If you're waiting for the SWAC to leave Birmingham . . .


Status
Not open for further replies.
If the SWAC Membership Fee was raised to $200,000 or $300,000 a year do you think your school would pay it? Often times the SWAC Office is blamed when it is the schools that is the problem. As I continue to read comments about the SWAC, a lot of comments indicates to me that you might not be on top of what your school is doing to help improve the SWAC. I will say it again the SWAC has made significant improvements from the first day of meeting with Dr. F up to the present. If you don't know where you were it is hard to understand where we are today. We have a new President and AAMU has done well over the years in the SWAC, but I hope he understand the association with the SWAC adds value to the success of AAMU.

We may not have won a SCG, but going to the SCG for the 4th time is something MD does not take lightly, but coming from a D2 Program to be able to compete in a D1AA Conference with the premier BCF Teams IMO is good for our program.

Any venture that is sought after is only worth as much as you can bring to the table. B'ham wants the SWAC and the office is free but the SEC pays more than we do. The SEC pay $1.00 for its space and I guess this is why they have not moved to Atlanta.
 
MD, all that is understandable and good info, but can YOU tell us where the profits are going since the office spaces are free?
 



Blacknbengal said:
Dude, you're so HELL bent out of shape with your hatred for JACKSON STATE that you fail to realize that the question that was posed was a very good "political correct" question. Dude, you may need to sit buck nekid on a block of ice, cause sounds like your running an internal fever for JSU.
Click to expand...


^^^My point proven.


Thank you.
 
JR said:
Now Alum, why was Bengal E's post silly? He asked a valid question and you attacked it basically.
Click to expand...


Because it is the same thing that has been posted a ga-zillion times by the folks who have the attitude of "anywhere but Birmingham," when ithas been posted before (and again in this thread,) Birmingham is not the problem.

I asked the question that if the problem is the leadership of the conference leadership, (which is a problem in many instances,) how does the location of the SWAC exec. offices have anything to do with that?

And STILL, I have no answer.
 
AAMU Alum said:
Because it is the same thing that has been posted a ga-zillion times by the folks who have the attitude of "anywhere but Birmingham," when ithas been posted before (and again in this thread,) Birmingham is not the problem.

I asked the question that if the problem is the leadership of the conference leadership, (which is a problem in many instances,) how does the location of the SWAC exec. offices have anything to do with that?

And STILL, I have no answer.
Click to expand...


staggalee83 said:
And this is why I don't like the SWAC leadership.

These MoFo's are getting shat free, yet they can't release a report on where the money is going or how much is being made each year.

I say again.....................Don't matter where it is located.
The same clowns will still be running it.
Click to expand...

:idea:
 
AAMU Alum,
I see your point. It is up to the SWAC schools to make this event a profitable one for the SWAC, not the host city itself. The city (BHAM) in this case has done everything possible to make this a win-win for both parties involved. Rent if free for the HQ and the event for the SWAC, in turn, the city is depending on their revenue to come from taxes (sales tax on hotels, car rentals, dining, etc.) from hosting the event.

The SWAC is dependent on ticket sales and sponsorship from the event to generate their profit. If ticket sales are LOW, then it really isn't the hosting city's fault, it is the SWAC alumni fault.

This really falls back on the SWAC, not the hosting city of the HQ or the event.
 
Now that is one one of the best post ever on this board about this topic. Some of them still want understand what you are saying bruh.
Da_Sperm said:
AAMU Alum,
I see your point. It is up to the SWAC schools to make this event a profitable one for the SWAC, not the host city itself. The city (BHAM) in this case has done everything possible to make this a win-win for both parties involved. Rent if free for the HQ and the event for the SWAC, in turn, the city is depending on their revenue to come from taxes (sales tax on hotels, car rentals, dining, etc.) from hosting the event.

The SWAC is dependent on ticket sales and sponsorship from the event to generate their profit. If ticket sales are LOW, then it really isn't the hosting city's fault, it is the SWAC alumni fault.

This really falls back on the SWAC, not the hosting city of the HQ or the event.
Click to expand...
 
Da_Sperm said:
AAMU Alum,
I see your point. It is up to the SWAC schools to make this event a profitable one for the SWAC, not the host city itself. The city (BHAM) in this case has done everything possible to make this a win-win for both parties involved. Rent if free for the HQ and the event for the SWAC, in turn, the city is depending on their revenue to come from taxes (sales tax on hotels, car rentals, dining, etc.) from hosting the event.

The SWAC is dependent on ticket sales and sponsorship from the event to generate their profit. If ticket sales are LOW, then it really isn't the hosting city's fault, it is the SWAC alumni fault.

This really falls back on the SWAC, not the hosting city of the HQ or the event.
Click to expand...


:tup:

That explanation alone should be the end of it, frat. However, trust me when I say that it will not.
 
Blacknbengal said:
MD, all that is understandable and good info, but can YOU tell us where the profits are going since the office spaces are free?
Click to expand...

What MD is saying that our schools aint doing their part. Basically meaning we aint barely paying our SWAC dues and we need to question our Presidents and Chancellors on what is going on. This is bigger than B-ham or wherever the SWAC office is located or games are played. That is not the problem. But we do need answers to the questions though.

See MD is in a position to get answers from AAMU. Most of us are not or our schools choose not to disclose that info to us.

All I will say is one day some President is going to get tired of this crap and have some vision and gone bolt from the conference and it will not be uncalculated like what FAMU tried to do. If all our schools aint making enough money to contribute to the SWAC and we don't get much back from the SWAC events.......then we are doomed. This new era of sports is going to demand we be affliated with a conference that is moving and shaking. Even the PWC small conferences are finding that out as schools that can move, are leaving for greener pastures and the ones that can not are left holding the bag and talking about cutting funding and some sports all together.

I don't buy that we are in a good position. I look at my own school and see no facilities, empty basketball arena, etc......with all the sports relying on football as our money winner to finance everything. Man we are dying a slow death in HBCU land right now. Old school thinking and not enough progressive minds in charge of our campuses and the SWAC office......not to mention we still have old mentalities controlling most of our alumni organizations. Some of our schools choose to ignore what we the alums say unless we got a big check for them to put in their own personal pocket and not the school's account. Oh well, JR is through :lecture: :lol:
 
Da_Sperm said:
The SWAC is dependent on ticket sales and sponsorship from the event to generate their profit. If ticket sales are LOW, then it really isn't the hosting city's fault, it is the SWAC alumni fault.

This really falls back on the SWAC, not the hosting city of the HQ or the event.
Click to expand...


From reading the posts, everyone basically agrees with this.
 
Da_Sperm said:
AAMU Alum,
I see your point. It is up to the SWAC schools to make this event a profitable one for the SWAC, not the host city itself. The city (BHAM) in this case has done everything possible to make this a win-win for both parties involved. Rent if free for the HQ and the event for the SWAC, in turn, the city is depending on their revenue to come from taxes (sales tax on hotels, car rentals, dining, etc.) from hosting the event.

The SWAC is dependent on ticket sales and sponsorship from the event to generate their profit. If ticket sales are LOW, then it really isn't the hosting city's fault, it is the SWAC alumni fault.

This really falls back on the SWAC, not the hosting city of the HQ or the event.
Click to expand...

Dude, this is the same explaination, but shorter.

staggalee83 said:
And this is why I don't like the SWAC leadership.

These MoFo's are getting shat free, yet they can't release a report on where the money is going or how much is being made each year.

I say again.....................Don't matter where it is located.
The same clowns will still be running it.
Click to expand...
 
Bengal E said:
This is the part I don't understand.....




If we are getting these facilities rent-free, where are the profits? Are we paying that much in salaries, marketing, event planning, etc. that equal the small payouts the schools receive?


The SWAC must not be a moneymaker because it seems if they had to pay overhead they would be in the red.......

Now would some of you insightful people clear this up and help me understand.
Click to expand...


Ya know, nowhere in this do I see any mention of Birmingham. The only inference to B'ham that could possibly be raised is getting the facilities rent free because B'ham does control that.

So how in the ehll could anybody think I was saying anything positive/negative about B'ham? :confused:

I even said The SWAC must not be a money maker. Not B'ham must be holding the SWAC down! Geesh!!

Now to answer your question......

Location is not the problem for this game. The only problem that I have seen that location plays in this is that B'ham is not a centrally located SWAC city and some people have the perception that it is a very dull, boring city. Not my perception, but some people do think it nonetheless. The problem with this game is the time of year, the 9 game mandate, and the fact that it has not been marketed into becoming an event. It has no individual SWAC school support and very minimal official SWAC support. But location is not the problem, it's actually a plus, because B'ham may not be centrally located in the SWAC, but it is central to MGM, MOB, ATL, JXN, HSV, MEM which all have large pockets of SWAC alumni.

Now are you happy??? Next time if you don't consider yourself insightful, just don't answer the question, somebody will. You don't have to be ridiculous. And if you consider yourself insightful, but don't have an answer, I don't know is fine, you won't lessen your knowledge of things. But that BS way you went off..........:nono: :shame:
 



Bengal E said:
Ya know, nowhere in this do I see any mention of Birmingham. The only inference to B'ham that could possibly be raised is getting the facilities rent free because B'ham does control that.

So how in the ehll could anybody think I was saying anything positive/negative about B'ham? :confused:

I even said The SWAC must not be a money maker. Not B'ham must be holding the SWAC down! Geesh!!

Now to answer your question......

Location is not the problem for this game. The only problem that I have seen that location plays in this is that B'ham is not a centrally located SWAC city and some people have the perception that it is a very dull, boring city. Not my perception, but some people do think it nonetheless. The problem with this game is the time of year, the 9 game mandate, and the fact that it has not been marketed into becoming an event. It has no individual SWAC school support and very minimal official SWAC support. But location is not the problem, it's actually a plus, because B'ham may not be centrally located in the SWAC, but it is central to MGM, MOB, ATL, JXN, HSV, MEM which all have large pockets of SWAC alumni.

Now are you happy??? Next time if you don't consider yourself insightful, just don't answer the question, somebody will. You don't have to be ridiculous. And if you consider yourself insightful, but don't have an answer, I don't know is fine, you won't lessen your knowledge of things. But that BS way you went off..........:nono: :shame:
Click to expand...



Frat, folks feel like it is an attack on Birmingham every time this is mentioned. So folks feel like the rest of us are anti-Bama and not asking questions with good intentions. LOL. I knew what you were asking and so did some folks. But I knew it would not be long before someone said something.

I would ask the same question you did even if the HQ was in La or Ms. Heck I always said when Rudy and James Frank were commish, why did they stay in NO when we got no concessions from them like we should. I appreciate that B-ham opened their doors for the SWAC. My problem is that nobody in charge did anything to make it successful in my opinion. Whether that blame is on the SWAC office or our individual Presidents......then shame on them. But like I said, we have clowns with no business sense running our schools and the SWAC. If the presidents would hire ADs with business sense and let them have the power and let the SWAC commish have the power then we would be in better shape. Our problem is that all these academic mofos with no knowledge of the business of sports are controlling our conference. This is not happening at the PWCs. They stay strictly in their realm..........academia. But no........not ours. :no:
 
JR said:
Frat, folks feel like it is an attack on Birmingham every time this is mentioned.:
Click to expand...

Because 99.9% of the time, it is JR and you know it.


All one has to do is go back and read any of the 300,000 threads about moving the SCG or the SWAC Executive Offices, and you will immediately see where the FIRST thing posted is "get it out of Birmingham," or something to that effect.

You all can play crazy and act like that has not been the case if you like. I know better.
 
Well Aluminum, this .1% time you're wrong, cause most of the posts on here was about the leadership and not Birmingham.
 
AAMU Alum said:
Because 99.9% of the time, it is JR and you know it.


All one has to do is go back and read any of the 300,000 threads about moving the SCG or the SWAC Executive Offices, and you will immediately see where the FIRST thing posted is "get it out of Birmingham," or something to that effect.

You all can play crazy and act like that has not been the case if you like. I know better.
Click to expand...

But not in this thread. You did it this time. :)
 
SLT said:
But not in this thread. You did it this time. :)
Click to expand...

Now I thought you could read better than that. I expect that out of some of these others.

See, this is what I posted:

All one has to do is go back and read any of the 300,000 threads about moving the SCG or the SWAC Executive Offices, and you will immediately see where the FIRST thing posted is "get it out of Birmingham," or something to that effect.


That was in direct response to JR's post that read:
Frat, folks feel like it is an attack on Birmingham every time this is mentioned.


RIF. And that's one of y'all's national programs, SLT. Certainly you should be familiar with that.

kiss, kiss! :kiss:
 
AAMU Alum said:
Now I thought you could read better than that. I expect that out of some of these others.

See, this is what I posted:

All one has to do is go back and read any of the 300,000 threads about moving the SCG or the SWAC Executive Offices, and you will immediately see where the FIRST thing posted is "get it out of Birmingham," or something to that effect.


That was in direct response to JR's post that read:
Frat, folks feel like it is an attack on Birmingham every time this is mentioned.


kiss, kiss! :kiss:
Click to expand...


Calm down....:)

I read and have been reading and the post keep repeating themselves.


Nobody is blaming the city of B'ham. But, since that is where the SWAC office is located, you would think that the powers that be would have a better business sense when it comes to promoting the city. It would be the same situation if the office was in Shreveport, Jackson, etc and the promotion was lackluster.

We(SWAC schools) need to step up our game on promoting this conference. Otherwise, it is and will remain a step behind the rest..:wavey:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top