Hmm article on theadvocate
- Thread starter Jag-BR
- Start date
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
PLEASE tell me you're not serious.
:smh:
JoeWeb78
No pain NO Gain
I just don?t see why we don?t use the SEC schedule as a model for us...its very simply. The SEC has 12 teams but it can still work with 10.
This is what JSU would like:
JSU would play ASU, Valley, Alcorn, and AAMU, (which are in the east div)
SU would be our permanent opponent from the west. (Each team would have one they would play every year from the other div)
Play GSU and TSU in 08 and 09, and PV and UAPB in 2010 and 2011 (Rotating every 2 years)
That gives you 7 conf games that should all count, and 4 out of conf game.
1st tie breaker - Conf record (7 games)
2nd tie breaker - div record (4 games)
It is not rocket science.
This is what JSU would like:
JSU would play ASU, Valley, Alcorn, and AAMU, (which are in the east div)
SU would be our permanent opponent from the west. (Each team would have one they would play every year from the other div)
Play GSU and TSU in 08 and 09, and PV and UAPB in 2010 and 2011 (Rotating every 2 years)
That gives you 7 conf games that should all count, and 4 out of conf game.
1st tie breaker - Conf record (7 games)
2nd tie breaker - div record (4 games)
It is not rocket science.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
You from JSU so I won't call you stupid. However, permanent opponents would mean that the BAMA's and Texans would have to play each other every year and that would not be fair to them (or their budgets).
JoeWeb78
No pain NO Gain
If that is the case...no matter how you set it up teams are going to have budget issues. Its better than playing a team in your conference and it not count toward the standings.
If we had stayed with the 9-game mandate, we would have been playing each other every year anyway. I have said the same thing joeweb has stated and it can work. It's better than trying to figure out what game counts for whom and what game does not count. And it puts the onus on each school to go out and seek games point blank.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
Since you are not from JSU, I will just tell you...PERMANENT OPPONENTS ARE DUMB. So you are saying that you want JSU to play SU every year and GSU to play Alcorn every year and then let you play Prairie View or Texas Southern? :lmao: OK, if your AD and President are dumb enough to sign that into being, TP IS ALL FOR IT....:lmao:
JoeWeb78
No pain NO Gain
That was my point...:tup:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
There is a BIG difference when it come to fairness of a 9-game mandate (it was the SAME for everyone) vs a permanent opponents (only certain teams benefit).
Negro we are a conference - we are ALL permanent opponents. Sure I will take my chances with playing PV or TxSU every year - and frankly speaking - not to down anyone but hey I like my chances in picking up that win every year.
Everyone is always saying the conference doesnt do this - but then when the opportunity presents itself hell is raised. You complain because you think the SCG is keeping the SWAC out of the playoffs - but outside of SCG participants every year there has been no team that would have qualified for the playoffs anyway. You complain about the 9-game mandate - but you get the 7 game schedule and you still want to play the 9-games. (When I say "you" I dont mean you TP personally - just want to clear that up). But it seems to me that if you are really so great - and in such demand - you should be able to find a couple of teams to put on your schedule every other year.
How is it that only certain teams will benefit? You play each team in your division (4 games) you get a permanent opponent (1 game) and you take 2 other teams and rotate those teams every 2 years home and home (2 games). That's 7 games - and every 2 years everyone plays everyone. That is so not rocket science. 7 games - now go find 4 and there you have it.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
I agree...
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
If you don't see the problem with SU being JSU's permanent opponent and PV being yours, I can't entertain this conversation....
JoeWeb78
No pain NO Gain
Even though I used SU as JSU Permanent opponent..the above is just an example of how the schedule would work. I really wouldn't care who was our permanent oppenet is. Teams in the west would want JSU and teams in the East would want SU from a money stand point. Any way it gose your going to have some upset teams. but that would be something your school would have to deal with. If a school can't find a way to make up for the funds that miss playing JSU or SU for two years than we dont need them in the swac no way.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
But don't you think the permanent opponent should be permanent for a reason? Otherwise, it defeats the WHOLE purpose. Permanent opponents ONLY work for SU-JSU-Gram-Alcorn. There is not as much mutual interest in the other match-ups.
Journalist
Listen up maggots! And that's an order!
Totally agree...isn't the whole "this game counts for Team A but not Team B" the whole motivation for the ***onery that was the 9-game mandate in the first place????
I'm like the one permanent rival and two teams rotating on and off every two-years....
but if you can't fill four nonconference dates without considering scheduling a team from your own conference, then you shouldn't even be in the conference. It's asinine.
1SGT_Robinson
New Member
sorry...I am about to leave out for Saints practice....
I have read just to this post I'm replying...
This was the buzz during the 2007 SWAC Football media day about the Fall 2008 SWAC Football schedule....
I did hear of SOME MAJOR shake-ups.....
:read:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
The game counting for one team and not the other only lasted for the 2000 season if memory serves me correctly. In 2001 and 2002, the 7 games counted for each team. But to also answer your question, no that is not what led to the 9 game mandate. The 9-game mandate was established because of other c**nery like SU not playing UAPB and teams wanting to play each one school but the other school had no interest. That is why I said that the unsaid rule should be that JSU-SU-Alcorn-Grambling play each other so the others feelings won't be hurt. All of you that are for the permanent rivals are basically suggesting this:
Southern-Jackson State
Alcorn State-Grambling
MS Valley-UAPB
AAMU-Texas Southern
Alabama State- Prairie View.
Permanent rivals work in the SEC because they sell out every week regardless of opponent. To stick a team with a game that is only draw 3K fans is not fair (in my opinion). It would be interesting to see what UAPB, Valley, the Texans and the BAMA's think about JSU-SU and ASU-GSU being permanent rivals.
Again, if your administration is fine with that...so is TP but I can't see administrations willingly agreeing to trips to Alabama and Texas when they save money by playing a team closer to home. :noidea:
Having permanent opponents would only be unfair if teams would never rotate on and off schedules. Maybe 'Bama St might only draw 6k at a game at home with PV - but maybe also Bama St might only draw 9k at a game for Alcorn. The point is it us up to Bama St to handle that REGARDLESS of who Bama State is playing. And maybe Bama State will be able to possible make up "any percieved attendance and revenue loss" by scheduling games that will make up for it. That again is incumbent among ALL SWAC Schools. And if the loss of one conference opponent off of my schedule pulls my attendance down that much - then when they do rotate on to my schedule every 2 years - that logic should mean that my school will sell out the game when said school comes to my place.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
ummm TP,
You're only looking at it from an attendance point of view, not about the "traditional" strength of the schools, on the field.
So, if you're okay with having your games count every year against Gram and SU, while the Bamas games with PV and TxSou count, then so be it.
:lol::lol:
As for the cost, I'm sure one trip to Texas a year won't break anybody.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
MH, I have no issue with that. If that is the trade-off then so-be-it. You have to go through the Big 3 to get a SWAC title anyway. However, I an looking at it the way your AD will look at ....financially. That was the reason behind the end of the mandate. Everything must follow along that pattern. These AD's are gonna do what make the most money. Going to Texas ain't gonna make you no money.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
You say that now, but no sooner than the Bamas start going to the SCG every year (errrr, wait, we do that now :lol: ), you'll be screaming how unfair it is that we get Ws against the Texas teams, while jsu sits at home because of losses to SU and/or Gram.
but there are TWO SWAC teams in Texas, so any AD will realize that, as a member of the SWAC, it's no way around NOT going there sometime.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
Sometime and every year are two different things....like I said, if ya'll like it, I love it.
I am sure that the SEC teams don't have that problem. Every SWAC title JSU has ever won, we did it by beating SU, Gram and Alcorn. Nothing is going to change.mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
but TP,
There's a trip to Texas every year now. To either PV or to TxSou
And the SWAC aint the SEC. So, because something may or may not work there, doesnt mean anything here.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
It means a LOT here becasue we can't do what they do. So a comparison to them does not mean anything here.
MH, stop acting dumb. There is not a trip to Texas every year. Under the 9-game mandate maybe and sparingly under the 7-game format. Your scenerio increases the a trip to TEXAS every year under the 7-game format. But hey, AGAIN, I hope we get permanent rivals. Sounds good to me.