Is this the end of the 9 game mandate?
- Thread starter SAME OLD G
- Start date
- Status
). There are indeed "MAJOR DIFFERENCES" betwen us and the SEC.
staggalee83
War & Thunder
Croft84 said:
Yep......................Expand the Conference name to other regions by being able to play teams from other conferences for more than a 1 year thing.
SUjagTILLiDIE
Well-Known Member
8 game mandate is the way to go. Each team has 2 permanent rivals, 4 divisional games, and the other 2 rotates off of your schedule. Here's an example.
SU Schedule
-------------
Jackson State(rival)
Alcorn(rival)
Gram(division)
PVU(division)
TSU(division)
PB(division)
AAMU(rotates)
A-State(rotates)
***** Valley not on schedule this season(rotates back on every 2 season).
GSU
----------------------
Alcorn(rival)
Jackson(rival)
SU(division)
PVU
TSU
PB
Valley(rotates)
Bama State
*******AAMU not on schedule rotates back on every 2 season.
SU Schedule
-------------
Jackson State(rival)
Alcorn(rival)
Gram(division)
PVU(division)
TSU(division)
PB(division)
AAMU(rotates)
A-State(rotates)
***** Valley not on schedule this season(rotates back on every 2 season).
GSU
----------------------
Alcorn(rival)
Jackson(rival)
SU(division)
PVU
TSU
PB
Valley(rotates)
Bama State
*******AAMU not on schedule rotates back on every 2 season.
Remember the other porblem that they had with that 7 game thing (correct me if I'm wrong) was that some of the games that was played (ie Valley vs TxSu), the game would count for 1 team and not count for the other because of how their record finished the previous year.. What needs to be set in stone is that you will play a 7 game conferance schedule. 3 games would rotate from the opposite division and it wouldn't matter who you scheduled for your non-conferance games even if it was a conferance member that was off your schedule that year. It wouldn't be like it was before with the game virtually being split with who it counts for.
pbla
Focus
Man you know, If the SWAC had true football fans then money will not be an issue. I know schools in the SWAC are struggling to pay their athletes 4 year scholarships.It seems like these big money games is the only way SWAC schools can fund their D1AA programs. Really and truly, the SWAC and the MEAC should consider moving to DII or FUND BASKETBALL more so than football to stay D1. But funding athletes scholarships is the key though,so schools are trying to find some creative ways to get the so called big money games. When Grambling gave up a home game this year (to play UAPB in Little Rock for 2 years) I knew some serious money is on the table.
staggalee83
War & Thunder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the way it's alway's been.:nod:
And our's, SU/JSU & JSU/GRAM , have alway's counted.:nod:
We ain't complaining..............you win............everything takes care of itself.:nod:
That's the way it's alway's been.:nod:
And our's, SU/JSU & JSU/GRAM , have alway's counted.:nod:
We ain't complaining..............you win............everything takes care of itself.:nod:
SUjagTILLiDIE
Well-Known Member
actually JSU/Gram , SU/JSU didn't count a couple of times. But I would rather play JSU, Alcorn every season and have them count than not to play them every season.staggalee83 said:
SUjagTILLiDIE said:
The only way an 8 game mandate can work is if 1-AA votes to have a 12 game regular season - which I understand is being considered.
This will still allow for 4 non-conference games.
SUjagTILLiDIE
Well-Known Member
3 non conference games are plenty.SAME OLD G said:
Dr. Sweet NUPE
New Member
SAME OLD G said:
They are????? Wow.
MightyDog
Well-Known Member
Do not overlook the factor that the non-conference games means that the SWAC Teams will be looking for 25 to 30 games to schedule during the season. It is going to take a lot of cooperation from SWAC Member Schools to make any type of scheduling possible. As I see it right now the current system allows every SWAC school to play several money games that have been on the books for years. But what if the proposed thinking I am reading on the board, dictates, a change in the MCC, BC, MC and other games that we play. But as long as some schools can have it both ways it doesn't matter. Instead of individualism we need to continue to make SWAC stronger by each school working to build better programs.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
The Logical One is about to do the only thing I know how to do: make sense of all of this and shut this thread down.
1. We need for this to be FAIR. THAT is the bottomline.
2. For those of you talking about permanent rivals....you are sorta dumb. You can't have permanent rivals in the SWAC and be FAIR to every team.
3. There are only TWO FAIR options since we know that we are indeed going back to a 7-game format if this passes.
a. The conference needs to step in and say that you can only play the games assigned to you and the other 4-5 have to be non-conference games. (Maybe the 5th game can be an exception on the years when 12 games are allowed)
b. The conference can let us use the lax rules we had before when GRAMBLING played all 9 teams anyway EVERY YEAR and SU normally played the required 7 with everyone else doing what they wanted to do in between.
Point 3b. would mainly be the clause needed for JSU-SU-Alcorn-Grambling to maintain their rivalries. These games make sense because they draw and all are within 2-3 hours of each other. Let's not try to get all creative because if we go outside of points 3a and 3b, we are going to have some ghetto, c**n ish going on.
Personally, I don't see why we can't just go with 3a. It is the most PROFESSIONAL and LEAST CONFUSING way to handle this. Sure, I will miss the SU and GSU games BUT SU, Alcorn, GSU, and JSU are the FIRST teams called for a classic and if we get a 2-year contract with someone, I don't think we would really be missing out on so much money that we can't recover from it. Also, it will be rare when neither SU or Grambling are on our schedule. This will also make it much more interesting when JSU takes the EAST back and will be meeting GSU or SU for the first time in Bham!!!
I actually think that 3a is the way to go with the stated clause for years that we have 12 games and MAYBE we could have a classic clause. For example, if UAPB is scheduled to play AAMU in St. Louis....why give the money and exposure to Hampton, Howard, Tuskegee, etc... ? However, home and home's should be forbidden.
Also, I dayum sho don't want to have to play SU and Grambling every year and it counts while AAMU gets to play UAPB and PV and then go to Bham like they did in 2000 and 2002.
1. We need for this to be FAIR. THAT is the bottomline.
2. For those of you talking about permanent rivals....you are sorta dumb. You can't have permanent rivals in the SWAC and be FAIR to every team.
3. There are only TWO FAIR options since we know that we are indeed going back to a 7-game format if this passes.
a. The conference needs to step in and say that you can only play the games assigned to you and the other 4-5 have to be non-conference games. (Maybe the 5th game can be an exception on the years when 12 games are allowed)
b. The conference can let us use the lax rules we had before when GRAMBLING played all 9 teams anyway EVERY YEAR and SU normally played the required 7 with everyone else doing what they wanted to do in between.
Point 3b. would mainly be the clause needed for JSU-SU-Alcorn-Grambling to maintain their rivalries. These games make sense because they draw and all are within 2-3 hours of each other. Let's not try to get all creative because if we go outside of points 3a and 3b, we are going to have some ghetto, c**n ish going on.
Personally, I don't see why we can't just go with 3a. It is the most PROFESSIONAL and LEAST CONFUSING way to handle this. Sure, I will miss the SU and GSU games BUT SU, Alcorn, GSU, and JSU are the FIRST teams called for a classic and if we get a 2-year contract with someone, I don't think we would really be missing out on so much money that we can't recover from it. Also, it will be rare when neither SU or Grambling are on our schedule. This will also make it much more interesting when JSU takes the EAST back and will be meeting GSU or SU for the first time in Bham!!!
I actually think that 3a is the way to go with the stated clause for years that we have 12 games and MAYBE we could have a classic clause. For example, if UAPB is scheduled to play AAMU in St. Louis....why give the money and exposure to Hampton, Howard, Tuskegee, etc... ? However, home and home's should be forbidden.
Also, I dayum sho don't want to have to play SU and Grambling every year and it counts while AAMU gets to play UAPB and PV and then go to Bham like they did in 2000 and 2002.
SUjagTILLiDIE
Well-Known Member
Once again, thats why the 9 game mandate was created to stop the backdooring to the SCG.Tigerpride said:
Dr. Sweet NUPE
New Member
Tigerpride said:
Do you honestly think the HEADLINE GAME for the SWAC would end?
SUjagTILLiDIE
Well-Known Member
He's talking about SU vs JSU, GSU vs JSU. If the Swac forces these schools to stop playing thats some bull. SU vs JSU, SU vs Alcorn, JSU vs GSU, ASU vs GSU should play every single year regardless, because of tradition. Now its the Swac's job to figure out how to make this work.Dr. Sweet NUPE said:
Mr. Tiger
Mr. T
Dr. Sweet NUPE said:
I think Tigerpride was talking about Jackson State playing Grambling and Southern every year. That would end if every team rotated three non-division conference teams off the schedule every year, which I agree is the best and fair way to do it. Grambling and Southern would play every year because they are in the same division. Jackson State and Alcorn would play every year because they are in the same division. The bottom line is by stopping the mandate each school would probably miss ONE big money game in a two-year period. Jackson State only makes money on the Southern game when its at home and that's every other year. Now, if your school's AD can't find another game to replace a money game that takes place every other year, then you SERIOUSLY need to find a new AD. And if your budget is depended on a game that takes place every other year, then your school SERIOUSLY needs to consider Division II sports.
bluedog
"Leader of Kings"
As if this is rocket science. 
These issues were already address before the nine game mandate all that need to be changed is having seven conference games count instead of four.
Yes some teams will not play each other except every other year or two (same as the SEC) but that's as good as it gets. Alot of folks wanted it and now it's about to happen and some of you who wanted it so bad your schools is going to have to man up and not expect the Big 3 to carry you over the hump.
These issues were already address before the nine game mandate all that need to be changed is having seven conference games count instead of four.Yes some teams will not play each other except every other year or two (same as the SEC) but that's as good as it gets. Alot of folks wanted it and now it's about to happen and some of you who wanted it so bad your schools is going to have to man up and not expect the Big 3 to carry you over the hump.
mighty hornet
The HMIC!!
using your JSU and SU example, what is the team that JSU can readily get to replace that gameMr. Tiger said:
and TP,
You didn't say anything NEW than what has already been posted, so stop thinking you did something earth shattering. You didn't.
:lol:
Da_Sperm
New Member
bluedog said:
Its not that people expect the Big 3 to carry them over the hump, its the Big 3 wanting EACH OTHER. Who outside of GSU & SU in the West really demands that JSU is on their schedule EVERY YEAR? Who outside of JSU & Alcorn demands that SU & GSU has to be on their schedule every year?
Its not about being fair, its simply about doing what makes sense. Play 7 SWAC teams, you have 7 SWAC conference games. Play 8 SWAC teams, you have 8 SWAC conference games. Play 9 SWAC teams, you have 9 SWAC conference games.
SUjagTILLiDIE
Well-Known Member
Which one of those teams are gonna put 50,000 plus in memorial.Da_Sperm said:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
mighty hornet said:
That's it MH, we don't HAVE to replace the SU game. SU is an every other year game. I would take a trip to the CCC or a two year deal for Detroit/Chicago and we would not fall that short of the SU revenue. We won't die because of the loss. In fact, in 2001, it rained...no stormed and we only drew 30K for the SU game....we are still here!! We can live two years without SU and they can live 2 years without us.
Also, I did not intend to say anything earth shattering. I just wanted to put things back in perspective before people who belong on smalltalk make this a 20 page thread. We only have two solutions. We can debate those but that other stuff is rubbish.
Sperm,
TxSo, PV and UAPB may not sell out when JSU or Alcorn come to town but I bet we put more butts in the seat than a BAMA or Valley.
- Status