SWAC meetings tackle scheduling for football games

[PNeck019]

From a $$$$ standpoint, I understand your point and even the point of McNeese and other historically WCUs who vie for the SUs, JSUs, ... of the world (more buts in the seat mean more $$$$ for them, I mean, your schools lol). But, from a historical standpoint, I don't understand your point.

I'll chime in here. I partly understand the take that PWCs like playing HBCUs for the gate. There are other reasons too.

However, in the case of McNeese, I'll go out on a limb and say that the McNeese gate will be as big as any Mumford game Southern could play with the exceptions of FAMU and maybe Tennessee State. So in this case Dwight Mann pimping the HBCU doesn't apply.....

 

[Robber]

Jafus...can you type just the acronyms of the schools instead of the whole names? That would probably stop deterring me from reading some of your long posts because they won't look as long. You usually make good points...

I don't think I've ever seen Jafus use the acronyms of schools.

Anyway, what's the latest on the spring meetings???

 

[Jafus (Thinker)]

Jag4life,

Not a problem. Thanks for compliment on my post. For some reason, I have always like the idea of reading the entire name of our universities.

Smile at Robber's remarks. Good question.

 

[SU Jag 79]

While this may not have been a popular position for the conference to take, two things happened that while most of you and a great number of SU fans want this game so much on 11/20 ...

(1) The conference voted on this matter already. Even if UAPb gets their say this time, which they should have, what makes you think the same people who voted for this once will not do it this time.

(2) If this is overturned, shouldn't Southern have the right to request a similar look into the other two scheduling situations? TSU would have been a "league game" for Jackson State this year, making it as important as a regular division game. Alcorn finished second in the east last year, making them a league game for UAPB too. And if they are going to allow these two, then why shouldn't a Southern or Grambling drop 5th place Valley to schedule a damn classic.

See, everyone wants to place this at the foot of SU and some of it is warranted, but what you forget and what seemed to ring well with the council of presidents is that one SWAC school tried to take a damn CONFERENCE game and make it a part of a classic. SU is quility of this too (Big Easy Classic) and this should not happen period.

This whole thing is a bunch of B___**** and the conference is now gonna try to pacify the rest of the babies to make big,bad Southern play the Bluff knowing that if Pine Bluff had left the damn game alone, we would not be having this discussion today!

 

[Robber]

While this may not have been a popular position for the conference to take, two things happened that while most of you and a great number of SU fans want this game so much on 11/20 ...

(1) The conference voted on this matter already. Even if UAPb gets their say this time, which they should have, what makes you think the same people who voted for this once will not do it this time.

(2) If this is overturned, shouldn't Southern have the right to request a similar look into the other two scheduling situations? TSU would have been a "league game" for Jackson State this year, making it as important as a regular division game. Alcorn finished second in the east last year, making them a league game for UAPB too. And if they are going to allow these two, then why shouldn't a Southern or Grambling drop 5th place Valley to schedule a damn classic.

See, everyone wants to place this at the foot of SU and some of it is warranted, but what you forget and what seemed to ring well with the council of presidents is that one SWAC school tried to take a damn CONFERENCE game and make it a part of a classic. SU is quility of this too (Big Easy Classic) and this should not happen period.

This whole thing is a bunch of B___**** and the conference is now gonna try to pacify the rest of the babies to make big,bad Southern play the Bluff knowing that if Pine Bluff had left the damn game alone, we would not be having this discussion today!

Very valid points. But ask yourself this question, can the game reasonably be made without putting any undue hardship on either school??? If the game can be made without putting a hardship on a school, then the SWAC should force all teams to play.

 

[Robber]

Here's TSU's schedule posted a while back by C-Leb:

http://www.tsu.edu/athletics/teams/football/index.asp

TEXAS SOUTHERN FOOTBALL
2004 SCHEDULE
(Tentative)

DATE OPPONENT PLACE
September
04th Prairie View Away/Reliant Astrodome
11th Alabama State Away
18th Northwestern LA State Away
25th Nicholls State Home
October
02nd Alabama A&M Home
09th Arkansas Pine Bluff Home
16th Alcorn State Away
23rd Mississippi Valley State Home
30th Grambling State Home
November
06th Open
13th Southern Away
20th Morgan State Home

I'm sure someone from TSU can help out. Please show me where JSU woulda fit in your schedule. JSU's open date is October 2, which is midway. I thought TSU was open on that date once, but that woulda meant that JSU woulda played 11 straight games. Obviously, that's a hardship. And if they've always scheduled Northwestern State for 9/18, that's the week after we play NSU. I don't think NSU woulda been too happy to lose a game on 9/11 only to play the team that got dropped for a week later. But then they could try to run up the score to get even.

Just show me where JSU could make this game. Thanx.

 

[Dr. Mac]

Go back to the seven game (4 and 3) setup. If you want to tweak the three outer-division games, then change one to a traditional rival setup and rotate the other two every other year (as has been suggested).

Playing the non-conference games gives our schools a chance to engage in classics and also play some of the other I-AA programs that some complain we miss out on by not playing the I-AA tourney. I see this as a good thing that can strengthen the overall league.

I'm not a fan of playing member schools during off-schedule years with the game not counting in the standings. This, in my opinion, is one of the major reasons the SWAC changed to the mandatory nine game mess. All that has done is cause confusion. Playing outside the league, and especially winning the games against other good teams, only makes the league stronger.

Regards.

 

[bluedog]

JROCK (Panthro & MikeBigg),



The problem I have with your comments. It asserts as if Prairie View A & M University, Texas Southern University, Mississippi Valley State University where the athletic directors and/or coaches that pushed this 9 game mandate in this first place and pushed the conference for Mississippi Valley State University to play Southern or push the conference for Texas Southern University and/or Prairie View A & M University to play Alcorn State University and/or Jackson State University.

That simply could not be further from the truth. The truth is like almost any proposal that is pushed through this conference. It general comes from either Southern University, Jackson State Universty, and/or Grambling State University.

Southern University and Jackson State University as well as Grambling State University and Alcorn State University's fans did not like the idea of traditional rivals and their athletic directors did not like the idea of consistant revenue generating games falling off of their schedule. Taking into consideration the original 7 game format. (Although, most fans realize that the programs listed above have the benefit and luxury of scheduling "Classic" games with non-conference opponents that would cover this potential lost revenue from not playing their traditionl rivalry every so often.)

The schools more veteran and marketable coaches did not like the idea that schedule was beneficial for some programs as opposed to others in their quest to get to the SWAC Championship Game. So, they push their personal agendas on the conference and had this 9 game mandate sanctioned during the interim commissioner tenure of Interim Commissioner Franks.

This is simply Jackson State University (previous), Southern University (current), Grambling State University (previous) and to some degree Alcorn State University (current) coaches pushing their personal agendas on conference scheduling, while the same schools athletic directors have their interest and it is all coming to a head.

They are simply not on the same page and currently at this point do not have the ability to figure it out because they are operating on different functioning levels of what they view as success for their program. Hopefully, it will work out. But honestly, I have some serious doubt. In my opinion, there are to many personal agendas in the mix. I am anxiously waiting the outcome.

Please elaborate on how GSU,JSU & SU had problems with their rivalry games. You and I spoke about this before and as I recall we were in agreement that this was done more so for the PVs,,UAPBs, and expansion teams.

GSU,JSU, & SU has never had any problems with scheduling their intraconference rivals where as it was an issue with lower tier and expansion schools. Example SU would never play A&M every year and they basically dropped MVSU off their schedule.

So if you could clear this statement up for me as well as give some examples it would be appreciated.

 

[PNeck019]

Playing outside the league, and especially winning the games against other good teams, only makes the league stronger.

Here here!

Playing nine conference opponents and two rooty poots does nothing for the team or the conference.

 

[Dr. Mac]

As a compromise:

How would y'all feel about 4 and 4 (i.e., 8 games counting in the standings)? This would leave 3 non-conference games for teams to schedule. Most schools could schedule the classics they want to and/or the non-conference games they wanted. I would also be in favor of a traditional rival outer-divison game, personally. So three out of four of the other division teams would be rotated on and off. And this might lessen the effect of schools fearing that they won't get enough of their big crowd conference games during the year. Some might say that if you schedule 8 you might as well schedule nine, but my perspective is that seven is the way to go, but 8 is better than nine and still gives some flexibility.

Regards.

 

[Robber]

As a compromise:

How would y'all feel about 4 and 4 (i.e., 8 games counting in the standings)? This would leave 3 non-conference games for teams to schedule. Most schools could schedule the classics they want to and/or the non-conference games they wanted. I would also be in favor of a traditional rival outer-divison game, personally. So three out of four of the other division teams would be rotated on and off. Some might say that if you schedule 8 you might as well schedule nine, but my perspective is that seven is the way to go, but 8 is better than nine and still gives some flexibility.

Regards.

I agree.

 

[MikeBigg]

MB,

I think you are wrong on this one. The lower level schools need more so than the heavy weights to save money and develop more "local" rivalries with larger gates. Not to pick on PV, but they really need to win some recruiting wars in Texas. Hell they can't even beat Texas College. Traveling to Huntsvillie or Montgomery every year is not going to do anything but keep them broke from traveling and not putting butts in the seat. I think many of you all need to get the red out of your eyes and look for green then you will really be in the "black."

Good points...but let's consider some facts. PV would travel to Alabama only once a year and will benefit from home games against both teams more than they would against NAIA schools. Houston has alum from both Bama schools in the area as well as other fans who will possibly attend the games.

You also stated that Texas needs to win the recruiting war in Texas. Although Texas should be their focus, they will never win a recruiting war in Texas. But by playing teams in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi they will expand their recruiting base. Now that they have scholarships it will be able to make offers and promise immediate playing time. This applies to all of the schools. Playing all conference members help expand our recruiting into areas where our conference affiliation helps to market our schools.

 

[Lewis]

See, everyone wants to place this at the foot of SU and some of it is warranted, but what you forget and what seemed to ring well with the council of presidents is that one SWAC school tried to take a damn CONFERENCE game and make it a part of a classic.

You hit that nail dead on the the head. Pine Bluff had the right to ask us to move the game, BUT WHEN WE DID NOT AGREE, THE GAME SHOULD HAVE STAYED THE SAME!!!!!!

SU is quility of this too (Big Easy Classic) and this should not happen period.

NO, this is different. Jackson State agreed to move the game to N.O. If Jackson State would not have agreed, we would have played the same day at Mumford, second, the NO location was done by SU, not an outside promoter.

Just like the AAMU-SU game a few years ago, that was played in INDY, AAMU asked us to move it, and we agreed.

I am always about getting to the root of a problem, and the root of this one was Pine Bluff trying to shuffle a done deal (SU-Pine Bluff in Pine Bluff) around at the last minute to please a classic. THAT's THE DAMN PROBLEM.