Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Tom Brady And The Confusing Pantheon Of QB Greatness

Kyle Gets Contrary: Why I Agree With Damon Evans, and Disagree With David Hale and Mark Richt, Regarding Out-of-Conference Scheduling

We here at Dawg Sports are huge David Hale fans, as evidenced by MaconDawg’s recent interview with the man himself. David is thorough, insightful, and informative, and he offers measured, reflective opinions without passion or prejudice. Respect for him in these parts is substantial. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean we always see eye to eye, and this is one of those times when reasonable bloggers disagree.

Hale has identified a bit of a rift between Damon Evans and Mark Richt, as the former favors aggressive scheduling and the latter would like to tone it down a bit. Says the Georgia athletic director:

It was an exciting time at Arizona State. I haven’t met a person yet who said it wasn’t a great trip, who said it wasn’t a great game. I remember Kirk Herbstreit saying, "This is what Georgia needs to do." I’ve always believed that and I will continue to believe that we need to continue to step out of this region. That’s why Oklahoma State, that’s why Arizona State, that’s why Colorado. Some might say, "Damon, it’s too tough." Maybe it is, but I’m not so sure. When you schedule those games, you don’t know how it’s going to play out. I know we’re in a tough conference but I want to get around and help grow that presence nationally, and I have confidence in us to be able to compete and beat those opponents, so that’s the route I’m going to continue to go.

Coach Richt, on the other hand, is concerned about the effects of too much travel and the impact of too many tough contests in a row. Hale sides with the football coach, noting that the Florida Gators have done little to upgrade their out-of-conference schedule while continuing to point to the downtrodden Florida St. Seminoles as their tough non-SEC game. Hale attempts to bolster Coach Richt’s case by offering the following observations:

In the five out-of-region games Georgia has played since 2005 (Okla. State, Ariz. State, Central Mich., Colorado, Boise State), the Bulldogs are 5-0 in those games, with only the Colorado game being remotely close.

But look ahead one week. In Georgia's next game after playing a non-region opponent, the Bulldogs are just 3-2, with all three wins coming by 7 points or less (and if you remember any of those three wins, you know they all could easily have been losses).

That simply underscores what both Richt and I are saying: It's not necessarily about the final score against the tough opponent, it's about the toll it takes to play them.

While Hale makes a valid observation, I would point out in support of Evans’s argument that our favorite beat reporter is not quite comparing apples to apples there. Coach Richt’s contention is that it’s not the strength of schedule, it’s the frequent flier miles. Hale quotes the coach as saying the following:

One of the biggest issues with it, just living through the Arizona State travel, that’s a tough trip to fly all the way over there and come back and be ready to keep grinding. The travel part is tougher than who you’re playing. If all these teams we wanted to play would always come to Sanford Stadium or even Atlanta for that matter, I think it would be better for us.

The emphasis added is mine, and I believe that line undermines, rather than underscores, Hale’s position. The Bulldogs’ 2005 meeting with the Boise St. Broncos in Athens is not comparable to their 2008 clash with the Arizona St. Sun Devils, according to Coach Richt. How Georgia performed in the wake of home games against the Colorado Buffaloes in 2006 or the Oklahoma St. Cowboys in 2007 has no bearing on whether travel puts too much wear and tear on the team.

Star-divide

Moreover, the Red and Black’s somewhat sketchy record in their "next game after playing a non-region opponent" represents a dubious datum. Three of those five games were contests against the South Carolina Gamecocks in 2005, 2007, and 2008, each of which was decided by a touchdown or less.

Do we really have any basis for believing the Bulldogs were not dominant against the Palmetto State Poultry because they played home games the week before against teams that weren’t from around here? Is it truly plausible to suppose that a 56-17 thrashing of a MAC team between the hedges took so much out of the Athenians that they were not up to the task of putting away the Big Chickens one week later?

I would offer another theory: South Carolina played Georgia close in those three games because South Carolina almost always plays Georgia close. The Bulldogs and the Gamecocks have squared off on the gridiron 61 times; in 25 of those contests---more than 40 per cent of the time---the outcome has been settled by seven points or fewer. In the two decades from 1989 to 2008, nine out of 18 series meetings between the ‘Dawgs and the ‘Cocks were decided by no more than a touchdown, including six out of eight in the Mark Richt era. Hale has fallen victim to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by mistaking association for causation, but the Gamecocks’ crowing did not result from the Sun Devils’ rise.

I don’t buy the idea that playing a visiting team that came by plane rather than by bus saps the Red and Black’s strength for the South Carolina game any more than I buy the idea that the trip to Arizona left the Bulldogs listless for last year’s game against the Alabama Crimson Tide. I didn’t see a lack of effort in that debacle; I saw the best ‘Bama club of the last decade and a half controlling the line of scrimmage against a Georgia squad whose offensive and defensive fronts had been ravaged by injuries. That would have been true even if the Classic City Canines had played the previous week’s game at the Woodruff Practice Fields.

In short, I don’t buy David Hale’s and Mark Richt’s theory upon this particular point and I agree with Damon Evans because I agree with DavetheDawg that you schedule yourself into contention.

The USC Trojans did it in 2004 when they opened with a win over the Virginia Tech Hokies. The Texas Longhorns did it in 2005 when they went on the road and beat the Ohio St. Buckeyes. The LSU Tigers did it in 2007 when they throttled VPI. The Auburn Tigers did it in 2004 when they . . . oh, wait. They scheduled Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech---and they watched the national championship game on television, despite going undefeated. Therein lies the lesson.

Actually, therein lies one of the lessons. The other pertinent reality is that Mark Richt-coached teams do better when a tough opener requires the players to be intent in their offseason focus. When asked to implode a particular myth about my alma mater’s football team, I did not have to look long to settle upon the one most in need of debunking:

The biggest myth about the Bulldogs is that they're at their best when expectations are low. The 2002 Georgia squad was highly touted in the preseason and delivered on its promise with an SEC title, a Sugar Bowl victory, a 13-win season, and a No. 3 national ranking. The trend of successes and (relative) failures for the Classic City Canines in the Mark Richt era isn't about meeting or exceeding expectations, it's about offseason focus. When Georgia opens with a legitimate opponent (Clemson in 2002 and 2003, Boise State in 2005, or Oklahoma State in 2007), the team comes out of the gate ready and the sky is the limit. When the Dawgs kick off the campaign in a glorified scrimmage (Arkansas State in 2001, Georgia Southern in 2004 and 2008, or Western Kentucky in 2006), they tend to sleepwalk into the season and slip up along the way.

Under the Mark Richt regime, the four seasons that began with quality opponents produced a 45-9 record, four first-place finishes in the SEC East, three SEC championship game appearances, two conference crowns, three Sugar Bowl bids, and four top ten rankings. By contrast, the four seasons that began with directional nobodies resulted in a 37-13 record, no championships or championship game appearances of any sort, a best bowl berth (Capital One) that matched the worst bowl berth of the other four seasons, and three AP rankings lower than twelfth. I know which one I prefer.

Admittedly, if you schedule tough, you’re going to lose a few . . . but, if you schedule tough, you also can afford to lose a few, as evidenced by the Bayou Bengals’ ability to capture a national championship with two losses in their ledger. In 1981---when Georgia’s non-conference schedule consisted of Cal, Clemson, South Carolina, and Georgia Tech---the Red and Black lost at Fort Hill in September . . . and finished the regular season with a 10-1 record, an SEC title, and a No. 2 national ranking.

That may represent the happy medium between David Hale’s and Mark Richt’s position on the one hand, and Damon Evans’s and mine on the other. As LD has pointed out, there is a limit to how much importance ought to be attached to travel distance when assessing the quality of an out-of-conference opponent. The Tennessee Volunteers got more credit for playing the Notre Dame Fighting Irish than for playing the Miami Hurricanes because the latter was a Southern team and the former was not. Knoxville is approximately 875 miles from Miami and approximately 495 miles from South Bend.

The solution, it seems to me, is to keep doing what Evans has been doing by lining up marquee games around the nation, including some close to home. We could balance out the near and the far a bit better---for instance, by playing Clemson twice in any given six-year period, if only so folks will know we’re still rivals---in order to keep the Georgia name in the national consciousness without overdoing the travel too much.

On the whole, though, Evans is doing a fine job of demonstrating why professional administrators with business degrees make more suitable athletic directors in the 21st century than former football coaches with aptitudes for fundraising and speechmaking. He is scheduling ambitiously because Evans has reason to believe he has the head coach who can win big non-conference games, and because Evans, as a Georgia alum, knows enough about the history of his alma mater to realize that, for the Red and Black, 36 regular-season games outside the South in a 50-year period is just par for the course.

Go ‘Dawgs!

Comment 15 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I disagree with Alan, too

When did UGA do enough to beat Florida before the 12 game schedule? I like watching UGA play nonconference BCS games. I have been bored watching UGA play patsies just to suck against UF anyway. At least we get a good game to watch even if we don’t make it to the MNC. And you have to admit most of the BCS matchups are crummy. At least this way UGA gets to choose the opponent. I just wish the ASUs of the world would not crap on themselves the week before we play them. I’d rather be garanteed of watching an interesting matchup during the season than to hope for one at the end of the season. What say you?

by millenniumdawg on Aug 31, 2009 11:00 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Agree or die!

I, too, agree with you on this subject learned blogger. We spent so many years watching nothing games that left us feeling like we went to the prom with our next door neighbor or something similar. But the real kicker in all this for me is, just when we crank up an OOC sched that is interesting a whole new paradigm blossoms. Millenniumdawg points out one aspect of it quite well. Another is I really wish playing Miami and Fla State meant as much to UF now as it did in the 90’s. Its a little butt burning to see them sail through their OOC sched as easily as they do.

by 15henson on Sep 1, 2009 1:34 AM EDT reply actions  

Florida’s schedule this year is pretty weak, but the problem with that is that if they lose to Georgia or LSU it will be hard to make an argument that they belong in the championship game. they have no other competition on their schedule. With tough non-conference games you have something else on your resume…..

by DarinSmith on Sep 1, 2009 3:05 AM EDT reply actions  

but

isn’t Coach Richt’s point that having 3 legitimate BCS schools on the schedule at one time is a bit much. I don’t think he’d argue its good to schedule 1 other marquee OOC game.

My concern is when you make them. Why not look a bit at how the SEC schedule is going to shake out first before scheduling these big OOC. Like this year we have to travel to Arkansas – why schedule a return trip to OSU in the same year? Or why not do it when Miss St or Miss (historically weaker West teams) fall on the schedule as opposed to LSU or Bama (historically stronger teams).

I like Damon Evans as AD, but my issue that it seems the “exposure” was made at the expense of a rational look at travel and how the rest of the schedule plays out.

Yes, that is my son. Yes, that is a bottle of Crown.

by BCDawg97 on Sep 1, 2009 7:52 AM EDT reply actions  

I agree with Kyle...but I think this years schedule is a bit much.

The trip to Okie St was part of a home and home agreement for the 2007 season opener, ASU was scheduled several years ago and of course the Nerds are always on the docket.

What I would like to see is one marquee game about every other year and then one Mid Level BCS team (i.e. Oregon State, Arizona, Colorado, Texas Tech, NC State, etc) every year in addition to Tech. What I don’t want to see is a 1-AA team on the schedule more than once every two years.

I do think that it is interesting that when Auburn was left out of the 2004 MNC game (and rightfully so with that pathetic OOC schedule) everyone started to schedule a little harder, now though Florida is playing an OOC almost as laughable as Auburn ‘04 (they still get mileage out of FSU even though they haven’t been relavent in many years) and everyone is pratically giving them the trophy already.

If I could be AD for a day this is how I would like our schedule to look:

Wk1-Mid Level BCS team (Colorado, Arizona St, Kansas, NC State)
Wk2-S.Carolina
Wk3-Arkansas (or Miss St, Ole Miss,)
Wk4-Marquee Opponent (USC, Texas,Oklahoma,Ohio St)
Wk5-LSU
Wk6-UT
Wk7-Vandy
Wk8-Open
Wk9-Turds
Wk10-IAA School
Wk11- Auburn
Wk12-UK
Wk13-Nerds

*This is using this years SEC Schedule as a base and inserting the OOC games in where they are this year.
Wk4-

by RocketDawg on Sep 1, 2009 9:38 AM EDT reply actions  

Agree

I re-read this after my last post and I feel the same way. All top level teams should play a similar schedule and if so, you get one week(10) and one week only to play a team deemed ‘easy win’. One day, I hope that’s even enough to hurt you… for the sake of having great games every week that is.

by knowshon loves legos on Sep 1, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, if only

ADs had the luxury of making the schedule the week of the first game.

I know that you know these deals are made often years in advance. When scheduling a Miami or an Arizona State for that matter, you have no idea how good they are going to be in a couple years when the game comes up. I believe we play Miami again in 2012. Based on their recruiting, they should be a really good team by then, but who knows?

Also, in your blueprint schedule above you have a marquee opponent and then LSU and UT all in a row. That’s a ridiculous state considering you’d have to travel to at least one, possibly 2 of those venues.

by skigator93 on Sep 1, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions  

The Future

I haven’t heard either side of the argument talk about the landscape of college football and where it’s heading. With the recent rise of mid-Majors and their quest for the MNC, it’s very obvious what they have to do. As Kyle has pointed out, they have to win these big games against big boy opponents for years to come, consistently, to be considered a contender. Well folks, that’s exactly what they’re going to (attempt to) do. Utah will keep hitting a wall in congress and pretty soon these teams are going to figure out that all of their OOC games must be against bigger BCS conference opponents. I’m talking about BYU, Boise St., Utah, etc, playing OOC schedules that will resemble ours, if not be harder than ours is this year. They will do this because they have to. One of these teams will run the table because it’s bound to happen. Mid-Majors will become legitimate threats because of the OOC schedule they play and then the BCS teams will begin to look around and say, sh*t, we really can’t schedule Charleston Southern anymore and rely on the SEC/Big 12 slate to get us in. BCS conferences will begin putting harder OOC schedules together to show they belong. If they win, they deserve to be in (over the mid majors who would now fall by the wayside as an unfortunate result of their own conference being ‘weak’). It may mean more losses, but it will mean more exciting regular season games. Besides, if you can’t beat these guys in week 2, 4, 10, why should you play them in week 14.

Who knows how long this takes, 5, 10, 20 years to happen? but it will.
Mid Majors will see what they need to do, rise up to be seen equal with BCS conferences… until BCS conferences schedule a similar difficult OOC slate.. then the mid-majors will fall back again only to have to think of a different way to compete for a spot

by knowshon loves legos on Sep 1, 2009 11:24 AM EDT reply actions  

How playing OOC could gain you national respect

Although its hard to argue against the SEC being the pound-for-pound most competitive conference, just playing in the SEC can only get you so far. Even the most die-hard SEC fan must acknowledge that USC is a very good program and could be considered “Program of the Decade in the 2000’s”. Although USC plays in another competitive conference (Pac-10), the Trojans acknowledge that it must competes nationally against high-quality teams from high-quality conferences to garner attention.

Pete Carroll emphasize a “play anyone-anytime” strategy and that’s why the Trojans sets attendence records and draw huge TV ratings where ever they go. USC is loved by the media?? Maybe, but it is warranted. Oh yeah, you have to win as well: 26-1 out-of-conference record since 2003.

Year Opponent Conference Opp. Rank Final Score Notes
2003 at Auburn SEC #4 23-0 Aub. Preseason #1 to some sources
2003 BYU MWC not ranked 35-18
2003 Hawaii WAC NR 61-32
2003 at Notre Dame Ind #5 45-14
2004 Michigan Big Ten #4 28-14 Rose Bowl
2004 at Virginia Tech ACC NR 24-13
2004 Colorado State MWC NR 49-0
2004 at BYU MWC NR 42-10
2004 Notre Dame Ind NR 41-10
2005 Oklahoma Big 12 #2 55-19 BCS Championship
2005 at Hawaii WAC NR 63-17 92,000 (crowd) at Washington DC FedEx Field
2005 Arkansas SEC unknown 70-17
2005 at Notre Dame Ind #7 34-31
2005 Fresno St. WAC #16 50-42
2006 Texas Big 12 #2 38-41 BCS Championship
2006 at Arkansas SEC NR 50-14 record crowd; Ark. Ended up SEC West Champs
2006 Nebraska Big 12 #19 28-10
2006 Notre Dame Ind UK 44-24
2007 Michigan Big Ten #3 32-18 Rose Bowl
2007 Idaho WAC NR 38-10
2007 at Nebraska Big 12 #14 49-31
2007 at Notre Dame Ind UK 38-0
2007 Illinois Big Ten #13 49-17 Rose Bowl
2008 at Virginia ACC NR 52-7 Record crowd;
2008 Ohio State Big Ten #5 35-3
2008 Notre Dame Ind UK 38-3
2009 Penn St. Big Ten #6 38-24 Rose Bowl; 31-7 at Halftime

by Vstyle on Sep 1, 2009 11:52 AM EDT reply actions  

It will certainly get the attention of the worldwide leader and the national sports press.

And if you win those games the capital is far greater than beating a similar conference opponent, IMO—especially if you have historically beaten them. To wit: Georgia losing to Kentucky is nearly always an upset even if Kentucky is good. But because no one actually knows how the teams really compare to each other, Georgia can beat a worse Oklahoma State or Boise State team and get more national credit for doing so—especially if those teams go on to do anything in their conferences.

BTW, I vote that Arkansas be removed from the SEC for losing so badly to USC in consecutive years.

by rbubp on Sep 1, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

… and then making it to the SEC Championship Game one of those years.

by vineyarddawg on Sep 2, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Might THIS be the undoing?

As I’ve read around about this issue and heard Richt talking about it, I wonder if it might not be the inability to beat UF that is his end at UGA, but instead Evans’s insistence upon a beast of a schedule. I don’t, by any means, agree that Richt is on the hot seat. However, would an AD get quickly fed up with a head coach questioning his scheduling? Would a head coach pick up his talent and go elsewhere if an AD doesn’t listen to his concerns in that respect?

Am I way off base here?

by Father Dawg on Sep 1, 2009 1:35 PM EDT reply actions  

In a word...

…YES. To think that Damon would send CMR packing over scheduling frustration is off base. CMR isn’t an egotistical jerk like some coaches that feel they need to have full control of everything, so you are way off base there to. CMR has said he’d like to finish his career at UGA or at least for as long as we would have him.

Would he get fired if he continues to lose to Florida, maybe, but that’s a big assumption to make in the first place.

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.

I Corinthians 9:24

by Southern Dawg on Sep 1, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

But the schedules are made so far out

that it’s really hard to predict how good a team will be, exactly, when you actually play them. For example, we all know there is a great likelihood that Oklahoma State will NOT be a huge test because they have a pretty mediocre football history.

Conversely, when Colorado was scheduled they had a different coach who had them in Big 12 North contention and nationally ranked pretty much every year. Louisville is a similar situation—what credit will UGA get in the polls for beating them in two years or whatever it is if they still are as bad as they look now? But when they were scheduled, you may recall, Louisville was actually in NC talk. If you schedule Penn State, Florida State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and USC you are likely to have a tough game. Who outside of that, and not in the SEC, can pretty much be guaranteed to be really, really good and a not a soft touch in any given year?

The bottom line is that the intersectional trips increase exposure to recruits, fan interest, and national media interest. The last thing might be the single most important factor (other than winning) to staying in the NC hunt. I believe Evans is right to do it.

But to try and schedule things according to who is a mid-level BCS and who is really good, well, there’s a minimal chance of being in control of that.

by rbubp on Sep 1, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions  

You have a good point

Other than D1AA patsies, you need to schedule home and homes like that 4-6 years in advance. You make great points about the attrition rate of some of these mid-tier teams. Who’s to say Duke (for whatever reason) can’t be a solid contender for the ACC in 2014… I know, I know, it’s an extreme, but I would have laughed had you told me when the new ACC was formed that Miami AND FSU wouldn’t really be factors or dominating. It happens and it’s a risk you take taking on those mid-level programs. However, I believe that most people that follow college football are aware of this fact. The idea that 4-6 years out, you are actively looking to play a could-be big time opponent says something. Much more so than the summer before a season starts, throwing 900K at a Tenn Tech. The idea you are trying to put the program against Big 12, Big 10, ACC, Pac 10 teams that are considered year in and year out ‘middle of the pack’ is what counts. Some years you’ll catch a team on the updraft, some years you wont. One of these games SHOULD be against a perennial top program for another conference.. like the teams you listed above.. There are much fewer of these, so it’ll be harder to get. I think the perfect schedule would be an SEC (or other BCS conf) slate, one top tier team from a BCS conference, 2 middle tier teams from BCS or an up and coming mid major opponent (again hard to pin down who’ll be good when), and one patsy or “vandy” of a BCS conference.. maybe even a bottom 20% team (even with tenn tech on our plate we are argued as one of the toughest schedules in football). That’s a tough schedule, but it earns respect and I believe the top teams in the nation should all be able to win those games to be considered the best in the land. If that happens on a regular basis, the level of play will IMMENSELY improve as well as the viewership and overall enjoyability.

One day, teams will utilize all 12 games. It will be tough. It may get ugly. Undefeated seasons will be rare. Teams that don’t play a schedule like this (and go undefeated) will be laughed out of the conversation. And it will be glorious.

The only trouble is, would teams like BYU or Utah be able to make the OOC so hard, and win, to make up for their crappy conference?
I think they will do this soon. They’ll be the first to make OOC schedules difficult. And if it works, and they start to come into MNCs, the big BCS conferences will follow… and those mid-majors will really be out of luck.

by knowshon loves legos on Sep 1, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.

Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King

017oa_small MaconDawg

Editors

Redstage_small DavetheDawg

Whistling_past_small NCT

434477_small vineyarddawg

Layfield_logo_small RedCrake

Hey-why-so-serious_small tankertoad

Podunkdawg_as_a_child_small podunkdawg

Dawggone_small Ludakit

Authors

28488_443996218101_804558101_5903592_3665419_n_small Spears

Small hailtogeorgia

Killface_small Mr. Sanchez

50questions-accountant_small The Quincy Carter of Accountants