Changes Coming To SWAC Schedule


Status
Not open for further replies.
staggalee83 said:
Yep....................And have not played Howard or Hampton again either.

So many possiabilities.................So many good games to be hatched.
Click to expand...

Same here for us. Now Pete or whoever the coach is will not be able to schedule the pansies. One D-2 school like NCCU was or an Albany State is okay. But the rest should be good 1AA competition or a 1A mid-major. We already got FAMU signed to a new contract which starts next year. Maybe we can get a Tn State or a NC A&T on the schedule. Heck we can play Pete's old school Winston Salem since they are moving up to 1AA. I think last year was their first playing a 1AA schedule.
 
staggalee83 said:
I just said Georgia Southern because we had to drop out of talks with them after Culbertson left because the one date we had open could not be matched with their's last year.
Same with Lou-Laf.
Click to expand...

:topic: Actually, Culberson was trying to get that game for Labor Day weekend in Atlanta. Recall, he pulled out of the Peach State classic and he told me it was because he wanted to play a "neutral interest" game in Atlanta to tap into more sponsorship dollars...also, GaSouthern would benefit from tapping into the ATL market.


I shole miss Culberson. :(
 



Oracle said:
We have to learn to be patient. Very few business organization make significant profits when they first began operations. It takes time to identify the market and make your target market aware of your product and to change from another product to your product. In light of that, we have to be prepared to work at it for a while before the maximum benefit is realized.

The more we know about a market the better idea we can have about its potential. For example, if Jackson State broke away from the Southern Heritage in Memphis and the SWAC created its own classic, we would have a basis projecting how much revenue could be generate. We would have a basis to estimate revenue from the attendance. Based on a good estimate of the attendance, would could make a good basis to estimate revenue from hotel rooms, parking, and expenditures on food. Based upon all of this, we should be able to estimate right away how much revenue the business unit would receive, and make an easy determination if the business unit could pay one of those schools enough to justify moving a home game.

If we created a classic style game in say, Denver, we would have to estimate the attendance without any historical evidence to rely upon. Obviously, it would take a couple of years before we could get an idea about whether tsuch a game would be feasible there.
Click to expand...


There is a lot of estimating in there. I guess there would have to ge guinea pigs willing to do that.

As far as the part in red, that is a VERY optimistic statement.
 
blownup said:
SWAC WELFARE SYSTEM / THE HAVE/HAVE NOTS- Someone please explain this concept because my interpertation is not making sense to me.
What I understand the GREAT ones - THE big three to be saying is that being on the schedule of the seven remaining members of this GREAT, POWERFUL, and most recognized SWAC conference provides them with a financial windfall that if not there would cause them to not survive. And I'm guessing that the economy of said city where school resides would also ceast to exist. Now I'm wondering just how many years have any of those seven remaining schools played football and of that where they all associated with the SWAC. How have they managed to survive all of these years? YOU BLACK PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD TRULY AMAZE ME WITH YOUR BULLSHAT. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHATS REALLY IMPORTANT? At the end of the day each school will field a football team and schedule the necessary games to fulfill a schedule and the fans of each school will do what the would normally due regardless of the opponent.
Click to expand...


what all means is this. your fans have to come see your team play. if you're playing an intrasquad scrimmage, your fans need to come, not alcorns, not jsu or su. It means every program needs to sell every seat in their stadium to their fans. crampton bowl in montgomery holds almost 25k. there should be 25k bama state fans, regardless of opponent. not 12k when they pvamu and 25k when they play jsu. and if you think that doesn't happen go and look at attendance by game throughout the swac last season.

the other thing. why are some of you soo eager to play in a classic? i suspect it's because you can't make any money at home. and it's not that you can't make money at home, but that would take some real work to get done. it means you have to invest in your program, improve facilities so coaches can recruit, and kids can get bigger and stronger. you'll have to market and beat those alumni bushes to get some real season ticket sales. and you'll have to find away to beat an ooc team that's not division II or naia (please don't start scheduling emporia state or texas college, do it right and fix your program please).

we get pimped in classics. because we don't assume any of the financial risk, the promoters get to keep the largest portion of the profit. the only reason you'd strike this deal with the devil is b/c you know u don't draw flies. what is intresting as well is that if you fixed your program and create a fan base, you'd get more money if you were to participate in a classic.

it's not rocket science people. sell season tickets. you want the majority of the people that come to your game to be season ticket holders. if you've got to see who were playing b/f you can decide if you want to come and support your school, we don't need u, stay at home, because see your not supporting or helping the program. i'd rather have a small faithful season ticket fan base to rely on rather than a fickled group of dopes that only show up when they see a BIG name on the schedule.
 
major095 said:
it's not rocket science. the sec and now the acc manages this every year. the sec plan is simple and fair and let's you know who your going to play years in advance. play everyone in your division. you get one permanent rival from the other division and the two rotating teams from the other division. very simple and straight forward. no not knowing who you play until the season is over.

for those that say this allows teams to backdoor their way to a championship....win the games on your schedule and you don't have to worry about the next guy. if someone goes 7-0 in the swac they deserve to be in the scg regardless of what 7 teams they played.

for those that say we want grambling or southern or both on our schedule this season........ THERE IS NO WELFARE IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL....FILL UR STADIUM WITH YOUR FANS AND STOP HOPING SOMEONE BRINGS A CROWD AND STOP LOOKING TO SEE WHO'S ON THE SCHEDULE BEFORE YOU DETERMINE IF YOUR GOING. if your a fan be a fan. buy a season ticket and go to all the games even if they're playing jackson baptist jr high cafateria staff. aiight!!


they should not allow a swac team to play another swac team if they are not on your 7 game swac schedule. it just creates confusion and defeats the purpose and spirit of the 7 game mandate. you want a money game? go play usm or louisiana-monroe or troy, but the league office should have SEVERE penalties for any schools that would attempt to subvert the 7 game mandate.
Click to expand...

I like this post. I really hope the smaller SWAC schools can make it, but I think they will. There are other I-AAs schools in worst shape financially, that seem to be pulling it off. The small SWAC schools are already in a conference, that's half the battle right there.
 
The more you guys argue, the more sense my scenario makes........


Here it is again:

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. There'd be no bickering within the Division about which games count. Everybody in the Division would play the same out-of-division games (the ones that 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...
 
Major095, your comments are ON POINT.
1) SELL/BUY season tickets.
2) Stay away from classics.

I will add, get on the road and support your school when they play another SWAC school. This helps us help each other.

I bet many promotors don't even waste their time with trying to get SU into a classic. You know why? SU knows they can get just as much money at a home game versus a classic. I'm not just talking about ticket sales, but the extra money left in the community on game day.

I know UAPB pretty much ONLY target season ticket sales to those who are previous season ticket holders. One idea I would like for them to do is get each Alumni Chapter in the Metropolitian area to purchase 100 season tickets.
 
Taylor-Made'90 said:
The more you guys argue, the more sense my scenario makes........


Here it is again:

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. There'd be no bickering within the Division about which games count. Everybody in the Division would play the same out-of-division games (the ones that 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...
Click to expand...

That would help to make things even BUT I still don't like it. It could affect scheduling other games waiting on the SWAC to put a master schedule together.
 
Taylor-Made'90 said:
The more you guys argue, the more sense my scenario makes........


Here it is again:

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. There'd be no bickering within the Division about which games count. Everybody in the Division would play the same out-of-division games (the ones that 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...
Click to expand...

Nah man because of the OOC scheduling it would affect. It would be better to make a rotating schedule that could be set 2-3 years in advance instead of waiting until December to know which teams to schedule, then finding open dates for all within a couple of months.
 
mighty hornet said:
right now, GaSou would benefit from most things.
:lol:

Their run at the top is over for awhile.
Click to expand...

yep................They having problems by their standards.

A 2nd and 1st round PLAYOFF bump is below standards for them.
They would still, AT THIS POINT, crack our heads wide open.............THA TRUTH. :nod:
 
Taylor-Made'90,

I DISAGREE, here is why.
1) The top teams in each division gets an easier schedule.
2) You are leaving the door open for SWAC teams to play each other and it not being considered a SWAC game. 7 SWAC opponents PERIOD! It makes no sense to play a conference opponent and it not be a conference game.

A better option would be
1) 4 DIVISIONAL GAMES
2) 1 PERMANNENT INTER-DIVISIONAL GAMES
3) 2 ROTATING INTER-DIVISIONAL GAMES (2 year rotation).

EX. UAPB will have AAMU as the perm. inter-div opponnent
2008 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (Valley, JSU)
2009 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (Valley, JSU)
2010 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (ASU, Alcorn)
2011 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (ASU, Alcorn)
 



staggalee83 said:
yep................They having problems by their standards.

A 2nd and 1st round PLAYOFF bump is below standards for them.
They would still, AT THIS POINT, crack our heads wide open.............THA TRUTH. :nod:
Click to expand...

actually, they only won 3 games last year.


but I digress, cause I see where GaSou has just hired Chris Hatcher from D2 power Valdosta St. He had only lost 12 games in 7 years.
 
mighty hornet said:
:smh::smh:
I knew it was a matter of time.

Never mind the endless, outlandish posts some of your jsue folks make.
<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_2.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"> (double take on who posted this line)
Click to expand...

Like saying JSU should want to forget about A@T, yet you want us to ignore you constantly getting your head cracked by D2 Skeege. :lol:
 
staggalee83 said:
Like saying JSU should want to forget about A@T, yet you want us to ignore you constantly getting your head cracked by D2 Skeege. :lol:
Click to expand...

but you don't see me trying to pass off ASU as the greatest ever. Unlike your folks. On every thread.
Never mind the FACT that yall aint even competed for a championship this CENTURY!!!!!!!!!
 
mighty hornet said:
actually, they only won 3 games last year.

:eek:
I knew one of their DB's got killed in a motorcycle accident last year

but I digress, cause I see where GaSou has just hired Chris Hatcher from D2 power Valdosta St. He had only lost 12 games in 7 years.
Click to expand...

He gonna take G.S. back to an option type team?
Passing didn't work too well with only 3 wins.
 
Da_Sperm said:
Taylor-Made'90,

I DISAGREE, here is why.
1) The top teams in each division gets an easier schedule.
2) You are leaving the door open for SWAC teams to play each other and it not being considered a SWAC game. 7 SWAC opponents PERIOD! It makes no sense to play a conference opponent and it not be a conference game.

A better option would be
1) 4 DIVISIONAL GAMES
2) 1 PERMANNENT INTER-DIVISIONAL GAMES
3) 2 ROTATING INTER-DIVISIONAL GAMES (2 year rotation).

EX. UAPB will have AAMU as the perm. inter-div opponnent
2008 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (Valley, JSU)
2009 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (Valley, JSU)
2010 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (ASU, Alcorn)
2011 UAPB => (GSU, SU, PVU, TxSU) (AAMU) (ASU, Alcorn)
Click to expand...

Nope...that is not gonna benefit JSU-SU-Alcorn-Grambling so it won't happen....:lmao:

Also, WHY would JSU agree to have SU as a permanent rival with Alcorn having GSU as a permanent rival so we can lose and get bumped out of the championship game? I am sure that UAPB and Valley would be permanents but how do you think the BAMAs and Texans will feel about this? Permanent rivals in the SWAC is very unfair.
 
mighty hornet said:
but you don't see me trying to pass off ASU as the greatest ever. Unlike your folks. On every thread.
Never mind the FACT that yall aint even competed for a championship this CENTURY!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

So why is that a problem for YOU.:lol:
And that this century re-run is back.
Get something new.

Bamma State has only known what it is like to be a winner only 2 times since you moved up.

Of course nobody in Bamma is going to say Bamma St is the Greatest at anything. :lol:
Ya'll don't even have that kind of SCHOOL MENTALITY yet.

What WE say about JSU should not even concern what Bamma St do or say.
That's what a program that expect's to win will say.
We don't walk around saying this is too hard..............We can't compete.

We fire people with WINNING RECORDS that don't win Championships.:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top