re: Gene Stallings agrees with Pat Dye....sort of

quote:

---

Quick: Where did Pete Rozelle play football?

---

I don't know, but I do know his first job was with a college football team, and had been working in sports management for 15 years before he was named commissioner in a very controversial ballot.

Also, I don't think Rozelle was asked to use his judgement to pick which teams made the NFL playoffs.

This isn't the case of Deborah Yow being asked to be on the committee. Its not about gender. Most of the people objecting would have the same objections if Rummy Rumsfeld or John Kerry were being nominated to the position.

There may be issues with Pat Haden, but they aren't the same issues.

quote:

---

correct, but wouldnt you say its better to pull from a qualified applicant pool than the unqualified

---

Sure but my point is that not having played football shouldn't disqualify her. As I mentioned before, we elect people to congress who have a passion for government and a serious interest in making a difference. Sometimes those people have no legal or political experience but they workout (See Bill Frist). Hell, we've sent people to Washington with no college degree (See Sonny Bono).

I think its silly to say this argument isn't based on sex. For the first few years of the BCS, the AP was apart of the formula and it was totally acceptable for a bunch of inexperienced male sports writers to pick a national champion. Hell they represented 66% of the over all title, the entire AP title and 1/3 of the BCS. The AP removed itself from the equation. Its not like the BCS made the change.

The selection committee is the shittiest idea in football. It's worse than the freaking BCS. At least the BCS used polls from people who follow football and computers that had equations to determine the best teams. There will NOT be more than one SEC team in these playoffs and people like Boise and Fresno will get an automatic bid with their shitty schedules if they go unbeaten. It's ridiculous. I guarantee none of these people will look at anything but MOV and record.

quote:

---

would you want the prez to appoint someone who just has political or business experience to be a supreme court justice or someone who actually has legal experience? could someone who is not in the legal field make a good decision? sure its possible. But who do you think would make the better decision more often than not? a qualified or unqualified applicant?

---

Picking four teams to play in a playoff series is NOT as complex as ConLaw. It takes years of practice and experience to master. The average law student graduates with little more than rudimentary knowledge of the subject.

I don't think the aim is to build a committee with Supreme Court level expertise. If that were the case a seat on such a committee would be limited to the likes of Jimmy Johnson, Nick Saban, Bill Belichick, Don Shula etc. When you start talking Supreme Court you're talking beyond just being an expert.

You need a diverse body of people from varying backgrounds to balance each other out. We're not talking Supreme Court; we're talking about Board of Directors. Every major corporation in this countery is populated by talented indiviuals who often times have absolutely no experience in the industry in which the company operates. They are there for perspective.

quote:

---

They choose the experts in the fields to make the correct decisions for them

---

Finally you get it!!! Lets say the Board is responsible for picking the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Chief Operating Officer.

They sift through hundreds of potential candidates with Ivy League credentials (Power Conference Membership) and stellar resumes (Conference Championships, wins over top 25 opponents, Strength of Schedule)to determine which FOUR individuals are best deserving of a spot on the management team. After that, the team goes to work and, in four years, only the most talented will remain.

Thats exactly the type of decision we're asking this committee to make. They're not running the sport on a day to day basis. They are picking the experts/teams best qualified for the job/playoffs based on the season as a whole. They have no say in conference champions,scheduling, bye weeks etc.

Can I think Rice was a great SoS at the same time think she has no business being on this committee? Am I a sexist or racist if I support her when she advances in her chosen field of work but then think excellence in one arena does not qualify her for a position in this one?

For all of the supporters of her inclusion...are any of you willing to admit to the simple explanation of why this is happening? It is the NCAA getting ahead of a PC debate/problem. They are showing the country how enlightened they are...no need to cause anymore ripples with all they are facing now, paying players, etc.


PC move...nothing more. May actually be the smart move in the long run considering the power of PC in this country.

quote:

---

I have to agree that I don't see that she has any credentials to be on the committee.

---

Really? None at all? Have you ever spent five seconds reading about her roots in football? It's not like it hasn't been a story for years.

LINK

We can debate whether or not there are better candidates all day or if a committee is even the best way to go, but to suggest that she has no connections whatsoever is just absurd.

quote:

---

You aren't asking Condi Rice or any of the other people without professional football coaching experience to coach the teams, but you are asking her to use her equally valuable and less common experiences to offer insight that others might not have.

---

Agree 100%. Thats why I compare it to a board of directors. No governing body consists entirely of like minded individuals. What would it hurt to have 2 or 3 out of 18 who can offer a different perspective?

quote:

---

A couple of grumpy old. Racist, sexist, 19th century minds, part of what still makes the South such a laughing stock to the rest of the country

---

pretty much this