Selection Committee Academic Affiliation Breakdown

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

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...

Comments

CptBuckeye24's picture

I wonder how Rice's inclusion in the Committee affects his candidacy as the next OSU president?...

WC Buckeye's picture

We could sure do a lot worse - she's brilliant.

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

CptBuckeye24's picture

She is.  She would be awesome here at OSU. 

WC Buckeye's picture

Unfortunately for us, I think that either an Ivy league school or Stanford would be her first choices should those positions ever become available. Unless, of course, the OSU BOT's decided to demolish the piggy bank to lure her to the party.

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

AndyVance's picture

Well, we paid the last guy pretty darn well... Every newspaper in the state ran an "expose" at some point on how President Gee was the highest-paid public university president in the history of man (as though it were a bad thing). I'm not sure money would be an issue.

WC Buckeye's picture

True, but he was an established university president with a proven track record and arguably was worth it. I think in Rice's case, she's pretty well financially set and probably wouldn't consider a place like OSU unless they backed up the proverbial money truck. That's if she's even interested in academic administration - we're all just speculating, really, about that.
Correct, OSU could afford it, but I think there would probably be an even bigger backlash than for Gee. She's smarter, probably, but also far less experienced.

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

AndyVance's picture

Actually, she has more experience than the average alumnus might realize. After more than a decade on the faculty of Stanford University, president Gerhard Casper, (former Provost of the University of Chicago) was so impressed with her that in 1993 he appointed her as Stanford's Provost, the chief budget and academic officer of the university.
According to the gnomes at Wikipedia, she also was granted tenure and became full professor, and was the first female, first minority, and youngest Provost in Stanford history. She was also named a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a senior fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution.
She served as Provost until 1999, when she took a leave of absence to work on the Bush campaign, and ultimately stayed on with the President's new administration.
Relative to her tenure as Provost at Stanford, Rice was responsible for managing the university's multi-billion dollar budget:

The school at that time was running a deficit of $20 million. When Rice took office, she promised that the budget would be balanced within "two years." Coit Blacker, Stanford's deputy director of the Institute for International Studies, said there "was a sort of conventional wisdom that said it couldn't be done... that [the deficit] was structural, that we just had to live with it." Two years later, Rice announced that the deficit had been eliminated and the university was holding a record surplus of over $14.5 million.

Now, a 6-year stint as president of an Ivy-quality west-coast university pales in comparison to the experience Gordon Gee brought to the table either time he took the reins at Ohio State... BUT, I think her experience in federal government might bridge the gap fairly well, all things considered.
I think the bigger issue is, would she come work at a large, land-grant university in a state to which her only connection is a love of the Cleveland Browns? Or, is she happy at Stanford in her current role?

WC Buckeye's picture

Excellent points, and yes, I think you have touched on the most important consideration. Obviously, the university would probably be getting a great one, but would she take it? Thanks for the additional context!
 

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

kholmes's picture

Would it make you feel better if I told you that Jeff Long (the chair of the committee from an SEC school) used to be an Associate AD at Michigan?
Funny thing is that these days it wouldn't surprise me if you would rather have someone with Michigan background on the committee than someone with SEC background.

WC Buckeye's picture

There are tons of "previous employer" threads that can be chased here, but my look was based strictly either on their current employment or their educational background. As humans, I think we tend to be more loyal to our "packs" than toward previous employers, necessarily. Willingham wouldn't carry anything other than, perhaps, a negative bias toward Stanford, Washington, or Notre Dame even though they were all previous employers, whereas he may be positively biased toward Michigan State, where he earned his diploma. Make sense?

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

buckeyefanatic's picture

Nice breakdown - I like it.

How many batteries does it take to beat Michigan football?   1AA
Want to beat Michigan? There's an App for that.

Qujo's picture

Dude is that really your Texas plate? I was trying hard to get that one many months ago but was "not available". Nice job if so. 
I don't understand why they don't have specific Ohio State plates like they do other universities with lesser alumni. it would be a huge money maker here in Texas. Possibly OSU unwilling to give them the rights?

"Tough times don't last, tough people do" - Gregory Peck

AndyVance's picture

WC, this is great stuff - if I were going to critique your methodology, though, I would only count Tom Osborne's Nebraska affiliation once, though I agree that it's important to consider the multiple affiliations a member of the committee might have - Dr. Rice having perceived loyalties to both Notre Dame and Stanford, as an example.
And while there are numerous previous employer threads to examine, as you mention, some of those might be more important than others depending on success and track record.
I also tend to agree that Coach Osborne probably identifies more with the Big 12 than the B1G.

WC Buckeye's picture

Good points, Andy. Here is what the affiliation stats were based upon. Edit: Sorry, it seems that the "table" function isn't working properly - I will post it separately.
I tried to think of a way to layer in previous employer affiliations, but that's a tough one - sometimes the endings were bad (Willingham) and sometimes not (Osborne). What I decided was that there are offsets and balance - Tranghese's lifelong work was with the ACC, but Jernstedt's was with the NCAA; the wants/needs of the many will hopefully be balanced with the goals of the few, I think. Add to that that in Rice, you have someone whose rich/broad academic exposure (Stanford, I think, is who she really roots for) will likely be balanced by her world view (evaluate all facts, data and broader ramifications before making a decision), and ditto for Osborne (although he's less academically broad).  I would say that overall I really like the balance and blend.
If anything, I would say it's next to impossible to appoint the correct chair, but in Long there's someone who's been around a lot of large and small institutions alike. Any way we slice it, this is far better than relying on a bunch of sportswriters and cloaked algorithms (RIP BCS) to determine who's in. There should be one agreed computer model that the committee can use, and the rest is up to their thoughtful reasoning.
I am excited and cautiously optimistic!

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

AndyVance's picture

Yeoman's work, Sir, and thanks for putting in the time. I think we share a viewpoint on the makeup of the committee: pretty darn balanced, all things considered, and probably better than many of us cynics (okay, maybe just me) feared would be the case.

WC Buckeye's picture

My pleasure, and like you, I was really concerned about hidden biases. It would seem that the committee, if anything, may even have a slight B1G bias, if anything, but I really think they got it right and will continue to believe that until they prove otherwise. I am just so excited that the BCS is FINALLY dying.

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

WC Buckeye's picture

Andy - referencing above reply, here is the basis.
 
CONFERENCE AFFILIATIONS
Name            Employer Affil. Undergrad Affil.   Masters Affil.     JD/PhD Affil.
Luck                WVU    Big12    WVU     Big12                         Texas Big12
Alvarez            Wisc.    B1G      Nebr.     B1G    
Radakovich     Clemson ACC    IUPUI Mid-Cont. Miami ACC  
Haden              USC     Pac12   USC      Pac12    
Long                 Ark.      SEC    OWU     NCAC   Miami ACC  
Rice                  N/A                 Denver WAC      ND   ACC       Denver WAC
Gould               USAFA Mtn W   USAFA Mtn W  Webster NCAC   NWU B1G
Tranghese         N/A                  AIC     NE 10    
Osborne            N/A               Hastings GPAC     Nebr.   B1G    Nebr. B1G
Willingham        N/A                   MI St.  B1G    
Manning            N/A                 Ole Miss SEC    
Jernstedt           N/A                Oregon Pac12   Oregon Pac12  
Wieberg            N/A                  Missouri SEC

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

AndyVance's picture

BTW, Collin Cowherd interviewed West Virginia AD Oliver Luck this morning about the committee. Luck said that members would recuse themselves from any decision regarding a school they had a direct interest in: in his case that meant WVU (undergrad and employer), Texas (law school) and Stanford (son's alma mater). I thought that made for an interesting example of trying to solve the potential conflicts of interest our discussion here brought up.

WC Buckeye's picture

That's really great! If you look at the academic affiliations of just the committee members, then add on son's, daughter's, niece's, nephew's, brother's, sister's, mom's.....WOW - there could be only one guy/girl making a very tough call!!

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"