SWAC Coaches Feel Like They're "Missing Out"

[TexasTerror]

This story was out over the wire regarding the SWAC and their non-participation in the playoffs. Both coaches that are participating in the SWAC title game made remarks regarding that they do not have an opportunity to pit their teams against the best with the AAMU coach saying he feels like their "missing out on something"...

I really think there are a few SWAC coaches who feel like they want to step it up. They may not say so publicly, but you never know...

SWAC No Playoffs
By The Associated Press
PINE BLUFF, Ark. (AP) - Coach Mo Forte and his Arkansas-Pine Bluff team are excited about playing in the Southwestern Athletic Conference title game.

He just wishes the Golden Lions could play for another championship, too.

``You can win the conference,'' Forte said. ``But you never really know whether you're the best team in the country, because you've not had an opportunity to play the best teams.''

UAPB faces Alabama A&M on Saturday for the SWAC championship in Birmingham, Ala. - one night after Appalachian State plays Massachusetts in the Division I-AA title game.

Although the SWAC is a I-AA league, the conference doesn't participate in the national playoffs.

``We have our little special thing with our conference championship,'' Alabama A&M coach Anthony Jones said. ``But as far as getting a chance to compete nationally, of course you feel like you're missing out on something.''

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061215/APS/612154333

[BgJag]

Two team that have never won a conference championship in football.xcoffeex

[3rd Coast Tiger]

http://swac.org/06fbchampionship/images/toppic2.jpg

I Love The SWAC!!!

[MACHIAVELLI]

Two team that have never won a conference championship in football.xcoffeex

Technically you are incorrect.

[BgJag]

Technically you are incorrect.

SWAC Conference, thanks Mac:nono:

[Mr. Tiger]

I am a supporter of the playoffs. Always have been. And most of the SWAC coaches if asked would naturally say they want to play for a national championship. That's NO surprise. But these coaches are not the ones paying the bills and the playoff system isn't profitable.

[PantherRob82]

The SWAC is missing out. Hopefully they jump on board someday.

[TexasTerror]

I am a supporter of the playoffs. Always have been. And most of the SWAC coaches if asked would naturally say they want to play for a national championship. That's NO surprise. But these coaches are not the ones paying the bills and the playoff system isn't profitable.

Always comes down to the $$$ in collegiate athletics?

Considering the SWAC basketball schools go on those hellacious schedules every non-conference season (some teams only returning home for an NAIA game), it seems the football teams aren't bringing in enough money for the Title IX and Olympic sports...

[MACHIAVELLI]

SWAC Conference, thanks Mac:nono:

UAPB/AAM&N had a SWAC Championship back in 1966.

[UMass922]

Is the SWAC title game on tv?

[MACHIAVELLI]

Is the SWAC title game on tv?
http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18072

[Appstate29]

while the SWAC was down this year, I would love to see them contend for a national title every year, one of my top 5 want to see matchups is ASU vs. SU and top 10 is ASU vs. GSU so lets make it happen start playing in the playoffs!

[MACHIAVELLI]

one of my top 5 want to see matchups is ASU vs. SU and top 10 is ASU vs. GSU (THE ICON) so lets make it happen start playing in the playoffs!


This can happen without the playoffs.

[Appstate29]

yeah I know but they playoffs are way more exciting!

[bluedog]

UAPB/AAM&N had a SWAC Championship back in 1966.


Talking about being technically wrong. The SWAC has never had a championship game until 1999. xcoffeex

On another note: So this is where you've been hiding since *rams undefeated year debacle. xlolx

[MACHIAVELLI]

Talking about being technically wrong. The SWAC has never had a championship game until 1999. xcoffeex


I was responding to this statement below. Which states "conference championship" There was no mention about SWAC championship game in this statement.


Two team that have never won a conference championship in football.xcoffeex

[BlueHen86]

I think the playoffs would be better with the SWAC included.
The question is whether the SWAC would be better with the playoffs?
Unfortunately it seems the SWAC is better of without the playoffs right now.

[bluedog]

I was responding to this statement below. Which states "conference championship" There was no mention about SWAC championship game in this statement.




UAPB/AAM&N had a SWAC Championship back in 1966.

Like I said....

Talking about being technically wrong. The SWAC has never had a championship game until 1999. xcoffeex

[TexasTerror]

I think the playoffs would be better with the SWAC included.
The question is whether the SWAC would be better with the playoffs?
Unfortunately it seems the SWAC is better of without the playoffs right now.

Would the quality of football in the SWAC get better if they were competing for a national championship instead of just competing against each other, as they practically are for a SWAC title?

The SWAC is 0-fer when it comes to playoff success, but perhaps when it comes to competing outside of the SWAC and even outside the MEAC, they could become more competitive such as Hampton has done the last few years to improve their program to a team that came within three points of beating one of the best teams in the nation all year (arguably) in New Hampshire...

[GAD]

I am a supporter of the playoffs. Always have been. And most of the SWAC coaches if asked would naturally say they want to play for a national championship. That's NO surprise. But these coaches are not the ones paying the bills and the playoff system isn't profitable.
Anthony Jones-AAMU, Rick Comegy-Jackson State and Pete Richardson-Southern have all made it clear that they would much rather participate in the playoffs, so would I but as Mr. Tiger stated the playoffs just dont pay the bills yet. And the Classics or the playoffs don't seem ready to change dates

[JohnStOnge]

I think the playoffs would be better with the SWAC included.
The question is whether the SWAC would be better with the playoffs?
Unfortunately it seems the SWAC is better of without the playoffs right now.

I think the entire subdivision would be better off if the SWAC was in the playoffs AND was competetive in them. I think a problemis that when the SWAC was in the playoffs its teams never won so HBCU fans weren't interested. If the SWAC had been in and won some national titles I think the interest level would've been higher.

Unfortunately, it's in the financial interest of at least some SWAC schools to opt out. The Bayou Classic is huge for Grambling and Southern.

Anyway, I'd love to see both the SWAC and the IVY in the "CS" playoffs. I think those are the two "CS" leagues that draw the most interest nationally.

[SUjagTILLiDIE]

I wouldn't mind the playoffs if it wasn't a money loser and started after the Bayou Classic. Maybe the conferences should come together and have a playoff system without the NCAA involved sorta like they do with the BCS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I wouldn't mind the playoffs if it wasn't a money loser and started after the Bayou Classic. Maybe the conferences should come together and have a playoff system without the NCAA involved sorta like they do with the BCS.

FWIW I've a huge fan of bringing the SWAC into the playoffs, somehow, some way. I don't mind the Bayou Classic so much as the SWAC championship game, which is NOT a money-winner either unless GSU or SU are in it.

Here's what I don't understand. At first I thought the Bayou Classic was traditionally a Thanksgiving game, but now it's moved to Saturday after Thanksgiving. What's the problem with moving it to the week before Thanksgiving so they could play in the playoffs? Similarly, GSU/Alcorn I think is the following week. What's the big deal about moving them back a couple of weeks?

[SUjagTILLiDIE]

FWIW I've a huge fan of bringing the SWAC into the playoffs, somehow, some way. I don't mind the Bayou Classic so much as the SWAC championship game, which is NOT a money-winner either unless GSU or SU are in it.

Here's what I don't understand. At first I thought the Bayou Classic was traditionally a Thanksgiving game, but now it's moved to Saturday after Thanksgiving. What's the problem with moving it to the week before Thanksgiving so they could play in the playoffs? Similarly, GSU/Alcorn I think is the following week. What's the big deal about moving them back a couple of weeks?The Bayou Classic has never been played on Thanksgiving day. It has mostly been played on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. The game has been played the weekend before Thanksgiving and it wasn't close to being the same event.

[MACHIAVELLI]

FWIW I've a huge fan of bringing the SWAC into the playoffs, somehow, some way. I don't mind the Bayou Classic so much as the SWAC championship game, which is NOT a money-winner either unless GSU or SU are in it.

Here's what I don't understand. At first I thought the Bayou Classic was traditionally a Thanksgiving game, but now it's moved to Saturday after Thanksgiving. What's the problem with moving it to the week before Thanksgiving so they could play in the playoffs? Similarly, GSU/Alcorn I think is the following week. What's the big deal about moving them back a couple of weeks?

The ICON vs ALcorn game has been played after tha Bayou Classic in 05due to Hurricane Katrina and THE ICON's participation in the SWAC/MEAC challenge in 06. Alcorn is usually the first game of the year for us.


Attendance figures for the Bayou Classic the years the ICON participated in the playoffs.

1980-75,000
1985-57,041
1989-64,333

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Thanks for the info. For some reason, I have a really hard time believing that the Bayou Classic would suffer so badly if it were moved to the week before T-giving.

I honestly think that if the SWAC and Ivy make a conscious decision to participate in the playoffs, it would be a win/win for everyone. Getting the Ivies and all the D-I HBCUs involved with them would make a great event even greater.

I think the idea that the playoffs lose money should be challenged a little. Every game I watched had packed houses: UMass/Lafayette, UMass/UNH, App State/Montana State, Y-Town/Ill St, the semifinals, the finals. If you host more than one first-round game, it can be a pretty good financial windfall. :twocents:

[SUjagTILLiDIE]

Thanks for the info. For some reason, I have a really hard time believing that the Bayou Classic would suffer so badly if it were moved to the week before T-giving.

I honestly think that if the SWAC and Ivy make a conscious decision to participate in the playoffs, it would be a win/win for everyone. Getting the Ivies and all the D-I HBCUs involved with them would make a great event even greater.

I think the idea that the playoffs lose money should be challenged a little. Every game I watched had packed houses: UMass/Lafayette, UMass/UNH, App State/Montana State, Y-Town/Ill St, the semifinals, the finals. If you host more than one first-round game, it can be a pretty good financial windfall. :twocents:If the game is moved, its a chance that the we would lose our TV contract. Also, many families plan their Thanksgiving weekend around The Bayou Classic. Meaning , come home to see the family on Thanksgiving and head to New Orleans on Friday for the Bayou Classic weekend. When the playoffs started, the Bayou Classic already had its current date.

[HIU 93]

It's not the Bayou, it's the SWAC Championship game that keeps the SWAC from participating in the playoffs. The SWAC can participate in trhe playoffs, but it would have to be the third place team. That essentially causes the SWAC to not being included. The Bayou has been played on the Saturday after Thanksgiving for 99% of its history. Instead of moving the palyoffs or moving the Bayou, I think the NCAA and the SWAC should come to anagreement that the regular season SWAC Champion should go to the playoffs. If Grambling or Southern are the champs, then the second place SWAC team should represent the SWAC. If Gram and SU are 1 and 2 in the SWAC, then the third place team should represent the SWAC. The SWAC and the Ivy should both be given automatic bids, and two at large bids should be taken away. This is the most equitable and fair solution to all parites involved. I'm sure someone is going to come in here with strength of schedule arguments in order to debunk my theory, but SOS is a self fulfilling prophecy. If we judge evryone strictly on SOS, and our assessment of what is a quality SOS, then we will always only have a So. Con, A-10, or Gateway national champion because we will always have 4 SoCon, 4 A-10, and 4 Gateway teams in the playoffs. We can't be lazy when selecting teams for the playoffs. We have to be vigilant if we are going to continue to claim we "settle it on the field".

[MACHIAVELLI]

1980
Grambling regular season record:10-1
Lost to:
-Alcorn (2nd game) 27-29 (Shreveport, LA)

Boise St. regular season record: 8-3
Lost to:
-SELA (2nd game) 13-7 (Boise,ID)
-Montana (4th game) 17-18 (Boseman,MT)
-Cal Poly (10th game) 20-23 (San Luis Obispo, CA)

Blizzard Bowl 12-13-1980
Grambling-9 vs Boise St.-14
Boise goes on to win NCAA D1AA Championship.

Before I comment further:
*Can someone verify if the Boise info. is correct. I got it off the net.
*Does anyone have a playoff bracket and rankings from 1980. ?
*When was the 'strength of schedule' concept first used?
*The D1AA playoffs started in 1979 right?

[youwouldno]

A third-place SWAC team will not bolster the playoffs. If the SWAC is going to participate in the playoffs it will have to send its best team, whoever that is. Even then there is no reason to think the SWAC will have a lot more success than it did before.

[catdaddy2402]

If the SWAC wants an autobid then they must send their champion. No other 2nd or 3rd place team in any other conferance gets an autobid...neither should the SWAC.

If the SWAC can't guarantee their Champion then the NCAA can't guarantee them a playoff spot.

[Mr. Tiger]

FWIW I've a huge fan of bringing the SWAC into the playoffs, somehow, some way. I don't mind the Bayou Classic so much as the SWAC championship game, which is NOT a money-winner either unless GSU or SU are in it.
Here's what I don't understand. At first I thought the Bayou Classic was traditionally a Thanksgiving game, but now it's moved to Saturday after Thanksgiving. What's the problem with moving it to the week before Thanksgiving so they could play in the playoffs? Similarly, GSU/Alcorn I think is the following week. What's the big deal about moving them back a couple of weeks?

That's incorrect. This year's SWAC Championship game drew about 30,000 without Grambling and Southern. The game also has major sponsors and the conference gets free use of the stadium. Also moving the Bayou Classic date could hurt the classic's television deal with NBC. Again, I would love for the SWAC to participate but it doesn't really make financial sense. And sadly, college athletics often comes down to the dollars and the cents. :nonono2:

[UAalum72]

If the SWAC wants an autobid then they must send their champion. No other 2nd or 3rd place team in any other conferance gets an autobid...neither should the SWAC.

If the SWAC can't guarantee their Champion then the NCAA can't guarantee them a playoff spot.
This year the SWAC's GPI was worse than the NEC's. If the SWAC wants an autobid they should get in line.

[TexasTerror]

This year the SWAC's GPI was worse than the NEC's. If the SWAC wants an autobid they should get in line.

Eliminating the nine-game mandate would allow the SWAC to step up the competition, especially as it relates to playing a tougher schedule if they didn't play in-conference schools as out of conference foes.

Tougher schedule and losses piling up would force these schools to recruit better football players and work towards changing those losses into wins. Arkansas-Pine Bluff got bullied around by FCS playoff participant Southern Illinois. Grambling got edged by MEAC champion Hampton early in the season, but outside of that, no real judgement of how good the SWAC was, except against each other and sub-Div I competition...

[MACHIAVELLI]

1980
Grambling regular season record:10-1
Lost to:
-Alcorn (2nd game) 27-29 (Shreveport, LA)

Boise St. regular season record: 8-3
Lost to:
-SELA (2nd game) 13-7 (Boise,ID)
-Montana (4th game) 17-18 (Boseman,MT)
-Cal Poly (10th game) 20-23 (San Luis Obispo, CA)

Blizzard Bowl 12-13-1980
Grambling-9 vs Boise St.-14
Boise goes on to win NCAA D1AA Championship.

Before I comment further:
*Can someone verify if the Boise info. is correct. I got it off the net.
*Does anyone have a playoff bracket and rankings from 1980. ?
*When was the 'strength of schedule' concept first used?
*The D1AA playoffs started in 1978 right?

[Jag4Life]

Yeah! I agree to the Appy fan. Hmmmm Appy State vs SU? We might have to go to Kidd Brewer but our fans are gonna come. We can also make the long trip to Chattonoga also lol hahaha

[BLUE TIGER]

Anthony Jones-AAMU, Rick Comegy-Jackson State and Pete Richardson-Southern have all made it clear that they would much rather participate in the playoffs, so would I but as Mr. Tiger stated the playoffs just dont pay the bills yet. And the Classics or the playoffs don't seem ready to change dates

The SWAC Championship game doesn't pay the bills either.

[BLUE TIGER]

The only office that benefit from the SCG is the SWAC office. The schools that are in the championship game receive nice payouts and thats it. There is nothing hardly left over to poor pizz out a boot. There are 8 schools that don't benefit from the championship game so we might as well participate in the playoffs.

[bluedog]

The only office that benefit from the SCG is the SWAC office. The schools that are in the championship game receive nice payouts and thats it. There is nothing hardly left over to poor pizz out a boot. There are 8 schools that don't benefit from the championship game so we might as well participate in the playoffs.


Hmmmmmm, where's your proof of that?

[BLUE TIGER]

Hmmmmmm, where's your proof of that?

30k fans at $25 per ticket is $750k divided by 10 schools is $75k. Guess what? Do you think every school got 75k? I didn't include the SWAC's cut nor did I include the travel, lodging and food expense of A&M and Pine Bluff. I also didn't figure in the pennies that ESPN threw in the pot. I think 8 schools will receive a check of $10k after its all said and done. Where is the proof that all schools benefit "FINANCIALLY"?

[Mr. Tiger]

The only office that benefit from the SCG is the SWAC office. The schools that are in the championship game receive nice payouts and thats it. There is nothing hardly left over to poor pizz out a boot. There are 8 schools that don't benefit from the championship game so we might as well participate in the playoffs.

:eyebrow: And you have the numbers to prove this Blue Tiger? As a JSU fan I don't like the Championship game any more than you do, but I can't deny that the game has attracted 30,000 fans or more several times and has major sponsorship with limited expenses.

[bluedog]

30k fans at $25 per ticket is $750k divided by 10 schools is $75k. Guess what? Do you think every school got 75k? I didn't include the SWAC's cut nor did I include the travel, lodging and food expense of A&M and Pine Bluff. I also didn't figure in the pennies that ESPN threw in the pot. I think 8 schools will receive a check of $10k after its all said and done. Where is the proof that all schools benefit "FINANCIALLY"?

All you're doing is showing how much you don't know about college football and TV today and how little you know about the SCG and Birmingham's deal.

But I'll go with your logic. Now I'll ask you how much do you think all the teams that participate in the playoffs get after paying to play and the playoffs "LOSING" money?


This ought to be interesting

[Mr. Tiger]

30k fans at $25 per ticket is $750k divided by 10 schools is $75k. Guess what? Do you think every school got 75k? I didn't include the SWAC's cut nor did I include the travel, lodging and food expense of A&M and Pine Bluff. I also didn't figure in the pennies that ESPN threw in the pot. I think 8 schools will receive a check of $10k after its all said and done. Where is the proof that all schools benefit "FINANCIALLY"?

And let's look at the playoffs: Each round has a "minimum" bid required to host. Several AGS posts suggest that is about 30k, 40k, and 50k for each round. Schools also have to give the NCAA a large cut of the profits so playing in the playoffs can leave you in the negative, especially if you are the road team.

[TexasTerror]

This debate is SWAC-tacular!

Looking at the pictures from the game from SWACPage, I know one of the SCG officials...very nice. :)

So is the SWAC game, the SWAC copping out and admitting defeat against the rest of those schools in the subdivision, as one MEAC fan put it on the MEAC forum? Or as another puts it about playing in the SWAC title game, "that's like telling your team to settle for less."

[BLUE TIGER]

All you're doing is showing how much you don't know about college football and TV today and how little you know about the SCG and Birmingham's deal.

But I'll go with your logic. Now I'll ask you how much do you think all the teams that participate in the playoffs get after paying to play and the playoffs "LOSING" money?


This ought to be interesting

I'll answer your question after you answer mine first. How does every team benefit "FINANCIALLY"? I'm an ignorant fan that can't do simple math. Are my numbers correct or false? I know you mentioned TV but, I guess you're telling me that ESPN pumped millions into the conference. Especially since the game was on "ESPNU" and half the country couldn't watch the game. I guess you're right....we gettin money.

[bluedog]

I'll answer your question after you answer mine first. How does every team benefit "FINANCIALLY"? I'm an ignorant fan that can't do simple math. Are my numbers correct or false? I know you mentioned TV but, I guess you're telling me that ESPN pumped millions into the conference. Especially since the game was on "ESPNU" and half the country couldn't watch the game. I guess you're right....we gettin money.

So in other words you don't have proof to back up your accusations and you don't know the answer and it's diversion time.

[BLUE TIGER]

And let's look at the playoffs: Each round has a "minimum" bid required to host. Several AGS posts suggest that is about 30k, 40k, and 50k for each round. Schools also have to give the NCAA a large cut of the profits so playing in the playoffs can leave you in the negative, especially if you are the road team.

We're not looking at the playoffs because its been said that we benefit from the SCG. How do we benefit "financially"? You guys said its about dollars and cents therefore, give me the breakdown on what every SWAC team receives from this big money makin game. I guess our facilities are better than those who participate in the playoffs because we makin money.

[BLUE TIGER]

So in other words you don't have proof to back up your accusations and you don't know the answer and it's diversion time.

The only proof I have is the 30k fans that showed up and the pennies we got rom ESPN "U". Can you prove where the rest of the money came from and how much?

[BLUE TIGER]

So in other words you don't have proof to back up your accusations and you don't know the answer and it's diversion time.

I'm not here to argue you. I'm just keepin it real with the facts that are given. I'm going based on who showed up and how much was made from the show of crowd. All I ask is that someone show me how everyone benefits "financially".....thats it. I proved that its impossible for everyone to benefit because of the average crowd and penny sponsorship. The numbers simply don't add up. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that ESPN gave us crumbs and so did every other sponsor.

[bluedog]

The only proof I have is the 30k fans that showed up and the pennies we got rom ESPN "U". Can you prove where the rest of the money came from and how much?


Maybe you didn't hear me the first time so I'll rephrase it. You made the accusation and you have no documented proof to back it up and you still are "TRYING" to divert from my original question to you.

[BLUE TIGER]

Maybe you didn't hear me the first time so I'll rephrase it. You made to accusation and you have no documented proof to back it up and you still are "TRYING" to divert from my original question to you.

I don't have any proof. Do you?

[bluedog]

I don't have any proof. Do you?

I don't have to you're the one making the accusation.

Goggle is over-------------------------->

[BLUE TIGER]

:eyebrow: I can't deny that the game has attracted 30,000 fans or more several times and has major sponsorship with limited expenses.

Where is your proof?

[bluedog]

Where is your proof?


xlolx Now you're trying to turn your goof onto somebody else.

Do you even know how to use a search engine?

Sponsorship (http://swac.org/06fbchampionship/index.php) xlolx

SCG Attendance History: (http://swac.org/sprtindxs/fballindex.htm)

Attendance: 30213

A&M vs. UAPB

Attendance: 30213

A&M vs. GSU

Attendance: 22327

ASU vs. SU

Attendance: 31617

ASU vs. SU

Attendance: 23727

A&M vs. GSU

Attendance: 38487

ASU vs. GSU

Attendance: 34687

A&M vs. GSU

Attendance: 47621

JSU vs. SU

[BLUE TIGER]

I don't have to you're the one making the accusation.

Goggle is over-------------------------->


So what you're saying is that you don't have proof that we're actually benefiting from the SCG....right? You'll believe what those MoFo's tell you without it in black and white. Why do I have to google the information? Why isn't it on the SWAC website? If the SWAC can't get a HALFWAY DECENT "website", what makes you think they making plenty of money? There is no proof and you know it.

[bluedog]

So what you're saying is that you don't have proof that we're actually benefiting from the SCG....right? You'll believe what those MoFo's tell you without it in black and white. Why do I have to google the information? Why isn't it on the SWAC website? If the SWAC can't get a HALFWAY DECENT "website", what makes you think they making plenty of money? There is no proof and you know it.


I got another why. Why don't you write the SWAC office and ask for the information under the federal freedom of information act?

[BLUE TIGER]

xlolx Now you're trying to turn your goof onto somebody else.

Do you even know how to use a search engine?

Sponsorship (http://swac.org/06fbchampionship/index.php) xlolx

SCG Attendance History: (http://swac.org/sprtindxs/fballindex.htm)

Attendance: 30213

A&M vs. UAPB

Attendance: 30213

A&M vs. GSU

Attendance: 22327

ASU vs. SU

Attendance: 31617

ASU vs. SU

Attendance: 23727

A&M vs. GSU

Attendance: 38487

ASU vs. GSU

Attendance: 34687

A&M vs. GSU

Attendance: 47621

JSU vs. SU


There is no information on how much we get from sponsors, and there is no information on HOW THE MONEY IS DISTRIBUED throughout the conference. Where can I find this info?

[bluedog]

I guess you miss this



I got another why. Why don't you write the SWAC office and ask for the information under the federal freedom of information act?

[BLUE TIGER]

I got another why. Why don't you write the SWAC office and ask for the information under the federal freedom of information act?


I did that "TWICE" and got no response. The second time I left a message and asked them to tell me how the money is split throughout the conference.....no response.

[bluedog]

I did that "TWICE" and got no response. The second time I left a message and asked them to tell me how the money is split throughout the conference.....no response.

Have a lawyer send them one. Do you know robber xlolx

[BLUE TIGER]

Does anyone know how the money is split throughout the conference? Where can I go to get this information because the SWAC won't release it.

[BLUE TIGER]

Have a lawyer send them one. Do you know robber xlolx

I'll hit Rob up on the SP and maybe he already know the information I seek that many don't know.

[bluedog]

Does anyone know how the money is split throughout the conference? Where can I go to get this information because the SWAC won't release it.


Actually the reason I'm poking fun at you is because they did post it a couple of years ago and we all talk about it on the SWACPage. The last report was (a couple of years ago) $100k profit from the gate and concession.

[BLUE TIGER]

Actually the reason I'm poking fun at you is because they did post it a couple of years ago and we all talk about it on the SWACPage. The last report was (a couple of years ago) $100k profit from the gate and concession.

Was that per school or was that $100k split up throughout the conference?

[bluedog]

Was that per school or was that $100k split up throughout the conference?


Um $10k Now as for the sponsorship money I have no idea.

Now while you and many like you say that's peanuts just remember two things.

1) The SCG was just about six years old

2) The playoffs is four decades or so old and still losing money

As far as I'm concern anybody that wants to be in the playoffs need to go but don't come to me with four decades of bankruptcy and say the SWAC isn't making any money on the SCG or that the SWAC is getting peanuts.

Later, gotta get up in the morning

[Lehigh Football Nation]

2) The playoffs is four decades or so old and still losing money

As far as I'm concern anybody that wants to be in the playoffs need to go but don't come to me with four decades of bankruptcy and say the SWAC isn't making any money on the SCG or that the SWAC is getting peanuts.

Later, gotta get up in the morning

I'd like to challenge this a little. App State hosted three games and had packed houses for two of them, not counting the D-I Football Championship game. As for playoff sponsorship, yes, there should be.

I don't know if the SWAC is making money on the SCG or not, but I think we all can agree that it's not big money for the schools involved. In the BS you could never get the championship games stopped since the conferences are too big and the conferences make too much money from them. I somehow doubt that's the case of the SCG. :twocents:

[MACHIAVELLI]

1980
Grambling regular season record:10-1
Lost to:
-Alcorn (2nd game) 27-29 (Shreveport, LA)

Boise St. regular season record: 8-3
Lost to:
-SELA (2nd game) 13-7 (Boise,ID)
-Montana (4th game) 17-18 (Boseman,MT)
-Cal Poly (10th game) 20-23 (San Luis Obispo, CA)

Blizzard Bowl 12-13-1980
Grambling-9 vs Boise St.-14
Boise goes on to win NCAA D1AA Championship.

Before I comment further:
*Can someone verify if the Boise info. is correct. I got it off the net.
*Does anyone have a playoff bracket and rankings from 1980. ?
*When was the 'strength of schedule' concept first used?
*The D1AA playoffs started in 1978 right?

[TexasTerror]

1980
Grambling regular season record:10-1
Lost to:
-Alcorn (2nd game) 27-29 (Shreveport, LA)

Boise St. regular season record: 8-3
Lost to:
-SELA (2nd game) 13-7 (Boise,ID)
-Montana (4th game) 17-18 (Boseman,MT)
-Cal Poly (10th game) 20-23 (San Luis Obispo, CA)

Blizzard Bowl 12-13-1980
Grambling-9 vs Boise St.-14
Boise goes on to win NCAA D1AA Championship.

Before I comment further:
*Can someone verify if the Boise info. is correct. I got it off the net.
*Does anyone have a playoff bracket and rankings from 1980. ?
*When was the 'strength of schedule' concept first used?
*The D1AA playoffs started in 1978 right?

I guess Grambling got outbid? Or was that even part of the process? Boise St did have 17,000 plus folks at that game in what was the highest attended playoff game in history until 1984...

[bluedog]

I'd like to challenge this a little. App State hosted three games and had packed houses for two of them, not counting the D-I Football Championship game. As for playoff sponsorship, yes, there should be.

I don't know if the SWAC is making money on the SCG or not, but I think we all can agree that it's not big money for the schools involved. In the BS you could never get the championship games stopped since the conferences are too big and the conferences make too much money from them. I somehow doubt that's the case of the SCG. :twocents:


Just because you have a packed house doesn't necessary equate to profit. The first SCG had 47k plus and made no money and for anybody not to know the th playoffs lose money 99.9 % of the time just goes to show they aren't as advid of a fan as they think.

Ask any of the partcipating school on this board that have gone regularly and if they're honest they can tell you that or you can just simply goggle.

[*****]

... for anybody not to know the th playoffs lose money 99.9 % of the time just goes to show they aren't as advid of a fan as they think...I know for a fact that what you say is 100% wrong. :) Those lies don't fly here bluedog, you should know that since I tell you that every year about a hundred times. :lmao:

[bluedog]

I know for a fact that what you say is 100% wrong. :) Those lies don't fly here bluedog, you should know that since I tell you that every year about a hundred times. :lmao:

Step up and prove it. Ralph anybody with an ounce of sense know that I'm exaggerating (a little) but the point is the playoffs lose money way more times then it makes money and I really don't care one way or the other about it so your pontification for those that keep this same stupid topic going year in and year out.

I think this is someone who knows a thing or two about playoffs and the lack of financial rewards.


Ralph, The only thing these few enhancements are targeted at is post season play. The point I have been attempting to make is what about the regular season? Other than a cosmetic name change nothing being done to help this division become stronger and gain respect.

If 1-aa, or the whatever it is to be called, was a business plan for a start-up corporation there wouldn’t be a bank in the country that would loan a dime to get it going. Other than being a member of Division One there are no standards for participation. 1-aa schools are not required to meet any specific criteria like 1-A programs. No minimum scholarships, no set numbers of coaches, or average attendance numbers. Although requirements like these do not necessarily guarantee a solid program, what they do is show a desire and commitment to a high level of competition on the part of the university. It also guarantees a more competitive field by weeding out those who only stick their foot in the water without actually jumping in.

The ONLY way to make this a viable and respected level of college football is to attract a group of schools BACK INTO the division that have a commitment to playing football at a high level. I'd be willing to bet the farm the people who created 1-aa football had no idea it would cause the turmoil it has in D-I football. No way did they forsee the flight of better programs out of the division only to be replaced by an a influx of D-II programs. If the NCAA truly wants to correct the mistakes of the past 28 years they had better do something along the following lines.

Number One: Get rid of the insane rule that requires a school that participates in Division One for all other sports to play football at the Division One level as well. In an attempt to level the playing field the NCAA has diluted the quality of Division One football by requiring non-scholarship and low scholarship programs to play at a level that should be reserved for programs that have made the commitment to the level. Please understand, I am not saying there is anything wrong with how theses schools chose to participate in football. Just give them the opportunity to go back and play at the D-II & D-III level like they used to do. After all, wasn’t that the reason for those divisions to begin with? What makes this rule even more ridiculous is when you consider all schools that play D-I, but do not field football teams. Do they not have a competitive advantage in those other sports by not having to fund football?

Number Two: Establish minimum standards for scholarships, coaches, and attendance. All members must fund a minimum of 60 full grants, but cannot exceed 75 full grants. A school can choose to give 65 full grants and split five between 2 players each to reach the75 player limit. Schools must average 12,000 per home game against all opponents.

Number Three: A national television package with someone like ESPN2 that will broadcast two televised games each Saturday. These games should be in addition to any regional games already being shown on any other regional cable channel. Some form of cash compensation to be established for the conferences with members being shown.

Number Four: Make the playoffs financially attractive and a more bowl like atmosphere. Although 12,000+ Mountaineers filled the stands and spent a ton of cash in Chattanooga, the ASU department of athletics lost money on the national championship run. No bids for the right to host elimination rounds. The higher seeded team always plays at home and in the case of a tie the attendance of the previous week determines the host school. Perhaps that will cause the school to do some aggressive marketing for those early round games. After the school deducts their expenses for running the game (as per NCAA regulations) the NCAA takes the money and splits it into four shares among the two participants and themselves. Winning team gets two shares, loosing team one and the NCAA one. NCAA continues to pay expenses for traveling teams involved in the playoffs. However, if the NCAA truly wants to make this a well-respected division they are going to have to attract a number of mid-major conferences back into the fold. In order to make it attractive to name programs they must attach financial rewards to the playoffs. Much like they do in the NCAA basketball tournament. First round players receive a minimum check. Advance to the second round and the check increases a little more. Then so on and so on up to the championship game. I’m not talking about some huge windfall, but a nice reward.

You are cleared to tear apart as you please.

[*****]

... for those that keep this same stupid topic going year in and year out.like maybe the AGS member whose name is...
http://www.georgerodrigue.com/originalbluedogpage/images/bluedogbutton.jpg

hmmmmmm? xlolx
I think this is someone who knows a thing or two about playoffs and the lack of financial rewards.Think again. That is a BS wannabe who is frustrated his fave team is not playing for a bowl instead of a championship. Look it up.

[henfan]

...the point is the playoffs lose money way more times then it makes money...

'Dog, what shred of evidence do you have to suggest that the I-AA playoffs "lose [sic] money way more times then it makes money"? (Links please.) Before answering, please keep in mind that the NCAA, as tournament sponsor, reimburses teams who travel to games for 100% of reasonable expenses in addition to player and coaches per diems.

Host playoff teams must offer minimum bids of $20K-$50K, though it's not uncommon anymore for bids to reach $100K+. These amounts must represent 75% of the estimated net receipts. This means that a school placing a minimum bid ($20K) for a 1st Round game would need to sell at least 2,333 tickets at $15 a pop. Any school who bids $100K for any of the rounds would need to sell 11,666 tickets at $15 a pop. 25% of the net revenues go into the pockets of home teams. So, provided host teams bid responsibly and meet very minimal attendance requirements, how would they ever lose money?

Granted, there aren't mountains of cash flowing back to schools from the NCAA as a result of the playoffs. Putting things into perspective though, we shouldn't really expect that to be the case at the cost containment level. So long as the playoffs are a break even proposition, both for the NCAA and its participants, it's an unqualified success. Any schools or conferences that want to opt out of the playoffs for a bowl may do that. The fact that all but one conference does tells me that the majority don't think they can make a bowl scenario work financially.

It's great that the SWAC has a formula for financial success with their conference championship game and the Bayou Classic. However, that model won't work financially for the overwhelming majority of FCS conferences, just as the playoffs haven't worked competitively for the SWAC. Everyone understands the compelling competitive and financial reasons for the SWAC doesn't participate in the FCS playoffs. Given the same results, I'd want the same thing for my school and conference also. As an FCS fan though, I wish it weren't so.

Cheers.

[mikebigg]

while the SWAC was down this year, I would love to see them contend for a national title every year, one of my top 5 want to see matchups is ASU vs. SU and top 10 is ASU vs. GSU so lets make it happen start playing in the playoffs!

Until the playoff matchups happen, why not just schedule a home and home. I definitely would love to see Grambling play the traditional FCS playoff teams on a home and home basis. Hopefully the 12 game schedule will be approved and Grambling can then sign to play home and home with the MEAC teams, home and home against FCS playoff teams, and former D1A teams.

Now what I really would like to see is the playoffs moved back 1 week (so that the SWAC can finish it's regular season schedule). This will require a lot of negotiations...:twocents:

[henfan]

Hopefully the 12 game schedule will be approved and Grambling can then sign to play home and home with the MEAC teams, home and home against FCS playoff teams, and former D1A teams.

Now what I really would like to see is the playoffs moved back 1 week (so that the SWAC can finish it's regular season schedule). This will require a lot of negotiations...:twocents:

Mike, FCS conferences would have to eliminate all open dates and readjust their schedules in order to move the playoffs back one week. That's unlikely to happen to accomodate the SWAC's desire to make a little extra money with the Bayou Classic. (That comment isn't intended as a slight to the SWAC's desires, just a reality.) Wouldn't it be less disruptive to the FCS as a whole to have the Bayou Classic moved back a week, which would be more in line with the FCS's 'Rivalry Week'?

If a 12 game FCS schedule is eventually approved, moving the playoffs back a week becomes not only a major inconvience, but an impossibility. The FCS is given a small window in which to conduct its championship by the NCAA. There's not a lot of flexibility there, unfortunately.

[Sonic98]

A third-place SWAC team will not bolster the playoffs. If the SWAC is going to participate in the playoffs it will have to send its best team, whoever that is. Even then there is no reason to think the SWAC will have a lot more success than it did before.


This can happen without the playoffs.


Would the quality of football in the SWAC get better if they were competing for a national championship instead of just competing against each other, as they practically are for a SWAC title?

The SWAC is 0-fer when it comes to playoff success, but perhaps when it comes to competing outside of the SWAC and even outside the MEAC, they could become more competitive such as Hampton has done the last few years to improve their program to a team that came within three points of beating one of the best teams in the nation all year (arguably) in New Hampshire...

Hate to bring up this thread, but I was having an argument the other day with someone about attendance. Then I decided to look up FCS attendance numbers for the past 6-8 years. Then I decided to see what threads existed here on the matter, and I found this one interesting, so I kinda felt like giving my two cents. I think the SWAC should be in the playoffs. I know the record is not great. I also agree that it doesn't require the playoffs to make the match-ups, but I think part of the reason the the SWAC's poor performance in the playoffs it's the lack of regular season match-ups. You can't play a good team for the first time in the playoffs. You see in high school football and college basketball. Sometimes it's hard to turn on that switch and kick it up another gear.

Look at TnSU in the OVC. They might make some noise in the playoffs this year. Part of their progression is playing in the OVC. A lot of people consider the OVC not much above the SWAC and MEAC, but there is a difference. Nobody wants to lose over and over. I don't care who it is, unless you're playing Alabama or USC, you're going to want to win those games. You will do what you have to do to get better. I used to have no problem with it, but now I hate the SCG. It's like the SWAC has gone down since we started it. The gap between the SWAC and other conferences is getting bigger and bigger, even just with the MEAC. Not only would teams want to get better from playing better teams, you get a chance to play in front of a completely different crowd. That's a potential increase in fan base as well as recruiting. I hate the SCG, but I could almost stand it if we actually played some teams in the regular season at least and took it serious. Let's say TnSU wins two playoff games this season. How crazy and stupid does that make us look at Jackson State knowing a team we can compete with is out there winning playoff games.

Now, I know the whole SWAC can't come with us. I don't expect Valley or a couple other schools to be playoff level again for a looooooooooong time, but schools like JSU, SU, GSU, and maybe Bama State are willing to put the effort and the money into it. JSU's budget is not that different from the better FCS schools, and we're willing to pay the next coach more than Comegy as well as improve facilities. Why even suit up if you don't want to be the best?

Heck when I looked up the 2011 Division 1 attendance numbers for FBS and FCS, there was an accompanying article stating "the SWAC is first in overall attendance again making it 33 times in 34 years." That's with us having 2 or 3 teams in the conference no one cares anything about seeing. Imagine if the teams driving the numbers started winning games outside the conference. Heck imagine if their success brought a little more attention and interest the less popular ones.

Also, it depends on who that 2nd or 3rd place team is. IF you think the SCG only garners interest when SU or GSU is in it, you're incorrect. People are going to come to JSU games no matter what. You don't think 99 was a big game? IF we hosted a playoff game, it would be packed. Our fans are going to come if we're winning, and a playoff team would probably bring more opposing fans than any SWAC team short of SU.

I don't really see how it would hurt the SWAC. We'd be basically going back to pre-99. It wouldn't hurt the Classic system because TnSU still plays about 3 SWAC schools a year. The only SWAC school to really be affected would be SU and GSU. I'm sure we couldn't play the SCG after the playoffs. The Bayou might have had a down year the one time it was the week before Thanksgiving, but people would eventually get used to it and adjust if the change was permanent.

[Laker]

I hope that the SWAC and the Ivy League can figure out a way to become part of the playoffs. Most people want to compete for a national championship.

[Sonic98]

I hope that the SWAC and the Ivy League can figure out a way to become part of the playoffs. Most people want to compete for a national championship.


Thanks we're working on it. We have a ways to go. But there are a few people who are starting to wake up. It won't happen over night, but at least some people are starting to recognize that we have severely dropped the ball for a couple decades now.

[RabidRabbit]

The SWAC needs to start getting competitive in its sports. The teams won't succeed in doing so until they start making the baby step accomplishments. Right now, SWAC teams play themselves, go for FBS $$ games, or play the MEAC. Need to play some in-between competition, such as SoCon, Southland, OVC, MVFC mids/lows. Yes the $$ are in going to the NDSU, Montana, Delaware, Ga Southern.

Look for opportunities to get on the GA St in ATL schedule. The Panthers could have used the break this year. ;)

[Sonic98]

The SWAC needs to start getting competitive in its sports. The teams won't succeed in doing so until they start making the baby step accomplishments. Right now, SWAC teams play themselves, go for FBS $$ games, or play the MEAC. Need to play some in-between competition, such as SoCon, Southland, OVC, MVFC mids/lows. Yes the $$ are in going to the NDSU, Montana, Delaware, Ga Southern.

Look for opportunities to get on the GA St in ATL schedule. The Panthers could have used the break this year. ;)

Heck we don't even play MEAC schools anymore, unless we get picked for the SWAC/MEAC challenge. I doubt we'd even play TnSU if the teams had not entered a contract. We'd probably find a way to play an FBS team and a D3 each year. People keep talking about what can't happen, but a lot of things are possible if you take it one step at a time. I feel the same way about FCS OOC games as I do about FBS. If you know your program is nowhere close to where it needs to be, why are you going to schedule one off the best teams in their division for an opponent? Start with the teams in your region. Start with the teams lower in the division, not just during games but the things that happen off the field. Of course it will seem like an impossible task if you constantly bite off more than you can chew.

[Hawk98]

It's not the Bayou, it's the SWAC Championship game that keeps the SWAC from participating in the playoffs. The SWAC can participate in trhe playoffs, but it would have to be the third place team. That essentially causes the SWAC to not being included. The Bayou has been played on the Saturday after Thanksgiving for 99% of its history. Instead of moving the palyoffs or moving the Bayou, I think the NCAA and the SWAC should come to anagreement that the regular season SWAC Champion should go to the playoffs. If Grambling or Southern are the champs, then the second place SWAC team should represent the SWAC. If Gram and SU are 1 and 2 in the SWAC, then the third place team should represent the SWAC. The SWAC and the Ivy should both be given automatic bids, and two at large bids should be taken away. This is the most equitable and fair solution to all parites involved. I'm sure someone is going to come in here with strength of schedule arguments in order to debunk my theory, but SOS is a self fulfilling prophecy. If we judge evryone strictly on SOS, and our assessment of what is a quality SOS, then we will always only have a So. Con, A-10, or Gateway national champion because we will always have 4 SoCon, 4 A-10, and 4 Gateway teams in the playoffs. We can't be lazy when selecting teams for the playoffs. We have to be vigilant if we are going to continue to claim we "settle it on the field".

I don't think they can do this. At large bids have to be equal or greater than automatic bids. It's why March Madness expanded when they got to 33 auto bids.

[TexasTerror]

Heck when I looked up the 2011 Division 1 attendance numbers for FBS and FCS, there was an accompanying article stating "the SWAC is first in overall attendance again making it 33 times in 34 years." That's with us having 2 or 3 teams in the conference no one cares anything about seeing. Imagine if the teams driving the numbers started winning games outside the conference. Heck imagine if their success brought a little more attention and interest the less popular ones.

The SWAC attendance numbers only rank No. 1 because of neutral site contests. Do the math. On-campus wise, the SWAC is behind a few other conferences. Many of those games draw regardless of the quality of teams on the field, but more for the event. In some cases, the spectacle surrounding the game significantly outdraws the game itself. I get why the SWAC promotes those numbers and do not blame them, but let's at least be honest when evoking attendance for an argument.

[kdinva]

the spectacle surrounding the game significantly outdraws the game itself.

change the league's name to the "Spectacle athletic conference"..........

[Sonic98]

The SWAC attendance numbers only rank No. 1 because of neutral site contests. Do the math. On-campus wise, the SWAC is behind a few other conferences. Many of those games draw regardless of the quality of teams on the field, but more for the event. In some cases, the spectacle surrounding the game significantly outdraws the game itself. I get why the SWAC promotes those numbers and do not blame them, but let's at least be honest when evoking attendance for an argument.

Just sounds like the same old excuse to me. It has nothing to do with Neutral sites. The whole reason the games are at neutral sites is because of lot of SWAC teams are playing in stadiums that are not much bigger than before the teams moved to FCS. Heck a couple are not bigger than high school stadiums. Certain games they have to add seating. The idea of a spectacle surrounding the game is just overblown. It's not a spectacle at all. You talk like people are giving away cars like the Oprah show. The fact is most of the schools are pretty old. Some games there are three generations of family watching the games. They could choose anything to do with their time. Most schools play 1 or 2 neutral site games a year or maybe only 1 Classic. One big game with 50K is not going to bring a season average up to 20K. At Neutral site games the home team switches every year. Explain why the same teams always lead the conference in attendance for the most part. Wouldn't it fluctuate based what team is the home team? Why do the teams without a good bad not playing games in places with a big population to draw from have good numbers? Because certain teams people just want to come see. Outside of 4 or 5 Classics a year, most neutral site games are played not that far from the Universities involving two teams who aren't far from each other. Of course there is going to be a sense of a regional or state rivalry.

If it's all about spectacle, why do the teams, even ones like Jackson State who have been in the top 10 several times, see big attendance drops during bad seasons? Why are more and more people staying after the half-time each year? Why do the stands start to empty out when either team gets behind by too much? That's not the sign of people who don't care who wins or loses. If you don't care who wins or loses, why even pay attention to the game. So, people are just pretending to care? More of an event? How? With all the "events" surrounding classics. People could choose a lot more things to spend their money and time on than the game. It has nothing to do with ignoring the quality of the team on the field. Most SWAC fans probably haven't seen the FCS teams outside the conference ever. Most SWAC schools don't have but a few within 2 or 3 hours of them. Most probably haven't even seen more than half the MEAC for the same reason. If you think SWAC schools don't have a fire to win and a desire to destroy the other team and see their fans go home with their heads down you haven't been to Jackson State games against SU, TnSU, Alcorn, Valley, or Bama State.

[Sonic98]

Until the playoff matchups happen, why not just schedule a home and home. I definitely would love to see Grambling play the traditional FCS playoff teams on a home and home basis. Hopefully the 12 game schedule will be approved and Grambling can then sign to play home and home with the MEAC teams, home and home against FCS playoff teams, and former D1A teams.

Now what I really would like to see is the playoffs moved back 1 week (so that the SWAC can finish it's regular season schedule). This will require a lot of negotiations...:twocents:

I don't see anyone agreeing to a home and home. I see very few SWAC teams playing OOC home games unless it's D2.