I looked and didn't see any posts made already, so here's the committee:
Chair: Jeff Long
Condolezza Rice is a head scratcher for me. I get that she's into sports, but it seems quite ... random. I sort of wish they would do a 'test run' this year and announce who would be selected to practice for next year, mostly because the field seems more open this year and I'm quite curious.
You want smart disinterested people sometimes and she's very smart.
We can't get political here right. So we can't state the real reasons. You're scratching you're head? Are you that stupid? Why are football players wearing f'n pink for a month. Jackass.
Wait, what does football players wearing pink have anything to do with Condi's spot on the committee? She doesn't have breast cancer. Or are you suggesting she was picked because she's a woman? Because that's not it at all. She was picked because she's a huge sports fan who is incredibly intelligent. And like the poster above said, she's a disinterested party, which is hard to find.
she is currently a professor at Stanford.
And she went to Notre Dame.
If push comes to shove, we won't be getting any votes from her if we are up against ND or the Pac12. However . . . she's likely to be much more oriented toward academics than some SEC slappy, so she may pull for us in other cases.
Of course, maybe she'll just be fair and impartial and vote for the 4 best teams. It could happen.
<quote>"I'm hoping that (Brandon) Weeden will show a little bit more consistency, but I'm really excited for Trent Richardson to come back. I'm an Alabama Crimson Tide fan and that really is a perfect marriage for me: Trent Richardson and the Cleveland Browns," Rice said.</quote>
She could just be playing that up in pure political fashion.
Only two guys on there worthy.
Alvarez and Osborne?
Haden was a Rhodes Scholar and was smart enough to fire Lane Kiffin.
But dumb enough to think he was an acceptable hire in the first place. I think that trumps the firing
Yeah, I don't like it either. I was hoping for Kirk Herbstreit and David Pollack to make it on the list.
Only media guy on the list is Steve Wieberg and I have no idea who he is.
Air Force lt on their, this makes no sense.
0-9 vs. 0-1 or 0-2. In other words a three star general, not a recently commissioned officer.
So what selection committee picked this selection committee?
What qualifies some of these people to be on this list!
Well, it is not exactly an answer to your question, but this article (HERE) gives one the impression that a lot of people were contacted and a fair number even turned it down for various reasons, typically the time commitment required.
In any case, Condoleezza Rice seemed to believe that strength of schedule and head-to-head matchups should be part of the focus of the committee, according to this.
Can't wait for this complaints and problems to arise from this committee after their first year and it will be very obvious this is not some magiv answer to the BCS system. MAny teams will most likely still feel snubbed thinking they should have made the playoff. I understand most of these people have a connection to CFB, but what makes them an expert? Does Condi Rice watch enough college games to make informed decisions? same goes with half the names on this list
Yes, it's impossible to put together a committee that someone somewhere won't bitch about.
The answer is an eight team playoff. It lets all the major conference champs get in plus a couple of at larges.
People will always complain of course (they complain about teams not even ranked not getting in the basketball tourney), but I can live with the alleged "9th best team" not getting in.
Four teams is always going to leave out at least one major conference champion.
I guess I just don't really care enough about this as I should. All that will happen is that teams 5 and 6 will bitch instead of teams 3 and 4, and the wrath targets will just be these people instead of the pollsters.
and if it were 16 teams, teams 17 and 18 would bitch
unless you're a 30 team league where every team plays the other 29, there will always be a gripe.
I think Condi knows enough about the game already that she can learn some of the more detailed aspects of CFB and teams over the next year that she doesn't already know. I know that's a bit vague and maybe doesn't make much sense (sorry) but I think her presence is a good thing. She can hang in there any group and utilize data with the best of them (again, something she may already have a knack for but if not fully there I think she can orient herself over the course of the upcoming year) to compare and contrast teams over the course of a season and come up with conclusions and ideas about the teams at stake. She can keep heads level as well, maybe something that is needed, maybe not. Like mentioned above, I don't think she'll be watching any less football than the others listed, many that, I understand, are questionable as well.
I can think of at least two major failures on her part in the past to properly make sense of data, but I doubt she'll do any harm in this instance.
What about some guys who truly live it? I can understand Alvarez, Osborne, Luck, the AD type former coach guys. But what about guys like Herstreit or maybe a Phil Steele type media guy who an name virtually every player on ....
I trust that Condi has far more knowledge of football than Ty Willingham.
Ty recruited players he knew would stay all four years and get their degree. Not exactly best for a program, but the man is respectable for that.
I guess I don't know why they need 13 people to select 4 teams.
Condi Rice has made no secret about being interested in heading the NFL. This is a means to an end.
Don't have a playoff at all, because picking the best four teams is only slightly less absurd than picking the one best team. And you can't have a 64 team field, because of the logistics. The pre-BCS scheme was the best as it was very transparently dependent on fiction, which left many people with the freedom to argue that thwy had the best team - and that was fun. Now we're stuck with an absurd but very authoritative-seeming board of generals and ADs with agendas and political lackeys to tell us once and for all who deserves a shot at the national championship. That is as much fun as doing one's taxes.
You're back for real now.
I apologize for my freak-out on Saturday. I was sick as a dog, in retrospect. I tend to get goofy when I have a fever. And I was stressed about non-football things. These are lame excuses, but there it is...And thanks, btw.
And Saturday...yeah, that was the least of the worries here. Second time I've hit the cave button on a poster I liked when they asked for it. It was sad.
You watch over irrepressible chaos with great patience and thoughtfulness, though, and I admire that.
I too yearn for the pre-BCS days. People may have their opinions on the methods of determining champions back then but I liked it.
This will solve nothing. Now arguments about who's #5 will happen. It should be the champions of the big six conferences. You have to win your league to get in.
Plain and simple. No selection committee, no politics. Just settle it on the field.
Who's the sixth?
MAC, of course.
Champions of big 5 conferences (big east doesn't count anymore) and three at large. Really if you're the ninth team and first left out, you have no room to say you should be in the championship discussion like a #5 team does. So I think 8 is a good number.
Guarantee they'll move towards this system within the next 5-10 years.
Yep. Why get it right in the first place?