🏈 Archie Manning publicly supports Hugh Freeze as a ‘clear-cut Coach of the Year candidate’

[TerryP]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Archie Manning publicly supports Hugh Freeze as a ‘clear-cut Coach of the Year candidate’ <a href="http://t.co/0u6aGe8acj">http://t.co/0u6aGe8acj</a></p>&mdash; SEC Football (@SECfootball) <a href="https://twitter.com/SECfootball/statuses/393507279372156928">October 24, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Committee member.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

[video=youtube;wk4nj4xAnI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk4nj4xAnI4[/video]

 

[bamafan4ever]

<iframe style="width: 1px; height: 0px; border: medium none; position: absolute; visibility: hidden;" title="Embedded Tweet" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" allowtransparency="true" id="twitter-widget-0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Archie Manning publicly supports Hugh Freeze as a ‘clear-cut Coach of the Year candidate’ http://t.co/0u6aGe8acj
— SEC Football (@SECfootball) October 24, 2013​

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Committee member.

First thing that crossed my mind when I read the title of the thread! Unbelievable....


<iframe style="display: none;" allowtransparency="true" id="rufous-sandbox" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

 

[cjaytch]

Yet another example of why the system itself is the problem. Its a "beauty pagent" style system packed with unqualified (Rice, Tranghese) and biased (Manning, Alvarez) members.

Some members are both unqualified AND biased.

 

[planomateo]

Could be worse, he could be publicly questioning the HC for putting a defensive starter in on special teams.

 

[Brandon Van de Graaff]

Yet another example of why the system itself is the problem. Its a "beauty pagent" style system packed with unqualified (Rice, Tranghese) and biased (Manning, Alvarez) members.

Some members are both unqualified AND biased.

To some degree or another they are all biased. Some just more than others. Its a dumb system that will have as many or more issues as the BCS did for the simple reason that the panel will over think stuff and yes, biases will probably come into play at times. Personally, I didn't have much of an issue with the BCS, it just needed to be tweaked some.

 

[cjaytch]

To some degree or another they are all biased. Some just more than others. Its a dumb system that will have as many or more issues as the BCS did for the simple reason that the panel will over think stuff and yes, biases will probably come into play at times. Personally, I didn't have much of an issue with the BCS, it just needed to be tweaked some.

You are right man. EVERYONE is biased. Me included.

 

[TerryP]

You are right man. EVERYONE is biased. Me included.

Seems fair, at least to me, to give all of them the opportunity to make a decision (or a statement like Archie has made) before judging what abilities they have as a selection committee member.

Archie's statement is...geez, not sure what word to use.

I have my doubts, serious doubts, we'd see 75% of the committee members make a statement like this one.

 

[TerryP]

First thing that crossed my mind when I read the title of the thread! Unbelievable....


<iframe style="display: none;" allowtransparency="true" id="rufous-sandbox" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

The reason I mentioned he was a committee member wasn't to suggest he'd make bad decisions in his selections. It was more along the lines of pointing to what may be an issue with his discretion—better keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than open...

 

[riz]

Eh, no problem. That's what Condi and her diplomatic negotiating skills are there for. :jackoff2:

 

[riz]

Much more importantly, I discovered we have a jackoff smiley. Prepare yourselves.

 

[cjaytch]

Seems fair, at least to me, to give all of them the opportunity to make a decision (or a statement like Archie has made) before judging what abilities they have as a selection committee member.

Archie's statement is...geez, not sure what word to use.

I have my doubts, serious doubts, we'd see 75% of the committee members make a statement like this one.

Or, maybe, the rest of the committee members are smart enough to keep their blatant bias quiet.

Look, I know you want this committee to work but you are relying on "basic human goodness" and people putting aside their emotions and desires to do whats best. People don't usually do that and there are people on that committee that have shown they will step on anyone to get what they want.

This committee may surprise me and make all the right picks the first few years. But it will inevitably degenerate into members making deals with each other to get the teams they want in the playoff. Call me cynical if you like but anyone paying the least amount of attention to the way the world works knows this is how things are. They will also inevitably face "pressure" from people outside the committee that hold some sort of sway with each of them.

We shall see....

 

[TerryP]

Or, maybe, the rest of the committee members are smart enough to keep their blatant bias quiet.

As much as some dislike Condi Rice on the committee, I feel pretty confident stating she wouldn't have made a comment like Archie's. (Condi haters... :stick: )

Look, I know you want this committee to work but you are relying on "basic human goodness" and people putting aside their emotions and desires to do whats best. People don't usually do that and there are people on that committee that have shown they will step on anyone to get what they want.

Actually, I was very much against the playoff idea and the committee in the first place. I still don't like the idea of either. But, it is what it is, right?

I'm not "relying on 'basic human goodness'" as much as I'm withholding criticism until there is something to criticize. I'd rather refrain from judging something before there's ample evidence.

I hate using this as an example because I despise political talk on football forums—so pardon my analogy.

I was, and still am, against the AHCA because there are far too many examples of a government ran system not working. Seeing what my new premium will be confirms those suspicions.

I have nothing on which to judge this type of committee. Some have suggested basketball, but when have they left a deserving team out? If a team is at #65 that's on them, right?

This committee may surprise me and make all the right picks the first few years. But it will inevitably degenerate into members making deals with each other to get the teams they want in the playoff. Call me cynical if you like but anyone paying the least amount of attention to the way the world works knows this is how things are. They will also inevitably face "pressure" from people outside the committee that hold some sort of sway with each of them.

We shall see....

You're likely right but like you say, "We shall see..."

 

[cjaytch]

As much as some dislike Condi Rice on the committee, I feel pretty confident stating she wouldn't have made a comment like Archie's. (Condi haters... :stick: )

Like it or not, people are judged by the company they keep. She kept some evil company for 8 years....

Actually, I was very much against the playoff idea and the committee in the first place. I still don't like the idea of either. But, it is what it is, right?

You are correct. And the people in charge dont much care what you our i think as long as we keep watching and spending our money.

I'm not "relying on 'basic human goodness'" as much as I'm withholding criticism until there is something to criticize. I'd rather refrain from judging something before there's ample evidence.

Fair enough. I'm just avoiding the inevitable rush

I was, and still am, against the AHCA because there are far too many examples of a government ran system not working. Seeing what my new premium will be confirms those suspicions.

Confirmed: Im paying more and getting less also :sauer055:

I dont want a government mandated system either. The system is a mess due to how college football has been run for 80 years. All things considered, I'm not sure its fixable due to the egos and money involved. This selection committee may be the best we can hope for and that is pretty damn sad for the sport I love.

I have nothing on which to judge this type of committee. Some have suggested basketball, but when have they left a deserving team out? If a team is at #65 that's on them, right?

I dont think basketball is a good comparison for many reasons. 64 out of how many teams make the playoff? With this system they will be picking 4 out of 125 (with 3 more on the way) teams. Sure the bottom 115 are easy "no go". Football is an entirely different animal from basketball. Instead, we should be looking at other football systems that do work and emulating that.

 

[planomateo]

She's a politician...they are all evil.

So Gus is getting support because the guy prior sucked so bad...classic.

 

[TerryP]

Like it or not, people are judged by the company they keep. She kept some evil company for 8 years....

Which has nothing to do with her ability on this committee.

I can't say you fall into this category because I don't know. I suspect a lot of people who didn't like that White House administration hold that against here in judgment of her ability on the selection committee.

I don't think that's fair.

You are correct. And the people in charge dont much care what you our i think as long as we keep watching and spending our money.

Fact remains there were a lot of college football fans crying for a playoff to be instituted.

It's my opinion those that did have no place on the "rant stand" when controversial decisions/selections happen—assuming they do!

:laughcry:

Fair enough. I'm just avoiding the inevitable rush

I dont think basketball is a good comparison for many reasons. 64 out of how many teams make the playoff? With this system they will be picking 4 out of 125 (with 3 more on the way) teams. Sure the bottom 115 are easy "no go". Football is an entirely different animal from basketball. Instead, we should be looking at other football systems that do work and emulating that.

I believe the number is 64 out of 351. Far too many teams in D1 play in basketball...as there are far too many in FBS.

Realistically, we aren't talking about picking four out of 125 or so. We're talking four out of a field of what...less than six in an average year?

And, as I see it, there isn't going to be a lot of controversy the majority of the years. Hell, if the season ended today it doesn't take a Phd. to see who had a more difficult schedule between Mizzou and Ohio State. Now, with their winning streak I'm sure there would be some crying "SEC bias." Common sense should tell anyone who has accomplished more...

But alas, we shall see...

 

[cjaytch]

Which has nothing to do with her ability on this committee.

I can't say you fall into this category because I don't know. I suspect a lot of people who didn't like that White House administration hold that against here in judgment of her ability on the selection committee.

I don't think that's fair.

I understand. It would be quite easy for me to do that but I can honestly say that isn't the case. I would be saying the same if some politician I liked who had never played or coached the game was nominated to the committee.

Conversely, and I dont know if this applies to you or not, there are a great many people who support her for no other reason than their irrational nostalgia and misguided love for that administration. That is another reason she is a bad choice. No matter which side of the Bush administration you fall on, she is a polarizing figure. The only thing that could have been worse would have been to put Bush himself (or Bill Clinton) on the committee.

Fact remains there were a lot of college football fans crying for a playoff to be instituted.

It's my opinion those that did have no place on the "rant stand" when controversial decisions/selections happen—assuming they do!

Agreed.

:laughcry:

Sarcasm is the one free service i offer

I believe the number is 64 out of 351. Far too many teams in D1 play in basketball...as there are far too many in FBS.

Agreed.

Realistically, we aren't talking about picking four out of 125 or so. We're talking four out of a field of what...less than six in an average year?

And, as I see it, there isn't going to be a lot of controversy the majority of the years. Hell, if the season ended today it doesn't take a Phd. to see who had a more difficult schedule between Mizzou and Ohio State. Now, with their winning streak I'm sure there would be some crying "SEC bias." Common sense should tell anyone who has accomplished more...

But alas, we shall see...

Most years it should be "easy". The problem will be when you get a bunch of 1 loss teams or a mess like 07.

Ahh but we can't rely on common sense now can we? If common sense were common, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

We shall see indeed

 

[TerryP]

I understand. It would be quite easy for me to do that but I can honestly say that isn't the case. I would be saying the same if some politician I liked who had never played or coached the game was nominated to the committee.

Conversely, and I dont know if this applies to you or not, there are a great many people who support her for no other reason than their irrational nostalgia and misguided love for that administration. That is another reason she is a bad choice. No matter which side of the Bush administration you fall on, she is a polarizing figure. The only thing that could have been worse would have been to put Bush himself (or Bill Clinton) on the committee.

Interesting point you bring up here.

Considering Bush and his involvement with the MLB...he might have a pretty solid viewpoint on who belongs and who doesn't.

Clinton would put Oregon in each and every year based on their cheerleaders alone—not that there's ANYTHING wrong with that criteria!!

 

[cjaytch]

Interesting point you bring up here.

Considering Bush and his involvement with the MLB...he might have a pretty solid viewpoint on who belongs and who doesn't.

Clinton would put Oregon in each and every year based on their cheerleaders alone—not that there's ANYTHING wrong with that criteria!!

Good point about Oregon. They should be asked to join the SEC just because of the cheerleaders Just.....wow.....

For some reason, I'm thinking the team that Bush ran didn't do very well financially.

 

[JoshB]

For some reason, I'm thinking the team that Bush ran didn't do very well financially.

Reminds me of something else he ran... :biggrin_blue: