David Pollack Doesn't Think Women Should Be Part of Playoff Committee

October 5, 2013 at 12:16p    by DJ Byrnes    
101 Comments

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. He almost took the high road, but in the end he just couldn't do it. (For the record, here's an article about Condoleeza Rice diagramming plays with Stanford's David Shaw.) Also, there's this:

The David "I simply misspoke" apology countdown starts NOW!


Comments

Powers's picture

That tweet is gold

luckynewman13's picture

tweet of the decade 

Bucksfan's picture

KG's all...ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Jeeves's picture

Ms. Rice will be the smartest most accomplished person on the committee I would warrant.

Oldschoolbuck's picture

Dr. Rice will definitely raise the committee's IQ level significantly. Whether or not that translates to football acumen is another thing.
Pollack, right or wrong is going to get hammered for that statement.
I'm no PC advocate, but that's the world in which we live.

awlinBrutus's picture

she's no dummy, thats for sure. i would, just out of respect.

MICHIGAN STILL SUCKS

buckeyepastor's picture

Condi Rice is one of the most knowledgable fans of football to not also have a job related to it. Pollack is not "politically incorrect," he's just ignorant and foolish.  
Paul Finebaum is fast becoming my least favorite on the crew - even less likable than Desmond.   

"Woody would have wanted it that way" 

DJ Byrnes's picture

Paul Finebaum is the Lizard King, and he basically personifies everything I hate in sports media today. He is the absolute worst. 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

rkylet83's picture

Dean Wormer sums up my feelings for SEC loving mouth-breathers.

ScarletNGrey01's picture

Wish I could upvote this.

The will to win is not as important as the will to prepare to win. -- Woody Hayes

Oldschoolbuck's picture

I thought Jim Morrison was the Lizard King, DJ ;-)
But I know what you mean.

Bucksfan's picture

Pollack is not "politically incorrect," he's just ignorant and foolish.

Might I add "bigotted," "sexist," "misogynistic," and "backwards?"  On what fucking planet does someone in the 21st century have to come from to even think that way, let alone say it on national f'ing TV?
Oh yeah...not surprised...

What a prick.  This shiteater should be fired by the end of the day.

CC's picture

Honestly he is a guy who is significantly more qualified to make decisions about college football than someone who has never played or coached the sport.

Chad Peltier's picture

Not totally sure what you're saying here. Because he's a UGA alum you're not surprised he's backwards and sexist? Is that right?

southbay's picture

I hope Pollack survives this gaffe, I don't always agree with him but I like him well enough.  And no I don't agree with him on this.  
Yeah, he's toast.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I'd argue that Pollack is wrong, but I don't think he was being prejudicial or insensitive or anything like that. He was making a gender-neutral "jock" argument, i.e., "only those who've played a game can effectively analyze that game," etc. It's a poor argument, but it proposes a standard that also disqualifies the majority of males who might be considered for this committee. 
Pollack is wrong, however, to place such a credence on having played the game. Many who've played the game are not very good at evaluating the relative strengths of different teams. Part of the problem, ironically, might be that they put too faith in their own supposed technical expertise that they neglect other modes of analysis. Or, it could just be that many of them are dumb jocks.

brandonbauer87's picture

In a word, yep. He didn't really degrade women in any way. It's his opinion on the situation, which he is entitled to have. He'll probably get crucified for it though. 

cajunbuckeye's picture

I am not a dumb jock, I just had one too many concussions.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

CC's picture

Run fido- have you played or coached beyond HS?
If not how would you know?

Run_Fido_Run's picture

No, I have not. I think a good barometer, though, would be how well someone handicaps games.
This is anecdotal, I realize, but none of the ex-players I've known are especially good handicappers and/or wagerers. In theory, if Pollack's type of candidates can "watch tape" with a supposedly keen eye because they "played football [and/or] are around football" so that [they] "can tell you [about] different teams on tape, not on paper," then their expert tape-watching analysis should give them a good feel for which teams will beat other teams on their schedules and by roughly how many points. Only I've not seen that to be the case.
Instead, the best linesmakers in Vegas (who were often handicappers before being linesmakers) rarely played or coached the game. If you were forced to risk your life savings on a series of college football wagers this weekend - at the point of a gun - and were allowed to use one "lifeline" before making your selections, would you pick the smartest coach/player "analyst" as your advisor, or the one of the top wiseguy handicappers/linesmakers in Vegas? If it's the latter, how can you still assert that having played/coached should be a prerequisite to being on the committee, strictly in terms of analytical qualifications (setting aside PR, politics, etc.)?   

IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY's picture

Sexism is based in insecurity and fear. Women are strong and always will be. Anyone that can raise a family and run a home and still have an awesome career deserves all the respect in the world.
Condi may be a lot of things but one she won't be is biased toward the current establishment/NCAA/SEC/ESPN simply because she's an outsider. She earns some credibility for that. That and she's smarter than most people. Look at her educational background.
Now if Pollack had come out and said, "Beth Mowins should not be on the selection committee" we'd all be cheering for him, so maybe he should have just picked on Beth. Just sayin.

"Sherman ran an option play right through the south" - Greatest Civil War analogy EVER.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

By all means, let's call Pollack an idiot. But it's absurd to say that Pollack was being sexist. 
Here is a rough transcript:

"I want people on this committee, guys, that can watch tape . . . yeah, that have played football, that are around football, that can tell you [about] different teams on tape, not on paper."

If Pollack gets into trouble and/or is forced to apologize for these statements, then we all have much bigger problems than how the playoff committee is constructed.

Bucksfan's picture

Women play football, are around football, watch tape of football, too, Fido.  Your "transcript" is missing the part when Fowler asked him, "So no women on the committee?"  And he said, "Your words, but yes."

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Okay, then, by Pollack's standards the women who've played and/or coached football would qualify as potential members of the committee.
You can easily construe Pollack's confirmation of "so no women" as Pollack not knowing of women who meet his standard. The example that prompted the question - Rice - never played or coached. Pollack never played in a game in which a woman played or coached.
Again, I don't agree with Pollack's standard, but let's not get the vapors over it.

cajunbuckeye's picture

Yeah Run, your obviously dismissing all the great female football coaches.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

Bucksfan's picture

That's an awful lot of gap-filling you are doing to cover for this schmuck.

cajunbuckeye's picture

Why do people have to vilify those of differing opinions?

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

Oakland Buckeye's picture

THAN YOU CAJUN! Jeez, Pollack stated his opinion in a non offensive non sexist way. America has become the land of the easily offended.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

What gap(s) am I covering? Read the transcript. The burden of proof is on the Inquisitors.

Bucksfan's picture

This...

"I want people on this committee, guys, that can watch tape . . . yeah, that have played football, that are around football, that can tell you [about] different teams on tape, not on paper."  

...would have nothing sexist in it if they were talking about, say, whether Gene Smith should be on the committee.  So, if that were the case, you'd be absolutely right.  But they weren't talking about Gene Smith.  They were talking about Condoleeza Rice (maybe you should go back and read the transcript).  When asked, "so no women?" he said "yes."  NOW it becomes sexist.  Context is everything.  You were filling in a gap in his logic that because you interpreted his comments as meaning that Condoleeza Rice doesn't meet his lofty expectations as to who should be on the committee.  But that's because she didn't play football...because she's a woman (his words).  His opinion is exclusionary, exclusionary against women.  That is the very definition of sexist.  You know, you don't have to say, "women are weak" or "i hate women" for a comment to be sexist.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Bucksfan: you seem to be suggesting that if, hypothetically, Pollack were the Tsar of College Football and put himself single-handedly in charge of interviewing and selecting the candidates for the committee, he'd have to create different standards depending on whether the candidate were a male or female.
For a male journalist who's never played or coached the game, he could deny him on the basis of his above standard, but he could not apply that same standard to a female, lest he automatically engage in sexist and exclusionary behavior? Huh?
Or, if a woman guiding the selections wanted to apply the same standard Pollack is applying, it would be okay for her to do so because of "context"?
In an obvious sense, of course Pollack is being "exclusionary," but then so is anyone expressing an opinion on what ought to qualify/disqualify committee members. Otherwise, the committee will have like 1,324,789 freakin' members, right? The point is that Pollack's standard - which again I disagree with - is gender neutral. Arguments speak for themselves.

Bucksfan's picture

Bucksfan: you seem to be suggesting that if, hypothetically, Pollack were the Tsar of College Football and put himself single-handedly in charge of interviewing and selecting the candidates for the committee, he'd have to create different standards depending on whether the candidate were a male or female.

Nope.  Not at all.  His standards are inherently sexist.  That's what I'm saying, not suggesting.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

If you interpret Pollack's comments to be inherently sexist, I don't know what to say to you. Your logic really escapes me.

Bucksfan's picture

It's not the first time you failed to understand what is and isn't sexist in an argument with me.

Bucksfan's picture

Maybe Samantha Ponder can help you with the logic.

741's picture

Hahaha! Nice.

Squirrel Master's picture

I'd like to interject here and state that if a woman, Samantha Ponder's comment, thinks David Pollack's comment is sexist, then it is.
I understand everyone on here has their opinions but if just a few women were offended by it, then it shouldn't have been said period. Sexist or not!
 

I saw a UFO once.......it told me to have a goodyear!

cajunbuckeye's picture

Yes, everyone has the inalienable right to not be offended.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

Orlando Pancakes's picture

Squirrel Master, your logic is very skewed. If what you are saying is true then we should not have blamed 9/11 on extreme Muslim fanatics. There are plenty of extreme Muslim fanatics that are offended by us blaming 9/11 on them. They blame it on fighting a holy war and us having bases in the Middle East next to their holy sites. (For the record this is not political talk, just an example). You never let others justify what is acceptable; then you lose everything. Listen to others that are reasonable yes, but if an extremist says they don't like something, you don't respond to it. I'm not saying Ponder is an extremist, but my point is that you don't judge something as offensive if some people are offended or not. You need to stand by your own convictions. I don't care (and neither does Pollack apparently) if someone is offended by something I truly believe in. For the record I don't agree with him but I respect his opinion and he should not take back what he said just because someone was offended by it. This country has gotten so sensitive.

Idaho Helga's picture

That was pretty funny by her!

OSUNEA1986's picture

I don't think his comment was inherently sexist. I think the sport is inherently sexist and I'm OK with that at the level of players (however, I'd like to see more knowledgeable women involved in the analysis and commentary of the sport). Pollack's opinion seems to be based on his standard of having committee members that have played the game at the D-1 level. I think there is some merit to that opinion, albeit limited. I don't think a guys job should be on the line for this opinion.
There simply has never been a female D-1 player (that I'm aware of) at the level we are discussing. Nor has there been a female men's football coach. It would be interesting to see the day (coach at least). By the time I was 9 my Dad's buddies had nicknamed me "coach" and would challenge me to call plays at our HS fball games. Likewise as we watched the Big Ten and NFL through the years.  Yep, I'm a female who enjoys the chess match, physicality and pageantry of the game. Could I assess film, stats and data and make an objective decision about who should play in a NC game? Absolutely. My profession requires much more from me on daily basis. And just like other flavors of prejudice and bigotry, there are those who don't think women belong in my profession. Likewise, Condie Rice has been engaged in this "transition of thought" her entire life. Somehow I don't think much will stop her if she wants to do it.
 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

OSUNEA1986: I agree with pretty much everything you wrote above and have no problem whatsoever with them considering Condi for the committee, as long as she is adept at what you mentioned - assessing film, stats, and data and making well-reasoned decisions. I believe that women can belong in the "profession" of selecting the teams for the national championship game.
But, like you, I don't see Pollack's comments as inherently sexist and I'm still waiting for a well-reasoned explanation of why they are sexist, which is not based on how some person happens to feel about what he/she heard.

Bucksfan's picture

His comments were inherently sexist because he said "no women."  You're making it far more complicated than it needs to be, Fido.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Bucksfan: false. Pollack did not say "no women." Fowler said that, trying to put words in Pollack's mouth.
Let me ask you: What's your preferred outcome as a result of Pollack saying this? Do you think he must issue a public apology? Should he be fired? What exactly do you think ought to be the appropriate repercussions for Pollack expressing these supposedly "sexist" opinions?

Bucksfan's picture

At the very least a public apology.  I agree about Fowler baiting a sexist tone, though his instincts were ultimately correct.  Pollack could have just as easily said, "No, women are fine, there are plenty of women around the game of football.  Condoleeza Rice is a politician, not a film organizer, not a physical trainer, not even a football analyst."  But his ignorance and sexist view on the game of football was validated by his own response.  No, there are not women COACHES, but there are lots of women around the game, who know the game, and who know the game better than David Pollack.  I already said that Pollack should be fired for his comments.  This is a recurring theme with ESPN.  Lots of their employees go on air and say blatantly offensive things, some get fired and some don't.  But, at the end of the day, they're not hiring journalists, they're hiring ex-jocks.  Some know what they're doing, and many don't.
Look, I know that my views on this don't necessarily align with the majority of the commentariat here.  But I don't see this as an era where people are too sensitive.  I see an era where sexism and racism are allowed to run rampant.  It's apparent in our society's policies, in our media, in our music, and in our sports.  You can not agree with me, and that's fine, but it's really not hard for me to make the case for my views.  I am not about to do it here on 11W, but my comments here are the results of conclusions I've made based on what I've read and things I've researched. It's not just some random opinion.

cajunbuckeye's picture

I think Tom Bensons granddaughter plays a big role with the Saints organization. Beyond that, I'm not convinced that there are more than a handful of women in major positions in the game of football. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

Bucksfan's picture

Mike Brown's daughter is in charge of personnel signing for the Cincinnati Bengals.  There are female physical trainers in every college football weight room and on every college football sideline.  There are film organizers all over the place.  Women are all over the sport.

cajunbuckeye's picture

There are cheerleaders all over the sideline and women sportscasters in the locker room. I'm not sure how that quantifies expertise in the X's and O's of the game, but if your good with it...

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

Bucksfan's picture

Who said anything about cheerleaders?  Too bad you can't blame Fowler for putting those words in your mouth.

cajunbuckeye's picture

Listen, Bucks, it's great your on the sexist soapbox, shout loud and be proud. My point remains, there are basically zero women involved in the X's and O's on any major college or NFL coaching staff.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

cajunbuckeye's picture

Amazing, one bad apple really did spoil the whole bunch!

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

CC's picture

So we should look to the trainer for advice on where the sport (they happened to never have played) should go in the future.

I'm sorry your logic is way off base.

Why have a guy like Urban in the room when we could pick a trainer based on their qualifications? Do you know how far that is from making sense?

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Bucksfan: it appalls me, really disgusts me, that you think Pollack should be fired for those comments. Good thing I'm not the sort of person who demands punishment for persons who express opinions that offend me.

Bucksfan's picture

It appalls me and disgusts me that you think sexist comments are okay because they're simply someone's opinion.

Oakland Buckeye's picture

Hey bucks fan -LAWYERED!

cajunbuckeye's picture

I don't think women can play in the NFL or the NBA. Does that make me a sexist or a realist?
 

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

CC's picture

Bucksfan, was that pun intended?

SOF_Buckeye's picture

I'm sure I'll get torched for this, but I have no problem with Pollack's statement or sentiment. What women coaches or players are we referring to? I'm not familiar with any at that level. The watching film and studying games is important. Condi is very intelligent and a great fan of the game, but just as Nixon didn't need to call plays for the Redskins, she wasn't going to call plays for Stanford.  I'm not demeaning women at all, but they don't play/coach at this level of football; and I'm not going to go all 'PC' and act offended at this statement.

"The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender." Woody Hayes

DJ Byrnes's picture

 

But it's absurd to say that Pollack was being sexist. 

 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

On the bright side, that's an endless bowl of popcorn. Not only does it never run out, but it never gets to the bottom with all the gooey over-buttered leftover pieces.
On the other hand, no beverage - eternal dry popcorn mouth with no relief in sight.
 

wolfman's picture

Exactly...well put.  It was one of the other guys that put the words in his mouth.  Besides, lighten up, enough will all the fake outrage!

rkylet83's picture

I'm actually against a committee selecting teams all together.  Put together an algorithm that takes into account all of the criteria that is used to judge the performance of a teams season.  It takes away all human error and biases.   

southbay's picture

That's getting into the whole "playoffs will eliminate all controversy once and for all" issue.  We shall see...

rkylet83's picture

Absolutely.  Having a four team playoff selected by a committee will only add more teams to the controversy.  What happens when you have two undefeated teams and three one-loss teams; three of them having played each other already?  Without a transparent method of team selection we will be having the same conversations that we did when we have to decide between three one-loss teams.     
Best to have an unbiased calculation that takes into account only data.  

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

I'm not sure you can put together a 100% accurate algorithm.  It may take away human error and bias, but people who get left out and think they should've been in will still be pissed at those damned computers.

Class of 2010.

cplunk's picture

I can put together a 100% unbiased set of criteria to determine playoff eligible teams:
Conference champions only
The committe can then select the top four.
Eliminates all bias, and further serves to help spread talent amongst the conferences. Players aren't all going to head to one conference
 

rkylet83's picture

Your right, the people who didn't get in would be pissed, but at least they would have a rational explanation of why the other team got in over them.    

Kaceybrown's picture

Or we could just have legitimate 16 team playoff. 

cplunk's picture

Honestly, a sixteen team playoff is ridiculous.
Better to reduce D-1 to the legit 48 teams or so that belong there, only allow them to play each other, and then have a four team playoff of the 4 conference winners (4 conferences of 12). 
Pit would effectively be an 8 teams playoff anyway, because the division winners played each other in the conference championship games.

Buckeye Chuck's picture

Why is it ridiculous? There are fewer teams in the FCS than in FBS, and they have a 24-team playoff.

The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.

stubbzzz's picture

I wish it could some how just be B1G champion vs SEC champ vs PAC 12 champ vs Big 12 champ.  ( the ACC can kiss my butt.)   then the conference championships would be like an extension of the playoffs and carry even more weight.  the rivalries within the conferences would get more heated, and the rivalries between the conferences would become way more heated.  our champs vs theirs every year.

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

I just want people on the committee that know football.

Class of 2010.

kmp10's picture

It's Pollack's opinion and he is entitled to it. I love all the name callers (foolish, ignorant, misogynistic, idiot, backwards, et al) on here pontificating on forward thinking and acceptance.That is rich, as they say. Pollack has every right to his opinion. As a matter of fact, he has more than a right; he's obligated to share his opinion as an analyst and a former player of this game at the highest amateur and professional levels. Women do not play football. Are there rare exceptions to that rule in grade school/middle school and high school? Yes... very rare. The people on here hammering Pollack, calling him derogatory names, dropping F bombs in their posts need to grow up. We all have opinions. You're certainly entitled to strongly disagree, but just agree to disagree and move on. 

Jeeves's picture

Pollack is a dumb jock sexist neanderthal meathead. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

Buckeytrips's picture

dipshit - opinion and entitled.

Alice in Aggieland's picture

Pollack made the mistake of agreeing with Chris Fowler's leading question. Had he responded to "So no women?" with something like "It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with experience," we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pollack, however, is not what we call a "critical thinker," and he answered Fowler in exactly the wrong way.
That said, the gender bias here is stupid. Women might not play football beyond high school, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the nuances of the game or couldn't make informed decisions about the quality of teams. 

Oakland Buckeye's picture

KM -  I fear comments like yours are becoming the rarity on 11w - mature with a rational base to your argument with zero name calling. sad.

teddyballgame's picture

Finebaum insufferably smug as usual
 

40 Degrees North's picture

ESPN is in a tough spot here. 
Now, we all know that Craig James is an idiot. The folks at ESPN said that James wouldn't be hired back at their network after comments he made during his dip into the political scene. 
They canned Hugh Douglas after he made some comments. He got fired by ESPN.
Now, David Pollack said this thing today. It is reminiscent of Don Cherry on CBC Hockey Night in Canada. He has said some crazy crap before. ESPN allowed Cherry on their airwaves before. Will ESPN be consistent? We all know you gotta be equal and fair here.....
Then again, this is the same network that allowed Dana Jacobson back on the air after she said "F--- Jesus" at a company party on a microphone. 
 
 

ScarletNGrey01's picture

There are definitely women out there who are quite knowledgeable about the game of football and would be much better candidates than myself.  Cannot stand Condoleeza Rice, think she has all the credentials but none of the competency, but that is a separate issue altogether.  At least she can't do too much damage being on a sports selection committee.  The Bobby Big Wheel tweet is priceless!

The will to win is not as important as the will to prepare to win. -- Woody Hayes

Hovenaut's picture

"Thanks so much David Pollack."

 

I am not very smart, but I recognize that I am not very smart.

rkylet83's picture

Hookers everywhere shiver in fear!

Oldschoolbuck's picture

Well, at least Dr. Rice will raise the IQ level of a selection committee, if nothing else.
I'm TOTALLY against all the PC BS (sorry for the alphabet soup of acronyms there), but Pollack is going to get hammered over this. Just the world we live in...

*Edit-Sorry for the duplication of my statement above. We are having horrible storms here and the Internet went down; didn't think it got posted!*

Squirrel Master's picture

I admit when i first heard that Condi was going to be on the playoff committee, or at least considered, I wondered why her? I have no doubt she wouldn't be able to give solid and non-biased input into the selections. I just wonder if there might have been someone else who might be a bit more involved in football. I am all for women being on the committee, just curious about this specific person. 
I actually was more surprised with Tyrone Willingham being mentioned. True he is an ex-coach for multiple D-1 programs but of all ex-coaches, why him? Is it because he doesn't have a specific conference tie since he coached in different conferences, including ND as an independent? 
I do like that there is an AD from each conference. I think Barry Alvarez will be a good rep.

I saw a UFO once.......it told me to have a goodyear!

Berniebucks78's picture

I love Dr Rice and think she's an awesome pick. However, the truth is... I don't care if they pick an alien on the committee. As long as that person puts my Bucks in the top 4! 
 

"Indecision may (or may not) be my downfall."

NoVA Buckeye's picture

I think he doesn't want Dr. Rice for obvious, pro-SEC reasons.

You have to be committed to wear those colors.

The offseason begins when your season ends. Even then there are no days off.

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

It also shows that she is insane.

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

bull1214's picture

i dont know....female judges have done a wonderful job in boxing recently ;-P   i think the people should be football intelligent. if she is that's great. does anyone really know if she is? i dont. former coaches, ad's, commentator's, reporter's, etc. is the way to go but still not a perfect situation. a woman should have respected sports credentials not respected political credentials.

outdated's picture

Some of this confuses my thoughts concerning Beth Mowins.  I can't stand her doing football broadcasts and I also can't be fired from my job for making the statement.
Just some more political correctness in sports attached to the playoff committee or like I said on another post, is this more Title IX?

nightmuse's picture

As a member of this site, woman with a PhD who teaches Statistics and Research, and happens to have grown up sitting on her dad's knee watching Keith Byars score touchdowns at The Shoe, I thought David Pollack's statements were flawed for many reasons--if he wants a committee of people who can "watch tape" and analyze teams--you are talking about one of the most intelligent woman in the country that has shown the ability on multiple occasions to be a football fanatic and tactician. David, you want the committee to be players and coaches--people "around football"--please show me how many women have been given that opportunity to coach, play, or be ADs. I tend to be the most knowledgeable Buckeye Fan amongst my friends and family thanks to this site and my dad's tutelage, and I would be disappointed if people with David Pollack's "perceptions" deny Condoleezza Rice an opportunity on the committee based on flawed logic. 

Orlando Pancakes's picture

Muse, I understand what you are trying to say about giving intelligent women who know football a chance, but by your own admission this is not about women and more about their credentials. You already said "how many women have been given that opportunity to coach, play, or be ADs". Pollack said he wanted people with that experience and if women don't have the experience then I guess they don't have it. We could argue that they should maybe have more opportunities to have those experiences but that is another topic. The fact that they don't have those experiences is all he was saying; and there are plenty of qualified men who do. As a side note there actually are a few major women ADs out there so they would qualify under his scenario.

Buckeyeboy's picture

I struggle with having to listen to a woman call a football game, at any level but, I don't think Rice should be disrespected, or underestimated, for being able to make an informed, and intelligent decision as a member of the College Football Playoff Section Committee. 
Pollack obviously doesn't agree with this line of thinking, but I don't see where it's a big deal if he shares his honest opinion on the air...he's just being Frank, instead of David.

Go Bucks!

ChazBuckeye's picture

We don't need her in College Football IMO...I'm not sure what they're thinking in doing this to be quite honest.  I'm not saying a women...just Condi Rice.  

Some people think we’re the hunted.I don’t feel that way at all.We’re the hunter.Everybody wants an angry football team.Everybody wants a team on edge and a hungry team.If you’re a hunter,that usually equates to being hungry.

OurHonorDefend09's picture

I tend to agree with him. Not that women are incapable of being highly qualified, but that there just aren't many that are qualified. Huge difference. There are also a ton of highly unqualified males, so if we could keep them out of the committee as well, that'd be great.

Don't give up... Don't ever give up.

Knarcisi's picture

She went to Stanford, but at least she would illustrate the ability to be unbiased ... Unlike any of the idiot talking heads out there. 

GlueFingers Lavelli's picture

I don't think anyone who hasn't played or coached college football should be on the committee. I hope this doesn't make me a sexist.

Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.

Bucksfan's picture

No, it doesn't make you sexist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_American_football_players
Saying you don't want women on the committee makes you sexist.

outdated's picture

Maybe someone is trying to get an invite to Augusta National by asking her to join the committee.  She is a member of Augusta National.

Poison nuts's picture

Sounded more like a really stupid thing to say rather than genuine dislike or disrespect of women...

"Do not pass me, just slow down - I can move right through you" Superchunk - Precision Auto.