SWAC Directors of Athletics (ADs) & Senior Women Administrators (SWAs) did not


CEE DOG said:
Obviously the trophy you folks are so desperately seeking for your team to play for. It is sicking how yall begging to play for something you think that is meaningless. Dam shame to beg for this nothing of a trophy you want. :sick: :wavey: :crazy:
Click to expand...

Who is yall? Post where I specifically stated the trophy was meaningless.

You're another MH-type, but at least you out in the open regarding your jealousy towards anything labelled JSU. I give you credit for that much.
 
Nall you kept it real bruh, but the rest of these folks act like they didn't know this was coming. I agree, playing all 9 teams is just lazy on our leadership. It is beyond sad what we are becoming as a conference.
jstate83 said:
Who begging and what is this YA'LL stuff? :noidea:
I knew JSU was out of the SCG game the same day it was posted here the NCAA banned us from post-season play. It's done and I knew it was comming. Check the threads.

And again, with a 9 game mandate, the SCG and division format is a meaningless concept. :tup:
Click to expand...
 



mighty hornet said:
Interesting. Can you post that?
Click to expand...

SWAC issues postseason bans for low APR


The Associated Press


HOUSTON -- The Southwestern Athletic Conference has voted to ban Jackson State and Southern from competing in the league's 2011 football championship game.

The NCAA already hit both schools with a postseason ban because of low APR scores, which were released last month. But the SWAC football championship did not apply because the NCAA considers the game an extension of the regular season.
rest of article
 
MH, I can't explain the 2009 ban because I didn't even know about and don't care to learn about. But from what I know of your APR scores, you didn't get a penalty for low APR. We only got a post season ban. The SCG is not a part of the post season. There is nothing else to explain here if you don't see that.
 
Tigerpride said:
MH, I can't explain the 2009 ban because I didn't even know about and don't care to learn about. But from what I know of your APR scores, you didn't get a penalty for low APR. We only got a post season ban. The SCG is not a part of the post season. There is nothing else to explain here if you don't see that.
Click to expand...
Even though you "didn't even know about and don't care to learn about", the fact remains that an NCAA postseason ban in 2009 on a SWAC school was applied/interpreted to include the SCG.
 
mighty hornet said:
Even though you "didn't even know about and don't care to learn about", the fact remains that an NCAA postseason ban in 2009 on a SWAC school was applied/interpreted to include the SCG.
Click to expand...
Did you see my post??? There are other articles referencing a conference call where the NCAA told the SWAC they didn't consider the SCG a postseason game, so nobody was banned from that game. If they wanted to ban them, they'd have to do it themselves. And that's what the SWAC did.
 
And it didn't apply to this..

Robber said:
SWAC issues postseason bans for low APR


The Associated Press


HOUSTON -- The Southwestern Athletic Conference has voted to ban Jackson State and Southern from competing in the league's 2011 football championship game.

The NCAA already hit both schools with a postseason ban because of low APR scores, which were released last month. But the SWAC football championship did not apply because the NCAA considers the game an extension of the regular season.
rest of article
Click to expand...



Sent from my Captivate
 
Robber said:
Did you see my post??? There are other articles referencing a conference call where the NCAA told the SWAC they didn't consider the SCG a postseason game, so nobody was banned from that game. If they wanted to ban them, they'd have to do it themselves. And that's what the SWAC did.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter robber, people have their own agenda, the truth be damn.

Sent from my Captivate
 
Robber said:
It did not. But then the SWAC wanted to "send a message."
Click to expand...

Oh I totally understand that,but at what cost?

This has the possibility of being the worst decision they've made ever.

My concern has nothing to do with the SCG but the conference as a whole.

This could end up costing schools alot of money when the avg. fan learn that there wasn't a need for it.

Sent from my Captivate
 
JayRob said:
When it comes to anything labelled JSU, your honesty is highly questionable.
Click to expand...

Your own honesty in it is the same.....

Homerism at it's best

Homer-Trying-is.jpg
 
Fiyah said:
Your own honesty in it is the same.....

Homerism at it's best

Homer-Trying-is.jpg
Click to expand...

So a PV-er is now the spokesperson for a Hornet? Oh, I forgot...there is this group called "the coalition".

Careful now, your bias and jealousy is showing again.:smh:
 
So we can finish :)

Posted by Jafus
Robber, this is what you do as professional all day (Smile!) and why you get the big buck. The information is in the language of the document.

The SWAC Doesn’t Realize The Mistake It Made Against Grambling, Jackson State & South

Mighty Hornet &Kenn Rashad,

1.



Kenn,
As I posted in the other thread, there is no regular season title in football to "ban" SU and JSU from winning. SU and JSU can still compete to have the best record during the regular season. But there is no title for doing that. The title is won in the SCG. In the SWAC, the regular season title for football is determine by the winner of each division (i.e. SWAC Western Division Champions and SWAC Eastern Division Champions).

------------------
Brave0695,





The SWAC lost its automatic bid to the playoffs b/c SU & GSU refused to move the BC. As a result, 8 teams had to suffer for the actions of 2. The playoffs start the same weekend as the BC. And if you believe no SWAC school should go to the playoffs then I guess you are also in favor of a 9-game schedule. Just play each other and call it season. Why would any decent athlete want to compete in a conference that only wants to compete against itself?
I guess that explains why the talent level has fallen drastically around the conference in the last 15 years.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/scoreb...&weekNumber=13 Per discussion with a NCAA official, the SWAC has never had an automatic bid to the NCAA Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) Tournament.


------------------
JayRob,






REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
DIVISION I INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE
June 30, 2009
Report No. 289
Alabama State University
Montgomery, Alabama

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/38...ate_appeal.pdf

page 20, item #3 says the following:

3. Theinstitution's football team shall end its 2009 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, inseason contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition. [Note: The committee formally would have precluded the institution from competing in postseason competition in 2008 but, by the time of issuance of this report, the team already had not qualified for postseason competition in 2008.] JayRob provides the key language” shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition.”





Technically and according to the NCAA, the SCG game IS the last scheduled regular season game. Why? Because THEY don't recognize it as a post season game. Like I said though, keep playing dumb That is incorrect. The SWAC Championship Game is a conference postseason tournament according to the NCAA bylaws. Based on the language written for the NCAA infractions committee. Alabama State was banned from both Conference (i.e. SWAC Championship Game) postseason tournament and the NCAA postseason (i.e. The NCAA Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) Tournament or NCAA sanctioned bowl game.
While, the SWAC Championship Game (SCG) is not a NCAA-sponsored postseason game or tournament, the SCG is not a regular season game. By definition, the game is a conference-sponsored postseason tournament.

NOTE: Below





NCAA DIVISION 1 MANUAL 2010-2011
17.9.5.2 Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS]

(d) Championship Subdivision Conference Tournament. [FCS] A conference-sponsored, season-ending postseason tournament (one between teams that are not identified until the end of the preceding regular season), not to exceed one contest for any member institution. This provision does not preclude an institution from participating in a conference-sponsored season-ending postseason tournament and additional postseason football opportunities (e.g., NCAA Championship, Heritage Bowl) during the same season; (Adopted: 1/16/93 effective 8/1/93, Revised: 1/13/98 effective 8/1/98, 2/16/00, 12/15/06)


PV Produces Productive People
Click to expand...
 



BRAVEHEART123 said:
I've already preached my sermon entitled "SWAC Going Down The Tiolet". But please proceed.
Click to expand...

For the third time, how are you going to replace the funding SU and Grambling will lose if they change the BC date and if NBC doesn't have another date for the game?
A post season birth in the NCAA cannot trump the much needed funding said schools need to support their athletic department and other sports.

You bring up points but you fail to bring up alternatives if the schools decide to do away with the BC and Turkey Day Classic just for an appearance in a NCAA game.
 
JayRob said:
For the third time, how are you going to replace the funding SU and Grambling will lose if they change the BC date and if NBC doesn't have another date for the game? A post season birth in the NCAA cannot trump the much needed funding said schools need to support their athletic department and other sports.

You bring up points but you fail to bring up alternatives if the schools decide to do away with the BC and Turkey Day Classic just for an appearance in a NCAA game.
Click to expand...

Since you want me to be brutally honest again..................when over 95% of Alumni give back. And this goes to ALL SWAC Schools.
 
Tigerpride said:
Fiyah and MH have been clearly proven wrong.
Click to expand...
I was right. (as usual LOL) And more importantly, to the folks who had to make a decision, the position I was stating MUST have had some validity. Cause we all see the end result. btw, I'm still waiting on the actual report.

Preciate it.
 
mighty hornet said:
I was right. (as usual LOL) And more importantly, to the folks who had to make a decision, the position I was stating MUST have had some validity. Cause we all see the end result. btw, I'm still waiting on the actual report.

Preciate it.
Click to expand...

What validity? Like someone said, why didn't the NCAA not ban JSU itself?

You couldn't even present your own schools report, so how can you demand someone post anything.
 
JayRob said:
What validity?
Click to expand...
The simple fact that the vote turned out like it did. You whine, bellyache, cry, and try to talk against anything posted, but at the end of the day, there was a vote taken on banning schools from the SCG. We all know the results of that voting.


You couldn't even present your own schools report, so how can you demand someone post anything.
Click to expand...
:smh::smh:
Naw, I didn't have a 3 year old report at my fingertips, do you have a less than 3 week old report at yours?
:scared:
 
mighty hornet [QUOTE said:
The simple fact that the vote turned out like it did. You whine, bellyache, cry, and try to talk against anything posted, but at the end of the day, there was a vote taken on banning schools from the SCG. We all know the results of that voting.
Click to expand...

You just answered the question....a vote was taken by the NCAA? Wrong. By the Presidents. If the NCAA had jurisdiction, there would've been no need for a vote by any President, and if I'm correct, the NCAA didn't force any President to vote the way they did. If the NCAA did, please enlighten.

Naw, I didn't have a 3 year old report at my fingertips, do you have a less than 3 week old report at yours?
Click to expand...

I didn't either, but I still found it. If I can find a 3 year old report, you should be astute enough to find a three week old report.
 
This is to damn sad that this has turn into the usual ASU vs JSU bull crap.

As I stated earlier, this could have a much larger affect than what's on the surface, but all some you can talk about is the usual childish us vs them , which is about a narrow of a focus as the vote was.

The fact that they HAD to put it to a vote would tell anyone with just a little common sense that the NCAA didn't ban either school from the SCG.

Sent from my Captivate
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top