Tim Brandt (sic?) interviewed Swofford and it was retweeted by Roth a few days ago. Brandt asked him about the one key issue about restricting 4 playoff teams to conference champions having won a conference CG, vs top 4 ranked teams. Swofford replied by saying those were 2 of the options the 11 conferences were now considerring. He did not tip his hand one way or another. The other "power conferences" have all stated their positions.

So I suspect that is a key point regarding other ACC initiatives that he did not want to divulge yet. I think back on the Pitt and Syracuse announcements when the ACC kept an absolute lid on that news. I suspect something else is in the works. Stay tuned.


Quote Originally Posted by vtx1998 View Post
Swofford has gone on record as supporting a 4 team playoff with the 4 highest ranked teams. This is the playoff preference of the SEC, which stands the best chance of sending multiple teams to a playoff in this format. The Big Ten and PAC 12 support a playoff using the 4 highest ranked conference champions. Do you think that Swofford/ACC is making the right choice for the ACC? A champions only format would probably give the ACC a better chance of making the field. Also, a playoff with only conference champions would greatly increase the chances of Notre Dame joining a conference. Notre Dame joining the ACC should be the biggest financial windfall available.

Having the 4 highest ranking teams should produce the best on-the-field product and it may be the "fairest" solution. But it may not be the best long-term financial and stability option for the ACC. If the ACC joined with the Big Ten and PAC 12, that would be a pretty solid block of teams supporting the champions only format. I would imagine that the mid-major conferences would be more in-line with this format too, as it should give them a greater chance of making the playoff.

I guess it comes down to most competitive/fairest playoff format vs. best chance to make playoff/woo Notre Dame.