One Last Post About the Schedule

I think we've reached the saturation point on the discussion of the scheduling, but Mark Richt addressed the issue Tuesday, and I figured it would be worth posting his thoughts as a fitting conclusion to the conversation.

First, Richt talked about what the tough opener against Oklahoma State has meant to the teams in terms of preparation.

“I don’t know if we’ve ever gone into the first game of the year and I didn’t feel the excitement and the energy with the team, but I think there is a little greater sense of urgency," Richt said. "I think our coaches were more interested in starting the game plan for Oklahoma State a little bit sooner. They were wanting to get into breaking into scout team a little quicker to begin to plan. When you play a team that good it gets everybody’s juices flowing pretty good.”

It was an interesting comment from Richt to say the least, particularly since he spent most of the past few weeks saying the exact opposite. As a reporter, I figure I'll be lied to. I just ask that it's the same lie each time.

Anyway, from talking to players, that idea has been shared universally. The Oklahoma State game was a good opener because it has kept the Bulldogs focused throughout the offseason.

I have two qualms with this:

1.) Shouldn't a team be able to stay focused regardless of who that opening opponent is? Yes, maybe a really good team from another conference can provide more excitement, but I would hope it doesn't change the focus significantly.

2.) It really sort of piggybacks what I noted yesterday -- there is more thought, preparation and energy that goes into a "big game" and when those games are over, the situation is ripe for a let down.

As a few readers have pointed out, however, a good team doesn't allow that to happen. So the bottom line, I suppose, is that if Georgia wants to be a national championship team, this really shouldn't be an issue regardless. I can buy that.

That's the cost of the big game, but how about the benefits? Richt was asked about that, too, particularly in terms of a recruiting advantage that playing these games gets you.

“There is going to be a lot more attention on this game than there would have been if we were playing someone who’s not ranked as high," Richt said. "There will be national attention because people always want to compare leagues, and most people that I’ve heard said that the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12 might be the two best as of recent times, so they’re wanting to see which league is better. That will be a big question across the country. People may watch it just for that reason. More people will see and hear about Georgia because we are playing this game, and that’s good for us."

I'm not going to argue this point because I think it's a valid one. Georgia-Oklahoma State is a marquee game on a weekend in which there aren't many marquee games. My complaint about the scheduling thus far has been that these opponents have not usually ended up getting the type of attention that Georgia probably hoped they would when the games were scheduled.

A number of readers pointed out that they wanted to see big-time opponents or travel to places they wouldn't normally go. I agree -- but why not go all the way with it if you're going to ramp up the schedule? How about a home-and-home every three years with a truly marquee opponent, the way Ohio State has done in recent seasons with Texas and USC? Or why not at least make the trip a marquee event, as has been discussed with a possible matchup against Army in New York? I'll take either of those options over a trip to Stillwater any time.

Of course, there's another thing that has to happen before Georgia gets that recruiting bump from playing in such a big game on Saturday -- a win.

"It’s certainly better for you if you win these kinds of games as far as the perception of the voters and the perception of the recruits," Richt said.

But there's this caveat, he said: "This game, win or lose, should prepare us for what we are about to face when we get into league play," Richt said. "It’ll be good preparation for that.”

It's a sentiment mirrored by Bryan Evans, too.

"If we go out and win this game and compete with the No. 9 team in the country, we should have no doubt that we can compete with South Carolina or any other team," Evans said. "It’s just going to help us as a stepping stone.”

I like the theory, but I'm curious about this:

If they win, does it give them confidence or overconfidence for the following week?

And if they lose, what happens to that high morale Evans is talking about?

It's a question that really won't be answered until South Carolina arrives next Saturday.

ADDENDUM: After mentioning Richt "lying" to me, I realized that I was probably very unclear about what I meant.

I didn't mean that Richt's previous statements about the schedule were lies.

What I meant was: For all of preseason, he'd been saying the team had not changed its approach because of the big opening week opponent. Then Tuesday, he said they had and had begun preparing sooner. It was the exact opposite of what he'd been saying.

I was really unclear about what I thought Richt was being disingenuous about, and I apologize for that. I was tagging him a liar to defend my cause (and in truth, I really don't care that much about the schedule to begin with, but I thought it was an interesting discussion). I was annoyed because Richt really did seem to have done a 180 on his comments about preparation.

Sorry for the confusion.