Selection Committee Academic Affiliation Breakdown

WC Buckeye's picture
October 14, 2013 at 5:36p

With the announcement of Jeff Long's appointment as the chair of the tournament selection committee, seeing that he was from an SEC school automatically made me fear for the worst - that yet again we were going to have an SEC "homer" potentially weighing in on important (i.e. tOSU-impacting) decisions. So I decided to do a little investigative research on the academic backgrounds of those on - or likely to be on - the selection committee, and while having an SEC guy chairing could become worrisome if there is an SEC/other conference decision hanging in the balance, overall the spread of degrees/employers actually favor the B1G and PAC12 slightly. Check this out:

# of Relationships/Conference By Type/Conference
Affiliation B1G PAC12 ACC SEC Big 12 WAC NCAC Mtn W WCC NE10 GPAC Mid-Cont
Undergrad 2 2   2 1 1 1 1   1 1 1
JD/PhD 2       1 1     1      
Employer 1 1 1 1 1     1        
Masters 1 1 3       1          
TOTAL 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

The spread across universities is pretty good, but Nebraska is marginally over-represented with 3 affiliations (Tom Osborne with 2 and Barry Alvarez with 1), as are Oregon (Tom Jernstedt 2), USC (Pat Haden, 2) and WVU (Oliver Luck). What's striking is how many small-conference schools are represented by affiliation (WAC, NCAC, WCC, NE10, GPAC and Mid-Continent conferences with 8 total).

The 3 ACC school affiliations? 2 Masters degrees from The U (Dan Radakovich and Jeff Long) and 1 from Notre Dame (Condoleeza Rice).

Not one affiliation with our beloved university. I don't like it, but that's the way it breaks down. I should also mention that these are current alignments - Nebraska is the obvious anomaly here, as Osborne and Alvarez probably don't identify with NU/B1G alignments, although there are others who've switched (Missouri, Notre Dame), as well.

Edit: I should also point out that previous employer affiliations (Tranghese, Osborne, Willingham) are not included in this analysis, only educational or current employers. That would make the picture a lot cloudier...

View 19 Comments