FB: Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference

[Ron Boerger]

Highlights:

- schools will play only 90% of NCAA 'max allowable' games (this year for all sports except fb. next year for them)
- more clearly defined "hard" travel squad sizes
- bb and sb contests will be aligned to allow those squads to travel together, much as basketball and soccer teams do

TOTAL SAVINGS, LEAGUE-WIDE:  $500-575K

Other announcements:
- all SCAC tourney fields will be expanded back to original sizes (see, Frank, you DO make a difference!)
- Men's lacrosse a conference sport, will apply for AQ next year when 8-team minimum is met.  No post-season tourney this year, will consider when AQ granted
- Women's lacrosse starts as a conf sport in 2010-11

Wonder how much of the cost delta will be offset by travel for the new sports.

[Pat Coleman]

Whoa, football will be limited to nine games? Or will the be interpreted as 10 games, no scrimmage?

[Ralph Turner]

Whoa, football will be limited to nine games? Or will the be interpreted as 10 games, no scrimmage?

I imagine that the SCAC schools in this part of the country could bargain for their 10th and extra game to be a home game.

Trinity, AC, Rhodes, and Millsaps and even Hendrix could get a 10th game at home against ASC teams with little problem.

DPU and Centre are close for 2 non-conference games.  BSC and Sewanee can get Huntingdon, Maryville, and LaGrange easily.

[Ron Boerger]

Whoa, football will be limited to nine games? Or will the be interpreted as 10 games, no scrimmage?

I read this as nine games:  "an across the board 10% reduction of contests as measured against the current NCAA permissible maximum."  The exception for the upcoming season is only due to "existing scheduling contracts."

I imagine that the SCAC schools in this part of the country could bargain for their 10th and extra game to be a home game.

Trinity, AC, Rhodes, and Millsaps and even Hendrix could get a 10th game at home against ASC teams with little problem.

DPU and Centre are close for 2 non-conference games.  BSC and Sewanee can get Huntingdon, Maryville, and LaGrange easily.

I don't see the conference granting exceptions, 10th game at home or no.  These are called the "Cost Containment and Student-Athlete Welfare Measures".   

[Tex]

As a parent of a current player, I think if we go to 9 games, it's a crime.  The men put in all this time and effort all year long only to have their 10th game go bye bye?  

It sucks and that's all there is to it.  Hopefully between now and next year, the rule will change back.  This is ridiculous.  

Maybe time to add a couple of teams to the SCAC to force a 10 game season.  It's hard enough for these coaches to recruit against the ASC.  Now I can see the ASC coaches telling a kid, "you know son, if you go to play for Austin College or Trinity, you're only going to get to play 9 games."

[Tex]

Maybe it's time to find a new conference? 

[D3_DPUFan]

As a parent of a current player, I think if we go to 9 games, it's a crime.  The men put in all this time and effort all year long only to have their 10th game go bye bye? 

Agreed.

[Pat Coleman]

SCAC confirmed for me this means nine games for football in 2011.

[Ron Boerger]

Note that what originally was talked about as a cost-savings move really doesn't save enough money in the long run to make much of a difference.  $50K per school per year, offset by men's lacrosse costs for five schools this year, eight next, and the women's lacrosse costs the year after that?   Peanuts.  

The "student-athlete welfare" thing is worrysome.  It's a wholesale devaluation of the athletic experience.  While I hope they're not trying to turn football into a NESCAC experience, it would not surprise me to find out that some of the presidents are looking at that conference as a model in some way.  They said only 23% of the athletes were bothered by losing 10% of their games; imagine the percentage among football players was considerably higher.

The timing is very interesting.  Austin has a new president comng onboard, Trinity's president is leaving at the end of the calendar year (and no successor named yet).  

Maybe time to add a couple of teams to the SCAC to force a 10 game season.  It's hard enough for these coaches to recruit against the ASC.  Now I can see the ASC coaches telling a kid, "you know son, if you go to play for Austin College or Trinity, you're only going to get to play 9 games."

You can rest assured that the conference, having come to today's conclusion, will not allow itself to have eleven football-playing schools.    And that recruiting against the ASC is not a concern of those who made this decision.  

Maybe it's time to find a new conference?  

This might be an option for DPU and other schools that aren't west of the Mississippi.  Feel free to find a candidate for Trinity, given that

1)  the school does not want to be in the ASC (they were in the predecessor to the ASC, the TIAA, and left)
2)  You won't find a lot of other conferences enthusastic about adding a school that would mandate plane trips to San Antonio solely to play one college.

[D3_DPUFan]

The "student-athlete welfare" thing is worrysome.  It's a wholesale devaluation of the athletic experience.  While I hope they're not trying to turn football into a NESCAC experience, it would not surprise me to find out that some of the presidents are looking at that conference as a model in some way.  They said only 23% of the athletes were bothered by losing 10% of their games; imagine the percentage among football players was considerably higher.

The timing is very interesting.  Austin has a new president comng onboard, Trinity's president is leaving at the end of the calendar year (and no successor named yet). 

Does anyone know what the vote was and how individual university presidents sided on the issue?

[D3_DPUFan]

SCAC confirmed for me this means nine games for football in 2011.

Pat---would it be 2011 or 2010 football season?

[Tennessee_papa]

SCAC confirmed for me this means nine games for football in 2011.

Pat---would it be 2011 or 2010 football season?

I read it as having to be in place for all non-football sports for the 2010-2011 school year and for football for the 2011-2012 school year (i.e., the 2011 season).

As to cutting the football schedule 10%, since they're doing it to the other sports they probably have to do it to football as well in order to stay consistent with the D-III no favorites gender equity overall student experience thing, don't they?

I also agree that the savings seem like peanuts relative to the whole, but I don't know how tight the budgets are.

[TigerDad]

For those wanting to play more than nine games, just win the SCAC outright and you'll be rewarded with a ticket to a playoff (tenth) game.  For those of us in Texas, we're almost guaranteed a trip to Belton to play UMHB!   

Maybe nine games isn't so bad ...

[DPU3619]

If you do this....

Maybe time to add a couple of teams to the SCAC to force a 10 game season.

Then I absolutely guarantee you that there is a 100% chance DePauw will say this...

Maybe it's time to find a new conference? 

DePauw will never let that happen.  They're either going to throw such a fit that it would never happen, or they'd even go join the Heartland if they had to just to keep Wabash on the schedule.  Plus, that would have the exact opposite result of the cost-cutting measures they're trying to implement.

I guess I just don't get it.  We've already talked about this before.  I don't understand the big deal about the 10th game.  At least your son's program still has football.  If you want to guarantee your son plays in the most games, send him to a legit playoff contender like UMHB.  If you want him to have the best possible experience, then send him where he wants to go and the number of games shouldn't matter.

[Ron Boerger]

The SCAC will occasionally have a serious playoff contender (it's sounding like this might be DPU's year).  Only playing nine games puts you at a slight disadvantage - one less game during the regular season = less preparation.

The theoretical one-loss SCAC second place team will also have a harder time getting a Pool C bid at 8-1 than it would at 9-1 (due to winning percentage, one of the primary selection factors, being lower).   It's gotta happen one of these years, you know, and if it's one of those years where there are a gob of one-loss teams to choose from, could result in a team staying home. 

The playoff experience is worthwhile, but these changes serve to lessen the chance of selection and success.  Slight reductions, but reductions nonetheless.