complained about the 7 game format. just like they complained about the 9 game mandate.

basically, they just complain.
:lol:

 

[Oracle]

Why am I not surprised?

The nine-game format did not create any problems that could not be solved by a thoughtful and creative effort to make the conference games profitable. It would have been better to concentrate on the potential of that format than to react to its perceived deficiencies.

The nine-game could have been far more beneficial to the conference than the seven-game one will be to the conference or individual schools.

 

[jag4life]

The nine-game format did not create any problems that could not be solved by a thoughtful and creative effort to make the conference games profitable. It would have been better to concentrate on the potential of that format than to react to its perceived deficiencies.

What was your solution to those problems?