Why the I-AA playoffs are joke for SWAC schools ...


nickderiso

nickderiso

TheDerisoReport.com
Participating in the I-AA playoffs doesn't make sense for historically black colleges. Here's why:

The marginal Division I-A schools that have moved up from I-AA status -- thinking now of the 1987 I-AA champion Northeast Louisiana (now ULM), which destroyed Alcorn State 78-27 in the 1992 playoffs -- have done so SPECIFICALLY because there is no money to be made in the post season at that level. They do it because these predominantly white colleges don't have the instant draw of a "classic" game.

So, a secondary contest like the New Orleans Bowl -- which ULM would be invited to in the Sun Belt, where it to ever not suck at the I-A level -- is more lucrative than any combined revenues from the I-AA playoffs (assuming, of course, they got a home game.)

Even the championship game is suspect. It's not a I-AA "bowl." They hold it in ... Chattanooga. Not exactly New Orleans. The game has averaged 12,000 to 13,000 people over the past few years.

In keeping, small (that means cash-strapped) schools like those in Grambling can scarcely afford to abandon the payday of a Bayou Classic in favor of the so-called "respect." Respect from whom? Everybody knows about USC and LSU, but can you name the current I-AA champion??? Most I-AA teams who are so-called names are simply scheduled patsys for the BCS powerhouses.

The SWAC, meanwhile, is the only conference to win a I-AA attendance crown since the NCAA began naming attendance leaders in 1978. Keeping it at home only makes sense.

Here's a look at what winning the I-AA championship did for Georgia Southern in 1999:
Twelve months later, however, one could argue that the national title could just as easily be considered worthless as priceless. The trophy, after all, is just another wooden stage for dust particles. And Georgia Southern failed to see the six- or seven-figure check presented annually to its Division I-A brethren or land a lucrative television contract.

As the Eagles close in on another possible championship this weekend, the payoffs from last year's title run are suspect. Coach Paul Johnson admits the diamond-encrusted ring on his finger certainly adds to his recruiting pitch. And the university cannot put a price tag on the publicity and exposure generated by last year's team.

The financial ledgers, on the other hand, fail to reflect favorably on GSU's fifth national championship. Even with three home playoff games a year ago, Georgia Southern struggled to break even, says athletic director Sam Baker. And the indirect economic benefits from a national championship - namely the growth of the Eagle fan base - fell short of expectations.

"It's hard to say" what the payoffs are, Baker says, "although it obviously helps the reputation of the university and the football program. There are 150 schools out there who would like to make it to the national championship just once, and to be there three times in a row is a tremendous boost."

Baker's boost is relative. The economics of Division I-AA - or more precisely, non-Division I-A - football are not exactly strong. Unlike bowl games which pay participants anywhere from $250,000 to $12 million, playing in the Division I-AA championship does not include a guaranteed payout. In fact, the revenues go back to the NCAA's general fund, not to the game participants or the 16 playoff qualifiers.

The NCAA does pay the team's travel expenses for the playoffs and the championship game, but the generosity of collegiate athletics' governing body does not extend to university officials, cheerleaders, the marching band, etc. GSU generated approximately $40,000 during the 1999 playoffs and netted close to $30,000. But after buying the championship rings, the university actually lost money.

And with just two home playoff games this season, GSU stands to lose more than $25,000 on another national title, says Tom Norton, GSU's assistant athletic director for business.

"It's expensive," Baker says. "We'll be happy to break even. It's tough because college athletics is a business."
MORE HERE: http://www.savannahnow.com/features/georgiasouthern/brimmer1.shtml
Click to expand...

No, the SWAC hasn't had much success in the I-AA playoffs. But the larger issue is that McNeese -- like Georgia Southern -- had great success (they were runner up two seasons ago in their tournament), but couldn't find a way to capitalize on it financially.

Contrast that with the Bayou Classic, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars for both schools. Literally.

At that level, football is not about respect or even recruiting. It's a business. And black schools depend upon those dollars to survive. That's how you pay for new chemistry labs. Not by losing to Delaware in the third round of an unwatched I-AA playoff game.

Then, there is the rich beauty of a great game. As Sports Illustrated said after this year's Bayou Classic:
The Southern-Grambling game is not a black version of storied college rivalries. It is not a black version of Florida-Florida State. It is a storied college rivalry.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...a/story/+grambling+state+bayou+classic+&hl=en
Click to expand...

Why this incessant worry about what somebody else is doing?

There is no money in I-AA ball outside of black schools, which have the unique quick-cash infusion of set-up games called "classics." Thus you have so many clearly I-AA programs like Arkansas State and Florida International being forced to move up, if only to fail in I-A. They need the money.

And it's why so many black schools are not only staying put in I-AA ... but are scheduling fewer and fewer non-"classics" around their conference schedules. They can make the same money without getting embarrassed.

A McNeese only WISHES it could establish a Soul Bowl, or some such. If they don't soon, they'll probably try to move up, too.

Enjoy what you've got. Heck, REVEL in it. This is a beautiful thing.
:)
 



You are thinking to inside the box.

The NCAA realize that everyone has to be profitable. What needs to be done is that the NCAA playoff should start after the Bayou Classic. We should petition hard even sue the NCAA as a conference. However we do nothing.

I think we need to get out there and compete in their playoff system.

KCPVPanther
 
The NCAA has more justifiability to sue the SWAC for having a championship game than us sueing them. I have a way we all can be happy. It's not far fetched. Why not does the whole SWAC get better? Picture this; our conference is head and shoulders above every other D1-AA conference therefore not possibly 4 teams from our conference are ranked high enough to go to the playoffs. This way we could send the two best SWAC teams in the SWAC championship, and the #2 teams from each division go represent the SWAC in the playoffs. Does anyone have a problem with that?

If we are to participate fully in the playoffs then any dates coinsiding on the same weekend as the playoffs would have to be moved, i.e. BC & TDC. Apparently that is no where near happening. The playoffs is not a perfect system, and not the best lucritive decision to make.
 
lightningbug said:
Participating in the I-AA playoffs doesn't make sense for historically black colleges. Here's why:

The marginal Division I-A schools that have moved up from I-AA status -- thinking now of the 1987 I-AA champion Northeast Louisiana (now ULM), which destroyed Alcorn State 78-27 in the 1992 playoffs -- have done so SPECIFICALLY because there is no money to be made in the post season at that level. They do it because these predominantly white colleges don't have the instant draw of a "classic" game.

So, a secondary contest like the New Orleans Bowl -- which ULM would be invited to in the Sun Belt, where it to ever not suck at the I-A level -- is more lucrative than any combined revenues from the I-AA playoffs (assuming, of course, they got a home game.)

Even the championship game is suspect. It's not a I-AA "bowl." They hold it in ... Chattanooga. Not exactly New Orleans. The game has averaged 12,000 to 13,000 people over the past few years.

In keeping, small (that means cash-strapped) schools like those in Grambling can scarcely afford to abandon the payday of a Bayou Classic in favor of the so-called "respect." Respect from whom? Everybody knows about USC and LSU, but can you name the current I-AA champion??? Most I-AA teams who are so-called names are simply scheduled patsys for the BCS powerhouses.

The SWAC, meanwhile, is the only conference to win a I-AA attendance crown since the NCAA began naming attendance leaders in 1978. Keeping it at home only makes sense.

Here's a look at what winning the I-AA championship did for Georgia Southern in 1999:


No, the SWAC hasn't had much success in the I-AA playoffs. But the larger issue is that McNeese -- like Georgia Southern -- had great success (they were runner up two seasons ago in their tournament), but couldn't find a way to capitalize on it financially.

Contrast that with the Bayou Classic, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars for both schools. Literally.

At that level, football is not about respect or even recruiting. It's a business. And black schools depend upon those dollars to survive. That's how you pay for new chemistry labs. Not by losing to Delaware in the third round of an unwatched I-AA playoff game.

Then, there is the rich beauty of a great game. As Sports Illustrated said after this year's Bayou Classic:


Why this incessant worry about what somebody else is doing?

There is no money in I-AA ball outside of black schools, which have the unique quick-cash infusion of set-up games called "classics." Thus you have so many clearly I-AA programs like Arkansas State and Florida International being forced to move up, if only to fail in I-A. They need the money.

And it's why so many black schools are not only staying put in I-AA ... but are scheduling fewer and fewer non-"classics" around their conference schedules. They can make the same money without getting embarrassed.

A McNeese only WISHES it could establish a Soul Bowl, or some such. If they don't soon, they'll probably try to move up, too.

Enjoy what you've got. Heck, REVEL in it. This is a beautiful thing.
:)
Click to expand...

Tell you what....compare McNeese's athletic books to ULM's and tell me what you get, especially if ULM decides to move full-time to the Sun Belt.

The ULMs, ULLs, La Techs, etc. of the world are not making the money you make them out to be.

The playoffs aren't perfect, but they're a good measuring stick vs. the rest of I-AA.

As it is now, all we're competing for is the CONFERENCE championship, along with a subjective poll title among 11 more schools.

As I've posted before, I'm not in favor of anything that would move the Bayou Classic from its traditional weekend. However, if the playoffs were moved back a week, I'd be in favor of discontinuing the SCG and sending the champion to the playoffs.
 
Mr. SWACs ghost said:
It's not far fetched. Why not does the whole SWAC get better? Picture this; our conference is head and shoulders above every other D1-AA conference.
Click to expand...


A lot of work needs to be done before this is a reality.....
 
Baker's boost is relative. The economics of Division I-AA - or more precisely, non-Division I-A - football are not exactly strong. Unlike bowl games which pay participants anywhere from $250,000 to $12 million, playing in the Division I-AA championship does not include a guaranteed payout. In fact, the revenues go back to the NCAA's general fund, not to the game participants or the 16 playoff qualifiers.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. Seems like the Republican way -- tax the lil man, and provide breaks to the rich (D-IA).
 
I suppose my perspective is different from others. Grambling being a participant in the playoffs never was a big interest to me. BCF is unique. With BCF having all the glory and appeal, the playoffs need BCF more than BCF needs it. Leading attendance since the inception of D-1AA enables power. We can dictate demands from this fact alone. The NCAA can delay the playoff a week, but I think the SWAC should enter when the following is amended favorable to the schools.

...playing in the Division I-AA championship does not include a guaranteed payout. In fact, the revenues go back to the NCAA's general fund, not to the game participants or the 16 playoff qualifiers.
Click to expand...

Besides, I know Gram can compete with the best of D-IAA. In the late 80s, we competed against SFA (in a devastating loss 59-56), and last year we took McNeese down to the wire. A D-IAA crown does not justify the success of Grambling. We already have it. See signature.
 
GSUperTiger said:
I suppose my perspective is different from others. Grambling being a participant in the playoffs never was a big interest to me. BCF is unique. With BCF having all the glory and appeal, the playoffs need BCF more than BCF needs it. Leading attendance since the inception of D-1AA enables power. We can dictate demands from this fact alone. The NCAA can delay the playoff a week, but I think the SWAC should enter when the following is amended favorable to the schools.



Besides, I know Gram can compete with the best of D-IAA. In the late 80s, we competed against SFA (in a devastating loss 59-56), and last year we took McNeese down to the wire. A D-IAA crown does not justify the success of Grambling. We already have it. See signature.
Click to expand...


You lost by 11 at home to a team that was blown out at home in the first round of the playoffs.

We all know what happened the year GSU played McNeese when the Cowboys went to the finals.

Also, this chain of events occured:

Northern Arizona beat McNeese
Florida Atlantic beat Northern Arizona
Colgate beat Florida Atlantic
Delaware beat Colgate

I've posted many times the records vs. I-AA non-conference opponents. Breaking even or slightly worse is not necessarily being competitive, especially if you're "The Icon" and one of the top 2 or 3 schools in the conference over the 25 or so year period. Bear in mind that all these games were not against the top I-AA squads.

I have a theory as to why this is so. I'll start another thread on that though....
 
Prior to Doug taking over, Grambling competed and was blown out once by a predominately white school (SMU). Since 1970 Gram played PWCs like Hawaii, Neveda-Reno, Delaware, Temple, Oregon St., etc. As late as 1985, Grambling dominated a Pac-10 Oregon St. Gram beat all the aforementioned.

The Louisville game was Gram's first blowout loss where Gram did not score (granted Louisville was a top 25 team and blew out Southern Miss the same year by 4 Tds). The only theory one can develop is that Doug was not as seasoned as Coach Rob because our history has shown Gram can compete. It was evident that the talent was comparable in the game against San Jose St. Our sideline let us down in this one. Similarly, this was the case against McNeese (the first game). Now the game plan in the second McNeese game was solid. Gram had close to 500 yds offense. However, the staff's lack of focus towards team tackling doomed us. Games are about matchups -- it is immaterial that McNeese got blown out. He hate to use "if," but if Gram could tackle a blowout is the result in this game (McNeese could not defend the pass and faced a passing team in the playoffs).

Grambling has the talent. The staff is simply not taking enough notes from Coach Rob. No theory you devise can supercede Grambling's performance against PWCs, which is Grambling held its own.
 
He would fail to point out that we defeated Delaware in the D2 playoffs. A playoff victory... We have only played in the I-AA playoffs three times. All losses but by less than a TD and not one home game.

Boise St. 14, Grambling 9 (Boise St. won the I-AA Championship)
Arkansas St. 10, Grambling 7
Stephen F. Austin 59, Grambling 56 (S. F. Austin lost in the championship game to the great Georgia Southern by 3 pts)
 
Where do you honestly think Grambling would finish most years other I-AA conferences like the Big Sky, Southern, Atlantic 10, or Southland?

I'd be inclined to say upper middle of the pack.

Also, comparing games from 1970 is not the same as the last 10 to 15 years. BCS schools were not yet fully integrated, therefore Grambling was still getting some of the top African American players in the country.

Y'all can have H-Town on lock all you want, and your recruits can say they picked Grambling over Big XII or SEC schools all they want (letters or phone calls do not equal offers).

It would be really hard for me to believe any kid would select Grambling (or Southern or McNeese for that matter) over a BCS school when both offers are the same (i.e. full ride vs. full ride).

In most cases, the schools I mentioned only get some of these kids who are seriously recruited by BCS schools when they are non-qualifiers. I don't have a problem with it. These kids deserve a chance to play if they can get their books straight.
 
Hey GSUP,

I remember that SMU game when they had "the pony express." Hell that year SMU would have beat most teams. And if memory serves me correctly they stil called 3 TD's back on Gram for so say holding. In the 2nd matchup in Shreveport (I was there) SMU was ranked in the top 10 at the time and had to come from behind and beat Grambling (Dwayne Jupiter fumbled a punt late in the 4th quarter to allow SMU to sneak out of Independence).

I also was at that Stephen F. Austin game in Nachadoches (sp). Gram went to sleep on SFA and the Lumber Jacks came from waayyyyyyyy behind and stunned Gram by 3.

I also saw that Boise State game. That cold weather had you all playing out of your element never the less a loss.

My perspective is very similar to yours as it relates to the playoffs. I did however think the 4 +3 conference set up gave our schools the autonomy to schedule some interesting out of conference games which more than sufficed my thirst. I hate the 9 game mandate and the remdial playoff equally. The NCAA basically pimp this playoff set up. When I was younger in the work force I loved titles but the money always seemed to be suspect (in sports terms one could call this psuedo prestige of the I-AA playoffs). As I matured I could care less about the title and my philosphy changed to "show me the money." Until the NCAA can come up with something better and "show me the money," I am not halfway ready to engage in that sham. Dick Gregory wrote an interesting story about "Chasing the Pendulum." The gist of the story (negating the social element) is akin to chasing "fools gold."
 
JROCK said:
Hey GSUP,

I remember that SMU game when they had "the pony express." Hell that year SMU would have beat most teams. And if memory serves me correctly they stil called 3 TD's back on Gram for so say holding. In the 2nd matchup in Shreveport (I was there) SMU was ranked in the top 10 at the time and had to come from behind and beat Grambling (Dwayne Jupiter fumbled a punt late in the 4th quarter to allow SMU to sneak out of Independence).

I also was at that Stephen F. Austin game in Nachadoches (sp). Gram went to sleep on SFA and the Lumber Jacks came from waayyyyyyyy behind and stunned Gram by 3.

I also saw that Boise State game. That cold weather had you all playing out of your element never the less a loss.

My perspective is very similar to yours as it relates to the playoffs. I did however think the 4 +3 conference set up gave our schools the autonomy to schedule some interesting out of conference games which more than sufficed my thirst. I hate the 9 game mandate and the remdial playoff equally. The NCAA basically pimp this playoff set up. When I was younger in the work force I loved titles but the money always seemed to be suspect (in sports terms one could call this psuedo prestige of the I-AA playoffs). As I matured I could care less about the title and my philosphy changed to "show me the money." Until the NCAA can come up with something better and "show me the money," I am not halfway ready to engage in that sham. Dick Gregory wrote an interesting story about "Chasing the Pendulum." The gist of the story (negating the social element) is akin to chasing "fools gold."
Click to expand...

Damn J, man I love reading those stories...the passion of BCF -- second to none. Everyone (fellow posters) seems to remember all the finest details -- especially 7-10 years after integration.

My perspective is very similar to yours as it relates to the playoffs. I did however think the 4 +3 conference set up gave our schools the autonomy to schedule some interesting out of conference games which more than sufficed my thirst. I hate the 9 game mandate and the remdial playoff equally. The NCAA basically pimp this playoff set up.
Click to expand...

I think the majority feel the same. These intriguing matchups simply quench thirsts. SU and McNeese is the gamebreaker this year. It senseless to be pimped by the NCAA. Hell, Goldy showed us game back in the 70s with The Mack.

I like Dick Gregory -- I might have to pick that one up.
 



PNeck019 said:
It would be really hard for me to believe any kid would select Grambling (or Southern or McNeese for that matter) over a BCS school when both offers are the same (i.e. full ride vs. full ride).
Click to expand...

See Lenny Williams. He worked for me during his senior year in high school. He had offers from several BCS schools but chose Southern over them. I remember him talking about how impressed he was with Arkansas' facilities when he was recruited by them, especially their stadium itself. And yes, he was offered a full ride at U of A and didnt have any academic problems. He started as a freshman at Southern because of injuries and the rest is history. Another player that immediately comes to mind at Grambling who is no longer playing (I always wondered why), is Delvin Lewis out of Coushatta. LSU was hot on his trail but gave up when he made it known to them that he was headed to Grambling. I can even remember Dandy Don saying on his website how impressed Nick Saban was with Lewis. Delvin was an excellent student, and just happened to choose Grambling.

Oh, and I shouldn't forget Tim Abney. Had verbally committed to Auburn and at the last minute decided to play at Grambling.
 
I know I'll get flack for this but no smack is intended at all and I bet this happens with a lot of folk. When I read the thread names the reverse names also come to my mind.

Example:
"Why the I-AA playoffs are joke for SWAC schools ... "
"Why SWAC schools are joke for the I-AA playoffs ... "

We all know that the incentive for the NCAA I-AA playoffs must/will change. All SWAC football schools are voting members of the NCAA and I-AA. Admins realize that the SWAC has a great thing going, champ game/attendance/classics etc. and haven't been able to schedule playoffs around the Bayou. Some have even suggested the SWAC might cancel the champ game if playoff eligibility were possible.

It is really frustrating for those of us who follow I-AA to have two of the main assets of the subclassification, SWAC and Ivy not participating in the NCAA championship. They play in every other championship and both have highly rated football squads every year. The SWAC played in the I-AA playoffs in the past. The Ivy League claim they can't compete due to their non-scholly status. SWAC schools haven't won a playoff game (though I still question whether the 1989 Grambling loss to SFA now counts as a win because all SFA in 1989 was vacated due to NCAA infractions) and have scheduling conflicts. It doesn't take a genius to make this all work but, as I said, they are all members of the NCAA. If a NCAA Championship is desired by a student-athlete, give them a chance.
 
I couldn't have said it better, but I think that our conference could make some noise in that playoff system if it was taken serious............
 
PNeck019 said:
Tell you what....compare McNeese's athletic books to ULM's and tell me what you get, especially if ULM decides to move full-time to the Sun Belt.

The ULMs, ULLs, La Techs, etc. of the world are not making the money you make them out to be.

The playoffs aren't perfect, but they're a good measuring stick vs. the rest of I-AA.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?? No, ULM is not making the same money that McNeese is, despite moving to 1-A. That might be because the Indians have won seven games since 2000. That doesn't get you any pay days -- just like I-AA.

The only two ways to get paid in college football, then, are winning in I-A (and, for the truly big bucks, that's only the BCS crowd) or playing in lucrative "classics" if you are a black college. That's not opinion. It's fact.

I brought up ULM only because they left I-AA in the HOPES of making money. Forced to travel to Pocatello, Idaho for an untelevised title game in 1987 against Marshall, the former Northeast Louisiana won the "national championship." But then, as noted, they had to eat the expense, got no exposure, and were forced to move into I-A to balance the budget within five years. Makes the Sun Belt's paltry little New Orleans Bowl -- with a guaranteed payout to the winner and a TV contract -- sound pretty good.

Black schools have the best of both worlds. They present some of the most entertaining and athletic games at the I-AA level -- and the schools get to make some money to support other pursuits.
 
Mr. SWACs ghost,
This way we could send the two best SWAC teams in the SWAC championship, and the #2 teams from each division go represent the SWAC in the playoffs. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
The other conferences in the playoff would. They would not go for us sending 3rd and 4th place teams when they have to send 1st and 2nd place teams. That is crazy.<br><br>
That what makes what happened to the Heritage Bowl so sad to me. Compare it to the 1AA Playoffs, the Heritage Bowl had a National TV contract, it outdrew in attendance the 1AA playoff championship, the teams could make money. Even many news sources listed it with the 1A bowl games. WE HAD SOMETHING BETTER THAN THE 1AA PLAYOFF, AND SCREWED IT UP. All this crap about playing the best is a bunch of BULL, and many are to caught up in that. If you want some respect and want to play the best, it's in 1A anyway. BCF can build something better than them sorry arse playoffs.
 
WOW!!!! Even after LB presents factual eveidence on why the playoffs are a joke, I am amazed that some of you on here are still trying to justify going to the playoffs. Did you guys not read what is going down at Georgia Southern? Georgia Southern's case is the norm for particpants of the 1-AA playoffs, not the exeception. Why would HBCU programs....let me change that....why would SWAC programs want to put themselves through that?

Now, I have always believed (and still do) that it is just a matter of time before the NCAA is sued by all non D-1A football programs. I am really surprised that it hasn't been done yet.

Trivia Question: Who was the NCAA Division 1-A Football Champion in 2003? Hell while you're at it, give me the schools that won it over the last 10 years.

I am not an attorney, and I'm ignorant of NCAA legalities. But if I was a betting man (which I'm not) the answer to the above triva question (in my opinion) is all one needs to have a strong case in filing a law suit. I could really see something like this going before the Supreme Court.
 
I have a different prospective on this whole issue. I think the SWAC should abandon the idea of the playoffs. The SWAC officials should consider making the confernce a Division I-A conference. We have the fan base to meet the NCAA requirements. We could recruit Tennesse State and
FAMU along with us. Also, if the SWAC become an I-A conference, we could meet the mandated scheduled 6 I-A games every year. Our teams could also play other major I-A teams oustside the conference. BY being a I-A conference, we could work with sponsors to establish I-A bowl games for our conference. Also, our teams will have the possibilty of being invited to other NCAA bowl games. Black College Football is a very hot commodity. In my opinion, we are leveraging the rewards and benefits from it. I would like to hear other thoughts on this idea.
 
tiger85 said:
I have a different prospective on this whole issue. I think the SWAC should abandon the idea of the playoffs. The SWAC officials should consider making the confernce a Division I-A conference. We have the fan base to meet the NCAA requirements. We could recruit Tennesse State and
FAMU along with us. Also, if the SWAC become an I-A conference, we could meet the mandated scheduled 6 I-A games every year. Our teams could also play other major I-A teams oustside the conference. BY being a I-A conference, we could work with sponsors to establish I-A bowl games for our conference. Also, our teams will have the possibilty of being invited to other NCAA bowl games. Black College Football is a very hot commodity. In my opinion, we are leveraging the rewards and benefits from it. I would like to hear other thoughts on this idea.
Click to expand...


Most SWAC schools do not have the fan base to do this, and NONE have the money to do it.....bear in mind, we're talking stadium expansions, establishing more sports for both men and women, etc.
 
SAME OLD G said:
WOW!!!! Even after LB presents factual eveidence on why the playoffs are a joke, I am amazed that some of you on here are still trying to justify going to the playoffs. Did you guys not read what is going down at Georgia Southern? Georgia Southern's case is the norm for particpants of the 1-AA playoffs, not the exeception. Why would HBCU programs....let me change that....why would SWAC programs want to put themselves through that?

Now, I have always believed (and still do) that it is just a matter of time before the NCAA is sued by all non D-1A football programs. I am really surprised that it hasn't been done yet.

Trivia Question: Who was the NCAA Division 1-A Football Champion in 2003? Hell while you're at it, give me the schools that won it over the last 10 years.

I am not an attorney, and I'm ignorant of NCAA legalities. But if I was a betting man (which I'm not) the answer to the above triva question (in my opinion) is all one needs to have a strong case in filing a law suit. I could really see something like this going before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Trivia question answer(s): LSU and Southern California

If the playoffs are such a losing proposition, why is it that only the SWAC and Ivy League do not participate? IMO, the Ivy is too pompous and think they're above it. The MEAC is an HBCU conference as well, and they embrace the playoffs.

Is the SWAC that enlightened that it takes a leadership role in forgoing the playoffs? Funny that most people here take that opinion and applaud the conference not pursuing the playoffs, but ridicule and b!tch about nearly every other thing the league office does.

Is SWAC leadership morons for everything else and genius for not wanting to go to the playoffs?
 
The reason why SWAC Teams don't participate in the playoffs is based on sevral factors. Those factors are : (in no particular order)

1. No automatic bid anymore.
2. The SWAC not willing to force Southern, Grambling and Alabama State to change the dates of their season-ending games, in order to comply with 1-AA playoff eligibility requirements.
3. The SWAC's past record in the 1-AA playoffs (0 for whatever)
4. No economic incentive for participating.
5. The SWAC Championship Game supplants our involvement in the playoffs..


Now, close this thread...... And talk about something else... :D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top