Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

Is she intelligent? Has she any experience with high level bargaining? Can she build consensus? Is she willing to listen to the majority of people involved and come to a reasonable solution? There needs to be more viewpoint then AD's, coaches, former players, etc. 

I don't know if she is the best choice for the committee, but at least they stepped outside of the Good Ole' Boy Network to find an answer. And they are trying to find an answer. Both of those steps are important.

I couldn't agree more.  Taking the person out of the equation, I think that the qualities described are far more important than the tainted football "intelligence" that ADs, former players, and coaches would bring to the table. 

I have had mixed thoughts on this.  My first reaction was exactly like yours Matt.  I was probably a little more harsh to the tune of WTF is she doing on this committee.  I just assumed it would be people with heavy involvement in college football that would be making the selections.

However, as I've thought about it more I kind of get a lot of the other points made in this thread.  Perhaps some outside perspective is what is needed to make this thing better.

We shall see

I fear this from AD's, corporate sponsor's, bowls, etc. The $$$$$'s involved are the biggest challenge, IMO.

It could be worse... imagine someone thinking it was a good idea to have Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman on Monday Night Football.

Dennis Miller

Any given year you’ll have a couple teams that are no-brainers for getting in to the playoffs, and a half dozen teams that have a legitimate claim to the 3^rd or 4^th spots.  The odds are pretty good those teams will have not played each other and that they'll have relatively few common opponents (except obviously when comparing teams from inside the same conference).  So how do you decide between a PAC-12 team with a wide-open offense and an SEC team with a swarming defense.

On the one hand, I think in general former coaches will give you the best possibility of selecting the top four teams, assuming they can put all prejudices aside for teams and conferences of course.  These are the people who spent a career studying game film to determine strengths and weaknesses of teams and comparing personnel matchups. 

On the other hand, the committee really can’t lose (or win, however you want to look at it).  Every single year, they’ll select four teams that are definitely worthy of getting in, and there’ll be two or three other teams that were just as worthy for the fourth spot who are left out.  A couple of campuses will celebrate, a couple of campuses will whine, Josh will post here how Boise St. was screwed, ESPN will milk the "controversy" of selecting this team over that team for a good month, and we'll hopefully end up with a better championship game than we've had for the last two years.

I really don’t see what makes Condi qualified to be on the committee, but until a four loss Stanford team makes the playoffs I’ll assume that she’s doing the job just fine.  I'm more concerned with the current AD's on the committee.  I get that they wanted an AD from each of the major conferences, but I don't see how you can resolve the inherent conflict of interest when one of their teams is a bubble team.  They should have stuck to retired individuals.

And David Pollack is an idiot.

I agree that's what they'll probably do, but I also don't think it's right.  Let's say hypothetically Clemson and Stanford end up 4th and 5th in the polls, and 6th place is really not a contender.  Why should Clemson be penalized in the debate by having to recuse the man that's there arguing for their conference while the PAC-12 guy still gets to weigh in and vote?  

Aside from seeding, it's not that big a deal in basketball.  If you're left out of that tournament, then your program pretty much sucks.  But with a four team playoff that's 100% opinion based, Clemson (in my made up scenario) shouldn't be stripped of their voice.  That's why I'm opposed to any active university AD (or coach) being on the committee.  

In the long run, it probably won't matter anyway.  Like Chris said, it's all about the money.  

There's no financial gain to be made for Willingham and Rice.  A Stanford championship is just good for the PAC-12, and all its universities.  Good for negotiating the PAC-12 tv contract, good for PAC-12 recruiting, good for the USC AD in promoting his next matchup against the defending national champions.  Taking one conference's representative out of that decision making because his specific school is in the discussion is not in the best interest of finding the top four football programs. They tried to create a balance of power with a representative from each conference, but then you lose the balance as soon as one of their schools is involved.  

I'd be less upset with the committee if they'd picked the AD's from Mizzou, Minnesota, Duke, and Iowa State.  USC can stay for now.  

My only real hope is that we get to a solution, a real playoff solution. First we will have to do away with the bowl system, then a 4 team playoff and finally we'll wind up with an 8 team playoff system. 

Time. It's going to take time, since that is the only thing that can compete with money. We'll reconvene in 2028 for more discussion.

I think it doesn't matter who is on the committee.  The selection of teams will be controversial.  What fun would it be otherwise?

However, I do think that someone with ties to a team that fakes injuries should get a one-year ban from participating on the committee.

Stanford of the SEC?