It may not be revolutionary, but it would be fun.

Despite its over the top header (and who doesn’t feel the need to choke back the snark upon seeing any piece which starts “Dabo Swinney’s plan to revolutionize…”?), the AJ-C‘s story about Swinney pitching spring practice games between D-1 programs is a good read.

It’s not the first time the Clemson coach has pushed it, but that doesn’t mean I’ve grown to like the idea less.  The only downside I can really see is that there would be one less spring game on campus every other year, but you’d have to figure it would end up on TV anyway.

What do y’all think?


UPDATE:  Adam Jacobi is offended.  My only question about his post is if the problem stems from the risks of competition, why have spring games at all?



Filed under College Football

13 responses to “It may not be revolutionary, but it would be fun.

  1. 202dawg

    7 on 7, yes. Full-on tackle? Absolutely NOT…


  2. Skeeter

    Dislike! It would halve the amount of time and experience your team could get while increasing the chance of injury. Might be okay if they’re adding it in addition to the at home spring game, but not instead of.


    • I would think that the best players, like a Jarvis Jones, Aaron Murray, etc would be kept out to allow for others to play. Since it’s not like that game would be helpful experience for them.


  3. Bard Parker

    I have always heard two problems with this idea:
    1) injury
    2) Since this would not be as meaningless as the usual spring game there could be some adverse effect on any pre-season polling, which under the current system, can hurt a team that had a lackluster spring game


  4. Macallanlover

    I liked the idea when Bowden first proposed it, and it has continued to grow in appeal with me. I see no down side at all, and feel the focus of practices will increase with an opponent to prepare for. And what better way to see how we stack up for D-1 football? Working against the same guys in practice everyday has finite upside.

    The argument for injuries is baffling to me. Compare the number of injuries from practice/off field to actual game injuries. Are we seriously worried about our D-1 football players playing tackle football? We are talking about one more game a year for Christ sakes. I guess we should pass on the SECCG because that is one extra game a year. Everyone benefits from the idea, and we get more football. How can any CFB fan be against that? Hell, I am for a limited Spring season, similar to what the gold team does in the Fall.


    • Cojones

      The SECCG counts. Clemson wouldn’t. If you want to test and go all out in a game that doesn’t count, how do you think that might sharpen up our game? Putting green jerseys on is done now and can’t measure real game speed. Getting injuries from a game that doesn’t count and pits players against opposing players without full benefit of Fall conditioning would be inviting more injury than what was suffered in the Boise Game.

      I don’t remember ever disagreeing with you before, but on this one I say it is not and would not be a full out CFB worth watching due to the level of competitiveness nor the memory value of games that count. Besides, only Clemson would benefit because they would be playing better competition. We wouldn’t.:)


  5. Go Dawgs!

    I love it. If someone gets hurt, injuries heal.

    Besides, if we ever want to play Clemson again, this may be the only way. They’re on the schedule, but it certainly sounds like that might be going away considering the ACC wants to go to 9 games (which the SEC should do, too, but won’t).


  6. Cojones

    PRACTICE??!! You’re talking about PRACTICE?! It’s one thing to talk about a game that counts, but….PRACTICE??!!


  7. South FL Dawg

    I like it but put green jerseys on the QB’s. The other day everybody was happy with the report about Crowell and Tree knocking each other around. This wouldn’t be any more physical. And the competition makes everybody better.