(04-23-2015 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's seems as if the folks that complain the most are not even graduates of the institution they claim to represent.

BINGO

(04-22-2015 08:53 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  here's how you fix the acc for fsu, Clemson and the "football schools" - stack the atlantic division. plenty of SOS with the division schedule, add 2 good OOC. problem solved. looks a lot like a north-south split.

atlantic - coastal
VT - UVa
NCSU - UNC
WF - Duke
CU - BC
GT - Pitt
FSU - Louisville
Miami - Syracuse

The FSU fans do have a legitimate complaint in that the poor reputation of the ACC in football is working against them. I also believe that reorganizing the divisions is within the power of the ACC and is something that FSU should advocate for within the ACC.

With respect to the above alignment, it would not work because one of the Florida schools would have to be in the Coastal division. I read in an ESPN article a year or two ago that this was one of the constraints in creating the divisions, at least one Florida school in each division. So swap (Louisville & Miami) or (Pitt & Miami).

Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

(04-22-2015 09:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Personally, I prefer keeping the divisions almost as-is (swap GT/Louisville and maybe Miami/BC) but then immediately go to a 3 rivals + 5 rotating schedule. You won't play every team in your own division, but so what? Still take the teams with the best records to the ACC CG.

The more I think about it, this might work even better:

ACC Old: UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, Wake, Clemson, Ga Tech
ACC New: Miami, FSU, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Cuse, BC
You don't need to have a Florida school in each division if you use the 3+5 model - just make sure everyone plays at least one FL school every year.

If you do a 3+5, there are NO divisions.

(04-23-2015 01:40 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Personally, I prefer keeping the divisions almost as-is (swap GT/Louisville and maybe Miami/BC) but then immediately go to a 3 rivals + 5 rotating schedule. You won't play every team in your own division, but so what? Still take the teams with the best records to the ACC CG.

The more I think about it, this might work even better:

ACC Old: UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, Wake, Clemson, Ga Tech
ACC New: Miami, FSU, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Cuse, BC
You don't need to have a Florida school in each division if you use the 3+5 model - just make sure everyone plays at least one FL school every year.

If you do a 3+5, there are NO divisions.

Sure, just in a different sense.

No divisions in terms of schedule.

Divisions in the sense of taking the best team from group A vs. the best from group B - even if the 2nd best from group A has a better record than the top group B team.

The reason I throw that out is because it addresses the concern of many Coastal division schools that they might never have a shot at playing in the ACC CG if it always took the two best records - they assume that's always going to include FSU and/or Clemson, with GT and VT sprinkled in. (It's a sissy position, but it is what it is). Personally, I don't care if they do it that way - I want the better regular season schedule, even if it means I don't get the true #2 team in the ACC CG.

(04-22-2015 12:22 PM)nole Wrote:  *Revenues MUST be kept within 80-85% of our competitors

No.

Revenue must be kept within a few million. But when the Big Ten renegotiates its tier 1 contract, it's not inconceivable they'll be making $30M+/year/school. If you take 80-85% of that, it's a mere $24-25.5M. It's one thing to know you're going to lose athletic revenue to them via alumni/booster donations and ticket sales, but slipping even further behind in conference revenue cannot happen. It simply cannot. Not if the ACC wants to survive.

(04-23-2015 07:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 10:35 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW the decision to keep Raycom involved was made above Swofford's pay grade.

Whose pay grade was it?

That decision was made by the ACC Presidents.

(04-23-2015 01:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:40 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Personally, I prefer keeping the divisions almost as-is (swap GT/Louisville and maybe Miami/BC) but then immediately go to a 3 rivals + 5 rotating schedule. You won't play every team in your own division, but so what? Still take the teams with the best records to the ACC CG.

The more I think about it, this might work even better:

ACC Old: UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, Wake, Clemson, Ga Tech
ACC New: Miami, FSU, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Cuse, BC
You don't need to have a Florida school in each division if you use the 3+5 model - just make sure everyone plays at least one FL school every year.

If you do a 3+5, there are NO divisions.

Sure, just in a different sense.

No divisions in terms of schedule.

Divisions in the sense of taking the best team from group A vs. the best from group B - even if the 2nd best from group A has a better record than the top group B team.

The reason I throw that out is because it addresses the concern of many Coastal division schools that they might never have a shot at playing in the ACC CG if it always took the two best records - they assume that's always going to include FSU and/or Clemson, with GT and VT sprinkled in. (It's a sissy position, but it is what it is). Personally, I don't care if they do it that way - I want the better regular season schedule, even if it means I don't get the true #2 team in the ACC CG.

Yes, those Coastal schools that don't matter much anyways. It is stupid to have "divisions" in which the members don't play each other every year. So when I say NO divisions, I literally mean no divisions. I'm not talking about your faux divisions.

(04-23-2015 01:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 08:53 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  here's how you fix the acc for fsu, Clemson and the "football schools" - stack the atlantic division. plenty of SOS with the division schedule, add 2 good OOC. problem solved. looks a lot like a north-south split.

atlantic - coastal
VT - UVa
NCSU - UNC
WF - Duke
CU - BC
GT - Pitt
FSU - Louisville
Miami - Syracuse

The FSU fans do have a legitimate complaint in that the poor reputation of the ACC in football is working against them. I also believe that reorganizing the divisions is within the power of the ACC and is something that FSU should advocate for within the ACC.

With respect to the above alignment, it would not work because one of the Florida schools would have to be in the Coastal division. I read in an ESPN article a year or two ago that this was one of the constraints in creating the divisions, at least one Florida school in each division. So swap (Louisville & Miami) or (Pitt & Miami).

Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

What I have proposed elsewhere is that the ten northern ACC schools be in the same divisions they are now, but have FSU/GT and Clemson/Miami rotate from one division to the other each year. Then give each of these two southern groups the other group as permanent cross division rivals so all four schools play each other every year and every other school in the conference every other year.

With Louisville and VaTech in different divisions, that would give each southern school four decent conference opponents every year, with Notre Dame every third year. Add to that their existing OOC rivalry games and they all have a schedule that wouldn't take a back seat to anybody.

(04-23-2015 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's seems as if the folks that complain the most are not even graduates of the institution they claim to represent.

You're not allowed to root for a school you didn't attend? UNC basketball "fans" won't like to hear that.

(04-23-2015 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 08:53 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  here's how you fix the acc for fsu, Clemson and the "football schools" - stack the atlantic division. plenty of SOS with the division schedule, add 2 good OOC. problem solved. looks a lot like a north-south split.

atlantic - coastal
VT - UVa
NCSU - UNC
WF - Duke
CU - BC
GT - Pitt
FSU - Louisville
Miami - Syracuse

The FSU fans do have a legitimate complaint in that the poor reputation of the ACC in football is working against them. I also believe that reorganizing the divisions is within the power of the ACC and is something that FSU should advocate for within the ACC.

With respect to the above alignment, it would not work because one of the Florida schools would have to be in the Coastal division. I read in an ESPN article a year or two ago that this was one of the constraints in creating the divisions, at least one Florida school in each division. So swap (Louisville & Miami) or (Pitt & Miami).

Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

What I have proposed elsewhere is that the ten northern ACC schools be in the same divisions they are now, but have FSU/GT and Clemson/Miami rotate from one division to the other each year. Then give each of these two southern groups the other group as permanent cross division rivals so all four schools play each other every year and every other school in the conference every other year.

With Louisville and VaTech in different divisions, that would give each southern school four decent conference opponents every year, with Notre Dame every third year. Add to that their existing OOC rivalry games and they all have a schedule that wouldn't take a back seat to anybody.

I'd be completely fine with that as well. There are some very real, and very good options out there, yet Swofford isn't doing anything about it.

(04-23-2015 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 08:53 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  here's how you fix the acc for fsu, Clemson and the "football schools" - stack the atlantic division. plenty of SOS with the division schedule, add 2 good OOC. problem solved. looks a lot like a north-south split.

atlantic - coastal
VT - UVa
NCSU - UNC
WF - Duke
CU - BC
GT - Pitt
FSU - Louisville
Miami - Syracuse

The FSU fans do have a legitimate complaint in that the poor reputation of the ACC in football is working against them. I also believe that reorganizing the divisions is within the power of the ACC and is something that FSU should advocate for within the ACC.

With respect to the above alignment, it would not work because one of the Florida schools would have to be in the Coastal division. I read in an ESPN article a year or two ago that this was one of the constraints in creating the divisions, at least one Florida school in each division. So swap (Louisville & Miami) or (Pitt & Miami).

Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

What I have proposed elsewhere is that the ten northern ACC schools be in the same divisions they are now, but have FSU/GT and Clemson/Miami rotate from one division to the other each year. Then give each of these two southern groups the other group as permanent cross division rivals so all four schools play each other every year and every other school in the conference every other year.

With Louisville and VaTech in different divisions, that would give each southern school four decent conference opponents every year, with Notre Dame every third year. Add to that their existing OOC rivalry games and they all have a schedule that wouldn't take a back seat to anybody.

I think we vote Southern in football.

(04-23-2015 02:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 08:53 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 02:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  here's how you fix the acc for fsu, Clemson and the "football schools" - stack the atlantic division. plenty of SOS with the division schedule, add 2 good OOC. problem solved. looks a lot like a north-south split.

atlantic - coastal
VT - UVa
NCSU - UNC
WF - Duke
CU - BC
GT - Pitt
FSU - Louisville
Miami - Syracuse

The FSU fans do have a legitimate complaint in that the poor reputation of the ACC in football is working against them. I also believe that reorganizing the divisions is within the power of the ACC and is something that FSU should advocate for within the ACC.

With respect to the above alignment, it would not work because one of the Florida schools would have to be in the Coastal division. I read in an ESPN article a year or two ago that this was one of the constraints in creating the divisions, at least one Florida school in each division. So swap (Louisville & Miami) or (Pitt & Miami).

Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

What I have proposed elsewhere is that the ten northern ACC schools be in the same divisions they are now, but have FSU/GT and Clemson/Miami rotate from one division to the other each year. Then give each of these two southern groups the other group as permanent cross division rivals so all four schools play each other every year and every other school in the conference every other year.

With Louisville and VaTech in different divisions, that would give each southern school four decent conference opponents every year, with Notre Dame every third year. Add to that their existing OOC rivalry games and they all have a schedule that wouldn't take a back seat to anybody.

I'd be completely fine with that as well. There are some very real, and very good options out there, yet Swofford isn't doing anything about it.

To be fair to Swofford, that's not his call. He can't dictate policy like that. I would be curious to know if any ACC school ever proposed what I just suggested. And if they did, I would be curious to know which schools opposed it (and why).

On matters like divisional alignment, Swofford's job is to try to find consensus if there is one. But if there is no possibility of consensus, there isn't a lot he or any other commissioner can do about it.

I agree that Swofford can't realign the divisional structure by himself. The coaches and ADs want it, because of the chance to win a division is much easier than having to be one of the top two teams in the conference. And with divisions, at least you "win" something. That's good for bonuses and resumes.

But I'll be very disappointed if we don't make a move. Here's a rare chance for the ACC to be bold and visionary for once. Get rid of the divisions, or come up with non-static divisions. Swofford is going to have to go over the coaches heads at least.

He can not do it himself, but he's going to have to crack some heads on this. We didn't get the rule changed for nothing...I simply don't believe that. Getting the rule changed was proactive, and I have to imagine there was a reason in mind for it.

(04-23-2015 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree that Swofford can't realign the divisional structure by himself. The coaches and ADs want it, because of the chance to win a division is much easier than having to be one of the top two teams in the conference. And with divisions, at least you "win" something. That's good for bonuses and resumes.

But I'll be very disappointed if we don't make a move. Here's a rare chance for the ACC to be bold and visionary for once. Get rid of the divisions, or come up with non-static divisions. Swofford is going to have to go over the coaches heads at least.

He can not do it himself, but he's going to have to crack some heads on this. We didn't get the rule changed for nothing...I simply don't believe that. Getting the rule changed was proactive, and I have to imagine there was a reason in mind for it.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Lou. The rule isn't changed yet. One aspect of my proposal is that it already conforms to current rules. No change is needed.

(04-23-2015 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree that Swofford can't realign the divisional structure by himself. The coaches and ADs want it, because of the chance to win a division is much easier than having to be one of the top two teams in the conference. And with divisions, at least you "win" something. That's good for bonuses and resumes.

But I'll be very disappointed if we don't make a move. Here's a rare chance for the ACC to be bold and visionary for once. Get rid of the divisions, or come up with non-static divisions. Swofford is going to have to go over the coaches heads at least.

He can not do it himself, but he's going to have to crack some heads on this. We didn't get the rule changed for nothing...I simply don't believe that. Getting the rule changed was proactive, and I have to imagine there was a reason in mind for it.

swoff made a comment about "scheduling flexibility" if the rules are relaxed. if I read between the lines, that may very well mean that we keep divisions, but don't play everyone in the division. for example, 2 permanent rivals and 3 rotating games in your division with 1 permanent and 2 rotating in the opposite division. it's kind of weird to not play round robin in the division, but only missing one per year isn't too bad.

(04-23-2015 02:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree that Swofford can't realign the divisional structure by himself. The coaches and ADs want it, because of the chance to win a division is much easier than having to be one of the top two teams in the conference. And with divisions, at least you "win" something. That's good for bonuses and resumes.

But I'll be very disappointed if we don't make a move. Here's a rare chance for the ACC to be bold and visionary for once. Get rid of the divisions, or come up with non-static divisions. Swofford is going to have to go over the coaches heads at least.

He can not do it himself, but he's going to have to crack some heads on this. We didn't get the rule changed for nothing...I simply don't believe that. Getting the rule changed was proactive, and I have to imagine there was a reason in mind for it.

swoff made a comment about "scheduling flexibility" if the rules are relaxed. if I read between the lines, that may very well mean that we keep divisions, but don't play everyone in the division. for example, 2 permanent rivals and 3 rotating games in your division with 1 permanent and 2 rotating in the opposite division. it's kind of weird to not play round robin in the division, but only missing one per year isn't too bad.

That's been my read on it as well.

For the record, I hope the ACC is bold here and ditch divisions. It working out well is the only way I could see the Big Ten following suit, which I very much want it to do.

(04-23-2015 02:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree that Swofford can't realign the divisional structure by himself. The coaches and ADs want it, because of the chance to win a division is much easier than having to be one of the top two teams in the conference. And with divisions, at least you "win" something. That's good for bonuses and resumes.

But I'll be very disappointed if we don't make a move. Here's a rare chance for the ACC to be bold and visionary for once. Get rid of the divisions, or come up with non-static divisions. Swofford is going to have to go over the coaches heads at least.

He can not do it himself, but he's going to have to crack some heads on this. We didn't get the rule changed for nothing...I simply don't believe that. Getting the rule changed was proactive, and I have to imagine there was a reason in mind for it.

swoff made a comment about "scheduling flexibility" if the rules are relaxed. if I read between the lines, that may very well mean that we keep divisions, but don't play everyone in the division. for example, 2 permanent rivals and 3 rotating games in your division with 1 permanent and 2 rotating in the opposite division. it's kind of weird to not play round robin in the division, but only missing one per year isn't too bad.

Way early on, when this change was first proposed, this was specifically mentioned as one of the options. There's obviously, as you said, something about it that doesn't feel right. BUT, it is probably the most conservative and least conspicuous change, at least until two teams go 8-0 and need a tiebreaker to decide who won the division because they didn't play each other.

It's a bit of a half-measure for me, but it would be an improvement, and I agree with you that although it's not the sexy move, it's probably a dark-horse favorite for the most likely change.

(04-23-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 08:53 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  The FSU fans do have a legitimate complaint in that the poor reputation of the ACC in football is working against them. I also believe that reorganizing the divisions is within the power of the ACC and is something that FSU should advocate for within the ACC.

With respect to the above alignment, it would not work because one of the Florida schools would have to be in the Coastal division. I read in an ESPN article a year or two ago that this was one of the constraints in creating the divisions, at least one Florida school in each division. So swap (Louisville & Miami) or (Pitt & Miami).

Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

What I have proposed elsewhere is that the ten northern ACC schools be in the same divisions they are now, but have FSU/GT and Clemson/Miami rotate from one division to the other each year. Then give each of these two southern groups the other group as permanent cross division rivals so all four schools play each other every year and every other school in the conference every other year.

With Louisville and VaTech in different divisions, that would give each southern school four decent conference opponents every year, with Notre Dame every third year. Add to that their existing OOC rivalry games and they all have a schedule that wouldn't take a back seat to anybody.

I'd be completely fine with that as well. There are some very real, and very good options out there, yet Swofford isn't doing anything about it.

To be fair to Swofford, that's not his call. He can't dictate policy like that. I would be curious to know if any ACC school ever proposed what I just suggested. And if they did, I would be curious to know which schools opposed it (and why).

On matters like divisional alignment, Swofford's job is to try to find consensus if there is one. But if there is no possibility of consensus, there isn't a lot he or any other commissioner can do about it.

Either Swofford has power and has sway or he doesn't. If he can't catalyze a change like this, what is the point of his job position?

(04-23-2015 03:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I agree that Swofford can't realign the divisional structure by himself. The coaches and ADs want it, because of the chance to win a division is much easier than having to be one of the top two teams in the conference. And with divisions, at least you "win" something. That's good for bonuses and resumes.

But I'll be very disappointed if we don't make a move. Here's a rare chance for the ACC to be bold and visionary for once. Get rid of the divisions, or come up with non-static divisions. Swofford is going to have to go over the coaches heads at least.

He can not do it himself, but he's going to have to crack some heads on this. We didn't get the rule changed for nothing...I simply don't believe that. Getting the rule changed was proactive, and I have to imagine there was a reason in mind for it.

swoff made a comment about "scheduling flexibility" if the rules are relaxed. if I read between the lines, that may very well mean that we keep divisions, but don't play everyone in the division. for example, 2 permanent rivals and 3 rotating games in your division with 1 permanent and 2 rotating in the opposite division. it's kind of weird to not play round robin in the division, but only missing one per year isn't too bad.

Way early on, when this change was first proposed, this was specifically mentioned as one of the options. There's obviously, as you said, something about it that doesn't feel right. BUT, it is probably the most conservative and least conspicuous change, at least until two teams go 8-0 and need a tiebreaker to decide who won the division because they didn't play each other.

It's a bit of a half-measure for me, but it would be an improvement, and I agree with you that although it's not the sexy move, it's probably a dark-horse favorite for the most likely change.

It's not possible for two teams in the same division to go 8-0 in my proposal. They still play a full round robin within their division - it's just that the divisions aren't the same every year. One year FSU and Ga Tech are in your division, and the next year Miami and Clemson take their place. The only way it's possible to have two 8-0 teams meet in the CCG is if one (or more) of the northern teams manage to stay unbeaten.

(04-23-2015 03:11 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Fair point. And if FSU faced VT, CU, GT, UM and possibly UL every year, I wouldn't care what stupid divisions, pods, or any other alignment the ACC devised; I'd be fine with it. The more often your good teams face each other, the better tv product you have, and the more tv money you make. But the Coastal schools seem to be vehemently against that. wtf mate

I still think some type of 3+5 or 4+4 setup is probably the best, and most "fair".

What I have proposed elsewhere is that the ten northern ACC schools be in the same divisions they are now, but have FSU/GT and Clemson/Miami rotate from one division to the other each year. Then give each of these two southern groups the other group as permanent cross division rivals so all four schools play each other every year and every other school in the conference every other year.

With Louisville and VaTech in different divisions, that would give each southern school four decent conference opponents every year, with Notre Dame every third year. Add to that their existing OOC rivalry games and they all have a schedule that wouldn't take a back seat to anybody.

I'd be completely fine with that as well. There are some very real, and very good options out there, yet Swofford isn't doing anything about it.

To be fair to Swofford, that's not his call. He can't dictate policy like that. I would be curious to know if any ACC school ever proposed what I just suggested. And if they did, I would be curious to know which schools opposed it (and why).

On matters like divisional alignment, Swofford's job is to try to find consensus if there is one. But if there is no possibility of consensus, there isn't a lot he or any other commissioner can do about it.

Either Swofford has power and has sway or he doesn't. If he can't catalyze a change like this, what is the point of his job position?

He's the commissioner, not the czar. I don't believe any conference commissioner in the FBS has that kind of authority. He can suggest, he can influence, he can cajole, he can mediate. All of those things are likely done out of the view of the public and we never know when or if he does them, or how well. But he can't decide. When those who can decide what they want to do have made their decision, it's his job to sell it and/or advocate for it with parties outside the conference. How well he does that determines whether the presidents are satisfied with his performance.