SWAC and IVY

[Eagle_77]

Disclaimer:
Having raised this question to myself because of another thread I have decided to post it here. While I am sure that it will cause some controversy I still feel that it is a question that many would liked answered in some way, so I have decided to post it. I ask everyone to take this just as it is meant and don’t try to spin this into something different. Ok here goes.

Since the SWAC and Ivy's do not participate in the I-AA playoffs what is the point in ranking them in the Top 25. These leagues have decided not to participate in the playoffs themselves. Not that there is anything wrong with that but they have made themselves different for the rest of I-AA.

As for the Ivy's what are they playing for period? Yes they are going to academic schools and are there more so for the education than football but what is the point of playing if you are not playing for something. This is not in the nature of most athletes especially football players. All I can see is that they are playing for bragging rights. I believe the only reason that these schools are keeping programs is because their link with the history of football. Speaking on history wouldn’t one think that because of their deep roots with the history of the game that they would want to be more involved?

On to the SWAC. They are a little different than the Ivy's in that they play for the SWAC championship on national television. This is basically a bowl game for this league and because of the money and recognition that it brings to their teams it doesn’t seem as if they will start participating in the playoffs anytime soon if ever.

The playoff system is what separates I-A and I-AA and we love it because of that. These leagues have decided not to participate for their own reasons. Since they have decided not to participate and make themselves different from the reset of us, what is the point in ranking them with the rest of I-AA? Wouldn’t those spots be better occupied by teams that do participate in the I-AA and the playoffs?

The ranking system is a great measure of who and how to place in the post-season brackets. If these league choose not to do as the Romans do then why give them the when in Rome part? From what I have seen the SWAC could care less how they are ranked against the rest of the I-AA world and care more about how they matched up against other SWAC schools and the SWAC championship. They probably wouldn’t mind being left out. While it seems that the Ivy's take a little more pride in being ranked, once again why rank them if at the end of the regular season it is over for them no matter what their ranking.

This is not hate against either league but rather honest questions. What are your thoughts?

[OL FU]

I understand where you are coming from but as long as the rankings are of I-AA, they should be included. Most sports fans understand the futility of picking a champion via the polls. One can only hope, in the unlikely but possible event that a non-playoff school finishes the season ranked number one, the fans will not allow that to discredit the real champion.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The SWAC does allow *most* of its teams to play in the postseason, theoretically. Grambling, Southern, and Alabama St. elect to not play in the I-AA playoffs since the playoffs would interfere with the classic Alabama St./Tuskgegee and Grambling/Southern thanksgiving matchups. Similarly, the teams who qualify for the SWAC championship do not play in the playoffs.

SWAC teams have played in the I-AA playoffs in the past, and there still is a possibility that they will play in future playoffs. If the SWAC abandoned their championship game, then it would happen even more often. But saying the SWAC prohibits its schools to play in the playoffs is wrong.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The playoff system is what separates I-A and I-AA and we love it because of that. These leagues have decided not to participate for their own reasons. Since they have decided not to participate and make themselves different from the reset of us, what is the point in ranking them with the rest of I-AA? Wouldn’t those spots be better occupied by teams that do participate in the I-AA and the playoffs?

The crux of your argument is this:

* I-AA is different from I-A, and the difference is the playoffs.

That's a false assumption. I-AA is different from I-A by the fact that they are part of Division I athletics, but operate under a cost-containment model which reduces the number of scholarships and athletics expenses. Nowhere does it say, nor did it ever say, the I-AA playoffs is what makes I-AA.

* Some leagues don't participate in the playoffs, so why bother ranking them?

That's your other argument. To that I say, why penalize the Ivy and non-playoff-participating SWAC teams for doing well? They are I-AA schools - they fit the mold. Would it be right in BCS-land to not rank Boise State since they're in a conference that isn't part of the BCS? Of course not. So why do you think that not ranking Harvard or Alabama St. is the right thing to do? They may not be playoff schools, but they are damn good teams, and they deserve to be recognized as such.

[youwouldno]

If you participate in the AGS poll, you can choose to leave out non-playoff teams. Obviously there's a difference of opinion among I-AA fans.

Personally, I am very reluctant to rank non-playoff teams, since at its core I-AA football is about the playoffs. On the other hand you could argue I-A is about the BCS bowls and teams that clearly won't get in one are still ranked in that top 25.

[Ivytalk]

I view it very simply. If the "powers that be" believe that teams from the Ivy and the SWAC are among the 25 best teams in terms of talent and achievement, those teams should be ranked. There's no evidence that playoff teams have been prejudiced in the post-season by being ranked behind Ivy or SWAC teams.

[OL FU]

I view it very simply. If the "powers that be" believe that teams from the Ivy and the SWAC are among the 25 best teams in terms of talent and achievement, those teams should be ranked. There's no evidence that playoff teams have been prejudiced in the post-season by being ranked behind Ivy or SWAC teams.

I concur with your statements. And if you were referring to my comment, I think the prejudice would only occur if the ranking was Number 1.

[SUjagTILLiDIE]

The crux of your argument is this:

* I-AA is different from I-A, and the difference is the playoffs.

That's a false assumption. I-AA is different from I-A by the fact that they are part of Division I athletics, but operate under a cost-containment model which reduces the number of scholarships and athletics expenses. Nowhere does it say, nor did it ever say, the I-AA playoffs is what makes I-AA.

* Some leagues don't participate in the playoffs, so why bother ranking them?

That's your other argument. To that I say, why penalize the Ivy and non-playoff-participating SWAC teams for doing well? They are I-AA schools - they fit the mold. Would it be right in BCS-land to not rank Boise State since they're in a conference that isn't part of the BCS? Of course not. So why do you think that not ranking Harvard or Alabama St. is the right thing to do? They may not be playoff schools, but they are damn good teams, and they deserve to be recognized as such.
:beerchug: could not have said it better myself.

[TxSt02]

I think the difference between the SWAC and the Ivy League is huge! Funding and talent are the big difference. Some SWAC schools are borderline high schools anyway... Take out Southern and Grambling and you are left with a bunch of schools that seriously will accept anybody that submits a SAT score. Not a score of _____ but just a score... Take the test and fill out the school app and you are now a student. Congrats, welcome aboard! I know I am getting a little off track here but SWAC schools put all their money into their football programs and sometimes that isn’t much at all...

[Go...gate]

Ranking is all about the 1-AA meritocracy. If SWAC or Ivy League terms deserve it, they should not be excluded. Let them be ranked, while encouraging them to find a way to participate in the play-offs.

[SUjagTILLiDIE]

I think the difference between the SWAC and the Ivy League is huge! Funding and talent are the big difference. Some SWAC schools are borderline high schools anyway... Take out Southern and Grambling and you are left with a bunch of schools that seriously will accept anybody that submits a SAT score. Not a score of _____ but just a score... Take the test and fill out the school app and you are now a student. Congrats, welcome aboard! I know I am getting a little off track here but SWAC schools put all their money into their football programs and sometimes that isn’t much at all...Man get a life. You are so misinformed. You have no idea what you are talking about. Before you talk please do some research.

[Eagle_77]

The SWAC does allow *most* of its teams to play in the postseason, theoretically. Grambling, Southern, and Alabama St. elect to not play in the I-AA playoffs since the playoffs would interfere with the classic Alabama St./Tuskgegee and Grambling/Southern thanksgiving matchups. Similarly, the teams who qualify for the SWAC championship do not play in the playoffs.

SWAC teams have played in the I-AA playoffs in the past, and there still is a possibility that they will play in future playoffs. If the SWAC abandoned their championship game, then it would happen even more often. But saying the SWAC prohibits its schools to play in the playoffs is wrong.

I don’t recall saying that the SWAC prohibits its schools to play in the playoffs. I was careful to make sure I didn’t say that. What I did say is that this league chooses not to participate for their own reasons. I said this assuming that the teams that would participate in the playoffs would obviously be playing for the SWAC championship and not participate in the playoffs. In the unlikely event that there is a third team that is ranked in the top 16 teams and is not one of the 3 previously named schools then technically they could participate. Sorry for any missed technicalities.

[Eagle_77]

The crux of your argument is this:

* I-AA is different from I-A, and the difference is the playoffs.

That's a false assumption. I-AA is different from I-A by the fact that they are part of Division I athletics, but operate under a cost-containment model which reduces the number of scholarships and athletics expenses. Nowhere does it say, nor did it ever say, the I-AA playoffs is what makes I-AA.

* Some leagues don't participate in the playoffs, so why bother ranking them?

That's your other argument. To that I say, why penalize the Ivy and non-playoff-participating SWAC teams for doing well? They are I-AA schools - they fit the mold. Would it be right in BCS-land to not rank Boise State since they're in a conference that isn't part of the BCS? Of course not. So why do you think that not ranking Harvard or Alabama St. is the right thing to do? They may not be playoff schools, but they are damn good teams, and they deserve to be recognized as such.

Ok I wrote this as an honest question that I wanted to get everyone’s opinion on and it seems as if you are trying to discredit my post by attacking technicalities. We all know the legal differences between I-A and I-AA. As an ex-player I don’t need to be lectured on the official rules and regulations. On this board and several other publications people say how they like I-AA so much better because of the playoffs and not having to deal with that BSC bull crap. While it may not be officially what makes the leagues different it is what most fans identify the biggest differences as.

Now on the BCS and Boise St issue. Here is my honest rebuttal to you point. While it is a valid point I do disagree because of some technicalities and how they relate to I-AA. Boise St does not choose to be left out of the BCS. I am sure that they would love to be part of it. From what I have gathered non-BCS leagues in I-A hate the fact that they are not considered being as good to participate every year. Utah finally broke into the BCS bowl games because of their ranking. They should be ranked because it is not their choice to be different than the rest of the league. The Ivy's and "most" SWAC teams CHOOSE not to participate. That is why you cannot compare the situations.

I don’t think that these schools should not be recognized for their accomplishments but maybe along with the I-AA rankings then there should also be posted the league standings for the SWAC and Ivy's as sort of their own polls. The alumni and fans for these schools should have something to show for but I personally don’t feel as if they should be grouped with the rest of I-AA because of their chosen differences.

[Eagle_77]

If you participate in the AGS poll, you can choose to leave out non-playoff teams. Obviously there's a difference of opinion among I-AA fans.

Personally, I am very reluctant to rank non-playoff teams, since at its core I-AA football is about the playoffs. On the other hand you could argue I-A is about the BCS bowls and teams that clearly won't get in one are still ranked in that top 25.

This was my point but probably should have worded it more like.

[BBB]

I think the difference between the SWAC and the Ivy League is huge! Funding and talent are the big difference. Some SWAC schools are borderline high schools anyway... Take out Southern and Grambling and you are left with a bunch of schools that seriously will accept anybody that submits a SAT score. Not a score of _____ but just a score... Take the test and fill out the school app and you are now a student. Congrats, welcome aboard! I know I am getting a little off track here but SWAC schools put all their money into their football programs and sometimes that isn’t much at all...


You can say that for alot of NON-SWAC schools too.

[henfan]

But saying the SWAC prohibits its schools to play in the playoffs is wrong.

LFN, good comments about the SWAC, though I'm not sure the latter statement is entirely true. Perhaps one of our SWAC fans could clarify.

For example, if one of the SWAC teams who don't participate in late season classics (JSU or Alcorn, for example) win their division, are they contractually obligated to participate in the SWAC championship game? Could they choose instead to participate in the playoffs?

As for polls & rankings, they mean very little to a majority of I-AA fans and programs. Most people following I-AA could care less whether or not a certain team gets high ranking or not. SWAC, Ivy & mid-majors deserve to be included because they are part of the sub-division. However, national ratings are highly subjective and largely ceremonial when compared with a playoff system that determines a true champion.

[UAalum72]

but what is the point of playing if you are not playing for something.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, the game's the thing - the competition on the field, every week. I play golf every week, but I'm not trying to qualify for the US Open, or even the club championship. That doesn't mean there's no point to playing, even if I'm only trying to win my own league.


The ranking system is a great measure of who and how to place in the post-season brackets.
IF that's what you want to use the rankings for. Some of the top polls ranked I-A teams even if they were on probation and not eligible for post-season bowls. If you want to use the poll to rank teams for the post-season (like the RPI), say so up front. But if you're ranking I-AA teams (like Sagarin or Massey) then ALL I-AA teams should ranked against each other, regardless of playoff eligibility or ambitions.

[Big Dawg]

Man get a life. You are so misinformed. You have no idea what you are talking about. Before you talk please do some research.
Yeah...he is way misinformed.

[NewsEagle93]

I think the difference between the SWAC and the Ivy League is huge! Funding and talent are the big difference. Some SWAC schools are borderline high schools anyway... Take out Southern and Grambling and you are left with a bunch of schools that seriously will accept anybody that submits a SAT score. Not a score of _____ but just a score... Take the test and fill out the school app and you are now a student. Congrats, welcome aboard! I know I am getting a little off track here but SWAC schools put all their money into their football programs and sometimes that isn’t much at all...


This is uncalled for. There is no need to take shots at something you know nothing about.

[colgate13]

As for the Ivy's what are they playing for period? Yes they are going to academic schools and are there more so for the education than football but what is the point of playing if you are not playing for something. This is not in the nature of most athletes especially football players. All I can see is that they are playing for bragging rights.

I think I can address this. Ivy titles are huge; they are what they play for. This is the original old boys club (Knights of Templar excluded ;)). Ivy titles are so important that they even award them in leagues they don't sponsor! Follow this one: in ECAC ice hockey, the Ivy teams play except Columbia and Penn who don't have teams. THEY STILL AWARD AN IVY CHAMPIONSHIP! Go to Cornell's Lynah rink and they have tons of Ivy League championship banners hanging from the rafters, even though the Ivy League doesn't sponsor hockey!

So in that regard, I don't think Ivy players have any problem finding something to play for. To make a comparison, would GSU have nothing to play for if it was "just another game" against Furman or App. St? Take those kinds of rivalries, stretch them out a hundred years and add 5 others, and you've got the Ivy League.

[TxSt02]

Cocaine is one hell of a drug! Dude, you are on some ****! Since you are questioning the legitimacy of the academic programs at SWAC schools, let me hip you to one big thing. The immediate past U.S. Secretary of Education (a cabinet position, appointed by President Bush in his last administration, and the "cheif" of all education in the US), and the architect of the No Child Left Behind program, is Dr. Roderick Paige, PhD. Dr. Paige is a graduate of Jackson State University- a SWAC school.

Ok so you have somebody that went to your school that was appointed by the President... We had a US President that went to our school...

Guys I may not be well versed on this but it is quite apparent if you look at some of the facilities... A lot of these schools sponsor bowling... what's up with that? I am sure it doesn’t take much to fund one of those teams...

Now saying this I have to say something else... We have schools in the Southland that are far worse than the schools in the SWAC and I am sure we have programs at our own school that our below those of many SWAC schools...

But when you look at the likes of PV A&M and Texas Southern and their admission standards they are a very easy to get into... what is easier than submitting a SAT score?

[bluedog]

I'll just say this about the question. Schools have been ranked for years by those that have the respect of the entire Ncaa world and they have been doing it this for a long time.

Not only do they rank schools that do not take part in the playoffs but they also rank schools that they know to be on Probation and aren't allowed bowl bids or TV time.

This question comes up every year like the groundhog, but there is no dilemma created for doing it this way. The schools that don't participate simply don't go and those that do and are ranked below them simply are moved up the poll in terms of playoff selection and participate.

It's a big deal about a whole lot of nothing really.

[rcny46]

Ivytalk(or anyone else who might have an explanation),do you happen to know why it is that the Ivy League prohibits its members from post season play in football,but not in other sports such as hockey,basketball or baseball? I've always wondered what the logic was behind that stance.

[DFW HOYA]

As for the Ivy's what are they playing for period? Yes they are going to academic schools and are there more so for the education than football but what is the point of playing if you are not playing for something.

They're playing for the love of the game, which is the case at about 90 or so I-AA schools that are out of the playoff picture by October. And until someone can convince Harvard that a snowy afternoon in Missoula or Macomb is a better way to end its season then before a sold out Soldiers Field or 50,000+ at the Yale Bowl, it's going to be an uphill climb.

Remember, Notre Dame didn't participate in the post-season until 1970, but but was ranked #1 at the end of the season nine times. It wasn't until ND saw the value of a game vs. undefeated Texas in the Cotton Bowl that caused it to change its mind.

[colgate13]

Ivytalk(or anyone else who might have an explanation),do you happen to know why it is that the Ivy League prohibits its members from post season play in football,but not in other sports such as hockey,basketball or baseball? I've always wondered what the logic was behind that stance.

There is no logic, that's what is so frustrating. There are plenty of worn out excuses about the playoffs interfering with finals, but they're all BS.

[Catmendue2]

There is no logic, that's what is so frustrating. There are plenty of worn out excuses about the playoffs interfering with finals, but they're all BS.




Amen brother. If you don't want to play, don't play. ;)

[blukeys]

There is no logic, that's what is so frustrating. There are plenty of worn out excuses about the playoffs interfering with finals, but they're all BS.

During the East- West Shrine game, a big deal was made of the fact that Fitzpatrick had to finish a final a week before the game. The East - west Game is in January. I guess those Ivy guys aren't so smart after all. they need the entire month of December to study for exams! ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D

[eaglesrthe1]

1) It shouldn't make any diff whether the SWAC and Ivy schools want to participate in the playoffs or not. They are I-AA and they should be ranked if the quality of the product warrants. What is being run here, some kind of exclusive country club? It wouldn't have any impact on the playoffs at all. If there are 3 teams from the SWAC and Ivy in the top 25, then take teams 17-18-and 19 for the playoffs.

2) It shouldn't be an "option" on whether or not to rank the SWAC and Ivy teams in the AGS poll. It should be a rule to either rank them, or not rank them. I would prefer to rank them. The reason being, that if only some rank them, then they are being unfairly penalized by having fewer voters including them in their polls. Of course, there is no guarantee that the voters would include them, even if it was in the rules. You would just have to go on their honor.