This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Those are real and fair arguments by gregmorrissey

I think maybe we diverge in opinions at the very start which makes it difficult to reconcile the later stuff.

Do we know if Swarbrick went in guns blazing for expansion to 12? Or, is it possible, that he took the read of the room over the course of many private conversations, saw that expansion was inevitable and decided to then go buns blazing for expansion to 12?

If it's the former, then I will accept your argument as an alternative path to lead the collective group down. I don't necessarily agree with it because I like a bigger tournament and hate when the season is "over" after an early loss.


If it's the latter (meaning expansion was 100% happening), then I'm all for Swarbrick arguing for 12 over 6 or 8. The conferences wanted automatic bids, the Group of 5 wanted a seat at the table, Notre Dame wanted access as an independent, the SEC wanted the ability to get as many teams as possible in. I think the result specifically for ND is almost as good as you could have wanted.


To your point about end of season wins, why does this only apply to NCAA Div I-A College Football? Literally, almost every sport played from the time your 8 until you finally give up adult league softball, the season ends for all but one team (excluding the bad teams that can't even make the playoff) with a loss. But the fragile nature of high-level college football precludes this?

You argument about finals is valid. I don't know the right solution, but I'd probably argue it's an argument that's only used when it's convenient. We don't seem to care when they have to wake up at 5am for morning workouts, exist almost exclusively outside of the regular student life due to other scheduling commitments, give out sham classes and degrees, and on and on. Note: the broader "we" don't care meaning anyone making money from college football, not that we here at NDNation or Notre Dame don't care.