MACHIAVELLI
Chairman/C.E.O.
ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CLASSICS HAVE BECOME THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO REVENUE FOR THE SCHOOLS.
SWAC to require all schools to play each other?
- Thread starter Jag Voice
- Start date
Texas Southern Fan
Well-Known Member
Since all the schools in the SWAC like to play Southern for the pay day, what are yall crying about? Now we all can play Southern, we should all be happy, right?
J. State just had to play Southern for the pay day, it wasn't right for the SWAC to take away one of their biggest pay days of the season. I bet all the schools in the East are happy they get to play Southern every year. I'll call my athletic director and thank him.
I told yall playing conference game when it wasn't mandatory by the SWAC office was stupid a long time ago.
Do yall think the people over the NCAA 1A and 1AA are laughing at us. I'm sure they'll make a special provision to let us play whatever schedule we like.
J. State just had to play Southern for the pay day, it wasn't right for the SWAC to take away one of their biggest pay days of the season. I bet all the schools in the East are happy they get to play Southern every year. I'll call my athletic director and thank him.
I told yall playing conference game when it wasn't mandatory by the SWAC office was stupid a long time ago.
Do yall think the people over the NCAA 1A and 1AA are laughing at us. I'm sure they'll make a special provision to let us play whatever schedule we like.
Lewis
Peabody Warhorses
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.
J-State Tiger
Senate Candidate #7
This reaks of smalltime thinking. I'll be glad when JSU gets the hell up out of the SWAC. Fact is this will cut the noses off of JSU SU and GRAM, which are the only teams that can draw flies in this conference. Why force JSU to play PB, PV and TSU? If they are going to do this we need to contract down to 8 teams. Weve already got deals in Indy and Memphis next year, and you mean to say this will be our only non conference games? This sucks. This would force us to try to pimp Valley or PV up to chicago for another money game, and you know how you negroes act when one team is trying to make a little cash and you think you are on equal footing.
Why are yall so eager to get back to the 1-AA playoffs? the only year of the SCG format that we might have gotten 2 teams in the playoffs was 1999, but SU doesnt go to the playoffs anyway. You all know that Whitey aint gonna give us no fair shake in the playoffs anyway. What about the Bayou Classic, and the turkey day? Thats the reason we got in this playoff pickle in the first place.
I say leave the format as is. 8 conference games is enough.
Why are yall so eager to get back to the 1-AA playoffs? the only year of the SCG format that we might have gotten 2 teams in the playoffs was 1999, but SU doesnt go to the playoffs anyway. You all know that Whitey aint gonna give us no fair shake in the playoffs anyway. What about the Bayou Classic, and the turkey day? Thats the reason we got in this playoff pickle in the first place.
I say leave the format as is. 8 conference games is enough.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
JST, this means is that we might have to give up the game in Indy. The conference games come first. This is what the people from JSU are complaining about. Even if we don't play Southern, we still have ways of getting a payday. If we don't play Southern, we could still find a team that would draw better than PV. I can understand the complaint of the smaller programs in that they need some schools to make money but at the same time, that is taking money out of JSU's pocket. Is that fair.
I am sure that JSU and SU want to play each other but we can survive without each other for two years if we have to. I think that if we want to do something, we need to do it right. I am one who has always said that SU-Gram-Alcorn-JSU should play each other because we are major rivals and that helps the conference. But I am sure that schools in the SEC have this same dilema. If we are going to do this, then what we need to do is restrict the games being played to only the ones that count. That way, we can can have four non-conference games. If they want to make exceptions on 12 game seasons, that would make sense. I don't know about the rest of you, but I want flexibility. This would really hurt JSU in my opinion.
Again, why are they making these decisions without a Commishioner?
I am sure that JSU and SU want to play each other but we can survive without each other for two years if we have to. I think that if we want to do something, we need to do it right. I am one who has always said that SU-Gram-Alcorn-JSU should play each other because we are major rivals and that helps the conference. But I am sure that schools in the SEC have this same dilema. If we are going to do this, then what we need to do is restrict the games being played to only the ones that count. That way, we can can have four non-conference games. If they want to make exceptions on 12 game seasons, that would make sense. I don't know about the rest of you, but I want flexibility. This would really hurt JSU in my opinion.
Again, why are they making these decisions without a Commishioner?
MikeBigg
Well-Known Member
How is it a reach? Since we have 10 teams in the conference, we only play 9 games. With a twelve team schedule, that leaves us with 3 non-conference games. So what's the big problem!
I'm a proponent of the SCG, but the NCAA would love to have a top non-championship team (especially if it's JSU, SU, or GSU) in the playoffs. Moving the playoffs back one week would give them this option. Don't be surprised if the NCAA doesn't consider this...they may be realizing that GSU/SU and Alabama State are not going to change their stance on the classic games.
I'm a proponent of the SCG, but the NCAA would love to have a top non-championship team (especially if it's JSU, SU, or GSU) in the playoffs. Moving the playoffs back one week would give them this option. Don't be surprised if the NCAA doesn't consider this...they may be realizing that GSU/SU and Alabama State are not going to change their stance on the classic games.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
I am going to give my conference the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are doing this to get rid of the SCG. Maybe they feel that the SCG is the product of Rudy. I know that my AD does not like the SCG so that could explain why he would vote for it. The AD's at SU and Gram really could care less. We have been told on numerous occasions that the SCG does not make a lot of money expecially after we split the money with all ten schools. If you all recall, back in 1999, a lot of thought that a 10 team conference was too small for football divisions and a SCG. The initial idea was to expand the conference but that is not happening and it looks like it won't.
Dr. Mac
Player
This is a bad decision in my opinion.
MikeBigg:
I hear where you are coming from with the NCAA possibily considering moving the I-AA tourney back but I don't believe it will happen. They appear, to me, to be more concerned with the HBCU's toeing their line despite the potential crowds we would bring with us. And frankly, I don't see them inviting but one team from the SWAC to their tourney each year; that being the conference champ. This will especially be the case if nine of our games are against each other. Our power rating will not be high enough, in most cases, to get a second team in.
Everybody:
Get Ready has a point about the current format potentially favoring the schools who get weaker teams rotated onto their scheduled conference games. But that's the way everybody else does it and it can lead to some versatility in who's division champs. And what other way is there to do it. I would still rather the current setup than a round robin play everybody conference schedule each year. I like the SCG and want to see it remain. The season is more interestiing when a number of teams still have a shot at being conference champ. I agree that playing all the teams each year makes the SCG a mote point; why play it after that. Keep the current format and continue to play the SCG.
Sharpy:
I understand your point about keeping the money in house but does conference foes beating up on each other every year really help our programs to grow? I think we should play more quality non-conference opponents. Beating them helps recruiting, builds programs, etc. , and helps us to attract more quality opponents. Given the state of the SWAC at this point and the perception many have of us, I think we should be scheduling more, not less, non-conference opponents. Many of the kids we are losing to the other schools are "our" kids; beating up on those other schools might entice some of them to consider us first.
My $0.02
Regards.
MikeBigg:
I hear where you are coming from with the NCAA possibily considering moving the I-AA tourney back but I don't believe it will happen. They appear, to me, to be more concerned with the HBCU's toeing their line despite the potential crowds we would bring with us. And frankly, I don't see them inviting but one team from the SWAC to their tourney each year; that being the conference champ. This will especially be the case if nine of our games are against each other. Our power rating will not be high enough, in most cases, to get a second team in.
Everybody:
Get Ready has a point about the current format potentially favoring the schools who get weaker teams rotated onto their scheduled conference games. But that's the way everybody else does it and it can lead to some versatility in who's division champs. And what other way is there to do it. I would still rather the current setup than a round robin play everybody conference schedule each year. I like the SCG and want to see it remain. The season is more interestiing when a number of teams still have a shot at being conference champ. I agree that playing all the teams each year makes the SCG a mote point; why play it after that. Keep the current format and continue to play the SCG.
Sharpy:
I understand your point about keeping the money in house but does conference foes beating up on each other every year really help our programs to grow? I think we should play more quality non-conference opponents. Beating them helps recruiting, builds programs, etc. , and helps us to attract more quality opponents. Given the state of the SWAC at this point and the perception many have of us, I think we should be scheduling more, not less, non-conference opponents. Many of the kids we are losing to the other schools are "our" kids; beating up on those other schools might entice some of them to consider us first.
My $0.02
Regards.
Jag Voice
Well-Known Member
I actually think this will make it harder for the weaker teams to win their divison and go to the SCG. No pun intended, but the only teams I think with a remote chance of going 9-0,8-1, or 7-2 are SU,JSU,GSU and maybe AlaSU.
At least in the other format, more teams had a chance of going 6-1 or 5-2.
At least in the other format, more teams had a chance of going 6-1 or 5-2.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
I don't agree with the comments that playing all conference teams will make the SCG moot. The only thing is this will ensure that the two teams will have already played. What's the problem with that? It wasn't a problem for SCG I, SCG 2, or SCG 3--all rematches.
I still like the idea of the SCG. And I hope it stays.
btw, some of you people from some of the self-annointed "big 3" need a dose of reality. Don't think you have gotten so big and rich, that Mr. Charlie is sitting around wanting you to join his conference.
I still like the idea of the SCG. And I hope it stays.
btw, some of you people from some of the self-annointed "big 3" need a dose of reality. Don't think you have gotten so big and rich, that Mr. Charlie is sitting around wanting you to join his conference.
Blu Panther
The name says it all
MikeBigg,
Again there has'nt been any evidence to support your comments. I wish it were the case, but I challenge you to provide a couple of articles from newspapers or from the NCAA website that supports your theory that the NCAA is even given a remote thought of moving the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs back a week.
Also the NCAA has several report stating that they will only allow NCAA Division I A or NCAA Division I AA programs to play 12 day contest on years that provide an additional Saturday during the Fall Football calendar year. Please provide any substancial report that suggest that the NCAA Football Committee will provide the SWAC with the ability to sercumvent this rule to allow the conference members to play a 12 game season even during the years that the rest of the NCAA Division I A and NCAA Division I AA programs will not.
I agree the NCAA would love to have the attendance numbers of SWAC members as apart of the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs, but again they have not provided any evidence that they are interested in changing the dates of the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs to gain the attendance numbers of the SWAC.
Jag Voice,
The new proposal suggest that only 7 of the 9 conference games will actually account towards the conference members records for the SWAC Championship Game. So the recent format for the SWAC Championship game of teams needing only to reach a mark of 6-1 and/or 5-2 to make it to the SWAC Championship Game should still old true.
Might Hornet,
You make a vaild point that the a rematch in the SCG game would not necessarily render the game moot. But, I think as a Commissioner and a promoter for the game the best scenario for the SCG would be to have two team in the game to fight for the conference championship whom have happen to not have played each other during the season, but with the proposed format it does not provide the conference with that opportunity.
For example this season. The SWAC Championship Game could feature a Alabama State University (7-0 or 6-1) program vs. a Southern University (7-0 or 6-1) program whom would not have face each other during the regular season. I think that would make the hype of the SWAC Championship Game with possibly two highly ranked teams that much more interesting!!
Again there has'nt been any evidence to support your comments. I wish it were the case, but I challenge you to provide a couple of articles from newspapers or from the NCAA website that supports your theory that the NCAA is even given a remote thought of moving the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs back a week.
Also the NCAA has several report stating that they will only allow NCAA Division I A or NCAA Division I AA programs to play 12 day contest on years that provide an additional Saturday during the Fall Football calendar year. Please provide any substancial report that suggest that the NCAA Football Committee will provide the SWAC with the ability to sercumvent this rule to allow the conference members to play a 12 game season even during the years that the rest of the NCAA Division I A and NCAA Division I AA programs will not.
I agree the NCAA would love to have the attendance numbers of SWAC members as apart of the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs, but again they have not provided any evidence that they are interested in changing the dates of the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs to gain the attendance numbers of the SWAC.
Jag Voice,
The new proposal suggest that only 7 of the 9 conference games will actually account towards the conference members records for the SWAC Championship Game. So the recent format for the SWAC Championship game of teams needing only to reach a mark of 6-1 and/or 5-2 to make it to the SWAC Championship Game should still old true.
Might Hornet,
You make a vaild point that the a rematch in the SCG game would not necessarily render the game moot. But, I think as a Commissioner and a promoter for the game the best scenario for the SCG would be to have two team in the game to fight for the conference championship whom have happen to not have played each other during the season, but with the proposed format it does not provide the conference with that opportunity.
For example this season. The SWAC Championship Game could feature a Alabama State University (7-0 or 6-1) program vs. a Southern University (7-0 or 6-1) program whom would not have face each other during the regular season. I think that would make the hype of the SWAC Championship Game with possibly two highly ranked teams that much more interesting!!
Blu Panther
The name says it all
What I do not understand is why the SWAC does not come up with a format similar to the SEC where each divisional member has a two guaranteed non-divisional conference games?
For a 7 game conference schedule.
Something as follows:
SWAC
Eastern Division:
AA&MU (UAPB & GSU) = 3 paydays AbSU, JSU & GSU
with PVA&MU, SU and TxSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
AbSU (TxSU & SU) = 3 paydays AA&MU, JSU & SU
with UAPB, PVA&MU and GSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
AlSU (GSU & TxSU) = 3 paydays AlSU, GSU & JSU
with SU, UAPB and PVA&MU rotating every two years as the 7th game
JSU (SU & PVA&MU) = 3 paydays GSU, SU & AlSU
with GSU, TxSU and UAPB rotating every two years as the 7th game
MVSU (PVA&MU & UAPB) = 3 paydays UAPB, JSU & AlSU
with TxSU, GSU and SU rotating every two years as the 7th game
Western Division:
UAPB (AA&MU & MVSU) = 3 paydays MVSU, SU & GSU
with AbSU, AlSU and JSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
GSU (AlSU & AA&MU) = 3 paydays PVA&MU, SU & AlSU
with JSU, MVSU and AbSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
SU (JSU & AbSU) = 3 paydays AlSU, JSU & GSU
with AlSU, AA&MU and MVSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
TxSU (AbSU & AlSU) = 3 paydays PVA&MU, SU & GSU
with MVSU, JSU and AA&MU rotating every two years as the 7th game
PVA&MU (MVSU & JSU) = 3 paydays TxSU, SU & GSU
with AA&MU, AbSU and AlSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
1)This would provide each conference member with 3 paydays and 6 yearly conference games with only one intra divisional conference game rotating every two years.
2)This would solve many of the problems with the current scheduling problems.
3)This would provide each conference member with an equal if not near equal amount of conference paydays.
4)While providing each conference member with the ablity to schedule non-conference games.
5)The conference office should help conference member in an effort to seek and create contracts with natural regional match-ups for conference members that may have difficulty in scheduling non-conference games because of distance, record, and/or attendance history with the SIAC, MEAC and/or HBCU NAIA Division I/NCAA Division II/Division I AA independent members.
i.e.
MVSU vs. Miles/Kentucky State/Paul Quinn and/or Stillman
UAPB vs. Lane/Kentucky State/Morris Brown and/or Stillman
TxSU vs. Lane/Langston/Lincoln and/or Morris Brown
PVA&MU vs. Miles/Paul Quinn/Langston and/or Lincoln
For a 7 game conference schedule.
Something as follows:
SWAC
Eastern Division:
AA&MU (UAPB & GSU) = 3 paydays AbSU, JSU & GSU
with PVA&MU, SU and TxSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
AbSU (TxSU & SU) = 3 paydays AA&MU, JSU & SU
with UAPB, PVA&MU and GSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
AlSU (GSU & TxSU) = 3 paydays AlSU, GSU & JSU
with SU, UAPB and PVA&MU rotating every two years as the 7th game
JSU (SU & PVA&MU) = 3 paydays GSU, SU & AlSU
with GSU, TxSU and UAPB rotating every two years as the 7th game
MVSU (PVA&MU & UAPB) = 3 paydays UAPB, JSU & AlSU
with TxSU, GSU and SU rotating every two years as the 7th game
Western Division:
UAPB (AA&MU & MVSU) = 3 paydays MVSU, SU & GSU
with AbSU, AlSU and JSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
GSU (AlSU & AA&MU) = 3 paydays PVA&MU, SU & AlSU
with JSU, MVSU and AbSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
SU (JSU & AbSU) = 3 paydays AlSU, JSU & GSU
with AlSU, AA&MU and MVSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
TxSU (AbSU & AlSU) = 3 paydays PVA&MU, SU & GSU
with MVSU, JSU and AA&MU rotating every two years as the 7th game
PVA&MU (MVSU & JSU) = 3 paydays TxSU, SU & GSU
with AA&MU, AbSU and AlSU rotating every two years as the 7th game
1)This would provide each conference member with 3 paydays and 6 yearly conference games with only one intra divisional conference game rotating every two years.
2)This would solve many of the problems with the current scheduling problems.
3)This would provide each conference member with an equal if not near equal amount of conference paydays.
4)While providing each conference member with the ablity to schedule non-conference games.
5)The conference office should help conference member in an effort to seek and create contracts with natural regional match-ups for conference members that may have difficulty in scheduling non-conference games because of distance, record, and/or attendance history with the SIAC, MEAC and/or HBCU NAIA Division I/NCAA Division II/Division I AA independent members.
i.e.
MVSU vs. Miles/Kentucky State/Paul Quinn and/or Stillman
UAPB vs. Lane/Kentucky State/Morris Brown and/or Stillman
TxSU vs. Lane/Langston/Lincoln and/or Morris Brown
PVA&MU vs. Miles/Paul Quinn/Langston and/or Lincoln
MikeBigg
Well-Known Member
Blu,
I have no knowledge of any such article (expressing NCAA's desire to move back playoffs a week). If I recall, I alluded to the fact that it was possible that the NCAA would consider moving the start of playoffs back a date. I never said they would...I only mentioned it as a possibility.
If the playoffs were moved back and If the SCG was no longer continued, then a team would be eligible. This is not my endorsement either way, but merely a "what if" scenario.
Hopefully, I won't have to be challenged to find a newspaper article for that!
I have no knowledge of any such article (expressing NCAA's desire to move back playoffs a week). If I recall, I alluded to the fact that it was possible that the NCAA would consider moving the start of playoffs back a date. I never said they would...I only mentioned it as a possibility.
If the playoffs were moved back and If the SCG was no longer continued, then a team would be eligible. This is not my endorsement either way, but merely a "what if" scenario.
Hopefully, I won't have to be challenged to find a newspaper article for that!
Robber
Consigliere
mighty hornet,
Look at the conferences that have divisional formats and count the conferences where all teams play each other. They don't. But they don't schedule conference opponents for non-conference games, either. By playing EVERYBODY the title is settled. Don't matter that the first 3 SCGs have been rematches.
And if the SWAC is now making the non-conference schedules, too, this sucks. Why don't they just do the whole damn schedule and just tell the teams where they need to go and when they need to be there.
SMH @ utter dumbarseary.
Look at the conferences that have divisional formats and count the conferences where all teams play each other. They don't. But they don't schedule conference opponents for non-conference games, either. By playing EVERYBODY the title is settled. Don't matter that the first 3 SCGs have been rematches.
And if the SWAC is now making the non-conference schedules, too, this sucks. Why don't they just do the whole damn schedule and just tell the teams where they need to go and when they need to be there.
SMH @ utter dumbarseary.
Jag Voice
Well-Known Member
So the SWAC is now deciding our non-conference games. I was thinking all 9 games would count... Guess I was giving the SWAC too much credit.
So the whole argument about making the championship run even is moot. You still will have teams complaining that their games against the stronger opponents counted while they did not count for other teams.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
robber,
I'm only talking about the SCG. Playing 9 conference games isn't something I'm for. But if that decision has been made, I don't think that should spell the end of the SCG. I disagree that by playing everybody the title is settled, cause if there's a championship game, that's where the title is settled. Different sport, but just like bball. Sure, there's a regular season where you play everybody, but the championship is settled in the championship game.
I'm only talking about the SCG. Playing 9 conference games isn't something I'm for. But if that decision has been made, I don't think that should spell the end of the SCG. I disagree that by playing everybody the title is settled, cause if there's a championship game, that's where the title is settled. Different sport, but just like bball. Sure, there's a regular season where you play everybody, but the championship is settled in the championship game.
Blu Panther
The name says it all
If the SWAC would gain Morris Brown, Tuskegee, Tennessee State, and Florida A & M, by moving the Bayou Classic and Turkey Day Classic back a week, then would this move be worth the changes in dates for the Bayou Classic and Turkey Day for the viablity and strength of the entire conference?
Blu Panther
The name says it all
MikeBigg,
The challenge was not meant to be in any disrespect. It was aimed to get you to support your "possiblity". I for one wish that the NCAA was considering moving the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs back a week or even two for that matter. So, I was interested in learning of why you thought this was a "possiblity" outside of you just thinking that this may be a good idea and the case.
As I am sure you are aware, decisions of this magnitude do not happen with out some type of major endorsement by conference officials. Unfortunately have not heard or read where any SWAC Office officials, SWAC coaches, SWAC presidents, or even athletic directors have had any interest or inclination in petitioning the NCAA Football Committee to consider such a move, nor have I heard or read from and other NCAA Division I AA conference leaders for such a lobby to support such a move.
The challenge was not meant to be in any disrespect. It was aimed to get you to support your "possiblity". I for one wish that the NCAA was considering moving the NCAA Division I AA Play-offs back a week or even two for that matter. So, I was interested in learning of why you thought this was a "possiblity" outside of you just thinking that this may be a good idea and the case.
As I am sure you are aware, decisions of this magnitude do not happen with out some type of major endorsement by conference officials. Unfortunately have not heard or read where any SWAC Office officials, SWAC coaches, SWAC presidents, or even athletic directors have had any interest or inclination in petitioning the NCAA Football Committee to consider such a move, nor have I heard or read from and other NCAA Division I AA conference leaders for such a lobby to support such a move.
Blu Panther
The name says it all
Robber,
It is difficult for me to understand why you are so upset. It is comical to me that people as yourself supported the JSU in their efforts to play UPAB a conference foe as non-conference game. Furthermore stated that SU and GSU would not rotate off JSU schedule, that they would just play a conference foe as a non-conference game.
This measure would only mandate your institution JSU would participate in "one" more conference, non-conference game than that actually have played on their schedule the last two years and would play next wen SU rolls of the schedule and the following years when GSU rolls of the schedule.
As Texas Southern Fan mention I do not understand the uproar when many fans supported infact actually challenged the athletic directors thinking and intelligence on the fact that conference members should play a conference member as a non-conference game.
i.e examples:
Alabama State in their effort require Southern to honor hteir contract to play a conference member in a non-conference game.
Southern fans irrate that Southern was not playing a Alcorn State, as later supported, cheered, and endorsed the fact that Southern would play a conference member in a non-conference game this year.
No problem, complaints, or concerns with Southern playing Alabama A & M a conference member in a non-conference game.
No problem, complaints, or concenrs with Jackson State playing Arkansas Pine Bluff a conference member in a non-coference game.
No problem, complaints, or concerns with Mississippi Valley State playing Arkansas Pine Bluff a conference member in a non-conference game.
Even Prairie View A & M got in on the conference member as a non-conference act with Alabama A & M. I am sure they will continue the process one Mississippi Valley State rolls of the schedule as well.
Only Texas Southern has not been able to get in on playing one conference member as a non-conference game and that is because of the distance and the fact that Mississippi Valley State and/or Alabama A & M have not rolled of their schedule as of yet.
Hell AA&MU and UAPB play two conference members as non-conference games since the start of the new divisional alignment.
To The Board,
Why are you so upset when it is fine for you as conference member to play "ONE" conference member as a non-conference game, but it is stupid, lack of leadership, and "dumbarseary" for the same coaches and athletic directors to mandate that you play ONE more conference member as a non-conference game for a total of "TWO" conference members in two non-conference games?
Hell most of the conference members, by the examples given above are doing it any "D@mn" way. SMH, Now that is utter dumbarseary.
It is difficult for me to understand why you are so upset. It is comical to me that people as yourself supported the JSU in their efforts to play UPAB a conference foe as non-conference game. Furthermore stated that SU and GSU would not rotate off JSU schedule, that they would just play a conference foe as a non-conference game.
This measure would only mandate your institution JSU would participate in "one" more conference, non-conference game than that actually have played on their schedule the last two years and would play next wen SU rolls of the schedule and the following years when GSU rolls of the schedule.
As Texas Southern Fan mention I do not understand the uproar when many fans supported infact actually challenged the athletic directors thinking and intelligence on the fact that conference members should play a conference member as a non-conference game.
i.e examples:
Alabama State in their effort require Southern to honor hteir contract to play a conference member in a non-conference game.
Southern fans irrate that Southern was not playing a Alcorn State, as later supported, cheered, and endorsed the fact that Southern would play a conference member in a non-conference game this year.
No problem, complaints, or concerns with Southern playing Alabama A & M a conference member in a non-conference game.
No problem, complaints, or concenrs with Jackson State playing Arkansas Pine Bluff a conference member in a non-coference game.
No problem, complaints, or concerns with Mississippi Valley State playing Arkansas Pine Bluff a conference member in a non-conference game.
Even Prairie View A & M got in on the conference member as a non-conference act with Alabama A & M. I am sure they will continue the process one Mississippi Valley State rolls of the schedule as well.
Only Texas Southern has not been able to get in on playing one conference member as a non-conference game and that is because of the distance and the fact that Mississippi Valley State and/or Alabama A & M have not rolled of their schedule as of yet.
Hell AA&MU and UAPB play two conference members as non-conference games since the start of the new divisional alignment.
To The Board,
Why are you so upset when it is fine for you as conference member to play "ONE" conference member as a non-conference game, but it is stupid, lack of leadership, and "dumbarseary" for the same coaches and athletic directors to mandate that you play ONE more conference member as a non-conference game for a total of "TWO" conference members in two non-conference games?
Hell most of the conference members, by the examples given above are doing it any "D@mn" way. SMH, Now that is utter dumbarseary.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
Blue Panther,
I can't speak for Robber but I am against this because this actually hurts JSU. I won't say that I was against JSU playing UAPB but if we had other offers to play other people, at least we had a choice in the matter. I can see why my AD plays UAPB becasue they are close. But why should we have to play TxSO or PV if we don't have to. Why should AAMU or AlaState play them. Last year JSU had a great non-conference schedule with 50K in Chicago, 35K fans in Atlanta and 30K in Memphis. This set up deprives us of this. For example, if Chicago calls us back for 2004, we won't be able to accept unless we give up the A&T series. If FAMU calls us we won't be able to accept because we are supposed to start a series with NWesten State next year. That might be out the window now because under the new set-up, one of us won't get a return game or JSU would have to turn down other deals and have only NWState and TNState as our non-conference opponents. The thing about this entire thing is that is limits JSU tremendously. Yes, I would love to always play SU and Gram but if we don't, I think we can find other DECENT opponents to play us. It is not that I think that JSU is better than anyone else but just like SU is showing that they can make money without playing all nine teams, JSU is also showing that if you give us a little flexibility, we can make things happen. Why hold us back??
This will hurt JSU even as early as 2003. We already have four non-conference games set but one of them will have to go. That is what I am complaining about.
I can't speak for Robber but I am against this because this actually hurts JSU. I won't say that I was against JSU playing UAPB but if we had other offers to play other people, at least we had a choice in the matter. I can see why my AD plays UAPB becasue they are close. But why should we have to play TxSO or PV if we don't have to. Why should AAMU or AlaState play them. Last year JSU had a great non-conference schedule with 50K in Chicago, 35K fans in Atlanta and 30K in Memphis. This set up deprives us of this. For example, if Chicago calls us back for 2004, we won't be able to accept unless we give up the A&T series. If FAMU calls us we won't be able to accept because we are supposed to start a series with NWesten State next year. That might be out the window now because under the new set-up, one of us won't get a return game or JSU would have to turn down other deals and have only NWState and TNState as our non-conference opponents. The thing about this entire thing is that is limits JSU tremendously. Yes, I would love to always play SU and Gram but if we don't, I think we can find other DECENT opponents to play us. It is not that I think that JSU is better than anyone else but just like SU is showing that they can make money without playing all nine teams, JSU is also showing that if you give us a little flexibility, we can make things happen. Why hold us back??
This will hurt JSU even as early as 2003. We already have four non-conference games set but one of them will have to go. That is what I am complaining about.
Blu Panther
The name says it all
I agree with your assumption in theory. Remember the SWAC divisional format was created to do two things one allow for a championship game format that would possible generate more revenue for the conference and secondly allow conference member to schedule more non-conference games to also generate more revenue.
But, honestly I think you are giving your athletic director as well as the rest of SWAC's athletic director to much credit. Especially, when your athletic director could not deliver to Jackson State's alumni, fans, and players a 12 game schedule this season. I do not want to read or hear the excuses of why he did not.
So, you are of the opinion that playing a game against conference member Arkansas - Pine Bluff as a non conference game because of the distance make since although you have the same opportunity to schedule the Florida A & M, Northwestern State, and/or Howard that you believe your athletic director would have scheduled next year without the newly mandated rules?
The point is he could not deliver a 12 game season for Jackson State this season. This does not even count the fact that one of the non-conference game that you covit some much for the ability of Jackson State to schedule meaningful and possible money making game is against a conference member in Arkansas Pine Bluff as a non-conference game. Remember he was not able to deliver Florida A & M and/or Northwestern State this season.
What makes you so confident that the athletic director that has told you several things to your face over the last couple of years and later found out not to be true, that he will become more truthful and competant in the follow years to provide Jackson State football programs with something he has not delivered in the past (4 non-conference games in a 11 game season and 5 non-conference games in a 12 game season)?
Hell, he has not delivered to Jackson State more than 3 non-conference games a season that do not include a game against a conference member since he has held the athletic director position. But, you believe he will deliver you 4 or 5 non-conference games next season.
Again, I think you are giving your athletic director more credit than he has shown you, he can achieve and deliver as well as it may just be more difficult for him to schedule the highly endorsed and fan requested games than you have considered.
The major problem I have with your assumption is the fact that the conference has had three and including this season 4 seasons to place more than 3 actual non-conference games on every SWAC schedule that does not include a conference member as a non-conference game and there has not been "One" of the suppose "Big 3" SWAC programs that has been successful in this measure.
Now all of sudden several SWAC member institutions believe their athletic directors will achieve this goal. Please, something does not add up. I know you do not want to believe it, but it is true. The have not been successful in their effort to schedule more than "3" games non-conference games against non SWAC member institutions.
For the record. I am against the 7 conference 9 game SWAC round-robin schedule, but I am also against SWAC member institution playing conference members as non-conference games. My big issue is...
Again, I think it is a hilarious that many SWAC member posters are in support of our SWAC member institutions having the ability to schedule one conference member as non-conference game, but not want the mandatory two conference members as non-conference games.
I do not think this is rocket science, brain surgery nor law court room litegation, college president strategic planning, or engineering project management work. Again it is not like we do not have ample examples of conferences that have created a smilar format that we as a conference could follow and change just a little to support our goals. See above conference alignment post:
Dr. Mac
Player
Well Put, TigerPride.
All:
I agree, flexibility to schedule other opponents is the key. If we can get other good non-conference opponents, we should have the flexibility to play them. The whole conference benefits when one of its schools plays a tough non-conference schedule and wins (or represents well in) the games. I understand that some think that two non-conference games is enough, however, the option to schedule more if a school wants to should continue as it is with our current setup. It helps matters, not hurts them.
Regards.
All:
I agree, flexibility to schedule other opponents is the key. If we can get other good non-conference opponents, we should have the flexibility to play them. The whole conference benefits when one of its schools plays a tough non-conference schedule and wins (or represents well in) the games. I understand that some think that two non-conference games is enough, however, the option to schedule more if a school wants to should continue as it is with our current setup. It helps matters, not hurts them.
Regards.
Blu Panther
The name says it all
Dr. Mac,
Again your assumption make since in the theory. But the conference member institutions have not shown the ability to take advantage of the multi-game non-conference scheduling format in the past 3 years. What make you think that this scenario will all of a sudden change?
I have provided the board with several examples of what most of our athletic directors have done over the past three years. I have not scene an example that shows the ability of our conference athletic directors to schedule otherwise.
It sounds as if most of the board posters would like the conference to have the ability to atleast schedule 3 non-conference games a year during the 11 game season format and a 4th non-conference game during the 12 game season format.
Again this is not rocket science, brain surgery nor law court room litegation, college president strategic planning, or engineering project management work. Just creat an eight game conference schedule that provides each conference member with 3 non-conference games a year during the 11 game season format and a 4th non-conference game during the 12 game season format with the measure that conference members can not schedule conference members a non-conference games.
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
Again your assumption make since in the theory. But the conference member institutions have not shown the ability to take advantage of the multi-game non-conference scheduling format in the past 3 years. What make you think that this scenario will all of a sudden change?
I have provided the board with several examples of what most of our athletic directors have done over the past three years. I have not scene an example that shows the ability of our conference athletic directors to schedule otherwise.
It sounds as if most of the board posters would like the conference to have the ability to atleast schedule 3 non-conference games a year during the 11 game season format and a 4th non-conference game during the 12 game season format.
Again this is not rocket science, brain surgery nor law court room litegation, college president strategic planning, or engineering project management work. Just creat an eight game conference schedule that provides each conference member with 3 non-conference games a year during the 11 game season format and a 4th non-conference game during the 12 game season format with the measure that conference members can not schedule conference members a non-conference games.
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
Dr. Mac
Player
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. 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).
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.
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.
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 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. 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).
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.
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.
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.