The reason why there is a 9 game mandate


bluedog

bluedog

"Leader of Kings"
I know most of you don't agree with it and think it's stupid but some of your arguments about 7 games being better for the "SWAC" doesn't wash. It's really only good for the individual schools.

Here's something I found that may help to clear this up for some of you. Now remember that the commissioner has been given the task of creating a revenue sharing plan.


This talks about tv revenue sharing but clearly relates to any type of revenue sharing.

II Competition, League Balance and Revenue Sharing from Broadcasting

Sports leagues tend to be dominated by a handful of leading clubs that compete for the league title and a tail of less talented clubs that make up the league. A key factor that determines the overall success of the league is league balance or competitive balance.

If the gap between the dominant and lagging clubs in the league becomes too large then a significant number of league matches become too predictable and the absence of strong competition leads to unexciting games that attract less spectators. It is not difficult to see that in an unregulated league there is a tendency for imbalance to develop.

The leading clubs have larger gates, charge more for individual seats, sell more supporters' merchandise and can command higher prices for the broadcasting rights to their matches. These revenues can be reinvested in the club via the purchase of more talented players which serves to maintain and enhance the club's dominant position.

This inherent tendency to league imbalance results in one of the peculiar economic problems facing sports leagues, namely that while in most industries competitors are not adversely affected if their rivals go to the wall, in the case of a football league where the product supplied is the joint product of the clubs that compete in the league, a certain number of competitors is required for the league to function at all. Moreover, there must be a certain degree of league balance if the league is to prosper and viewing figures are to be maximised.

Independent Manchester United Supporters Association
 
bluedog said:
I know most of you don't agree with it and think it's stupid but some of your arguments about 7 games being better for the "SWAC" doesn't wash. It's really only good for the individual schools.

What do you think major league baseball has been doing for years. The SEC understands this too.


Here's something I found that may help to clear this up for some of you. Now remember that the commissioner has been given the task of creating a revenue sharing plan.


This talks abut tv revenue sharing but clearly relates to any type of revenue sharing.

II Competition, League Balance and Revenue Sharing from Broadcasting

Sports leagues tend to be dominated by a handful of leading clubs that compete for the league title and a tail of less talented clubs that make up the league. A key factor that determines the overall success of the league is league balance or competitive balance.

If the gap between the dominant and lagging clubs in the league becomes too large then a significant number of league matches become too predictable and the absence of strong competition leads to unexciting games that attract less spectators. It is not difficult to see that in an unregulated league there is a tendency for imbalance to develop.

The leading clubs have larger gates, charge more for individual seats, sell more supporters' merchandise and can command higher prices for the broadcasting rights to their matches. These revenues can be reinvested in the club via the purchase of more talented players which serves to maintain and enhance the club's dominant position.

This inherent tendency to league imbalance results in one of the peculiar economic problems facing sports leagues, namely that while in most industries competitors are not adversely affected if their rivals go to the wall, in the case of a football league where the product supplied is the joint product of the clubs that compete in the league, a certain number of competitors is required for the league to function at all. Moreover, there must be a certain degree of league balance if the league is to prosper and viewing figures are to be maximised.

Independent Manchester United Supporters Association
Click to expand...
 



I don't see where this has anything to do with it. Playing 9 games will not make things even out, in fact, it may make the disparity more obvious. In the past 20 years, who have won conference championships. If my memory serves me correctly, except for 1 year, it has been 4 schools and the others usually don't come close (Winning a division and getting beat a second time by a team in the SCG don't count. They are who they are, and a 7, 8 or 9 game schedule ain't gonna change that.
 
Lewis said:
I don't see where this has anything to do with it. Playing 9 games will not make things even out, in fact, it may make the disparity more obvious. In the past 20 years, who have won conference championships. If my memory serves me correctly, except for 1 year, it has been 4 schools and the others usually don't come close (Winning a division and getting beat a second time by a team in the SCG don't count. They are who they are, and a 7, 8 or 9 game schedule ain't gonna change that.
Click to expand...
All that is true lewis but the point is this is what they're trying to do. Who knows if attrition may not be the next move? We'll just have to wait and see what the results will be in due time.
 
G Lion said:
What do you think major league baseball has been doing for years. The SEC understands this too.
Click to expand...
And your point is? Whether major league baseball has been doing for years or that the SEC understands this too isn't the point.The point is this is what the SWAC is trying to accomplish also.
 
bluedog said:
And your point is? Whether major league baseball has been doing for years or that the SEC understands this too isn't the point.The point is this is what the SWAC is trying to accomplish also.
Click to expand...


I don't see the swac trying to accomplish anything.. the swac is over 75 years old, what have they accomplished? a lot of mickey mouse leadership and in fighting that's about it.
 
G Lion said:
I don't see the swac trying to accomplish anything.. the swac is over 75 years old, what have they accomplished? a lot of mickey mouse leadership and in fighting that's about it.
Click to expand...
Well you can always go back to D2.
 
That article does not relate to the SWAC. The AD/Coaches have said several times they needed 9 SWAC games because some teams could not find 4 non-conferece games.

IMO, it boils down to lazy ADs who don't look hard enough to find quality non-conference teams.

I did some reseach and the MEAC and Southland alone need 63 non-conference games EVERY YEAR. The Southland is especially bad since their teams need 6 NC games a year...... not to mention the games and Classics involving other conferences we schedule from time to time.

There is simply no logical reason to make teams play 9 SWAC games.
 
There is no justification for the 9-game mandate, as long as we keep playing the SCG. It is simply coonism at it highest. There was simply nothing wrong with the formula we just got rid of. Play 7 and you got a reasonable number of non-conference games.

We cannont keep living in a vacuum. There is life outside the SWAC.
 
Robber, I agree totally. No reason for the 9 games execpt it makes the AD's job easier AND THE COACHES JOBS EASIER. It is a lot easier to prepare for the same team and players each year rather than seeing new schemes from the different team you may play in Non-Conference games. In addition, let's say 2 non conference games may result in 2 serious beatdowns, where if we play a conference game, somebody will win no matter how dumb the coaches are and how sorry the team. If you look at our Non Conference record, .500 is a big improvement.
 
I would really enjoy hearing or reading an explanation from the conference on why the 9 game mandate is in the best interest of the SWAC. Honestly, I have pushed THG Agency, to analize any number of various positions to support such a move and we have yet to come up with a meaningful economic or substancial operations reason to support such a mandate. For all the various reasons, I have heard from various coaches and athletic diectors on this subject, I can not support their stance considering in business model. Again, I would love to read the ultimate reason or reasons for fans to support or at least understand the important reason for this mandate.
 
From any school point of view football is an expensive sport. Now being realistic no school in the SWAC can support an athletic program at the level we want to see it. It is a known fact that monies have to be moved around to support the appropriations received from our state departments of education since we are all State Schools. When I hear that a school took money from big ball games and did not put it back into athletics, I must say that you who make these statements do not understand the big picture or you failed to acknowledge the fact that the money to support other programs is short. Our schools are not going to be given the corporate dollars to support our schools. This is a reason we must look at balance and revenue sharing. We must continue to build a strong conference to increase revenue.
 
Maybe it does make some of the ADs job easier but the main reason that Robert Vowels gave for keeping the nine game mandate was to be able to acquire the MBC contract if you remember. Whether we like it or not there can't be any revenue sharing with out one and most certainly not one of any substance with only 7 games being played.

We aren't the SEC so our TV pkg. isn't and won't be of that magnitude but last I recall the one that we have was called/is the largest "EVER' by a D-IAA conf.
 
Mighty Dog,

This is a reason we must look at balance and revenue sharing. We must continue to build a strong conference to increase revenue.
Click to expand...

I am in support of conference revenue sharing programs. So, please expound on the revenue sharing proposal or model suggested by the SWAC and exactly how the 9 game mandate will be used to implement this plan. In all honesty, if this revenue sharing model is as solid as our leaders obviously believe it is. I am sure that although many of us may not like the 9 game mandate. It would be great deal easier for SWAC fans, alums, and students to support such a plan.

At this point, most of us are asking questions of any and all sources possible and often times are getting just that many different answers. Again, it obvious that many of us would love to support our conference measures. But from the information we have gathered, there hasn't been any significant amount of information for many fans to view where the mandate would be beneficial to the conference as a whole.

I am open to any dialogue. But, I just have not been provided or had the opportunity to research anything that would allow me to support this issue. Again, provide me with the information and I will happily get on board.
 
Jafus, the only way I can see the nine games mandate being a benefit to the SWAC is we don't have a SCG and we participate in the playoffs. Playing the nine game mandate and the SCG is just STUPID to me.

If we're not gonna participate in the playoffs why not go to a 4 and 3 format that way we have an opportunity to play more out of conference games and the SCG seems logical.
 



Jafus,

Please don't wait on an explanation as to how the 9-game mandate will somehow facilitate a successful revenue sharing system. We just say shat because it sounds good.

YOU CAN'T HAVE REVENUE SHARING IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOME FORM OF MONEY COLLECTED FOR THE WHOLE TO SHARE AMONGST ANY INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS!!! The money made from individual games are going to benefit the home team. We will share money made from the SCG (which ain't made a dime yet) and TV contract. So y'all know we ain't sharing much of anything.
 
bluedog said:
Maybe it does make some of the ADs job easier but the main reason that Robert Vowels gave for keeping the nine game mandate was to be able to acquire the MBC contract if you remember. Whether we like it or not there can't be any revenue sharing with out one and most certainly not one of any substance with only 7 games being played.

We aren't the SEC so our TV pkg. isn't and won't be of that magnitude but last I recall the one that we have was called/is the largest "EVER' by a D-IAA conf.
Click to expand...


Bluedog, this is a bunch of BS. Are you telling me that if we went to 4+3, that MBC would drop us?? Man, you need to apply for a job in the SWAC office.
 
Tigerpride said:
Bluedog, this is a bunch of BS. Are you telling me that if we went to 4+3, that MBC would drop us? Man, you need to apply for a job in the SWAC office.
Click to expand...
Again your comprehension skills shows up, I'm not telling you anything other than what is said. If you chose not to believe it kool but let me inform you right now today isn't a good day for you and your stupidity so save it.

As you so many times like to say although "NEVER" carry through, I'm trying to have a matured discussion about the subject but it has been clear for the last week or so that some of you are going to find something to whine about no matter what and not have "any shred of proof to backup" what you're saying.

It seems to me that a lot you would be better off following some other school or conf. since the SWAC is so bush league and you're so disgusted with it, just move on. The bottomline is this is what has been decided to be done and there isn't one thing any of you can do about it.

I'm all for expressing yourself and doing what you can to "HELP" improve any situation but I have come to realize that over 90% of you are nothing but talk, so enough already with the damn whining it's done and like it or not it was a unanimous decision by the coaches. That means "every damn one of them" wanted this for those of you that some how miss it.
 
Bluedog, I honestly don't think that MBC is going anywhere. There is always going to be a SWAC game or two every weekend of football season. Even if we went back to the 4 + 3 format, there would still be a SWAC game every weekend of football season. It's not like MBC won't have a game to broadcast.
And our contract with MBC is not exclusive, either. They will broadcast more than SWAC games during the season. MBC can broadcast a SWAC, MEAC, CIAA, or SIAC game if they want to. They don't have to broadcast a SWAC game every weekend.

I agree with most other people, too. Why play every team in the SWAC and then play a SWAC Championship Game at the end of the year? That doesn't make any sense. If SU goes 8-1 or 9-0 in SWAC play, why should they (or anybody that does it) have to play in a championship game if the team they are facing is 7-2, or 6-3. I'm not even going to get started on the format that is supposed to be used to determine what games count. How can a game count for one team but not for the other?

While I do applaud the SWAC for trying to generate a revenue sharing plan, some of the things they are doing make no sense at all.
 
bluedog,

Have you ever offered one bit of proof of anything. All you do is say that coaches voted unanimously for this, as if that makes the decisions rational or the right way. This board is for open discussion. I have yet to read one reason why the 9-game mandate is a good idea.

You might wanna read your own posts. TP and the "90%" ain't the only ones who are guilty of what you're crying about. Your ass is in the same boat.
 
bluedog said:
Well you can always go back to D2.
Click to expand...

First we were never D2.

Second, we were in the SWAC for 40 years, but it seems coming back to the SWAC is still f'ed up as it was when we left it.
 
bluedog said:
Again your comprehension skills shows up, I'm not telling you anything other than what is said. If you chose not to believe it kool but let me inform you right now today isn't a good day for you and your stupidity so save it.

As you so many times like to say although "NEVER" carry through, I'm trying to have a matured discussion about the subject but it has been clear for the last week or so that some of you are going to find something to whine about no matter what and not have "any shred of proof to backup" what you're saying.

It seems to me that a lot you would be better off following some other school or conf. since the SWAC is so bush league and you're so disgusted with it, just move on. The bottomline is this is what has been decided to be done and there isn't one thing any of you can do about it.

I'm all for expressing yourself and doing what you can to "HELP" improve any situation but I have come to realize that over 90% of you are nothing but talk, so enough already with the damn whining it's done and like it or not it was a unanimous decision by the coaches. That means "every damn one of them" wanted this for those of you that some how miss it.
Click to expand...

Bluedog, the bottomline is that you are "in" with the stupid folks and you have no reason (and neither do they) to say that we need a 9-game mandate. Being a 4+3 conference is NO reason NOT to televise games. So please come again.....dummy. And yes, many of us here have done more than just talk....I know that I have. You just want us to like it and we don't. 90% of us on here have good sense.
 
Jafus, one of the major factors internally to the SWAC is that those schools who have enjoyed a certain status believe they would have to share too much at this point, therefore, it is difficult for them to agree with a comprehensive revenue sharing plan. All we want to do at AAMU is invest in our school to put us on an even playing field with the rest of the SWAC. We feel that once the favortism is not the dominate force in the conference we can achieve any goal. At Media Day, the owners of MBC made some promises and I heard them. The interesting thing to me is that they made a commitment to broadcast BCF, which is a gold mine at this stage. When I watch MBC, I also notice the sponsors. They have acquired some great sponsers and they are looking good in this area. Bottom line is that I am for the 9 game schedule because it makes sense.
 
MightyDog said:
Jafus, one of the major factors internally to the SWAC is that those schools who have enjoyed a certain status believe they would have to share too much at this point, therefore, it is difficult for them to agree with a comprehensive revenue sharing plan. All we want to do at AAMU is invest in our school to put us on an even playing field with the rest of the SWAC. We feel that once the favortism is not the dominate force in the conference we can achieve any goal. At Media Day, the owners of MBC made some promises and I heard them. The interesting thing to me is that they made a commitment to broadcast BCF, which is a gold mine at this stage. When I watch MBC, I also notice the sponsors. They have acquired some great sponsers and they are looking good in this area. Bottom line is that I am for the 9 game schedule because it makes sense.
Click to expand...

But MD, why does it make sense??? If you and Bluedog have info, you need to share it with the rest of us. What does a 9-game mandate have to do with TV coverage??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top