SWAC to require all schools to play each other?

[Tigerpride]

Blu Panther,

Aren't you glad that PV is playing TNState this year? Well what if playing 9 conference games interfered with that. I know that my AD did not deliver me four games but I am very happy with the three that he did provide (USM, TNState and A&T). I would much rather play one of them than TxSo.

I could care less about what you call a theory. I am happy with my schedule and like the flexibility. ONE game either way could make a big difference to me. Whether my AD delivers the four games promised for 2003 is not the point. The point is that he has the flexibility to put together a good schedule if he wants to. Even 1-A's have teams to drop off of their expected schedule.If the SWAC did not allow us to play in conference games for non-conference dates, I could see your point but I think that my AD made a good decision to play a team (UAPB) that is within good driving distance from JSU. I would have preferred another opponent but having the flexibilty to give me at least three good non-conference games is a very big deal to me.

I could also see a problem if our teams could not put together a 11 game schedule but they are all doing it. Only Southern was holding out this year and that is because they did NOT want to play SWAC schools for those dates.

 

[Tigerpride]

Also Blu Panther, if my AD could schedule TxSo this year, he would probably rather not. Why would he want us to travel out there? He wants another home game so what would be the benefit of making us play TxSo. The game won't count and we have to spend money.

 

[Tigerpride]

Blu Panther,

Aren't you glad that PV is playing TNState this year? Well what if playing 9 conference games interfered with that. I know that my AD did not deliver me four games but I am very happy with the three that he did provide (USM, TNState and A&T). I would much rather play one of them than TxSo.

I could care less about what you call a theory. I am happy with my schedule and like the flexibility. ONE game either way could make a big difference to me. Whether my AD delivers the four games promised for 2003 is not the point. The point is that he has the flexibility to put together a good schedule if he wants to. Even 1-A's have teams to drop off of their expected schedule.If the SWAC did not allow us to play in conference games for non-conference dates, I could see your point but I think that my AD made a good decision to play a team (UAPB) that is within good driving distance from JSU. I would have preferred another opponent but having the flexibilty to give me at least three good non-conference games is a very big deal to me.

I could also see a problem if our teams could not put together a 11 game schedule but they are all doing it. Only Southern was holding out this year and that is because they did NOT want to play SWAC schools for those dates.

 

[Blu Panther]

Dr. Mac,

Blu Panther:

I feel what you are saying based on past history. But because its been that way doesn't mean that it has to stay that way.

My point is that the past "usually" provides us with a direct relationship of what one can achive in the future.

We have four non-conference games this year (Tulane, Northwestern, Nicholls, and Miles) out of the five we could have scheduled. So, four out of four during a 11 game schedule is doable; and per my way of thinking, so is 5 out of 5 (during the 12 game seasons).

And Southern still found a reason and away schedule a conference members, Alcorn State as a non-conference game. This is cool and supported by many fans and posters on this board, but the suggestion of Southern play the 9th a finall conference member as part of their schedule is upseting to most.
I am sorry, but that is hilarious to me.

I see nothing wrong with playing conference schools during the off-schedule years if that's what the teams want to do. My opposition to the 9 game round robin is the "mandatory" aspect of it.

This is also hilarious in one hand you want to use the arguement that their is nothing wrong with conference members playing conference schools during off-season years if that's what the team want to do.

But, then later you will come back with the arguement against the SWAC creating a "mandatory" 9 game conference schedule because it will not allow the conference members to play enough non-conference games against non-conference opponents. My point is that the conference as a whole has not taking advantage of teh opportunity to play non-conference games against non-conference opponents. What makes you believe that this mood of operation will change?

Like I said, point taken on what's occurred in the past. But it doesn't have to stay that way. The more success we have as a conference playing and winning against other non-conference teams, the more opportunities will avail themselves for all of our schools to schedule more non-conference schools. Should that occur, the AD's won't have a problem filling out their non-conference games with schools from other conferences. And the option to play off-schedule member schools will still be there if they want to do it. Like I said before, beating up on the schools from the other conferences helps all of us (recruiting, power rating, etc.). The flexibility to do so is a good thing.

Again what lends you to belief that this mode of operation will change?

It is already painfully obvious to me, if they have even considered this move that they are not of the thought process that scheduling non-conference games against non-conference opponents is a real option or even advantageous.

It, scheduling other schools, can be done. The AD's might have to work harder at first to make it happen, but it can be done.
Regards.

I never argued the point that the athletic directors could not schedule other schools. My point is that they have had the opportunity to do it and they have not done it. Again, what make you believe the athletic directors will work harder to make it happen next year or a couple of years down the road?

Remember Southern had every opportunity just like any other NCAA Division I AA program to schedule a non-conference game against a non-conference opponent, but the athletic director choose to schedule an 8th conference game this year against a conference member as non-conference game just like every other conference member besides Texas Southern and Alabama State.

The SWAC is the only conference in NCAA Division I AA or NCAA Division I A that schedules non-conference games against conference members. Are you suggesting that we are somehow innovative by doing such a thing?

 

[Dr. Mac]

Blu Panther:

That fifth game against Alcorn is in the slot we played FAMU in. So had SU and FAMU decided to play each other, SU would have had five games. But five non-conference games is abnormal as we both know because of the 12 game season. And we still could have done it if we had continued the FAMU series. We scheduled four non-conference games this year, why do you think we can't do it in the future, or any other school for that matter. Just because other schools haven't done it in the past doesn't mean that they won't in the future. I have to counter your comment of what makes us think that it will done in the future with what makes you think that it will continue to be the way that it has been. There is a first time for everything. Like I said before, we scheduled four non-conference games this year.

Laughable as you might find it, it might be more economically viable for some conference schools to play each other during non-schedule years. If this is the case, then they should play each other. They should have the option to do so if they want to.

The issue for me is flexibility. Member schools should have some flexibility to do what is in their best interest. A nine game mandatory arrangement takes too much of that away.

You and I both have our preferences; I like the current setup best.

Regards.

 

[Blu Panther]

Tiger Pride,

Blu Panther,

Aren't you glad that PV is playing TNState this year? Well what if playing 9 conference games interfered with that.

Good question. No I am not glad that Prairie View A & M is playing away home game against Tennessee State. In my humble opinion I do not believe Praire View is ready to participate in a game against Tennessee State with 15 scholarship.

Once we obtain the 45-50 scholarships this spring I would much more interested in participating in a game against Tennessee State nor am I excited about playing a non-conference game against a conference member in Alabama A & M.

In fact I would rather play a home contest against Langston, Lane, or Lincoln for that matter. But I also understand the dilemia my athletic director is in with his budgetary requirements and his ability to schedule non-conference home games.

I know that my AD did not deliver me four games but I am very happy with the three that he did provide (USM, TNState and A&T). I would much rather play one of them than TxSo.

This is even more hilarious. You are fine with your athletic director and coach scheduling a home and away 8th game against a conference member, Arkansas-Pine Bluff (218 miles) as a non-conference game, but you are against your athletic director and coach scheduling a conference 9th game against Texas Southern (441 miles).

I could care less about what you call a theory.

You could care less, but you continue to post a reply. That is also hilarious

I am happy with my schedule and like the flexibility.

Well if you are happy with your schedule of UAPB a conference member as non-conference opponent and only having 11 games during a year you have the ability to schedule 12, then that explains alot about your rationale and thinking on this discussion.

ONE game either way could make a big difference to me. Whether my AD delivers the four games promised for 2003 is not the point. The point is that he has the flexibility to put together a good schedule if he wants to. Even 1-A's have teams to drop off of their expected schedule.If the SWAC did not allow us to play in conference games for non-conference dates, I could see your point but I think that my AD made a good decision to play a team (UAPB) that is within good driving distance from JSU. I would have preferred another opponent but having the flexibilty to give me at least three good non-conference games is a very big deal to me.

I could also see a problem if our teams could not put together a 11 game schedule but they are all doing it. Only Southern was holding out this year and that is because they did NOT want to play SWAC schools for those dates.

Again my point is your athletic director is not using that flexibility currently and that is the reason why your SWAC coach voted with the other SWAC coaches "unnamiously" to except the proposal of scheduling 9 conference members with only 7 counting as conference games. We shall see how you athletic director votes on this measure as well. LOL

 

[Tigerpride]

Dude,

Maybe since you went to PV, you just don't feel what we are saying. THAT ONE GAME IS HUGE!!!! People want an attractive schedule. If Playing SU is attractive to Alabama State fans and the two schools agree to play. Good. If playing TxSo is NOT attractive to Alabama State fans why should they be forced to play?? Why should they be hindered from playing a more attractive opponent? If Troy State offers a home-home to AlaState, they should have the schedule flexibility to do it. If AlaState and TxSo decide to play, THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS but why take away a teams opportunity to play someone that the fans would want to come out and see? As a JSU fan, I am telling you now that I was happy to see our 2001 schedule and games in ATL and CHicago. That was more attractive to me and a lot of other fans than playing TxSo.

To me, Howard, A&T, TNState and a 8 game SWAC schedule is far more attractive than Howard, TNState and a 9 game SWAC schedule.

 

[Blu Panther]

Tigerpride,

Also Blu Panther, if my AD could schedule TxSo this year, he would probably rather not. Why would he want us to travel out there? He wants another home game so what would be the benefit of making us play TxSo. The game won't count and we have to spend money.

Tigerpride, I am not sure why or why not your athletic director would want to travel out there to play conference member in Texas Southern as a non-conference game in a game that won't count as well as the added fact that you all will have to spend money.

But, I am also just as perplexed and not sure why your athletic director would want to travel out there to play conference member in Arkansas - Pine Bluff as a non-conference game in a game that won't count as well as the added fact that you all will have to spend money.

 

[Tigerpride]

218 + 218 = 436

You posted that TxSo is 441 miles away. UAPBis only 218.

Man, I don't understand your thinking at all. My AD is using his flexibility. He is scheduling the games he wants and that is my point. He wants to schedule UAPB. But is something else came along, he would be able to accept it. Also, if he was mandated to only play 7 of the 10 schools, I am sure he could find an opponent.

 

[Tigerpride]

Originally posted by Blu Panther
Tigerpride,



Tigerpride, I am not sure why or why not your athletic director would want to travel out there to play conference member in Texas Southern as a non-conference game in a game that won't count as well as the added fact that you all will have to spend money.

But, I am also just as perplexed and not sure why your athletic director would want to travel out there to play conference member in Arkansas - Pine Bluff as a non-conference game in a game that won't count as well as the added fact that you all will have to spend money.

I think I already answered this question with a little math. UAPB is closer than most opponents that we will find. If Langston were in the SWAC instead of UAPB, I am inclined to believe that my AD would only go with 7 games. But who knows.

 

[Tigerpride]

Well if you are happy with your schedule of UAPB a conference member as non-conference opponent and only having 11 games during a year you have the ability to schedule 12, then that explains alot about your rationale and thinking on this discussion.


BUT WE STILL HAVE THREE GOOD NON-CONFERENCE GAMES, NOT TWO!!! THAT'S THREE GAMES IN WHICH I REALLY WANT TO SEE NOT TWO THAT I REALLY WANT TO SEE + TXSO.

 

[G Lion]

Uapb & Jsu had a home and home agreement. We went to them last year as a non-conference game and they are returning the game to us this year.

 

[Tigerpride]

Originally posted by G Lion
Uapb & Jsu had a home and home agreement. We went to them last year as a non-conference game and they are returning the game to us this year.

...because that is what WE wanted.

 

[Blu Panther]

Tigerpride

Dude,

Maybe since you went to PV, you just don't feel what we are saying.

Dude, maybe because you went JSU, you don't feel what we are say.

THAT ONE GAME IS HUGE!!!!

What one game is huge?

People want an attractive schedule.

So I suppose playing a conference member in Arkansas - Pine Bluff as non-conference game a having a 11 game schedule in a 12 formatted season is attractive to you.

If Playing SU is attractive to Alabama State fans and the two schools agree to play. Good.

What every happen to the reason institutions join a conference. Are you suggesting that if Alabama State and SU fans do not want to play this conference game, then game should not be played?

If playing TxSo is NOT attractive to Alabama State fans why should they be forced to play??

They should play the game because it is a conference game. Are suggesting if Prairie View A & M is not attractive to Jackson State or Prairie View A & M, that they should not play the game?

Why should they be hindered from playing a more attractive opponent?

Because it is a conference game.

If Troy State offers a home-home to AlaState, they should have the schedule flexibility to do it.

True with-in the framework for what has been provided by the constitution and bylaws of the conference.

If AlaState and TxSo decide to play, THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS but why take away a teams opportunity to play someone that the fans would want to come out and see?

How is their business when it is a conference game?

As a JSU fan, I am telling you now that I was happy to see our 2001 schedule and games in ATL and CHicago. That was more attractive to me and a lot of other fans than playing TxSo.

I am sure playing Florida A & M and/or Hampton would have been more attractive then playing conference foes Mississippi Valley State and Prairie View A & M. But that what is nature of conference alignment.

To me, Howard, A&T, TNState and a 8 game SWAC schedule is far more attractive than Howard, TNState and a 9 game SWAC schedule.

I bet a Howard, North Carolina A & T State, Tennessee State, Florida A & M, Hampton and Southern Mississippi and a 5 game SWAC schedule is even more attractive to you. Other than that, my original arguement was for the conference to mandate conference member do not participate in games against conference members unless it is a sanctioned conference game.

My second arguement was surrounding around the fact that most of the SWAC conference member's athletic director were scheduling atleast one additional game against conference members as non-conference games other last three years.

So, unfortunately it is not difficult for me to imagine that the coaches and athletic directors would vote to except the proposal for a 9 conference game format with only 7 games counting as conferene games.

Again, I thought it was hilarious for poster to jump up and down as well as many board member posting they did not like this. But were cool with non-mandatory conference members having 8 and 9 (AA&MU and UAPB) game conference schedules with only 7 games counting as conference games. LOL

If you can't see they humor and hyprocacy in that, then do not worry about it.

 

[Blu Panther]

Tigerpride,

218 + 218 = 436

You posted that TxSo is 441 miles away. UAPBis only 218.

Man, I don't understand your thinking at all. My AD is using his flexibility. He is scheduling the games he wants and that is my point. He wants to schedule UAPB. But is something else came along, he would be able to accept it. Also, if he was mandated to only play 7 of the 10 schools, I am sure he could find an opponent.

It is hilarious that you say he could. But, I telling he only used his flexiblity to schedule 3 non-conference games against non-conference members. For that matter you are stating that he could. I did not state that he could not. I stated that he did not schedule 5 non-conference games in a season where the SWAC and NCAA allowed SWAC member institutions to do so. So, I do not understand your thinking.

 

[Da_Sperm]

I think some are missing the point. It is a win for UAPB to play JSU as a non-conference game, however I'm not sure if it is a win for JSU. BUT, being that Jackson is only a 3 or 4 hour drive from UAPB, it makes sense (again for UAPB) to attempt to schedule a home and home series with JSU.

The rotating schedule does have some big disadvatages.

EX. What if JSU had to play both GSU & SU and lost and ASU lost to JSU and did not have to play GSU & SU? The east could send a team to the championship that had an easier record.

The way to sort it out is to let every team play each other.

 

[Blu Panther]

Tigerpride

I think I already answered this question with a little math. UAPB is closer than most opponents that we will find. If Langston were in the SWAC instead of UAPB, I am inclined to believe that my AD would only go with 7 games. But who knows.

JSU - LU = 645 miles. Do you believe your athletic director should schedule games against conference members that are relatively close in mileage as non-conference games over other non-conference NCAA Division I AA opponents?

 

[Tigerpride]

Blu,

I was only using that to say why I think he schedules UAPB. He is trying to schedule regional 1-AA PWC's but if he can't then he has the option of playing a SWAC school. You are arguing the validity of choices being made while I am arguing the fact that at least now we can make a choice. JSU wants to make money too and if we are going to do a home-home, we need to do it a team that we think will draw our fans out and with a team that will bring fans. The UAPB game has always done well for JSU but if we could replace them with a school that would draw bigger, I would like to have that option.

You are suggesting that the fact that he only has three non-conference game rather than four or five is because he could not. I am suggesting that he only plays three because that is all he wanted to play outside of Northwestern State backing out on us. If we had more time, who is to say that we could not have found another opponent? You said earlier that you did not want to hear why my AD did not have a 12 game schedule but "things happen". The same thing happened in 1999 when we had to play New Haven. It was hard to find a decent oppentent in March. We were scheduled to play USM.

The only thing I am advocating is flexibility. In YOUR eyes flexibility means 4 non-conference games. In my eyes, flexibility means scheduling the games you and your fans want. Again, I am satisfied with what we have.

 

[Blu Panther]

Tigerpide,

Blu,

I was only using that to say why I think he schedules UAPB. He is trying to schedule regional 1-AA PWC's but if he can't then he has the option of playing a SWAC school. You are arguing the validity of choices being made while I am arguing the fact that at least now we can make a choice. JSU wants to make money too and if we are going to do a home-home, we need to do it a team that we think will draw our fans out and with a team that will bring fans. The UAPB game has always done well for JSU but if we could replace them with a school that would draw bigger, I would like to have that option.

You are suggesting that the fact that he only has three non-conference game rather than four or five is because he could not. I am suggesting that he only plays three because that is all he wanted to play outside of Northwestern State backing out on us. If we had more time, who is to say that we could not have found another opponent? You said earlier that you did not want to hear why my AD did not have a 12 game schedule but "things happen". The same thing happened in 1999 when we had to play New Haven. It was hard to find a decent oppentent in March. We were scheduled to play USM.

The only thing I am advocating is flexibility. In YOUR eyes flexibility means 4 non-conference games. In my eyes, flexibility means scheduling the games you and your fans want. Again, I am satisfied with what we have.

True, I agree this is basically my stance on the subject and I am questioning the vailidty of the decisions being made.

 

[SuaveTiger]

ATTENTION: The Magazine IS Incorrect

Everbody can calm down now. What really happend is starting in 2003 each swac school will have to play 8 cnference games. The format now is that only the division games count for each school. (ex. the only swac games that count for JSU are ASU, Alcorn, Valley & A&M). The Swac will be using the same format as the SEC. The magzine has it wrong. The SWAC IS NOT I repeat IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!, requiring all the school to play each other. Hey,If you need proof just ask your AD

 

[Blu Panther]

SuaveTiger,

Everbody can calm down now. What really happend is starting in 2003 each swac school will have to play 8 cnference games.

I would not have a problem with that scenario and I think it will actually help solve some of the problem. In fact I suggested this format in a post above.

Something as follows:

SWAC

Eastern Division:
AA&MU (PVA&MU, UAPB & GSU) = 3 paydays AbSU, JSU & GSU
with SU and TxSU rotating every two years as the 8th game

AbSU (UAPB, TxSU & SU) = 3 paydays AA&MU, JSU & SU
with PVA&MU and GSU rotating every two years as the 8th game

AlSU (SU, GSU & TxSU) = 3 paydays AlSU, GSU & JSU
with UAPB and PVA&MU rotating every two years as the 8th game

JSU (GSU, SU & PVA&MU) = 3 paydays GSU, SU & AlSU
with TxSU and UAPB rotating every two years as the 8th game

MVSU (TxSU, PVA&MU & UAPB) = 3 paydays UAPB, JSU & AlSU
with GSU and SU rotating every two years as the 8th game

Western Division:
UAPB (AbSU, AA&MU & MVSU) = 3 paydays MVSU, SU & GSU
with AlSU and JSU rotating every two years as the 8th game

GSU (JSU, AlSU & AA&MU) = 3 paydays PVA&MU, SU & AlSU
with MVSU and AbSU rotating every two years as the 8th game

SU (AlSU, JSU & AbSU) = 3 paydays AlSU, JSU & GSU
with AA&MU and MVSU rotating every two years as the 8th game

TxSU (MVSU, AbSU & AlSU) = 3 paydays PVA&MU, SU & GSU
with JSU and AA&MU rotating every two years as the 8th game

PVA&MU (AA&MU, MVSU & JSU) = 3 paydays TxSU, SU & GSU with AbSU and AlSU rotating every two years as the 8th game

The format now is that only the division games count for each school. (ex. the only swac games that count for JSU are ASU, Alcorn, Valley & A&M).

This is incorrect the current format requires that each conference member plays 7 designated conference games, 4 games from their respective inter-divisional conference members and 3 games from the intra-divisional conference member (Ex the SWAC schedule for TxSU consist of interdivisional conference members (PVA&MU, GSU, UAPB, & SU) as well as intra-divisional conference members (AbSU, AA&MU, MVSU). The conference scheduling format, that you are refering to has not been in existance since the inaugural SWAC Championship Game in 1999.

The Swac will be using the same format as the SEC. The magzine has it wrong. The SWAC IS NOT I repeat IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!, requiring all the school to play each other. Hey,If you need proof just ask your AD

I think this is something that Tigerpride and I can agree upon. That is, we have ask our A.D.

Tigerpride even posted that he sent a letter to the SWAC office and got one reponse that did not state the 8 conference game scenario you have submitted. In fact it stated that the 9 conference game scenario has been excepted by the athletic directors, but has not been voted on by the SWAC presidents.

Anonymous stated that this 9 game scheduling format was brought up by the coaches and lobbied by the coaches and passed by ... He is generally a reliable source.

I have talked to my A.D. and he has told me his respective on the issue and he also did not mention any such thing about a 8 confernece game scenario.

So, take it for what it is worth. It sounds like the 9 game conference scheduling format has gain momentum to become the scheduling criteria of the SWAC ub 2003, but it has not been made an official policay as of yet and the details on how the 9 game conference scheduling format will be mandated with the SWAC Championship has also not been completed.

Hopefully the SWAC leaders eye will come across this topic and take the time to think about some alternative measures that may solve some of the issues that many of the SWAC members institutions are having without totally implementing the 9 game conference scheduling format with only 7 game counting towards the SWAC Championship Game.

 

[Sonic98]

Originally posted by Lewis
Mike Bigg and Sonic, yall are really reaching. The NCAA ain't thinking about moving back the playoffs and there will not be 12 games every season. I totally disagree with this, the SWAC is great but we need more diversity in our schedules than to spend most of the season beating up on each other.Since the SWAC does not participate in the playoffs, it is important for us to be able to schedule games like Northwestern, McNeese, USM, Tulane. Why my school would have voted for this is beyond me. I can see schools like Valley loving this because it forces schools like Southern and Grambling to come thier every other year. I don't suppose getting a school to come to Itta Bena is an easy thing to do. Southern played Valley in Shevreport last year to avoid going to Itta Bena, and Valley brought about 20 fans. Another step backward for the SWAC.

I never said anything about moving the playoffs. I said if they do make this the rule, a 12 game schedule should become standard.