Sports Network Ranks All D1AA Football Teams


Status
Not open for further replies.
JROCK said:
I disagree with the above ascertion. The coaches that are commanding high salaries (ie...Pete Richardson) is putting a product on the field that his target market is interested in. That is the reason that butts are in the seats and television contracts are being made. Just because Mr. Charlie tells you that it is not a good product doesn't make it so. The programs that are under achieving (i.e. Jackson St) are paying their coaches commensurate with the product that is being put on the field. The bigger question is why is the money not being re-invested in the program to the extent that facilities for the student athletes are better and to further enhance the product.
Click to expand...

We can just agree to disagree. Most SWAC coaches are being paid well enough for fans to expect consistent wins against non-conference teams with smaller budgets.

There's no conspiracy theory here. You win and you get decent rankings.
 
CATMENDUE2 said:
When 1AA teams outside of the SWAC call the Gram, SU, JSU and ALBST to play on a regular basis as they do for MVSU, ALcorn, TSU and PV then things will change. PWC's only plays SWAC's lower five because they know they can win and they don't have to return the game. Grambling has attempted many times to arrange games OOC and we all know what happened. Actually Grambling's record against the Southland is actually pretty damn good and so is Southern's.

Who says who calls who about playing? I also don't believe these schools only play the bottom of the pack teams. Bear in mind also that these are not always top of the heap PWCs.

BTW, vs. the Southland, Grambling is 1-3 and Southern is 7-13. If you call that pretty good, well then I guess it is.

It amazes me that OOC teams plays our weak sisters and beat the hell out of the them, but it dosent seem to alter the their conference strengths. If the the big Three or Four teams in SWAC played any 1AA conference weak sisters on a regular basis, it quite reasonable to believe that their strengths would start to fall also.

Again, see below.

Elite PWC's quite frankly, don't wont to travel to HBCU and if anyone here is dumb enough to believe anything other than that :mrt:
Click to expand...

This is a myth IMO. Perhaps in the 60s or 70s, but not today.

Here is every game ever played between SWAC teams and I-AA PWCs. Both teams must have been in I-AA for the game to be listed.

Alabama A&M 1-3 (.250)
99 Jacksonville St. W, 37-20
00 Troy L, 13-28
02 Jacksonville St. L, 17-20
03 Jacksonville St. L, 3-9

Alabama St. 3-8 (.273)
93 Troy L, 3-38
94 UAB W, 27-24
94 Troy L, 27-49
95 UAB W, 13-3
95 Troy L, 10-28
96 Troy L, 6-37
97 Troy L, 13-20
98 Troy L, 0-26
99 Troy L, 20-27
00 Troy L, 19-62
02 Chattanooga W, 41-23

Alcorn St. 9-26-1 (.264)
82 Northwestern St. L, 7-28
83 Northwestern St. W, 24-20
84 Louisiana Tech L, 21-44
86 Stephen F. Austin L, 12-29
87 Nicholls St. L, 3-14
88 Middle Tenn. W, 21-19
88 Lamar L, 6-35
89 Lamar W, 32-16
89 Missouri St. L, 19-59
90 North Texas L, 7-20
90 Missouri St. L, 0-38
92 Sam Houston St. L, 27-28
92 La.-Monroe L, 27-78
93 Sam Houston St. W, 31-24
93 Troy L, 21-63
94 Chattanooga W, 54-28
94 Sam Houston St. L, 23-48
94 Samford T, 45-45
94 Troy W, 47-44
94 Youngstown St. L, 20-63
95 Sam Houston St. L, 7-44
95 Samford L, 9-20
96 Troy L, 7-61
96 Western Ill. L, 17-34
96 Samford L, 13-14
97 Troy L, 0-30
97 Western Ill. L, 17-31
97 Samford L, 16-21
00 McNeese St. L, 12-41
01 McNeese St. L, 14-54
01 Samford W, 17-7
01 Cal Poly L, 12-21
02 Samford L, 25-34
03 Stephen F. Austin L, 7-60
03 Southeastern La. W, 27-24
04 Southeastern La. W, 33-27

Ark.-Pine Bluff 0-0 (.000)

Grambling 3-6 (.333)
80 Boise St. L, 9-14
82 Nicholls St. W, 33-15
84 Boston U. L, 9-16
85 Arkansas St. L, 7-10
89 Stephen F. Austin L, 56-59
01 Portland St. W, 30-29
01 Nicholls St. W, 37-28
02 McNeese St. L, 20-52
03 McNeese St. L, 20-31

Jackson St. 7-21 (.250)
79 Eastern Ky. L, 21-27
80 Southeastern La. L, 16-17
81 Southeastern La. W, 51-14
81 Boise St. L, 7-19
82 Nicholls St. L, 17-21
82 Southeastern La. W, 30-13
82 Eastern Ill. L, 10-16
83 Nicholls St. W, 27-20
83 Southeastern La. L, 7-9
85 Ga. Southern L, 0-27
86 Missouri St. L, 6-10
87 Northwestern St. L, 24-26
87 Arkansas St. L, 32-35
88 Northwestern St. W, 21-16
88 Stephen F. Austin L, 0-24
89 Stephen F. Austin L, 28-41
89 Northwestern St. W, 27-14
89 Montana L, 7-48
90 Stephen F. Austin W, 39-30
90 Northwestern St. L, 24-31
90 Middle Tenn. L, 7-28
91 Stephen F. Austin W, 31-16
92 Stephen F. Austin L, 26-41
95 Marshall L, 8-38
96 William & Mary L, 6-45
97 Western Ill. L, 24-31
03 Northwestern St. L, 7-23
04 Northwestern St. L, 20-28

Mississippi Val. 0-12 (.000)
84 Louisiana Tech L, 19-66
87 Middle Tenn. L, 7-38
88 Middle Tenn. L, 3-40
93 UAB L, 13-30
94 UAB L, 14-24
96 Chattanooga L, 7-26
98 Nicholls St. L, 26-41
99 Western Ill. L, 7-77
00 Chattanooga L, 17-72
01 Sam Houston St. L, 13-68
02 Sam Houston St. L, 7-45
04 Southeastern La. L, 17-33

Prairie View 0-15-1 (.031)
85 Lamar L, 7-30
86 McNeese St. L, 24-57
86 Stephen F. Austin L, 14-46
87 Stephen F. Austin T, 13-13
88 Stephen F. Austin L, 3-38
89 Texas St. L, 0-41
91 Missouri St. L, 0-61
91 Texas St. L, 6-59
92 Texas St. L, 7-56
93 UAB L, 12-58
94 UAB L, 6-48
00 McNeese St. L, 0-41
00 Illinois St. L, 0-64
00 Northern Iowa L, 14-60
01 McNeese St. L, 0-56
03 Southeastern La. L, 10-64

Southern U. 13-22 (.371)
80 Nevada L, 0-20
80 Nicholls St. W, 48-0
81 Nicholls St. L, 14-56
81 Southeastern La. L, 27-28
82 Nicholls St. L, 14-26
82 Southeastern La. W, 26-19
83 Nicholls St. W, 21-20
84 Nicholls St. L, 26-43
85 Nicholls St. W, 25-22
86 Nicholls St. L, 10-17
87 Nicholls St. L, 21-27
87 Missouri St. W, 8-6
88 Nicholls St. L, 0-24
89 Nicholls St. W, 31-28
90 Nicholls St. L, 19-23
91 Nicholls St. L, 7-21
92 Nicholls St. L, 24-27
93 Northwestern St. W, 30-13
93 Nicholls St. L, 14-28
94 Northwestern St. W, 20-0
94 Nicholls St. L, 14-20
95 Northwestern St. W, 13-7
95 Nicholls St. W, 41-3
96 Northwestern St. L, 10-27
96 Nicholls St. L, 0-14
97 Northwestern St. W, 27-9
97 Nicholls St. W, 21-14
98 Northwestern St. L, 7-28
99 Northwestern St. W, 20-13
00 Northwestern St. L, 20-31
01 Northwestern St. L, 21-30
02 Northwestern St. L, 20-30
02 Nicholls St. L, 13-21
04 McNeese St. L, 17-35
04 South Dakota St. L, 24-31

Texas Southern 4-28 (.125)
80 Southeastern La. L, 6-47
81 Southeastern La. L, 24-31
81 Nicholls St. L, 27-31
82 Nicholls St. L, 6-14
82 Lamar L, 17-28
82 Southeastern La. L, 0-31
83 Lamar W, 15-14
83 Southeastern La. L, 7-20
84 Lamar W, 13-7
85 Lamar L, 20-32
86 Sam Houston St. L, 28-38
87 Sam Houston St. L, 7-45
88 Sam Houston St. L, 7-22
88 Texas St. L, 7-38
88 Nicholls St. L, 13-26
89 Sam Houston St. L, 20-28
89 Texas St. L, 17-34
90 Sam Houston St. W, 20-15
90 Texas St. L, 9-32
90 UCF L, 6-63
91 Sam Houston St. L, 6-37
91 Texas St. L, 29-31
92 Texas St. L, 34-39
94 Sam Houston St. L, 0-31
95 Sam Houston St. L, 13-24
96 Sam Houston St. W, 26-20
97 Sam Houston St. L, 7-40
99 Missouri St. L, 7-37
02 Texas St. L, 10-17
03 Nicholls St. L, 5-64
04 Northwestern St. L, 6-52
04 Nicholls St. L, 6-21

Totals 40-141-1 (.223)
 



:smug:
PNeck019 said:
This is a myth IMO. Perhaps in the 60s or 70s, but not today.

Here is every game ever played between SWAC teams and I-AA PWCs. Both teams must have been in I-AA for the game to be listed.

Alabama A&M 1-3 (.250)
99 Jacksonville St. W, 37-20
00 Troy L, 13-28
02 Jacksonville St. L, 17-20
03 Jacksonville St. L, 3-9

Alabama St. 3-8 (.273)
93 Troy L, 3-38
94 UAB W, 27-24
94 Troy L, 27-49
95 UAB W, 13-3
95 Troy L, 10-28
96 Troy L, 6-37
97 Troy L, 13-20
98 Troy L, 0-26
99 Troy L, 20-27
00 Troy L, 19-62
02 Chattanooga W, 41-23

Alcorn St. 9-26-1 (.264)
82 Northwestern St. L, 7-28
83 Northwestern St. W, 24-20
84 Louisiana Tech L, 21-44
86 Stephen F. Austin L, 12-29
87 Nicholls St. L, 3-14
88 Middle Tenn. W, 21-19
88 Lamar L, 6-35
89 Lamar W, 32-16
89 Missouri St. L, 19-59
90 North Texas L, 7-20
90 Missouri St. L, 0-38
92 Sam Houston St. L, 27-28
92 La.-Monroe L, 27-78
93 Sam Houston St. W, 31-24
93 Troy L, 21-63
94 Chattanooga W, 54-28
94 Sam Houston St. L, 23-48
94 Samford T, 45-45
94 Troy W, 47-44
94 Youngstown St. L, 20-63
95 Sam Houston St. L, 7-44
95 Samford L, 9-20
96 Troy L, 7-61
96 Western Ill. L, 17-34
96 Samford L, 13-14
97 Troy L, 0-30
97 Western Ill. L, 17-31
97 Samford L, 16-21
00 McNeese St. L, 12-41
01 McNeese St. L, 14-54
01 Samford W, 17-7
01 Cal Poly L, 12-21
02 Samford L, 25-34
03 Stephen F. Austin L, 7-60
03 Southeastern La. W, 27-24
04 Southeastern La. W, 33-27

Ark.-Pine Bluff 0-0 (.000)

Grambling 3-6 (.333)
80 Boise St. L, 9-14
82 Nicholls St. W, 33-15
84 Boston U. L, 9-16
85 Arkansas St. L, 7-10
89 Stephen F. Austin L, 56-59
01 Portland St. W, 30-29
01 Nicholls St. W, 37-28
02 McNeese St. L, 20-52
03 McNeese St. L, 20-31

Jackson St. 7-21 (.250)
79 Eastern Ky. L, 21-27
80 Southeastern La. L, 16-17
81 Southeastern La. W, 51-14
81 Boise St. L, 7-19
82 Nicholls St. L, 17-21
82 Southeastern La. W, 30-13
82 Eastern Ill. L, 10-16
83 Nicholls St. W, 27-20
83 Southeastern La. L, 7-9
85 Ga. Southern L, 0-27
86 Missouri St. L, 6-10
87 Northwestern St. L, 24-26
87 Arkansas St. L, 32-35
88 Northwestern St. W, 21-16
88 Stephen F. Austin L, 0-24
89 Stephen F. Austin L, 28-41
89 Northwestern St. W, 27-14
89 Montana L, 7-48
90 Stephen F. Austin W, 39-30
90 Northwestern St. L, 24-31
90 Middle Tenn. L, 7-28
91 Stephen F. Austin W, 31-16
92 Stephen F. Austin L, 26-41
95 Marshall L, 8-38
96 William & Mary L, 6-45
97 Western Ill. L, 24-31
03 Northwestern St. L, 7-23
04 Northwestern St. L, 20-28

Mississippi Val. 0-12 (.000)
84 Louisiana Tech L, 19-66
87 Middle Tenn. L, 7-38
88 Middle Tenn. L, 3-40
93 UAB L, 13-30
94 UAB L, 14-24
96 Chattanooga L, 7-26
98 Nicholls St. L, 26-41
99 Western Ill. L, 7-77
00 Chattanooga L, 17-72
01 Sam Houston St. L, 13-68
02 Sam Houston St. L, 7-45
04 Southeastern La. L, 17-33

Prairie View 0-15-1 (.031)
85 Lamar L, 7-30
86 McNeese St. L, 24-57
86 Stephen F. Austin L, 14-46
87 Stephen F. Austin T, 13-13
88 Stephen F. Austin L, 3-38
89 Texas St. L, 0-41
91 Missouri St. L, 0-61
91 Texas St. L, 6-59
92 Texas St. L, 7-56
93 UAB L, 12-58
94 UAB L, 6-48
00 McNeese St. L, 0-41
00 Illinois St. L, 0-64
00 Northern Iowa L, 14-60
01 McNeese St. L, 0-56
03 Southeastern La. L, 10-64

Southern U. 13-22 (.371)
80 Nevada L, 0-20
80 Nicholls St. W, 48-0
81 Nicholls St. L, 14-56
81 Southeastern La. L, 27-28
82 Nicholls St. L, 14-26
82 Southeastern La. W, 26-19
83 Nicholls St. W, 21-20
84 Nicholls St. L, 26-43
85 Nicholls St. W, 25-22
86 Nicholls St. L, 10-17
87 Nicholls St. L, 21-27
87 Missouri St. W, 8-6
88 Nicholls St. L, 0-24
89 Nicholls St. W, 31-28
90 Nicholls St. L, 19-23
91 Nicholls St. L, 7-21
92 Nicholls St. L, 24-27
93 Northwestern St. W, 30-13
93 Nicholls St. L, 14-28
94 Northwestern St. W, 20-0
94 Nicholls St. L, 14-20
95 Northwestern St. W, 13-7
95 Nicholls St. W, 41-3
96 Northwestern St. L, 10-27
96 Nicholls St. L, 0-14
97 Northwestern St. W, 27-9
97 Nicholls St. W, 21-14
98 Northwestern St. L, 7-28
99 Northwestern St. W, 20-13
00 Northwestern St. L, 20-31
01 Northwestern St. L, 21-30
02 Northwestern St. L, 20-30
02 Nicholls St. L, 13-21
04 McNeese St. L, 17-35
04 South Dakota St. L, 24-31

Texas Southern 4-28 (.125)
80 Southeastern La. L, 6-47
81 Southeastern La. L, 24-31
81 Nicholls St. L, 27-31
82 Nicholls St. L, 6-14
82 Lamar L, 17-28
82 Southeastern La. L, 0-31
83 Lamar W, 15-14
83 Southeastern La. L, 7-20
84 Lamar W, 13-7
85 Lamar L, 20-32
86 Sam Houston St. L, 28-38
87 Sam Houston St. L, 7-45
88 Sam Houston St. L, 7-22
88 Texas St. L, 7-38
88 Nicholls St. L, 13-26
89 Sam Houston St. L, 20-28
89 Texas St. L, 17-34
90 Sam Houston St. W, 20-15
90 Texas St. L, 9-32
90 UCF L, 6-63
91 Sam Houston St. L, 6-37
91 Texas St. L, 29-31
92 Texas St. L, 34-39
94 Sam Houston St. L, 0-31
95 Sam Houston St. L, 13-24
96 Sam Houston St. W, 26-20
97 Sam Houston St. L, 7-40
99 Missouri St. L, 7-37
02 Texas St. L, 10-17
03 Nicholls St. L, 5-64
04 Northwestern St. L, 6-52
04 Nicholls St. L, 6-21

Totals 40-141-1 (.223)
Click to expand...

I can only speaks for Grambling. Out of those nine game you posted how many was at Robinson? BSU was the eventual National Champ, GSU was the No. 1 Seed playing on the road. MSU was rank Number 1 both times and bearly escape Robinson Stadium in a last minute win. If put in positions to lose, thats what usually happens. Until the GA So. and Montana's play our top teams they cant make any claims and they never will play us as long as we insist on Home and Home. :(

Those Southland teams in Texas, don't cross the border unless they are headed to Mississippi to play MVSU. Those Texas teams wasn't beating the top teams in the Southland either. So explain strength to me in a six team league where only MSU and Northwestern rules. Outside of the Southland the invitations come from teams that are out to make a bucks and pad the their stats against our weak teams. Location has a lot to do with who win and loses. In a lot of those 2 and 3 point games lost, home field would have made a big difference in my opinion. :(
 
L, Grambling doesn't play hardly any games at all in Robinson, nevermind non-conference ones.

Statistically, the top teams in a conference should have well above .500 records in non-conference games. That's clearly not the case here. If I were to do the same type analysis of the Big Sky, Montana would have probably a .900 winning percentage.

The idea that some folks can see that the best winning percentage here is .371 and not acknowledge that the SWAC is behind these other leagues competitively is astounding to me.
 
PNeck019 said:
L, Grambling doesn't play hardly any games at all in Robinson, nevermind non-conference ones.

Statistically, the top teams in a conference should have well above .500 records in non-conference games. That's clearly not the case here. If I were to do the same type analysis of the Big Sky, Montana would have probably a .900 winning percentage.

The idea that some folks can see that the best winning percentage here is .371 and not acknowledge that the SWAC is behind these other leagues competitively is astounding to me.
Click to expand...

I didn't really expect an answer to my question. I bet Montana don't go on the road in the first round, as a Number 1 seed either. I guess other 1AA non conference games don't matter, If we aint playing the white boys we aint playing the best, thats all I'm hearing you say. Comparing the SWAC to the Southland aint saying nothing to me, ULM was the last member of that conference to win anything. Why don't you do an analysis of Grambling OOC record against all 1AA since we only play 11 games a year, and we can only play those that sign on the dotted line. I can assure you Grambling isn't ducking any of them, I will also assure you that none of those elite PWC's will venture into Robinson on any regular basis. I really don't see your beef, the SWAC being rated don't really mean a hill of beans, until they lineup and play us, nobody knows shat. A whole group of compilations only speak of the past.

The only beef these pollsters have with the SWAC is the playoffs, when we played in the playoffs they weren't fair and they won't be in the future, if you think I'm joking (see SCSU last year) they had two loses one Wofford and one to Hampton, I believe they were both playoff teams. However, they found approximately six PWC's with 8-3 records, some that probably lost to Wofford and seated them. There was a couple of 7-4 teams made it too. I hope Grambling continues to play 1A PWC's, cause it a waste of time playing 1AA PWC's, we have nothing to gain or and really nothing to prove. :shame:
 
There was only one game in the Grambling list that was a bad game (McNeese 2002). Every other game was a one score and we win type game. Don't act like Grambling was getting killed. Four of the nine games you posted were playoff games on the road and we lost by 4 points or less. Please save the competitive mess for someone else. Grambling is always competitive. We just don't play PWCs often. So, it is what it is.

I could care less what the Southland's record against Valley, TxSo, or PV. It is the same record that everyone else has against them, too. If they think that is something they should brag about then let them celebrate. Congrats...
 
GRAM4LIFE said:
I could care less what the Southland's record against Valley, TxSo, or PV. It is the same record that everyone else has against them, too. If they think that is something they should brag about then let them celebrate. Congrats...
Click to expand...

Preach bruh...preach!!! :bowdown:
 
According to these numbers and the numbers posted on the MEACFANS site in regards to their games against PWC Division I AA programs. We only have one HBCU (1 of 21 or 5%) program with a winning percentage above .500 (50%), Hampton at 60%. We do not have any other even at 40%.

Shaking My Head!!
 
Jafus (Thinker) said:
According to these numbers and the numbers posted on the MEACFANS site in regards to their games against PWC Division I AA programs. We only have one HBCU (1 of 21 or 5%) program with a winning percentage above .500 (50%), Hampton at 60%. We do not have any other even at 40%.

Shaking My Head!!
Click to expand...


Would the PWC's love us more if we had three teams with a 100% winning percentage. FAMU won the first championship, oh well. :xeye: :dizzy:
 
Jag Voice said:
We can just agree to disagree. Most SWAC coaches are being paid well enough for fans to expect consistent wins against non-conference teams with smaller budgets.

There's no conspiracy theory here. You win and you get decent rankings.
Click to expand...

I will agree to disagree with you also. I don't know where you get the conspiracy comment from though. Mr. Charlie told some of you all that the SWAC has an inferior product and just like steppin fetchin some of you all cosign that nonsense. All of I-AA is competing in a remedial classification and the SWAC has a better total package than everyone else. The W/L record against out of conference foes are inconsequential relating to success

And I keep on seeing these W/L records after the white man Indian treaty that developed the sub classification of I-AA. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that the player demographics started changing after the attack on the SWAC brand in particular and HBCU football in general. That ain't no conspiracy but facts. Some of you all don't want to hear it, but I'm the one that will tell it. Some of you all need to do some research on what precipitated the coup detat of BCF, Vince Dooley's and college football blue bloods move to alienate and split up D-1 because of the disenchantment of sharing television time in addition to the plan to monopolize the elite black athlete; then get back with me. I will close in telling you that most of I-AA doesn?t have a following because they have no pedigree or brand and have only been the benefactor of an altered college football landscape. Yes they are now recruiting the left over as we are but no one wants to see that mess of a package that they give to the customer. They have no conception on how to market the remedial product that they too in fact put on the gridiron. Your traditional SWAC athletes are playing in the SEC and only an idiot would not know that the SWAC took the biggest hit when the sub classification was implemented. The majority of the underlings that are in I-AA have been getting sub par athletes since their inception. And yes as far as brand, tradition and pedigree they are beneath the SWAC. Will the SWAC ever recover from what is now history; I doubt it. All of this I-AA flexing does not move me. I know who they are, where they came from, how they are in the position that they are in today and why they currently beg for games with SWAC membership. When the playing field was level, all of (including the blue bloods) their punk ?azzes? were running quicker than a Canadian sprinter on steroids.
 
CATMENDUE2 said:
I didn't really expect an answer to my question. I bet Montana don't go on the road in the first round, as a Number 1 seed either. I guess other 1AA non conference games don't matter, If we aint playing the white boys we aint playing the best, thats all I'm hearing you say. Comparing the SWAC to the Southland aint saying nothing to me, ULM was the last member of that conference to win anything. Why don't you do an analysis of Grambling OOC record against all 1AA since we only play 11 games a year, and we can only play those that sign on the dotted line. I can assure you Grambling isn't ducking any of them, I will also assure you that none of those elite PWC's will venture into Robinson on any regular basis. I really don't see your beef, the SWAC being rated don't really mean a hill of beans, until they lineup and play us, nobody knows shat. A whole group of compilations only speak of the past.

The only beef these pollsters have with the SWAC is the playoffs, when we played in the playoffs they weren't fair and they won't be in the future, if you think I'm joking (see SCSU last year) they had two loses one Wofford and one to Hampton, I believe they were both playoff teams. However, they found approximately six PWC's with 8-3 records, some that probably lost to Wofford and seated them. There was a couple of 7-4 teams made it too. I hope Grambling continues to play 1A PWC's, cause it a waste of time playing 1AA PWC's, we have nothing to gain or and really nothing to prove. :shame:
Click to expand...


Some folks will argue just to argue..lol..damn I can't wait till the season...lol

As for Grambling going on the road as the number one seed, I don't know what all went into that, if they bid on the game, etc.

I'll get you that overall non-conference record. Then I'll get you some other teams'.

I'm not saying if you aren't playing the white boys, you aren't playing the best. I'm trying to show that these human polls aren't anti-SWAC or pro-PWC by showing how they stack up on the field.

As for your playoff analysis, you need to check your facts. A 7-4 team has never made the I-AA playoffs as an at-large team. Automatic bids, yes, but not at-larges.

I'm definitely not trying to pick fights. I'm just tired of hearing the "SWAC gets no respect" whenever one of these polls comes out. As Jag Voice said, win some OOC games and the polls will take care of themselves.

I didn't hear anybody saying SI was anti-SWAC a couple of years ago when they ranked Grambling preseason #1. Quite the contrary, I heard a bunch of PWC fans complaining, and, as it turned out, they were correct.
 
CATMENDUE2 said:
Would the PWC's love us more if we had three teams with a 100% winning percentage. FAMU won the first championship, oh well. :xeye: :dizzy:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a matter of people not loving you. I just think some folks on this end have a hard time realizing that this isn't your father's SWAC.
 
This is interesting. The bottom line is them "other" schools be kicking our asses on a regular basis. Don't get mad at PNeck because he is pointing out the facts. When all this whining and excuse making is over, and the dust is settled, they still be kicking our asses ( Oh yes, with Grambling, it was a competivite ass kickings) IF we want that type of respect, we gotta kick their arses a few times, home or away.

As far as high paid coaches, it takes more than that. We don't put the same into facilites as we do into salaries. No matter how good the coach, if Kid A spends 3 years in a "state of the art" wieght room and Kid B spends 3 years with some old arse wieghts set up in a trailer, you tell me who will be on top. You tell me who has a better shot at recruiting the better athlete from the beginning.

I agree with you Pneck, and some folk on here just need to accept it.
 
PNeck019 said:
Some folks will argue just to argue..lol..damn I can't wait till the season...lol

As for Grambling going on the road as the number one seed, I don't know what all went into that, if they bid on the game, etc.

I'll get you that overall non-conference record. Then I'll get you some other teams'.

I'm not saying if you aren't playing the white boys, you aren't playing the best. I'm trying to show that these human polls aren't anti-SWAC or pro-PWC by showing how they stack up on the field.

As for your playoff analysis, you need to check your facts. A 7-4 team has never made the I-AA playoffs as an at-large team. Automatic bids, yes, but not at-larges.

I'm definitely not trying to pick fights. I'm just tired of hearing the "SWAC gets no respect" whenever one of these polls comes out. As Jag Voice said, win some OOC games and the polls will take care of themselves.

I didn't hear anybody saying SI was anti-SWAC a couple of years ago when they ranked Grambling preseason #1. Quite the contrary, I heard a bunch of PWC fans complaining, and, as it turned out, they were correct.
Click to expand...


Pneck I am my father team. You can't explain away what happen to SCSU last year. Further, you eagerly explained 2003 S&S/SI preseason poll as being flawed, but you didn't mention that any of the top preseason teams last year got out the second round in the playoffs. I guess they didn't see that 9-2 record that SCSU finished with last year either. The last I heard you were one of those PWC fans, praying that they didn't stay number one too. :hat:


As for ratings what do they mean. Nothing to anybody in the SWAC, be it # 1 or number 98. I suspect MEAC has seen it last years in the playoffs as well. I know it left a bitter taste in a few peoples mouths.
 



Lewis said:
This is interesting. Oh yes, with Grambling, it was a competivite ass kickings. IF we want that type of respect, we gotta kick their arses a few times, home or away.

I agree with you Pneck, and some folk on here just need to accept it.
Click to expand...

The last time I looked, I didn't see any PWC's chomping at the bits to come into the SWAC to play home and home against Grambling. If we travel they will play, heck with that mentality we ought to be playing in the twenty second century.

Except what? If they had approved the 12 games mandate we wouldn't be trying to arrange a game with NWST, we would be signing the contract.
 
I don't post in this forum much but I couldn't help but laugh at some of this foolishness. The stats have been presented clear and plain as day. The SWAC as a whole is not beating outside teams. And if you say they're the cellar dwellers of their conferences then thats worse because we are still losing.

Theres no point in complaining about the rankings if the statistics confirm them.
 
As JROCK Alluded too:

Three changes in the environment in the late 1960?s and the 1970?s, both with negative implications for the MEAC, SWAC, and HBCU in general would make continued success increasingly difficult.

First, the SWAC, MEAC, and HBCU in general began to lose its ability to keep up with rival state-supported Predominately White Colleges (PWC). Huge and large enrollment increases at PWC and integration of PWC created giant advantages in recruiting and other revenue sources.

The practices of having separate offensive and defensive players and the growing importance of expensive training facilities exacerbated this scale difference leaving MEAC, SWAC, and HCBU institutions in general at a considerable disadvantage. Top tier African American students athletes started to trickle a way, and then left in droves as the flood-gates open in terms of integration of PWC.

Second the invasion and formation of professional sports in the South as well as the popularity and integration of professional sports. Additional, fans began to trickle away.

Third the University of Georgia and the University of Oklahoma lawsuit against the NCAA for individual ownership of broadcast rights gave additional exposure and popularity to the stated-supported PWC and their respective conferences.

But, as much as I am a pragmatist, I am also a realist and I must add those records against PWC NCAA Division I-AA programs speak loudly for themselves. I believe the problem lies with our inability to successfully generate or at least gain access to additional revenue sources consistently over any said period of time as compared to our NCAA Division I-AA counterparts.
 
Posted by PNeck019,

Here are all those games I mentioned earlier:

Bethune-Cookman 4-18 (18%)
84 Ga. Southern L, 33-43
85 Ga. Southern L, 24-46
86 Ga. Southern L, 31-52
87 Ga. Southern L, 13-14
88 Ga. Southern L, 14-38
90 UCF L, 9-42
91 UCF L, 6-32
92 UCF L, 3-28
92 Samford L, 13-42
93 Samford L, 10-27
93 UCF L, 14-34
94 UCF L, 17-48
95 Chattanooga L, 6-35
95 UCF L, 7-38
96 Valparaiso W, 28-23
01 Fla. Atlantic L, 28-31
02 Fla. Atlantic W, 30-17
02 Fla. International W, 31-0
02 Ga. Southern L, 0-34
03 Fla. International W, 24-14
03 Fla. Atlantic L, 24-32

Delaware St. 19-41-1 (31%)
80 Massachusetts L, 0-39
80 Portland St. L, 0-105
81 Eastern Ill. L, 16-24
82 Northeastern W, 15-7
83 James Madison W, 38-28
83 Northeastern T, 21-21
84 Northeastern W, 35-0
84 James Madison L, 19-20
85 Northern Iowa L, 17-37
85 Connecticut W, 24-14
85 Northeastern W, 36-6
86 Boston U. W, 30-9
86 Connecticut W, 32-31
86 Northeastern L, 24-37
87 Boise St. L, 13-34
87 Towson W, 40-17
88 Eastern Ky. L, 7-48
88 Towson L, 3-24
88 Western Ill. L, 13-22
89 Eastern Ky. L, 13-48
89 Northeastern W, 11-3
89 Western Ill. L, 24-38
89 Towson L, 17-35
90 Northeastern W, 43-16
90 Towson W, 24-13
90 Liberty W, 38-37
91 Youngstown St. W, 33-29
91 Towson W, 13-7
91 Liberty L, 9-20
91 Northeastern W, 46-20
92 Youngstown St. L, 20-42
92 Towson W, 27-13
92 Liberty L, 27-49
93 Towson L, 14-31
93 Youngstown St. L, 28-42
93 Liberty L, 43-47
94 Youngstown St. L, 3-26
94 Towson L, 18-42
94 Liberty W, 22-17
94 Rhode Island W, 28-26
95 Rhode Island L, 14-17
95 Western Ill. L, 14-41
95 Liberty L, 19-48
96 Liberty L, 7-27
97 Buffalo L, 30-40
97 Liberty L, 17-33
98 Hofstra L, 0-68
98 Liberty L, 21-53
99 Elon L, 28-51
99 Bucknell L, 28-38
99 Hofstra L, 14-58
00 Elon L, 6-45
00 Liberty W, 42-25
01 Liberty L, 7-34
02 Northwestern St. L, 14-34
02 Bucknell L, 13-27
03 Bucknell L, 28-33
03 Northwestern St. L, 6-43
04 Massachusetts L, 0-51
04 Elon L, 13-49
04 Southern Ill. L, 0-49

Florida A&M 9-16 (36%)
78 Massachusetts W, 35-28
79 Rhode Island W, 16-6
81 Murray St. L, 11-14
81 Rhode Island W, 41-6
83 Eastern Ky. W, 35-10
84 Ga. Southern L, 0-14
84 Eastern Ky. L, 14-21
85 Ga. Southern L, 21-27
85 Youngstown St. L, 21-28
86 Ga. Southern L, 12-35
87 Ga. Southern W, 17-14
88 Ga. Southern L, 14-42
89 Ga. Southern L, 0-28
91 Ga. Southern L, 21-28
92 Ga. Southern W, 28-17
96 Troy L, 25-29
97 Ga. Southern L, 37-52
98 Troy W, 27-17
98 Western Ill. L, 21-24
99 Appalachian St. W, 44-29
99 Troy W, 17-10
99 Youngstown St. L, 24-27
00 Western Ky. L, 0-27
01 Ga. Southern L, 35-60
04 Nicholls St. L, 25-42

HAMPTON 6-10 (60%)
97 William & Mary L, 6-31
97 Liberty W, 33-27
97 Youngstown St. L, 13-28
98 Liberty W, 21-0
98 William & Mary L, 34-41
98 Connecticut L, 34-42
00 New Hampshire L, 17-31
00 Southern Utah W, 42-34
01 New Hampshire L, 29-45
01 Rhode Island L, 7-56
02 James Madison W, 31-28
02 Missouri St. L, 26-28
03 Villanova L, 6-41
04 Western Ill. W, 40-20
04 Gardner-Webb W, 48-25
04 William & Mary L, 35-42

Howard 3-19 (14%)
81 Western Ill. L, 17-20
82 Maine L, 15-38
82 Western Ill. L, 17-22
83 Bucknell L, 0-12
84 Rhode Island L, 21-31
84 Maine L, 23-27
85 Maine L, 12-35
85 Rhode Island L, 0-46
86 Maine L, 12-38
87 Towson L, 14-30
88 Towson L, 28-31
90 Towson L, 7-17
91 Towson L, 7-13
93 Towson W, 44-41
93 Marshall L, 14-28
94 Towson W, 19-13
96 Marshall L, 27-55
99 Towson L, 33-49
00 Maine L, 21-38
00 Towson L, 6-38
02 Maine L, 12-42
04 Charleston Sou. W, 24-6

Morgan St. 7-27 (21%)
87 Towson L, 10-39
88 Northern Iowa L, 10-59
89 Youngstown St. L, 22-45
90 Morehead St. L, 0-47
91 Youngstown St. L, 22-57
91 Northern Iowa L, 6-56
91 Western Ill. L, 6-44
92 Liberty L, 27-55
92 Western Ill. L, 13-63
93 Charleston Sou. W, 54-20
93 Youngstown St. L, 27-56
93 Towson L, 12-56
94 Charleston Sou. W, 31-29
94 Samford L, 34-40
94 Towson L, 7-42
95 James Madison L, 7-76
95 Liberty L, 17-48
95 Samford L, 24-35
96 Liberty W, 34-28
98 Towson L, 10-15
98 Buffalo L, 17-35
98 Samford L, 12-13
99 Bucknell L, 10-37
99 Rhode Island W, 24-21
99 Towson W, 28-22
00 Towson L, 7-31
00 Western Ill. L, 17-73
01 Towson L, 17-20
02 Gardner-Webb L, 24-28
02 Towson L, 7-14
02 Monmouth W, 35-20
03 Towson W, 19-16
03 Maine L, 24-77
04 Gardner-Webb L, 49-56

Norfolk St. 0-5 (0%)
97 Liberty L, 6-17
98 Liberty L, 12-45
00 Villanova L, 0-42
03 VMI L, 9-34
03 Liberty L, 21-69

N.C. A&T 10-16 38%
86 Appalachian St. L, 9-55
86 Ga. Southern L, 21-52
87 Western Caro. L, 34-55
87 Western Ky. L, 27-45
88 Western Caro. L, 10-45
88 Western Ky. L, 0-44
90 Western Caro. W, 40-19
90 Liberty L, 24-45
91 East Tenn. St. W, 38-13
92 Liberty W, 35-32
92 Appalachian St. L, 6-42
92 Citadel L, 0-44
93 Appalachian St. W, 22-10
93 Western Caro. W, 34-7
93 Liberty W, 38-30
94 Appalachian St. L, 0-45
95 Appalachian St. L, 31-38
99 Elon L, 7-40
99 Youngstown St. L, 3-41
00 Elon L, 0-13
01 Elon W, 23-7
02 Portland St. L, 20-23
02 Elon W, 34-20
03 Elon W, 29-14
03 Wofford L, 10-31
04 Elon W, 19-17

South Carolina St. 12-29 (29%)
81 Eastern Ky. L, 0-26
81 Idaho St. L, 12-41
82 Eastern Ky. L, 19-20
82 Davidson W, 24-7
82 Furman W, 17-0
82 Louisiana Tech L, 3-38
83 Furman W, 13-3
83 Davidson W, 19-7
84 Furman L, 10-28
84 Appalachian St. L, 0-24
85 Murray St. L, 21-35
85 Furman L, 31-38
85 Ga. Southern L, 30-43
86 Furman L, 7-34
86 Ga. Southern L, 7-28
87 Furman L, 7-25
87 Ga. Southern L, 13-30
88 Furman L, 0-38
88 Ga. Southern L, 0-53
89 Furman L, 7-17
89 Citadel L, 20-31
90 Furman L, 7-24
93 Charleston Sou. W, 44-10
94 Furman L, 21-26
94 Charleston Sou. W, 37-0
95 Ga. Southern L, 12-27
95 Furman W, 27-21
95 Charleston Sou. W, 36-8
96 Ga. Southern L, 14-28
96 Furman L, 13-27
97 Charleston Sou. W, 13-12
97 Furman W, 17-6
98 Charleston Sou. W, 17-7
98 Furman L, 19-27
99 Charleston Sou. W, 20-14
99 Citadel L, 14-20
00 Citadel L, 16-45
01 Citadel L, 8-31
02 Wofford L, 6-7
03 Wofford L, 13-35
04 Wofford L, 22-24
 
Actually, Hampton w/l percentage is 37.5%, not 60% according to the stats mentioned in this thread. 6 and 10, not 6 out of 10.

Let truth be told, lately our non-conference record is not as high as we would want regardless who it is.....pwc or hbcu. besides grambling (i think), who has a winning % agnst. the meac schools?
 
Prairie View 0-15-1 (.031)
85 Lamar L, 7-30
86 McNeese St. L, 24-57
86 Stephen F. Austin L, 14-46
87 Stephen F. Austin T, 13-13
88 Stephen F. Austin L, 3-38
89 Texas St. L, 0-41
91 Missouri St. L, 0-61
91 Texas St. L, 6-59
92 Texas St. L, 7-56
93 UAB L, 12-58
94 UAB L, 6-48
00 McNeese St. L, 0-41
00 Illinois St. L, 0-64
00 Northern Iowa L, 14-60
01 McNeese St. L, 0-56
03 Southeastern La. L, 10-64
Click to expand...

No mas! No mas!

The SWAC has STUNK w/ regards to OOC competition. Period.
 
PV's 2000 out-of-conference schedule was hell!!!!!!!!!

Who in the SWAC could have had a winning season agnst. those teams????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top