No I want us to go there, compete, and win championships. Those records actually support my argument. We quit the playoffs because we were getting our azzes kicked. Instead of raising our level of play we ran like a batch. Plain and simple. That damn money excuse is a damn lie. Oh well. I'm done.
You're forgetting something. When the SWAC was still participating in the playoffs it was only 8 teams, and 3 of them (ASU, SU, GSU) were automatically disqualified from participating in them. That only left 5 teams who could go. Most of the time we were rarely sending our best teams to participate in the (then) D-1AA playoffs. Also, I've always faulted the D-1AA/FCS committee for creating this burden on the SWAC, and not moving the playoffs back a week to accommodate a fellow NCAA conference member with 3 teams who have
HISTORICALLY played their classic games on Thanksgiving week(end). What's the real harm to the FCS playoffs in doing that? The D-1AA powers knew this, but said to hell with your
TRADITION we are playing 1st round of the playoffs on Thanksgiving weekend. Now keep in mind, FBS is still in regular season that week so what the D-1AA powers decided on was unorthodox to say the least. Also, that decision proved that the SWAC's best-interest was not even considered by the D-1AA committees, nor was the SWAC even brought to the table in forming the D-1AA playoffs.
Enter UAPB ('98) and AAMU ('99), now the SWAC has 10 teams, and is
ELIGIBLE to hold a conference championship by NCAA bylaws. A post-season game is just a way for a university to make more money.
THAT'S IT! That's why you have 30+ bowl games now in the FBS ranks. There was never a true champion in the BCS era. It was always sportswriters who decided. Nothing about competition, but I digress... Since the D-1AA committee was refusing to accommodate the SWAC all those prior years, that brought about the formation of the SCG. A game where the SWAC took
GUARANTEED profits to split amongst it's member institutions. We also had the Heritage Bowl with the MEAC at the time so us sending our conference champion made sense. The MEAC on the other hand killed the Heritage Bowl by sending their 2nd (or sometimes) 3rd best team to play vs. the SWAC. SWAC folks didn't like it, attendance dropped, and the game folded. The MEAC didn't have the same dilemma the SWAC faced regarding the playoffs. All of their football participating schools were eligible for the D-1AA playoffs. Truthfully, I never faulted the MEAC for doing what they did. They had an opportunity to have 2-3 conference teams in postseason play, which only heightened their exposure, money-making potential, and increased their chances at success... you know, looking out for their best interest.
Today, the MEAC "powers that be" have come to the harsh realization that at the end of the season, after all the championships have been handed out, the only thing that
REALLY MATTERS is "SO HOW MUCH MONEY DID WE MAKE?". Do you seriously think the boys in FBS would have bowl games or a CFP if it didn't make money? Why do you think it took so long for a CFP to be created?
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!! As long as the BCS was making money, why try to fix what fiscally and monetarily ain't broken? That's the reason you see the CFP now, it's been marketed as a playoff system, but it's really just the BCS repackaged with
AN EXTRA GAME! Extra game = more $$$$!
Anyway, economics 101 will teach you when some entity comes to you offering a
GUARANTEED $1,000,000 payout to play a bowl game against another conference foe vs. sending your conference champion to an FCS playoff system where the NCAA takes the majority of the profits as a sort of "maintenance fee" for administering the playoffs, you go with the money. That's being smart. That's being fiscally responsible. That's being about business.
If the FCS playoffs made money for ALL participants, the SWAC would participate, if anything just to collect the check. No different than in basketball and the NCAA tournament. There is money to be made.
This is the reality we live in. If you choose to disagree, you are either in your feelings or just plumb dumb. I can't say it any nicer than that.
