E. Gordon Gee (official thread)

[brutus2002]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

I do have to question why he would say stuff like this. It's not that I oppose it or disagree with it...but saying stuff like "We don't play Little Sisters of the Poor" as a President is only going to get OSU further trashed, especially in the media, when they say stuff like "WHAT ABOUT EASTERN MICHIGAN THERE CHIEF LULZ!!1111!!1!!!!11!!" I don't have a problem with what he said, I'm just not sure there is a real positive to him in particular saying it.

Its like when a politician talks tough about whipping a foreign countries ass in a conflict in which they never have or will fight in...[censored]ing pathetic. Let the Generals talk [Mark May] pencilneck.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Diego-Bucks

Absolutely agree. I just don't think Gordon Gee needs to be saying much about a sport that he admittedly doesn't know much about, (at least he states that he doesn't know much about it). However, I do think that its not a bad thing to have someone who is as important in NCAA/University affairs as Gee is, stating what is on the minds of many other coaches/ADs/Administrators across the nation.

I think you're missing the point in the "x and o" comment. He was saying he's not a football coach when it comes to the minutia of the game. OTOH, he has every right to speak out on the larger issues surrounding college athletics and has been doing so for some time from his (whether you agree with it or not) arguments against a playoff to the athletic reforms he instituted at Vanderbilt.

I'd go further and say that leading university presidents have an obligation to a leadership role. The alternative is the SEC model where everything is left in the hands of coaches, ads and boosters. I'll grant that he may have strayed a little to far, but it's better than erring on the side of leaving these issues in the hands of the coaches and espn.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Diego-Bucks

Boise State will have their little Chik-fil-a Kickoff against Georgia, which is not going to do very well against them. ESPN loves Boise because they can buy Boise's broadcasts cheaply and get high-ratings because they are a lightning rod of national division.

Take note of the fact that Boysee agreed to this after Georgia slid to the bottom half of the SEC and might be staring down a possible coaching change. Note the timing of their agreeing to play UGA in contrast to them running for the hills at the prospect of playing Corn Aggy right when Pellini was getting that program rolling again.

Trust me. They want no part of this Ohio State program at this particular time. They WILL find a way to weasel out of the game. They'd take a game with Michigan though.

[MaliBuckeye]

Stated this before...

If last bowl season didn't have a TCU/Boise match up, we're not having this conversation.

Texas/Bama
OSU/Oregon
Florida/TCU
Iowa/Boise
Georgia Tech/UC

Both the "Cinderellas" lose, and aren't ranked in the top ten preseason. Instead, the myth lives on.

Ah well, it was worth it to see sUCks get pounded.

[buckeyeintn]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

I'd go further and say that leading university presidents have an obligation to a leadership role. The alternative is the SEC model where everything is left in the hands of coaches, ads and boosters. . . . it's better than erring on the side of leaving these issues in the hands of the coaches and espn.

(Bold mine)

Exactly. The president is charged with the responsibilty of looking out for the best interests of the entire university. The coaches are charged with the responsibility of winning, hopefully in the right manner. Espn is charged with the responsibility of turning a profit.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by MaliBuckeye

Stated this before...

If last bowl season didn't have a TCU/Boise match up, we're not having this conversation.

Texas/Bama
OSU/Oregon
Florida/TCU
Iowa/Boise
Georgia Tech/UC

Both the "Cinderellas" lose, and aren't ranked in the top ten preseason. Instead, the myth lives on.

Ah well, it was worth it to see sUCks get pounded.

I would hope there is a serious ratings boycott from major conference fans if Boysee and TCU play for the NC. I know I'll be going out to dinner that night. I'd be less disgusted watching UM play ND.

[Diego-Bucks]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

OTOH, he has every right to speak out on the larger issues surrounding college athletics and has been doing so for some time from his (whether you agree with it or not) arguments against a playoff to the athletic reforms he instituted at Vanderbilt.

I'd go further and say that leading university presidents have an obligation to a leadership role. The alternative is the SEC model where everything is left in the hands of coaches, ads and boosters. I'll grant that he may have strayed a little to far, but it's better than erring on the side of leaving these issues in the hands of the coaches and espn.

Yes definitely. I see it both ways in this sense: Gee has the responsibility of doing what University Presidents ought to be doing, which is trying to fight for the interests of their University (in whatever arena: the sciences, athletics, undergraduate education). However, he also is not the football guy at Ohio State, nor for the Big Ten. So for me, I have a somewhat self-contradictory attitude on his getting involved in the issue.

And I neither agree nor disagree with his opinion. He speaks the truth on the realities of major college football and the place of the upstart mid-majors, but Gee is also comfortable denying them the access necessary for those mid-majors to prove themselves to be major powerhouses in the long run. Thats ok, but its too easy to form a logical counter-argument against him because he has a motive to be inherently biased in favor of the current powerhouses and the status-quo.

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Take note of the fact that Boysee agreed to this after Georgia slid to the bottom half of the SEC and might be staring down a possible coaching change. Note the timing of their agreeing to play UGA in contrast to them running for the hills at the prospect of playing Corn Aggy right when Pellini was getting that program rolling again.

Trust me. They want no part of this Ohio State program at this particular time. They WILL find a way to weasel out of the game. They'd take a game with Michigan though.

I absolutely took note of the Boise-Georgia game. ESPN forged ahead with the plans for that game to happen. I don't really know why Georgia agreed (they had to re-schedule a Louisville game and paid Louisville $700,000 to walk away from the season-opener), and the Bulldogs will probably lose big.

Boise's ideal opponent is a middle of the road team with some national buzz that is in a power-conference: Oregon State, Texas A@M, Illinois, Georgia. They are teams with football history, in football conferences that do not currently have enough to actually beat the Broncos.

Boise does not want to face the elite's. Virgina Tech was one of the only top-12 programs that the Broncos had a favorable match-up with due to the extreme offensive impotence on the VaTech program. They don't want to face Florida, USC, Texas, Ohio State, its risky and not worth the high-chance of a loss. But neither do those elite teams want to face Boise State because financially, its a net-loss, and if they lose then they lose prestige.

[DaveyBoy]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

That's just it. He and the Boysee president love to talk smack but always find a way of getting out of the tough games: Boise and Nebraska, TCU and us. Now is the time to really call Boysee out for a series: home and home, equal payouts and no blue on blue. Drop the ball in that clown's court, and let him publicly accept or decline. If it's the latter, "anywhere; anytime" immediately becomes the punchline of college football.

I agree. We should be playing Boise instead of Colorado next year.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Does anyone know what our payday and payout are for a Texas or USC type home and home? Is it an equal and set amount for each game, or does each team pay out a percentage of their gate? If it's the former, it shouldn't be a financial loss relative to other home and homes. We'd give up our second (or third) game against a Fredo school for two years. Schedule it so the away comes in a year when we're playing our real marquee opponent at home, and we don't drop below 7 home games that year. Also, Boysee will undoubtedly still end up with a 10 win season and top 25 ranking once they hit conference play, so it will help us with the computers those two years.

Oh yeah, schedule the first game at their place. That way they don't get the post-ass kicking revenge game at home.

[BrutusBobcat]

I saw this in several ways:

First, a pre-emptive strike against the MWC getting AQ status. That's the underlying message. He didn't say this in a vacuum...the big leagues are going to do everything they can to stop the MWC.

Second, a statement justifying the future expansion of BCS leagues into the SE16, B16 and Pac-16.

Third, his own personal justification for perhaps jettisoning the BCS at that point and replacing it with a series of bowls between the 3-4 surviving BCS leagues (adding ACC to the list?).

Dr. Gee knows where this roadmap leads. He's one of the chief architects of the future of big time college football, and he knows where the chips will fall. They're not falling on Boise or TCU. Power is consolidating and those schools will be left out in the cold.

[MaliBuckeye]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Does anyone know what our payday and payout are for a Texas or USC type home and home?

For Southern Cal, it was $400 k, not sure what we got to travel.

[Diego-Bucks]

Originally Posted by BrutusBobcat

I saw this in several ways:

First, a pre-emptive strike against the MWC getting AQ status. That's the underlying message. He didn't say this in a vacuum...the big leagues are going to do everything they can to stop the MWC.

Second, a statement justifying the future expansion of BCS leagues into the SE16, B16 and Pac-16.

Third, his own personal justification for perhaps jettisoning the BCS at that point and replacing it with a series of bowls between the 3-4 surviving BCS leagues (adding ACC to the list?).

Dr. Gee knows where this roadmap leads. He's one of the chief architects of the future of big time college football, and he knows where the chips will fall. They're not falling on Boise or TCU. Power is consolidating and those schools will be left out in the cold.

If you could care to explain what you are seeing in Gee's quotes about all this because I am really not seeing either of your three points being addressed.

First, I don't think he address much on the MWC into AQ issue, and if he is hinting at it then its in the vaguest way imaginable. The fact is that most in the media don't think the MWC will attain AQ status in the upcoming evaluation period, however the MWC has sent teams into the BCS for 3 out of the last 6 years, possibly 4 out of 7. With Boise/TCU dominance in the years ahead, I could see them being a pseudo-AQ conference anyways. He's not really arguing for their exclusion to the big-time bowl games more that their composite resumes don't indicate BCS National Title game discussion.

Second... I really don't see how he is justifying the consolidation of power into the 16 team conferences. I'm not really even sure where this is hinted at.

Third, he is a BCS and Bowl Game supporter. I am not sure he wants to blow up the system anyways, but further, I still don't see where he hints at these things.

I am not sure if you are using a composite image of some of Gee's quotes/interviews from the recent past, but I just don't see where in this specific instance he addresses these issues. Could you explain a bit further?

[BuckeyeBill]

Originally Posted by MaliBuckeye

Stated this before...

If last bowl season didn't have a TCU/Boise match up, we're not having this conversation.

Texas/Bama
OSU/Oregon
Florida/TCU
Iowa/Boise
Georgia Tech/UC

Both the "Cinderellas" lose, and aren't ranked in the top ten preseason. Instead, the myth lives on.

Ah well, it was worth it to see sUCks get pounded.

+1. The BCS did college football a huge disservice by scheduling this game. A lot of these arguments would have been muted had they played any of the other schools in the BCS bowls. I was [censored]ed when I heard of the arrangement.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBill

+1. The BCS did college football a huge disservice by scheduling this game. A lot of these arguments would have been muted had they played any of the other schools in the BCS bowls. I was [censored]ed when I heard of the arrangement.

What's done is done. What needs to happen now is that more top bcs programs need to publicly call them out the way Corn Aggy has. Attempt to schedule them and make the negotiations public. They'll be backed into a corner of either agreeing to a fair and equitable home and home or exposing the hypocrisy of their anywhere; anytime line to the nation.

[Buckeye513]

Gee'd.