Trev is overly obsessed with the national title.  Of course, his piece had to be about a national title because of the subject matter, but he implies faulty  reasoning in his argument.

Specifically, he points to national titles as the great discussion ender in college football.  As this blog constantly points out, college football is wonderful specifically because the national title has not traditionally been the single measure of achievement in the sport.

This is the one major sport where, at least historically, rivalries and individual matchups have retained primary importance in judging teams and programs.  

Do national titles make Ford, Ross, and Miles better coaches than Schembechler?  Of course not, at least they wouldn't have 10 years ago, back when fans of the sport could actually form their own opinions of teams, players, and coaches by judging what they observed with their own eyes.  Today, such subjective standards are roundly attacked by both bloggers and traditional media members alike.

We need objectivity, they say.  Over on SMQ's blog, commenters specifically attack the Mayor's praise of subjectivity.  What fun is a sport without subjectivity?  If formulas were all that were necessary to judge football teams, then I wouldn't love this sport so much--neither would a healthy majority of this blog's supporters.

Are objective measuring posts a good thing for college football?  Of course they are.  They serve to separate teams that we have no rational basis for evaluating against one another.  But are they the only criteria we should use.  No, and neither should they take precedence over our own eyes and ability to make judgments ourselves.

So I guess my answer to Trev is this.  Many UGA fans would be disappointed in Richt if he never won the national title.  Few fans of this blog would, however, because fans of this blog realize that capturing the golden egg is not per se evidence that a man is a great coach, and the absence of a title is not a disqualifier, either.

Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, and Dylan.

Spitting hot fiah!

By the way...I agree with you on Mandel.  I like Stewey, but I can't for the life of me figure out why he chose Penn State for the Georgia comparison.  As an added insight, one of the things that has hurt Georgia in the National Championship B(C)S is that they haven't had an outright Heisman candidate to offer up to the BCS Gods (Television Networks, Bowl Officials and Super Conference Commissioners).  

I liken Georgia to Texas, with the major difference being Vince Young compared to Georgia's entire team.  Penn State was not a good comparison considering they have a sub .500 record in half of their BCS seasons.  Texas is the better comparison and maybe one reason why Georgia hasn't gotten that shiny star attention from the networks is the lack of a Heisman, which certainly plays into the BCS malarky.  Food for thought or do you disagree?