Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert? Rss Feed  
Moderators: the bear, DerekL, Ron Reply
2013-10-07 8:15 PM

User image

Master
1582
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
So Rice is going to be one of the members on the new playoff committee. Considering how well known she is, it isn't suprising that there has been some controversy over the choice. Some are saying that Rice is being targeted because she a woman and women don't belong in football.

Personally, I really don't care what her gender is, I am about as qualified to be on the panel as she is. From what I have heard so far, she is a huge football fan and would love to be the NFL commissioner one day. How many people does that describe.

It sounds like there may be some other members on the committee who may not be particularly qualified either. I believe they haven't received the same level of criticism because the name recognition just isn't there. Any high level politician or celebrity would receive the same scrutiny.

Members of the committe should have been heavily involved in the sport for some length of time, whether it is as a player, coach, AD or journalist. "Big fan" shouldn't cut it.

What do you all think? Is she a good choice for the committee? Is the criticism justified or sexist?


2013-10-07 9:07 PM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Master
2275
2000100100252525
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Of course she is qualified!!! She was my wife's advisor in college and my team needs all the props it can get!







(Stanford_logo.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Stanford_logo.jpg (39KB - 8 downloads)
2013-10-08 6:53 AM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Master
4163
200020001002525
Paradise aka Englewood
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

Originally posted by uclamatt2007 So Rice is going to be one of the members on the new playoff committee. Considering how well known she is, it isn't suprising that there has been some controversy over the choice. Some are saying that Rice is being targeted because she a woman and women don't belong in football. Personally, I really don't care what her gender is, I am about as qualified to be on the panel as she is. From what I have heard so far, she is a huge football fan and would love to be the NFL commissioner one day. How many people does that describe. It sounds like there may be some other members on the committee who may not be particularly qualified either. I believe they haven't received the same level of criticism because the name recognition just isn't there. Any high level politician or celebrity would receive the same scrutiny. Members of the committe should have been heavily involved in the sport for some length of time, whether it is as a player, coach, AD or journalist. "Big fan" shouldn't cut it. What do you all think? Is she a good choice for the committee? Is the criticism justified or sexist?

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.

2013-10-08 7:43 AM
in reply to: cdban66

User image

Champion
16122
5000500050001000100
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by cdban66

Originally posted by uclamatt2007 So Rice is going to be one of the members on the new playoff committee. Considering how well known she is, it isn't suprising that there has been some controversy over the choice. Some are saying that Rice is being targeted because she a woman and women don't belong in football. Personally, I really don't care what her gender is, I am about as qualified to be on the panel as she is. From what I have heard so far, she is a huge football fan and would love to be the NFL commissioner one day. How many people does that describe. It sounds like there may be some other members on the committee who may not be particularly qualified either. I believe they haven't received the same level of criticism because the name recognition just isn't there. Any high level politician or celebrity would receive the same scrutiny. Members of the committe should have been heavily involved in the sport for some length of time, whether it is as a player, coach, AD or journalist. "Big fan" shouldn't cut it. What do you all think? Is she a good choice for the committee? Is the criticism justified or sexist?

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.




Exactly right. This committee needs to avoid group think by not being constructed with an incestuous set of members.
2013-10-08 7:56 AM
in reply to: pitt83

User image

Master
2506
2000500
Washington, DC Metro
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by pitt83
Originally posted by cdban66

Originally posted by uclamatt2007 So Rice is going to be one of the members on the new playoff committee. Considering how well known she is, it isn't suprising that there has been some controversy over the choice. Some are saying that Rice is being targeted because she a woman and women don't belong in football. Personally, I really don't care what her gender is, I am about as qualified to be on the panel as she is. From what I have heard so far, she is a huge football fan and would love to be the NFL commissioner one day. How many people does that describe. It sounds like there may be some other members on the committee who may not be particularly qualified either. I believe they haven't received the same level of criticism because the name recognition just isn't there. Any high level politician or celebrity would receive the same scrutiny. Members of the committe should have been heavily involved in the sport for some length of time, whether it is as a player, coach, AD or journalist. "Big fan" shouldn't cut it. What do you all think? Is she a good choice for the committee? Is the criticism justified or sexist?

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.

Exactly right. This committee needs to avoid group think by not being constructed with an incestuous set of members.

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. 

2013-10-08 8:56 AM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Champion
6818
50001000500100100100
Fayetteville
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
An independent and long-range perspective will be critical to the committee. Otherwise, how quickly will the 8-team format turn into 9 teams and eventually a 65-team tourney. IMO, to be successful, the selection criteria for playoff teams needs to exclude conference affiliations. No reason the Big-10, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, or any other conference should get an automatic bid.

Can she provide this influence? She's in a much better position than conference commissioners or AD's who are trying to protect their existing franchises. Now if she's the only one on a committee packed with people protecting teams or conferences, it won't matter, will it?


2013-10-08 9:16 AM
in reply to: McFuzz

User image

Pro
6007
50001000
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

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

2013-10-08 9:43 AM
in reply to: McFuzz

User image

Master
4163
200020001002525
Paradise aka Englewood
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

Originally posted by McFuzz An independent and long-range perspective will be critical to the committee. Otherwise, how quickly will the 8-team format turn into 9 teams and eventually a 65-team tourney. IMO, to be successful, the selection criteria for playoff teams needs to exclude conference affiliations. No reason the Big-10, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, or any other conference should get an automatic bid. Can she provide this influence? She's in a much better position than conference commissioners or AD's who are trying to protect their existing franchises. Now if she's the only one on a committee packed with people protecting teams or conferences, it won't matter, will it?

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

2013-10-08 9:45 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
5377
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

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

 

2013-10-08 9:47 AM
in reply to: Pector55

User image

Master
4163
200020001002525
Paradise aka Englewood
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by Pector55

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

2013-10-08 11:03 AM
in reply to: cdban66

User image

Veteran
674
5001002525
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

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 3rd or 4th 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.



2013-10-08 11:06 AM
in reply to: kevin_trapp

User image

Master
1582
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by kevin_trapp

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 3rd or 4th 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 would assume that anyone with a conflict of interest would recuse themselves from the discussion about their team. That is how the basketball committee works at least.

At least with USC's AD on the committee we won't have to worry about a conflict of interest for him for a while.
2013-10-08 11:25 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Veteran
674
5001002525
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

Originally posted by uclamatt2007  I would assume that anyone with a conflict of interest would recuse themselves from the discussion about their team. That is how the basketball committee works at least. At least with USC's AD on the committee we won't have to worry about a conflict of interest for him for a while.

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.  



Edited by kevin_trapp 2013-10-08 11:25 AM
2013-10-08 11:39 AM
in reply to: kevin_trapp

User image

Master
1582
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by kevin_trapp

Originally posted by uclamatt2007  I would assume that anyone with a conflict of interest would recuse themselves from the discussion about their team. That is how the basketball committee works at least. At least with USC's AD on the committee we won't have to worry about a conflict of interest for him for a while.

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.  




Is a former Stanford coach (Willingham) or a huge Stanford fan (Rice) going to be anymore objective. Just listen to Lou Holtz talk about Notre Dame on any Saturday morning to show how much of a homer a former coach can be.

The easiest solution is just to let the top 4 SEC teams in so we can really see who the best team in the country is.
2013-10-08 11:54 AM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Veteran
674
5001002525
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by uclamatt2007
Originally posted by kevin_trapp

Originally posted by uclamatt2007  I would assume that anyone with a conflict of interest would recuse themselves from the discussion about their team. That is how the basketball committee works at least. At least with USC's AD on the committee we won't have to worry about a conflict of interest for him for a while.

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.  

Is a former Stanford coach (Willingham) or a huge Stanford fan (Rice) going to be anymore objective. Just listen to Lou Holtz talk about Notre Dame on any Saturday morning to show how much of a homer a former coach can be. The easiest solution is just to let the top 4 SEC teams in so we can really see who the best team in the country is.

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.  Laughing

2013-10-08 12:02 PM
in reply to: kevin_trapp

User image

Master
4163
200020001002525
Paradise aka Englewood
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

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.



2013-10-08 12:05 PM
in reply to: kevin_trapp

User image

Master
1582
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by kevin_trapp

]

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.  Laughing




I'd rather have the committee be evenly biased honestly. No one involved in football can be truly objective. Every conference gets one spot, mid majors included.

2013-10-08 12:24 PM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Veteran
674
5001002525
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by uclamatt2007
Originally posted by kevin_trapp]

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.  Laughing

I'd rather have the committee be evenly biased honestly. No one involved in football can be truly objective. Every conference gets one spot, mid majors included.
I'd rather have a playoff where each conference champion is in. Isn't that the entire point of divisions and conferences in pretty much every sport other than FBS football. Find the best at the local level, then the regional level, then finally the national level. No need to select anything. But hey, baby steps. The bcs was an improvement on the polls, this is an improvement on the bcs.
2013-10-08 3:45 PM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Master
2862
20005001001001002525
Sunny Southern Cal
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?

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.

2013-10-08 5:09 PM
in reply to: SevenZulu

User image

Champion
16122
5000500050001000100
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by SevenZulu

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.




Why do you hate the Gamecocks?
2013-10-08 5:48 PM
in reply to: pitt83

User image

Master
2862
20005001001001002525
Sunny Southern Cal
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
Originally posted by pitt83
Originally posted by SevenZulu

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.

Why do you hate the Gamecocks?

Stanford of the SEC?



2013-10-08 8:10 PM
in reply to: SevenZulu

User image

Expert
1189
1000100252525
Subject: RE: Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert?
I don't know if she's an expert, but she is a huge football fan...attends a lot of pro training camps, seems to spend a lot of her extra time on football.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Condoleeza Rice - College Football Expert? Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

Thoughts on College Football, 2005 Pages: 1 2

Started by El Oso
Views: 1285 Posts: 49

2005-12-08 9:34 AM the bear

College Football for Dummies Pages: 1 2

Started by Jiggies
Views: 904 Posts: 29

2005-11-20 10:48 AM tyrant

COLLEGE FOOTBALL!!

Started by Comet
Views: 690 Posts: 18

2005-09-06 1:05 PM Brett

College football drawing near...It's over clowns Pages: 1 2

Started by Det
Views: 1439 Posts: 38

2005-08-03 9:21 AM jwbrandon

Who will win: UF vs FSU College Football Pages: 1 2

Started by DJP1812
Views: 924 Posts: 30

2004-11-23 12:30 PM G8RLA94
RELATED ARTICLES
date : May 21, 2012
author : writingrunner
comments : 1
A reflection of what motivates me to keep on training.
 
date : December 22, 2011
author : writingrunner
comments : 1
Where to find the time WITHOUT getting up early
date : August 6, 2009
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 2
Learn about the latest research on supplements, training and calories.
 
date : July 28, 2008
author : peteo
comments : 4
Honey, great news. I just spent our kids’ college fund on a new bike! The sales guy said it will shave at least 3 seconds off my 40K time. Umm, honey why do you have a knife in your hand???
date : April 12, 2007
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 0
For athletes, the saying “Drink responsibly” holds true for all fluids. Don’t let dehydration—or overhydration—hurt your ability to enjoy exercise and perform at your best.
 
date : November 14, 2004
author : Andrea
comments : 0
I'm on the other side of the college-student desk. I'm the one with the red pen in my hand. Those of us with schedules that change from day to day actually have an advantage, I think.
date : September 26, 2004
author : Browe79
comments : 0
This man’s story was so inspiring that my brother and I committed to doing an Ironman by the time we turned thirty.
 
date : September 5, 2004
author : Team BT
comments : 0
Out of this frustration, the first annual Denver Community College Triathlon was born. It was open to all employees of the campus, with a 30 dollar entrance fee for the campus scholarship fund.