🏈 Condoleezza Rice has no business on the College Football Playoff committee (Kevin Scarbinsky)

[bamaledge]

misogynistic? I only went to George C. Wallace community college, not Harvard. Geez, but I don't understand men not liking women. I value almost everything my wife says, even if she has to get my balls out of her purse so's I can talk intelligently with her.

 

[JoshB]

Misogynists are more so demeaning to women, feeling that they have a certain place (cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc.) and they should "know their place" not necessarily HATE towards women.

 

[cjaytch]

I would trust my mother to identify a good football team over Pat Dye... and my mother has never watched a down of football in her life...

"But we's young paaaaaaawl!"

"I'd take Chizik over 10 Nick Saban's"

I rest my case...

Like i said, stopped clock is right twice a day.

So you would take the word of someone who has never coached, much less played a day of football in their life over someone who was a well paid professional coach who, despite his flaws, won a bunch of games?

 

[cjaytch]

Misogynists are more so demeaning to women, feeling that they have a certain place (cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc.) and they should "know their place" not necessarily HATE towards women.

Right, because everyone who thinks a career politician is unqualified to pick the top 4 teams in college football is clearly a misogynist. I would say the same thing had the picked GW Bush or Obama.

Letting people who have neither played or coached be on the committee reminds me of the kind souls who, having no children of their own, offer parenting advice to those who do....

The fact of the matter is Rice is no more qualified than TerryP (no insult to him), or you for that matter, to be on that committee. That's not saying there aren't a bunch of other unqualified members. But they weren't the topic of this thread, or scarbo's article.

 

[planomateo]

Yet another drunk Dye comment...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>&quot;Auburn is doing as much to deserve number 1 attention as Alabama has&quot; - Coach Dye</p>&mdash; The Game (@TheGameWDGM) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheGameWDGM/statuses/387348550620704768">October 7, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[UAgrad93]

I have more of an issue with ADs like Transgrese and Haden than what I do with Condition Rice. I think she is going to be the one to reign these guys in and keep them on point and not have a bias.

 

[JoshB]

Right, because everyone who thinks a career politician is unqualified to pick the top 4 teams in college football is clearly a misogynist. I would say the same thing had the picked GW Bush or Obama.

Letting people who have neither played or coached be on the committee reminds me of the kind souls who, having no children of their own, offer parenting advice to those who do....

The fact of the matter is Rice is no more qualified than TerryP (no insult to him), or you for that matter, to be on that committee. That's not saying there aren't a bunch of other unqualified members. But they weren't the topic of this thread, or scarbo's article.

Dude take that little whiny bullshit somewhere else, I explained what a misogynist is not that you were a misogynist genius.

 

[rick4bama]

I see it this way. You take the Polls, you take the BCS, now take this committee. No one will even be happy with any of it. The committee hasn't even started, we're on here discussing about the ones that been picked. To me the old polls were ok with me, but, I'm old school.

 

[cjaytch]

Dude take that little whiny bullshit somewhere else, I explained what a misogynist is not that you were a misogynist genius.

You know there will be plenty of people out there suggesting that opposition to Condi is nothing more than misogyny. I thought that's what you were doing. Guess I was wrong huh? Perhaps if you had responded in some way that didn't make you sound like a total dickhead, I would have apologized for misunderstanding your post.

Misogynists are more so demeaning to women, feeling that they have a certain place (cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc.) and they should "know their place" not necessarily HATE towards women.​

FYI

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogynist
mi·sog·y·nist(m

-s

j

-n

st)n.One who hates women.
adj.Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny
: a hatred of women

How about that "GENIUS"? But you go on and feel free to make up your own definition for words as you see fit....

What you defined in your misguided post is more like http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism

 

[JoshB]

You know there will be plenty of people out there suggesting that opposition to Condi is nothing more than misogyny. I thought that's what you were doing. Guess I was wrong huh? Perhaps if you had responded in some way that didn't make you sound like a total dickhead, I would have apologized for misunderstanding your post.


FYI

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogynist
mi·sog·y·nist(m

-s

j

-n

st)n.One who hates women.
adj.Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny
: a hatred of women

How about that "GENIUS"? But you go on and feel free to make up your own definition for words as you see fit....

What you defined in your misguided post is more like http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism

I couldn't care less if you apologize bro, its not my fault if you take me responding to something SOMEONE ELSE said as me insulting you thats your problem.

And that was my interpretation of the way people, that are considered misogynists, treat women but by all means go look up some more words in webster.

 

[TerryP]

Like i said, stopped clock is right twice a day.

So you would take the word of someone who has never coached, much less played a day of football in their life over someone who was a well paid professional coach who, despite his flaws, won a bunch of games?

If this was a case of Condi versus a guy like DeBerry Fisher I'd agree with you. However, we aren't talking about a guy with the track record of Fisher. We're talking about a guy with enough flaws to remove him from even being listened to for his opinion. (Outside of the pure entertainment value)

Let's set aside Dye's comments about "not trading Chizik for 10 Saban's" if possible—never mind the fact it was a stupid statement.

Let's set aside Dye's comments about Auburn having done enough to deserve #1 consideration this season—never mind the fact they have a conference loss or the point they've lost more than two times the number of conference games over the last 2.5 years than they've won.

Let's just address one point—what they've been told.

Of all people, considering how Bobby Lowder told the Auburn coaching staff how to run their program, Dye talking about being told about something?

I did get a chortle out of Bo Mattingly's comment last night:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Dear Pat Dye &amp; other &quot;formers&quot;, just because you played and coached doesn't make you smart or dumb. Just makes you a &quot;former&quot;.</p>&mdash; Bo Mattingly (@SportsTalkwBo) <a href="https://twitter.com/SportsTalkwBo/statuses/387319560530976768">October 7, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[cjaytch]

I couldn't care less if you apologize bro, its not my fault if you take me responding to something SOMEONE ELSE said as me insulting you thats your problem.

And that was my interpretation of the way people, that are considered misogynists, treat women but by all means go look up some more words in webster.

No, it isnt your fault i misunderstood you post to mean something it didn't. It is your fault that instead of responding in a civil manner, you decided to insult me. That says a lot about you.

I guess the hilarious irony of you calling someone else a "genius" while you try to expound on what words mean, while getting them wrong, is lost on you. Maybe you should try "looking up some more words in webster", it's how you learn what they actually mean. Who knows, perhaps you can learn some new ones like "manners", "congenial", or "self-control".

 

[TerryP]

I appreciate how Pat Forde encapsulates (not a Harvard word alum) this week in his column:

Forde-Yard Dash: College football still acting backwards in a progressive society

---

---

FOOTBALL VS. ENLIGHTENMENT: WHO WINS?

It's been a banner week for the football old guard – and by old guard, The Dash means the Archie Bunker sect that wants women in the kitchen and gays in the closet and bullying big boys in charge.

Last week, Mississippi football players were required to apologize for being part of a student disruption of a campus play, "The Laramie Project." The play is based on the murder of gay man Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, and the subject matter apparently was more than many in attendance at Ole Miss could handle maturely.

On Sunday, Detroit Lions center Dominic Raiola reportedly played the time-honored bully-the-band card, directing a succession of remarkably vulgar remarks at University of Wisconsin band members on the field before the Lions lost to the Green Bay Packers. (Given the garbage Raiola is reported to have said, it seems to The Dash that the NFL should administer a random drug test to Raiola today. If not yesterday. 'Roid rage, anyone?)

And for the last several days, white males have been coming out of the woodwork (Bunker? Clavern?) to lambaste the reported choice of former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (1) as a member of the 2014 College Football Playoff Selection Committee. On ESPN's "College GameDay," analyst and former Georgia star David Pollack (2) said the committee was no place for a woman.

"I want people on this committee that can watch tape, that have played football, that are around football, that can tell you different teams on tape, not on paper," Pollack said. He subsequently offered this, via Twitter: "I want people on the committee that eat, sleep & breathe college football during the season. It has nothing to do with male or female."

Pollack (who is a friend of The Dash and a nice guy) was hardly alone. Among many others chiming in was reliable old reactionary Pat Dye, who believes any offensive play more risky than a screen pass is a sign of societal decay and has a corrosive effect on American values.
"All she knows about football is what somebody told her," Dye reportedly told WJOX radio in Birmingham, Ala. "Or what she read in a book, or what she saw on television. To understand football, you've got to play with your hand in the dirt."

With that, Dye presumably dragged his knuckles through said dirt back to his cave to resume watching black-and-white film of wishbone offenses. And told the nearest dame to fetch him a beer.

If you don't think this is flamingly sexist and slightly out of touch with the times, then answer the following questions:

Has anyone yet impugned the reported inclusion of Michael Tranghese as a member of the selection committee? Check his bio: small-college golfer, basketball team manager, went into sports information before becoming commissioner of the Big East. I don't hear anyone questioning Tranghese's ability to "watch tape," despite never having played with his "hand in the dirt."

Rice has not spent her adult life in and around college football, largely because she had more important things to do – like, dealing with the Middle East and Russia. If lack of a lifetime commitment to the game is a factor, what do we do with recently retired Air Force Superintendent Michael Gould? He played college football in the 1970s, then spent six months as a graduate assistant coach in 1976. Can't imagine he's spent much time breaking down gap control or route trees over the last 37 years.

Neither, presumably, has Tom Jernstedt, an Oregon quarterback in the 1960s who went on to run the NCAA basketball tournament for decades. Or Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich, whose modest career as a tight end and punter at Indiana University of Pennsylvania was followed by a career in sports administration.

If there are concerns that Rice's time teaching law at Stanford may prevent her from devoting the hours to studying the 2014 football season, what about athletic directors Radakovich, Barry Alvarez, Jeff Long, Pat Haden and Oliver Luck? They spend most of their time Monday-Friday overseeing multi-sport, multi-million-dollar departments. How on Earth will they find the time to appraise Alabama's nickel package and decide whether it is playoff-worthy?

Funny, all those potential questions to be asked about the reported committee members – but Rice is the one causing all the angst. Just a coincidence, no doubt.

Fact is, what this committee needs is probably exactly what it has. Namely, smart people who can watch football with an educated eye and then do the most important thing: study a team's body of work and make judgments based on a broad base of national observation and understanding.

The selection committee's task is to choose the four best teams over the course of an entire season, with the ability to qualitatively compare schedules a paramount aspect of the job. The task is not to select teams because a committee member liked its ability to play press coverage on third-and-long. Making football esoterica a job requirement is an attempt to confuse the issue enough to exclude people the Archie Bunkers don't want involved.

 

[musso]

Awesome. Classic authoritarian tactic. In order to deflect attention away from a more legitimate issue, whether or not a selection committee is even necessary, they have managed to captivate the public's attention on who is best qualified to serve on it.

Just like politics ... getting us to quibble about which boot we prefer on our neck, a liberal or conservative one, instead of resisting boots of all kinds.

 

[cjaytch]

Yep, the committee itself is a very bad idea. Rice is just the most glaring example of it getting packed with unqualified, political appointments. Plus, there is no way, no matter who is chosen, to escape the "bias" argument. This is a bad system that I don't think is going to be any better than the system it replaced. Other than 03 and 04, I think the BCS system has done a pretty good job of matching up the best teams. We would be better off with using the current system to select the top 4 rather than let a bunch of unqualified "part timers" do it.

 

[TerryP]

If thats all it takes, then about 1/2 of the people on this board would probably qualify...

Rice is a political appointment, nothing more.

Yep, the committee itself is a very bad idea. Rice is just the most glaring example of it getting packed with unqualified, political appointments. Plus, there is no way, no matter who is chosen, to escape the "bias" argument. This is a bad system that I don't think is going to be any better than the system it replaced. Other than 03 and 04, I think the BCS system has done a pretty good job of matching up the best teams. We would be better off with using the current system to select the top 4 rather than let a bunch of unqualified "part timers" do it.

Here's twice in this thread you've used the term "political appointment."

Political? I'm assuming you're not using the right word here because it doesn't make sense to me. If we use this term it's referring to a practice of influencing people. Now, if Rice has the ability to influence some on this committee and that influence combats an ingrained bias (as uagrad mentioned earlier) how is that a bad thing?

Let's assume that isn't the case. Who is she suppose to have an influence over?

Are you suggesting her selection was to appease a group?

---

As to the BCS, it's worked like it was supposed to work when it was launched each and every year. The intention was to place the #1 and #2 team against each other—which it has done. (And there's not a single complaint you'll hear from me on 2003 and 2004. Again, did what it was supposed to do.)

 

[planomateo]

I've never really known much about Condolezza Rice's background. Her being mentioned as a potential to the committee has made me start poking around. Fascinating background she has...

That being said, what do you think someone's background should be to be part of the subcommittee?

 

[psychojoe]

Looking at how basketball does it, not everyone on that selection committee is expert on all teh fine points of he game. They have a similarly difficult job. The automatic bids speak for themselves, and the firt 25-30 at large teams do as well. Its when you have to pick those last 8-10 teams for the big dance that it gets dicey, and every year someone that gets left out that is upset about it. On teh whole they do a very good job with the conditions they have to deal with.

I suspect that the football committee will have similar issues, depending on the criteria they end up with for selections. Using last season, for example, Alabama and Notre Dame would have been easy. Florida was a heartbreaking loss away from a perfect season. You'd have to consider them. Georgia played magnificntly in their loss to Alabama, and it would be tough to say they weren't one of the top 4. But hold on, says Stanford. How would you sort that out? Dr. Rice certainly wouldn't know as much about football as, say, Archie Manning, but her experience could be very helpful in sorting out some very strong opinions about who 3 and 4 should be. She would be only one voice among however many they end up with.

I personally like this direction, rather than packing the committee with a bunch of retired coaches.

 

[TerryP]

I've never really known much about Condolezza Rice's background. Her being mentioned as a potential to the committee has made me start poking around. Fascinating background she has...

That being said, what do you think someone's background should be to be part of the subcommittee?

This will never happen but if given the choice I'd pull a dozen of the handicappers out of Vegas to make up the committee. How many of them do you think had their "hand in the dirt?"

That's part of why I have no issue with people outside of football administrative/coaching position being selected.

 

[cjaytch]

Here's twice in this thread you've used the term "political appointment."

Political? I'm assuming you're not using the right word here because it doesn't make sense to me. If we use this term it's referring to a practice of influencing people. Now, if Rice has the ability to influence some on this committee and that influence combats an ingrained bias (as uagrad mentioned earlier) how is that a bad thing?

Let's assume that isn't the case. Who is she suppose to have an influence over?

Are you suggesting her selection was to appease a group?

---

As to the BCS, it's worked like it was supposed to work when it was launched each and every year. The intention was to place the #1 and #2 team against each other—which it has done. (And there's not a single complaint you'll hear from me on 2003 and 2004. Again, did what it was supposed to do.)

When i say "political appointment", I mean someone who gets a position because of "who they know" rather than "what they are good at". There may be a better word to describe that but I can't think of it. The only group im suggesting is being appeased by her appointment are all her friends in high places that pulled strings to get her the gig. Just like most of these other jokers.

Rice is no more qualified than Phil Knight, Tranghese, Hillary Clinton, or you. Citing her "performance" in the Middle East as a qualification is dubious at best and probably dependent on whether or not one approves of the mountain of corpses that administration created over there.

Tranghese is getting in because he ran a conference. Never mind it was the worst football conference and the dude has no football experience. Every member of the committee will also bring their own biases with them, including Rice. So yet again, instead of having a system, like the NFL or just about every other sport, that puts teams in a real playoff based on wins, we get more "beauty pagent judging". The reason Im singling out Rice is because that is what this thread started as. If anyone wants to start one on some of these other members then do so. My real issue is with the new system.

I don't think packing the committee with ex-coaches is the answer either. While many of them know what a good team is, they may end up leaving one out due to their own grudges. Imagine if Holtz had a say on whether or not Bama made it.

Yes the BCS has placed 1 vs 2 every year. I think the computers missed 2 times in 12 years. No way that OK was the 2nd best team in the nation those 2 years as much as it pains me to say that. But Ill take that system any day over a committee made of of well-connected people who may be able to pick the most entertaining teams to watch but not necessarily the "best" teams. Since they have 4 guesses to get it right, maybe they will...