SWAC meetings tackle scheduling for football games


Status
Not open for further replies.
At the risk of being banned from JN...lol

I really don't see what the big deal is, unless we just want to show how big our n--s are.

Play the fugging game on 11/20.

I can't believe we're considering playing only 10 games with a division game missing with a common open date.

At this point, I really don't care whose fault it is. Kinda like all the bickering between the Nation and McFans before that game was scheduled. Who gives a schitt? Play the damm game.
 



How can something so simple be so complicated. This is worse than corporate America where we meet to plan a meeting. This doesn't not even need to be on the table for discussion. Both teams have a common open date, play the game that date and move on.
 
Time for SWAC to make stand on scheduling

By JOSEPH SCHIEFELBEIN
</MCC BYLINE1><MCC EmailAddy>[email protected] <MCC BYLINE2>Advocate sports writer </MCC BYLINE2>

<MCC STORY>A few years ago, making Southwestern Athletic Conference schools play all of their other nine schools in football each season seemed like a decent enough idea.

The basic premise was that it would help scheduling.

These days, though, that idea seems to be backfiring -- at least for next season. Southern, which was in favor of the nine-game mandate, is still one game short of a full schedule. The Jaguars' divisional game at Arkansas-Pine Bluff and two other games between SWAC schools have gone by the wayside. And the SWAC has yet to reveal its formula as to which games count toward conference standings in 2004.

To that end, when the SWAC meets this week in Biloxi, Miss., the conference will try to sort out its scheduling, hoping first to put a bandage on next season and then establish a permanent body cast to the next five to 10 years.

With football being the conference's showpiece, these decisions will mold the future of the SWAC. This week could define the role and, even though this is just his second spring meetings, the legacy of SWAC Commissioner Robert Vowels Jr. So far, what was to be the first season of the mandated nine-game schedule (though still with only seven games counting toward the standings) has been a debacle.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/052404/sou_swac001.shtml
 
Interesting...

PVU - last place in the West has ASU as a conference game, BUT the game will not count as a conference game for ASU?

WTF? I didn't realize that this 9 game mandate force teams to play each other where it would count as a conference game for one team, but not a conference game for the other team.

Only the SWAC would understand. Rankings within the SWAC on espn.com will always be incorrect.
 
Ya'll knew going in this was just going to be another f-up by the people making decisions for the SWAC. This has been going on for decades. Why did people think it was going to change now. :confused: :confused:

And guess what. When they get finished, it's still going to be the same clown show. :retard: :retard:
 
the band fan said:
ADs (some) want 7 games.....the commish (with behind the scenes help) wants 9......who is he pulling for?


This was also my understanding from the AD's I contacted. That shows that this is not a scheduling issue. Since the inception of the SCG, every SWAC school has played 11 games. This is a "scared coaches" issue. If the AD's are not complaining about the schedules, then what is the problem. Let the AD's do their job and if we end up with 8 and 9 game seasons then we need to realize that we have a problem.
 
I thought that the coaches only coached the teams and the ADs were in charge of making the schedules and determining the dates. Since when do coaches determine how many games we play? The coach should not have more power than the AD when it comes to making its schedule, unless the coach is the AD, too.
 
Antroy said:
I thought that the coaches only coached the teams and the ADs were in charge of making the schedules and determining the dates. Since when do coaches determine how many games we play? The coach should not have more power than the AD when it comes to making its schedule, unless the coach is the AD, too.


Bruh, we are talking about the SWAC. They don't know any better.
 
Suge said:
Robber, I am on board....we are Busch league.

Why a ten team conference, with two seperate divisions, lead by educated men and women, can't come up with a sinply format to follow to play football games.....is beyond me. They are forming group after group, when there are already conference models that can be followed.

1. If we are going to play all 9 SWAC games, fine. That is the way it used to be. Scrap the East/West format in football and the conference champ is determined by conference record. What good is a SCG when all teams have already played each other.

2. Go back to the old 7 game mandate like all other large conferences that are split into divisions. Mandatoy games against all teams in your division, and rotate 3 games with teams from the oppisite division. If the logic was to ensure teams would not have schedule problems, then that plan has fallen by the wayside. Keep the SCG.

3. Correct the problem for this season. SU has to play UAPB. That is a divsional contest and could have an impact on who wins the division. A game against a Eastern div team should be rearranged, if a game has to be missed.

<b>
MAJOR BUSH LEAGUE!!!! :tdown:
</b>
 
Tigerpride said:
I think Rudy had started making this mandatory. It was worse than this at one point.


he did, but that still didn't prompt slade to attend. I know for a fact, TSU just accepted the fines that went with not attending SWAC meetings
 
The solution is so simple that everyone seems to be missing it. Play the 9 game mandate and let each game count. Forget the crap about determining which 7 games count. They all count!

So what if you have a "repeat" in the SCG...It happens in the SEC and Big 12 all the time. Hell just market the "revenge" factor...Show clips of students from both schools, show "fans" (models) competing in different things wearing school jerseys...hell do whatever cheesy thang you want but it can be marketed and attendance will be there.

The only thing is try to schedule the intradivisional games early in the year. That's what they should be working on... changing the schedule to have (1) Non conference games (2) Schedule the intradivisionals next (3) schedule the divisional games near the end of the season.
 
I hate to beat a dead horse, but the previous 7 game conference schedule is the way to go. Everyone has 4 non conference games to schedule and make money. If you are too lazy and trifling to schedule 4 non conference games in your best interest, then it is your problem.
 
That's just it MB. It's too simple of a solution. Suge spelled it out up there ^^^^^.

Do away w/ the E-W stuff. No SCG if you do. Period. If you're going to do the 9 game mandate and STILL have the E-W stuff AND have only 7 games count towards conf tally???? :confused: Man....

Come on people. The architects of the SWAC are rolling over in their graves. :smh:
 



Panthro,

No disrespect bruh, but it is enough that S.U. has to play Pine Bluff and Prairie View every year. I don't think S.U. should be forced to play Valley and other eastern division foes every every every every every year. The SEC don't do the "play every body in the conference" bush league stuff. For example, from an economical stand point, it would be much more prudent for P.V. to play a few 1-AA Texas or Louisiana schools rather than going to Bama so often. And that doggone Texas College already has a stronger program then you all. You all need to beat their arses and take your recruits away from them.
 
JROCK said:
Panthro,

No disrespect bruh, but it is enough that S.U. has to play Pine Bluff and Prairie View every year. I don't think S.U. should be forced to play Valley and other eastern division foes every every every every every year. The SEC don't do the "play every body in the conference" bush league stuff. For example, from an economical stand point, it would be much more prudent for P.V. to play a few 1-AA Texas or Louisiana schools rather than going to Bama so often. And that doggone Texas College already has a stronger program then you all. You all need to beat their arses and take your recruits away from them.

JRock,

We are a conference and as such we need to be concerned about the overall conference. I understand your angle up to a point...but unlike the SEC, we do not have a Revenue Sharing plan. They don't have to play each other in order for their football programs to finish in the black.

I know it may seem unequitable (depending on which side of the field you're on) but we are more than an association...we are a conference of sister schools bound by like mission and purpose.
 
I'll post here what I said on the MEACFans page. What sense does it make to play eight conference games and then have a championship game? It is repetitive and does not allow for revenue enhancing non-conference games, nor do teams in the conference find out how good they are by playing teams outside of the conference.
 
MikeBigg said:
JRock,

We are a conference and as such we need to be concerned about the overall conference. I understand your angle up to a point...but unlike the SEC, we do not have a Revenue Sharing plan. They don't have to play each other in order for their football programs to finish in the black.

I know it may seem unequitable (depending on which side of the field you're on) but we are more than an association...we are a conference of sister schools bound by like mission and purpose.

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."
 
MsippiRattler said:
I'll post here what I said on the MEACFans page. What sense does it make to play eight conference games and then have a championship game?

It makes no sense. That's why things are messed up now. Playing 7 and then the Swac Championship game, (since we have it), is logical. But logic and these MF's = DON'T COMPUTE.

We could get people that use the term "Paper or Plastic" to make better decisions than these fools.

BTW: They make, (or try too), each school play all 9 other SWAC members.
 
We couldn't even accept their athletes (me thinks) w/ the stricter NCAA guidelines. NAIA/club teams have more leeway w/ respect to qualifying athletes than sanctioned NCAA.

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.

The architects are still rolling.
 
JROCK (Panthro & MikeBigg),

Panthro,

No disrespect bruh, but it is enough that S.U. has to play Pine Bluff and Prairie View every year. I don't think S.U. should be forced to play Valley and other eastern division foes every every every every every year. The SEC don't do the "play every body in the conference" bush league stuff. For example, from an economical stand point, it would be much more prudent for P.V. to play a few 1-AA Texas or Louisiana schools rather than going to Bama so often. And that doggone Texas College already has a stronger program then you all. You all need to beat their arses and take your recruits away from them.

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.
 
JROCK,

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."

I wholeheartedly agree.
 
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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top