Swofford talks about a lot of things-realigning ACC, ACC Network and expanding the playoffs:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/co...-post.html

On the College Football Playoff and the possibility of expansion

Swofford: “Based on the decision-makers in the room, no, I don’t. I think we’re at four probably for the duration of this contract. At least that’s the way I read it at this point of time. My comment at been, in a perfect world and in the perfect football standpoint, I felt eight is a really good number with the five power conferences champions having a guaranteed slot and three at-large slots. In today’s world and within the parameters that we’re working in, I didn’t think that would happen. I think we’re at four for all the right reasons. The bookends, so to speak, are not interfering with exams in September and not making it a two-semester sport deep into January. That makes it really difficult to be beyond four. Those are good reasons because they are related to education and academics and the collegiate experience. I don’t sense from the Presidents that oversee the football playoff or the management committee at this time, any movement beyond four.”

Sounds a little like some are worried about the outcome of litigation and that 8 makes them look worse.

(07-20-2015 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  Swofford talks about a lot of things-realigning ACC, ACC Network and expanding the playoffs:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/co...-post.html

On the College Football Playoff and the possibility of expansion

Swofford: “Based on the decision-makers in the room, no, I don’t. I think we’re at four probably for the duration of this contract. At least that’s the way I read it at this point of time. My comment at been, in a perfect world and in the perfect football standpoint, I felt eight is a really good number with the five power conferences champions having a guaranteed slot and three at-large slots. In today’s world and within the parameters that we’re working in, I didn’t think that would happen. I think we’re at four for all the right reasons. The bookends, so to speak, are not interfering with exams in September and not making it a two-semester sport deep into January. That makes it really difficult to be beyond four. Those are good reasons because they are related to education and academics and the collegiate experience. I don’t sense from the Presidents that oversee the football playoff or the management committee at this time, any movement beyond four.”

Sounds a little like some are worried about the outcome of litigation and that 8 makes them look worse.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to argue against expanding the playoff, but this continued leadership trope on "not making it a 2 semester sport" is not one of them. Adding a week to 10 days past the current end of the season for 2 teams is not some type of radical expansion of the calendar. It's one of my pet peeve commissioner/president arguments against playoff expansion - it's such an inconsequential item that affects *only* 2 teams, yet *that's* where they draw the line in the sand after all of their money-grubbing actions in every other issue in college sports?! It's ridiculous and we shouldn't let them get away with that hypocrisy.

If basketball were to become a one-semester sport I'd take the argument for football being one semester more seriously.

(07-20-2015 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  Swofford talks about a lot of things-realigning ACC, ACC Network and expanding the playoffs:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/co...-post.html

On the College Football Playoff and the possibility of expansion

Swofford: “Based on the decision-makers in the room, no, I don’t. I think we’re at four probably for the duration of this contract. At least that’s the way I read it at this point of time. My comment at been, in a perfect world and in the perfect football standpoint, I felt eight is a really good number with the five power conferences champions having a guaranteed slot and three at-large slots. In today’s world and within the parameters that we’re working in, I didn’t think that would happen. I think we’re at four for all the right reasons. The bookends, so to speak, are not interfering with exams in September and not making it a two-semester sport deep into January. That makes it really difficult to be beyond four. Those are good reasons because they are related to education and academics and the collegiate experience. I don’t sense from the Presidents that oversee the football playoff or the management committee at this time, any movement beyond four.”

Sounds a little like some are worried about the outcome of litigation and that 8 makes them look worse.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to argue against expanding the playoff, but this continued leadership trope on "not making it a 2 semester sport" is not one of them. Adding a week to 10 days past the current end of the season for 2 teams is not some type of radical expansion of the calendar. It's one of my pet peeve commissioner/president arguments against playoff expansion - it's such an inconsequential item that affects *only* 2 teams, yet *that's* where they draw the line in the sand after all of their money-grubbing actions in every other issue in college sports?! It's ridiculous and we shouldn't let them get away with that hypocrisy.

Yes, that's one of the more ridiculous arguments. And how much does anyone really do in the first week of a semester?

(07-20-2015 12:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If basketball were to become a one-semester sport I'd take the argument for football being one semester more seriously.

Exactly. Several sports (i.e. basketball, hockey, etc.) span across multiple semesters. Plus, different schools are going to have different semester schedules (or even quarter schedules that don't match up at all to the semester calendar). This argument really annoys me (as it's an artificial and BS way to show that these leaders actually care about the educational aspect) and I wish a reporter would call out anyone that uses it. Protecting the value of the regular season and/or protecting the bowl system are much more substantive arguments against playoff expansion (even if I don't personally agree with that position).

(07-20-2015 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  Swofford talks about a lot of things-realigning ACC, ACC Network and expanding the playoffs:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/co...-post.html

On the College Football Playoff and the possibility of expansion

Swofford: “Based on the decision-makers in the room, no, I don’t. I think we’re at four probably for the duration of this contract. At least that’s the way I read it at this point of time. My comment at been, in a perfect world and in the perfect football standpoint, I felt eight is a really good number with the five power conferences champions having a guaranteed slot and three at-large slots. In today’s world and within the parameters that we’re working in, I didn’t think that would happen. I think we’re at four for all the right reasons. The bookends, so to speak, are not interfering with exams in September and not making it a two-semester sport deep into January. That makes it really difficult to be beyond four. Those are good reasons because they are related to education and academics and the collegiate experience. I don’t sense from the Presidents that oversee the football playoff or the management committee at this time, any movement beyond four.”

Sounds a little like some are worried about the outcome of litigation and that 8 makes them look worse.

Did we eliminate the spring game? Football is essentially a year round sport and everybody knows it.